2:14-cv-00024 #53

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Thomas C. Horne
Attorney General

Robert L. Ellman (AZ Bar No. 014410)
Solicitor General

Kathleen P. Sweeney (AZ Bar No. 011118)
Todd M. Allison (AZ Bar No. 026936)
Assistant Attorneys General
1275 W. Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997
Telephone: (602) 542-3333
Fax: (602) 542-8308
kathleen.sweeney@azag.gov
todd.allison@azag.gov

Byron J. Babione (AZ Bar No. 024320)
James A. Campbell (AZ Bar No. 026737)
Kenneth J. Connelly (AZ Bar No. 025420)
J. Caleb Dalton (AZ Bar No. 030539)
Special Assistant Attorneys General
Alliance Defending Freedom
15100 N. 90th Street
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
Telephone: (480) 444-0020
Fax: (480) 444-0028
bbabione@alliancedefendingfreedom.org
jcampbell@alliancedefendingfreedom.org
kconnelly@alliancedefendingfreedom.org
cdalton@alliancedefendingfreedom.org

Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Connolly, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Chad Roche, in His Official Capacity as
Clerk of the Superior Court of Pinal
County, Arizona, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No: 2:14-cv-00024-JWS

DEFENDANTS STATEMENT OF
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 53 Filed 06/10/14 Page 1 of 27

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants submit this Statement of Facts in Support of their Cross-Motion for
Summary Judgment. Many of the facts stated below are legislative factsthat is, facts
that have relevance to legal reasoning and the lawmaking process. Fed. R. Evid. 201,
Advisory Committee Note to Subdivision (a); see also Marshall v. Sawyer, 365 F.2d
105, 111 (9th Cir. 1966) (legislative facts are general facts which help the tribunal
decide questions of law, policy, and discretion (internal quotation marks omitted));
United States v. $124,570 U.S. Currency, 873 F.2d 1240, 1244 (9th Cir. 1989)
(Kozinski, J.) (legislative facts are those applicable to [an] entire class of cases); Ind.
Harbor Belt R.R. Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 916 F.2d 1174, 1182 (7th Cir. 1990)
(Posner, J.) (legislative facts are facts relevant to shaping a general rule). Legislative
facts are best introduced through documents submitted in support of summary judgment
rather than through trial evidence. See Daggett v. Commn on Governmental Ethics &
Election Practices, 172 F.3d 104, 112 (1st Cir. 1999) (Boudin, J.) (legislative facts
usually are not proved through trial evidence but rather by material set forth in the
briefs); Ind. Harbor Belt R.R. Co., 916 F.2d at 1182 (legislative facts are facts reported
in books and other documents, and trials are not best suited to determine . . . legislative
facts).
Purpose of Marriage
1. Historians, philosophers, anthropologists, and jurists widely acknowledge
that marriage exists to connect children to their biological parents.
a. Legal historian William Blackstone stated that the principal end and
design of marriage is linked directly to the great relation[] of parent
and child, and that the parent-child relation is consequential to that of
marriage. 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *410 (Dfs. Ex. 1).
Blackstone further observed that it is by virtue of this relation that infants
are protected, maintained, and educated. Id.

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

b. Political theorist John Locke similarly explained that the end of
conjunction between male and female [i.e., marriage] being not barely
procreation, but the continuation of the species, this conjunction betwixt
male and female ought to last, even after procreation, so long as is
necessary to the nourishment and support of the young ones . . . . John
Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government 79 (1690) (Dfs. Ex. 2).
c. Philosopher Bertrand Russell acknowledged that [b]ut for children, there
would be no need of any institution concerned with sex. Bertrand Russell,
Marriage & Morals 77 (Liveright Paperbound Edition, 1970) (Dfs. Ex. 3).
d. Anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss stated that the familybased on a
union, more or less durable, but socially approved, of two individuals of
opposite sexes who establish a household and bear and raise children
appears to be a practically universal phenomenon, present in every type of
society. Claude Levi-Strauss, The View From Afar 40-41 (1985) (Dfs. Ex.
4).
e. Anthropologist G. Robina Quale wrote this about marriage and its role in
society: Marriage, as the socially recognized linking of a specific man to a
specific woman and her offspring, can be found in all societies. Through
marriage, children can be assured of being born to both a man and a
woman who will care for them as they mature. G. Robina Quale, A
History of Marriage Systems 2 (1988) (Dfs. Ex. 5).
f. Justice Alito acknowledged that there is no doubt that, throughout human
history and across many cultures, marriage has been viewed as an
exclusively opposite-sex institution and as one inextricably linked to
procreation and biological kinship. United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct.
2675, 2718 (2013) (Alito, J., dissenting).

4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2. Sociologists and economists widely acknowledge that marriage provides
social recognition . . . for the purpose of regulation of sexual activity and provision for
offspring that may result from it. Norval D. Glenn, The Struggle for Same-Sex
Marriage, 41 Socy 25, 26 (2004) (Dfs. Ex. 6); see also Douglas W. Allen, An Economic
Assessment of Same-Sex Marriage Laws, 29 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Poly 949, 957 (2006)
(Dfs. Ex. 7) (Many economists have concluded that marriage is primarily . . . designed
to regulate procreative behavior . . . .); W. Bradford Wilcox et al., eds., Why Marriage
Matters 19-20 (3d ed. 2011) (Dfs. Ex. 8) (hereafter Wilcox, Marriage Matters III)
(As a virtually universal human idea, marriage involves regulating the reproduction of
children, families, and society. While marriage systems differ (and not every person or
class within a society marries), marriage across societies is a publicly acknowledged and
supported sexual union that creates kinship obligations and resource pooling between
men, women, and the children that their sexual union may produce.).
3. By channeling sexual relationships between a man and a woman into a
committed setting, marriage encourages mothers and fathers to remain together and care
for the children born of their union. Marriage is thus a socially arranged solution for the
problem of getting people to stay together and care for children that the mere desire for
children, and the sex that makes children possible, does not solve. James Q. Wilson,
The Marriage Problem 41 (2002) (Dfs. Ex. 9).
4. The genius of the [marital] system is that, through it, the society normally
holds the biological parents responsible for each other and for their offspring. By
identifying children with their parents, . . . the social system powerfully motivates
individuals to settle into a sexual union and take care of the ensuing offspring. Kingsley
Davis, Introduction: The Meaning and Significance of Marriage in Contemporary
Society, in Contemporary Marriage: Comparative Perspectives on a Changing Institution
1, 7-8 (Kingsley Davis ed., 1985) (Dfs. Ex. 10).


5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

History of Arizonas Marriage Laws
5. Apart from any statutory provisions, the common law of the State of
Arizona (and previously the Territory of Arizona) has always understood marriage as the
union of one man and one woman. See Forsythe v. Paschal, 271 P. 865, 866 (Ariz. 1928)
(Marriage differs from ordinary contracts, in that it can only exist where one man and
one woman are legally united for life, whereas ordinary civil contracts may exist
between two or more of either or both sexes for any stipulated time.); United States v.
Tenney, 11 P. 472, 477 (Ariz. 1886) (instructing a jury that marriage . . . is defined to be
a contract between a man and woman); see also 2 Joel Prentiss Bishop, Commentaries
on the Law of Marriage & Divorce 225 (1st ed. 1852) (Dfs. Ex. 11) (Marriage
between two persons of one sex could have no validity, as none of the ends of
matrimony could be accomplished thereby. It has always, therefore, been deemed
requisite to the entire validity of every marriage . . . that the parties should be of different
sex.).
6. Arizona statutory law has always reflected the common-law definition of
marriageas the union of husband and wife. See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. 12-2231 (In a
civil action a husband shall not be examined for or against his wife without her consent,
nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent . . . .); Ariz. Rev. Stat. 14-
2804 (Divorce or annulment means any divorce or annulment or any dissolution or
declaration of invalidity of a marriage that would exclude the spouse as a surviving
spouse within the meaning of 14-2802 but does not include a decree of separation that
does not terminate the status of husband and wife.); Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-3609 (1.
Marriage means the state of joining together as husband and wife . . . . 2. Marry
means to join together as husband and wife . . . . 3. Spouses means two persons living
together as husband and wife . . . .); see also Non-Exhaustive Compendium of Man-
Woman Marriage Laws (Dfs. Ex. 12).

6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7. In Arizona, as elsewhere, [m]arriage is an institution regulated by law.
The public is interested in it, and has established a supervisorial power over its
beginning, continuance, and dissolution. Crook v. Crook, 170 P. 280, 282 (Ariz. 1918).
8. The states principal interest in the marriage status is the protection of the
family as a unit, and of the minor children. The whole history of our legislation in
Arizona, as well as elsewhere, shows this to be true. Forsythe, 271 P. at 866-67; see
also Oglesby v. Poage, 40 P.2d 90, 92 (Ariz. 1935) (same).
9. Arizona statutory law closely links biological parenthood and marriage.
See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. 12-2264 (A birth, death or fetal death certificate is prima
facie evidence of the facts therein stated, but if an alleged father of a child is not the
husband of the mother, the certificate shall not be prima facie evidence of paternity if
that fact is controverted by the alleged father.); Ariz. Rev. Stat. 36-334(C) (noting that
the name of the mothers husband shall be listed as father on a childs birth
certificate if the mother is married at the time of birth or was married at any time in the
ten months before the birth).
History of Arizonas Recognition of Out-of-State Marriages
10. Arizona has always declined to recognize out-of-state marriages that
conflict with the States strong domestic-relations policy. See In re Mortensons Estate,
316 P.2d 1106, 1108 (Ariz. 1957) (Marriages performed outside the state which offend
a strong public policy of the state of domicile will not be recognized as valid in the
domiciliary state.).
11. Even before the enactment of S.B. 1038, Arizona has historically declined
to recognize marriages that its domiciliaries enter into in another jurisdiction for the
purpose of evading Arizonas marriage laws. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-112(C); In re
Mortensons Estate, 316 P.2d at 1107-08 (refusing to recognize a marriage between first
cousins even though the marriage was valid in the State where it was performed).

7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

12. Plaintiff couples who received marriage certificates from other States all
resided in Arizona when they received those certificates and traveled to another
jurisdiction for the purpose of evading Arizonas marriage laws. See Connolly Decl.
2, 14 (Pls. Ex. 1); Hite Decl. 2, 12 (Pls. Ex. 7); Devine Decl. 2, 15 (Pls. Ex. 8); M.
Metz Decl. 2, 5, 16 (Pls. Ex. 9); N. Metz Decl. 2, 5 (Pls. Ex. 10); Ferst Decl. 2,
9 (Pls. Ex. 13); Bramley Decl. 2, 4 (Pls. Ex. 14).
13. Defendant Clerks have no authority to recognize out-of-state marriages,
except when an applicant applies to convert a marriage to a covenant marriage. See
Roche Decl. 5 (Dfs. Ex. 13); Jeanes Decl. 5 (Dfs. Ex. 14); Young Decl. 5 (Dfs. Ex.
15).
History of S.B. 1033 (1980)
14. In 1980, the Legislature enacted S.B. 1033, which revised Ariz. Rev. Stat.
25-125 to provide, in relevant part, that [a] valid marriage is contracted by a male
person and a female person with a proper marriage license. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-
125(A).
15. S.B. 1033 was enacted to correct [the] drafting style of outdated and
confusing statutory language in Section 25-125, leaving [t]he substance of th[at]
section[] . . . unchanged. Arizona Legislative Council, Summary Analysis of S.B. 1033,
at 1 (Pls. Ex. 17).
16. S.B. 1033 did not establish or alter the man-woman definition of marriage
in Arizona. See, e.g., Forsythe, 271 P. at 866; Tenney, 11 P. at 477; Non-Exhaustive
Compendium of Man-Woman Marriage Laws (Dfs. Ex. 12) (including statutes enacted
prior to 1980 recognizing marriage as the union of husband and wife).
History of S.B. 1038 (1996)
17. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a decision suggesting that its
state laws defining marriage as a man-woman union might violate the States

8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Constitution, thereby creating the prospect that Hawaii might redefine marriage. See
Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 68 (Haw. 1993).
18. Faced with this development, in 1996, Arizona enacted S.B. 1038.
a. We in this body have the responsibility to set the policy for the state of
Arizona and make the laws for the state of Arizona, Rep. David
Farnsworth said. The [case] in Hawaii has challenged our law, and in
order to sustain our law, we must take this action. House Votes to
Prohibit Gay Marriages, Arizona Capital Times, Apr. 12, 1996, at 5 (Pls.
Ex. 20).
b. Representative David Farnsworth stated that [i]f Hawaii legalizes same
sex marriages, legal experts say other states would be required to recognize
them in the absence of laws specifically banning such unions. Transcript
of Committee on the Whole Hearing on S.B. 1038 at 44 (Pls. Ex. 24).
c. Supporters of the amendment said the [bill] is needed to limit the potential
impact of a case currently in the Hawaiian court system. House Votes to
Prohibit Gay Marriages, Arizona Capital Times, Apr. 12, 1996, at 5 (Pls.
Ex. 20).
d. See also Fact Sheet for S.B. 1038, Arizona State Senate, at 1 (Pls. Ex. 23)
(discussing the Hawaii case, Baehr v. Lewin, in the Background
section).
19. Arizona enacted S.B. 1038 to protect its own definition of marriage
ensuring that marriage would not be indirectly redefined within its borders (without the
Peoples consent) through the recognition of differently defined unions solemnized in
other States:
a. Representative Blendu stated that if we do not [pass this bill], then the
State of Hawaii will be dictating to us what our [marriage] policy will be.

9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Transcript of Committee on the Whole Hearing on S.B. 1038 at 30 (Pls.
Ex. 24).
b. Representative Mark Anderson said that [w]hat were debating today is
who should make policy in Arizona. Jonathan Dalton, Gay Marriage Ban
Defeated by Family Values, Arizona Capital Times, Apr. 5, 1996, at 3 (Pls.
Ex. 21).
c. Representative David Farnsworth stated that the issue is protecting the
law that we have made in the past so that someone outside the state will
not change Arizona policy. Transcript of Committee on the Whole
Hearing on S.B. 1038 at 21 (Pls. Ex. 24).
d. Representative Smith stated that if the court in Hawaii rules that the same
sex marriages are acceptable, then if a same sex marriage thats conducted
in Hawaii, when they get to the State of Arizona, then well have to
recognize that marriage. But if we . . . pass this bill, then we wont have to
do it. . . . Thats the purpose of the bill. Transcript of Committee on the
Whole Hearing on S.B. 1038 at 5-6 (Pls. Ex. 24).
e. An unidentified legislator from the Judiciary Committee stated that the
concern is that we have set the policy here in this state that we will not
recognize marriages that are not between a man and a woman, but that law
might be effectively overruled by a judge in Hawaii who rules that such
marriages are legal in Hawaii. Transcript of Judiciary Committee Hearing
on S.B. 1038 at 47 (Pls. Ex. 19).
f. Representative Baird stated that Arizonas law could be effectively
overruled by the Hawaii [court] unless the state reiterates that it will not
recognize a same sex marriage from another state. Minutes of Judiciary
Committee Hearing on S.B. 1038 at 5 (Pls. Ex. 60).

10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

20. Senate Bill 1038 did not establish or alter the man-woman definition of
marriage in Arizona.
a. The Arizona Senates Fact Sheet for S.B. 1038 acknowledged that a then-
governing Arizona statute . . . provide[d] that a valid marriage is
contracted between a male person and a female person. Fact Sheet for
S.B. 1038, Arizona State Senate, at 1 (Pls. Ex. 23).
b. Representative Dave Farnsworth stated that S.B. 1038 is not something
new. It is a clarification. Transcript of Judiciary Committee Hearing on
S.B. 1038 at 41 (attached as Pls. Ex. 19).
c. See also Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-125(A); Non-Exhaustive Compendium of
Man-Woman Marriage Laws (Dfs. Ex. 12) (including statutes enacted
prior to 1996 recognizing marriage as the union of husband and wife);
Forsythe, 271 P. at 866; Tenney, 11 P. at 477.
History of the Arizona Covenant Marriage Laws (1998)
21. In 1998, the Arizona Legislature implemented covenant marriage laws,
codified at Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-901 to 906, to create more stable family units and to
emphasize the meaning and value of marriage. Fact Sheet for S.B. 1133, Arizona State
Senate 1998, at 1 (Dfs. Ex. 16).
22. Concerns regarding fatherlessness, child welfare, and economic issues
linked to marital instability spawned the covenant marriage laws. See Steven L. Nock et.
al., Covenant Marriage 10-20 (2008) (Dfs. Ex. 17).
History of the Arizona Marriage Amendment (2008)
23. In 2003, litigants challenged, under both the United States Constitution and
the Arizona Constitution, Arizonas definition of marriage as the union of one man and
one woman. See Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. Cnty. of Maricopa, 77 P.3d 451,
453 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). In that case, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that
Arizonas prohibition against same-sex marriage rationally furthers a legitimate state

11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

interest and that the prohibition does not deprive [the litigants] of their constitutional
rights to substantive due process, privacy, or equal protection of the laws. Id. at 465.
That court also emphasized that it is for the people of Arizona, through their elected
representatives or by using the initiative process, rather than this court, to decide whether
to permit same-sex marriages. Id. The Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the
case.
24. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the
States man-woman definition of marriage violated the Massachusetts Constitution. See
Goodridge v. Dept of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 969 (Mass. 2003).
25. Prompted by the concern that the Arizona Supreme Court might similarly
interpret the Arizona Constitution to require genderless marriage, the People of Arizona
proposed a ballot initiative to place the man-woman definition of marriage in the
Arizona Constitution. See Arizona Secretary of State, Publicity Pamphlet: Ballot
Propositions and Judicial Performance Review, General Election, Nov. 7, 2006, at 74-76
(hereafter 2006 Ballot Propositions) (Dfs. Ex. 18).
26. That initiative, known as Proposition 107, also prohibited the government
from recognizing any civil-union-type legal status that was similar to marriage. See
2006 Ballot Propositions, supra, at 74. The initiative failed by a vote of 775,498 to
721,489. 2006 General Election Official Canvass, Arizona Secretary of State, at 15 (Pls.
Ex. 30).
27. In 2008, the Legislature proposed a different state constitutional
amendment, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman but did not
prohibit state recognition of civil unions. 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 1 (Plf. Ex.
58).
28. Given the threat of a state constitutional challenge to Arizonas statutory
definition of marriage, the Legislature supported Proposition 102 (the Marriage
Amendment) to ensure that the People of the State, rather than the state judiciary,

12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

would determine the definition of marriage in Arizona. See, e.g., Statement of
Representative Yarbrough during House Third Reading Calendar, Committee of the
Whole, Forty-Eighth Legislature, Second Regular Session, May 12, 2008, at 00:16:12-
00:18:24, available at http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=
3639 (video submitted as Dfs. Ex. 19 once leave to file is granted) (This amendment
will eliminate the possibility of tampering with the definition of marriage by politicians
or judges. It will prevent them from using government time and taxpayer money on
attempts to redefine marriage. And it will reduce how many taxpayer dollars may have to
be spent to defend the current state statute against legal attack as other states like
California, Iowa, Connecticut, and others have had to do. This amendment is not the
same as Proposition 107. The voters have not already decided this issue. . . . And
regardless of how you may personally feel about the definition of marriage, I say lets
allow the voters to decide this issue.); Statement of Senator Allen during Senate
Committee of the Whole and Final Reading, Forty-Eighth Legislature, Second Regular
Session, June 27, 2008, at 03:12:45-03:15:15, available at http://azleg.granicus.com/
MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=4098 (video submitted as Dfs. Ex. 20 once leave
to file is granted; cited segment appears on submitted DVD at 06:38-09:08) ([I]t is right
to send this to the people to allow them to vote on it.); Statement of Senator Blendu
during Senate Committee of the Whole and Final Reading, Forty-Eighth Legislature,
Second Regular Session, June 27, 2008, at 03:15:15-03:16:40, available at http://azleg.
granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=4098 (video submitted as Dfs. Ex.
20 once leave to file is granted; cited segment appears on submitted DVD at 09:08-
10:33) ([W]hat this is about is [keeping] a judge from changing [the law].).
29. The People enacted the Marriage Amendment to maintain marriage in
Arizona as societys most effective means of connecting children to both their mother
and their father.

13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

a. A mother and father begin the rearing of children with the most sacred act
of procreation, in which the parents are bonded to the children by the
greatest miracle . . . the power to create life. . . . The institution of marriage
provides a safeguard to families; its an open commitment to value this
miracle and cherish it. 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 5 (Pls. Ex. 58).
b. [E]very child is entitled to a father and a mother. We have each been
granted that privilege by naturewe should not by law destroy that
privilege given to each one of us. The Marriage Amendment Referendum
is just what we need to protect the rights of children. Marriage is supported
by law primarily to promote the protection of children. 2008 Ballot
Proposition Guide at 5 (Pls. Ex. 58).
c. [E]very child has the right to a mother and a father. 2008 Ballot
d. Marriage between a man and a woman has always been the means of
tying children to their fathers and connecting fathers to the mother of their
children. 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 7 (Pls. Ex. 58).
e. [C]hildren who grow up in fatherless or single parent home[s] are turning
to other sources of support instead of parent(s). As a result . . . this has
created a society with increased poverty, crime, uneducated individuals,
and increased taxes . . . . 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 3 (Pls. Ex. 58).
f. Studies have shown that children raised in homes with a father and
mother married to each other are much more likely to stay out of crime and
poverty, and to have stable marriages themselves some day. 2008 Ballot
g. Statistics verify over and over that children who are raised in strong
families with a mother and a father are more likely to be healthy and

14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

productive citizens in our neighborhoods, our communities, and our
nation. 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 7-8 (Pls. Ex. 58).
30. The People enacted the Marriage Amendment to avoid the potential
adverse consequences that are likely to accompany the redefinition of marriage.
a. [S]ame sex marriage is about forcing all within our society . . . to accept
radical changes which will have far reaching consequences. 2008 Ballot
Proposition Guide at 1 (Pls. Ex. 58) (statement of Senator Sylvia Allen).
b. [T]he downfall of any society begins with the breakdown of strong,
traditional families. 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 1 (Pls. Ex. 58).
c. People in this country are beginning to understand . . . the negative
consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage. 2008 Ballot Proposition
Guide at 3 (Pls. Ex. 58).
d. [C]ountries where same-sex marriage is legal have higher divorce and
teen pregnancy rates. 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 5 (Pls. Ex. 58).
e. Myth: Same-sex marriage doesnt hurt heterosexual marriages, so why all
the fuss? Fact: When judges redefine marriage, it affects everyone.
Marriage is the cornerstone of society. Its good for men, women, and
children. Preserving the meaning of marriage means passing it on to our
children. 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 7 (Pls. Ex. 58).
f. See also Statement of Senator Allen during Senate Committee of the
Whole and Final Reading, Forty-Eighth Legislature, Second Regular
Session, June 27, 2008 at 03:12:45- 03:15:15, available at http://azleg.
granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=4098 (video
submitted as Dfs. Ex. 20 once leave to file is granted; cited segment
appears on submitted DVD at 06:38-09:08) (stating that past experiments
with family structures through policy reforms like no-fault divorce have

15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

undermined the stability of the family and that changing the basic
definition of marriage will drastically affect family policy).
31. The People enacted the Marriage Amendment to prevent state-court judges
from changing the definition of marriage without the Peoples consent.
a. A law or statute preserving marriage as legal only between one man and
one woman is not enough! As evidenced in several states those laws can be
declared unconstitutional by a few judges . . . regardless of how the
People have voted. 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 3 (Pls. Ex. 58).
b. If we amend the constitution in such a clear and concise manner as
proposed by Prop 102 it will put the power back in the hands of the People,
and judges will be unable to uphold laws that go against it. 2008 Ballot
c. We, as The People, need to take proactive action to make our voice heard
and protect marriage before activist judges make other decisions for us.
2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 3 (Pls. Ex. 58).
d. Arizona is only one court case away from having same-sex marriage
forced on us by activist judges. 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 3 (Pls.
Ex. 58).
e. Prop 102 would prevent unelected judges from disregarding both the
constitution and the will of the people by forcing same-sex marriage on
us. 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 3 (Pls. Ex. 58).
f. Marriage is much too important to leave in the hands of unelected judges.
The people and our elected representatives should determine marriage
policy in our country. 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 4 (Pls. Ex. 58).
g. To those who say that Arizona already has a law in place and that no
amendment is needed, please note what happened in California: four
judges struck down a citizen-sponsored initiative defending traditional

16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

marriage, which unfortunately was not written as an amendment. Unless an
amendment is written into our state constitution, Arizona is in grave danger
of having the same thing happen here. 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 5
(Pls. Ex. 58).
h. Prop 102 is a simple amendment that lets the people decide, not activist
judges from our state . . . . 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 5 (Pls. Ex.
58).
i. If we do not . . . put this into our states constitution, further on down the
road, it will leave too much leeway for unelected judges to change it to
how they want, not what we, the people of Arizona, want. Do not let what
happened in California repeat itself in Arizona. 2008 Ballot Proposition
Guide at 6 (Pls. Ex. 58).
j. By passing this Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, we take away
the power of activist judges to over-rule our law, and to dictate to us what a
marriage means. 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 6 (Pls. Ex. 58).
k. A yes vote keeps the essential meaning of marriage in the hands of the
people of Arizona. 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 6 (Pls. Ex. 58).
l. [T]he California Supreme Court (by a narrow vote of 4 judges to 3) voted
to redefine marriage. . . . The California decision shows why the Arizona
Constitution needs to reaffirm marriage: The same thing can happen here.
Nothing stops an Arizona court from striking down Arizonas marriage
laws and redefining marriage, just as the courts did in California. 2008
Ballot Proposition Guide at 6 (Pls. Ex. 58).
m. A yes vote prevents judges from redefining marriage. The people of
Arizona have the right to decide the future of marriage in Arizona. 2008
Ballot Proposition Guide at 7 (Pls. Ex. 58).

17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

n. California shows why we need this amendment. California had a law
saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, but the California
Supreme Court struck it down. Without this amendment, the same thing
can happen here. The Arizona Supreme Court has never addressed this
issue. This amendment allows the people to decide before the judges do.
2008 Ballot Proposition Guide at 7 (Pls. Ex. 58).
32. The People approved the Marriage Amendment by a vote of 1,258,255 to
980,753. Arizona Secretary of State, 2008 General Election Official Canvass 15, Dec. 1,
2008 (Pls. Ex. 59).
33. The Marriage Amendment did not establish or alter the man-woman
definition of marriage in Arizona. See e.g. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-125(A), 25-101(C);
Non-Exhaustive Compendium of Man-Woman Marriage Laws (Dfs. Ex. 12); Forsythe,
271 P. at 866; Tenney, 11 P. at 477.
The States Interest in Connecting Children to
Their Biological Mother and Their Biological Father
34. In general, the optimal childrearing environment is a home headed by a
married biological mother and biological father. See Amicus Brief of Professors of
Social Science at 4, Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 13-4178 (10th Cir. Feb. 10, 2014) (Dfs. Ex.
22). This is reflected in many scholarly reviews of social science. See Marriage Matters
III, supra, at 11 (Dfs. Ex. 8) (The intact, biological, married family remains the gold
standard for family life in the United States, insofar as children are most likely to
thriveeconomically, socially, and psychologicallyin this family form.); Kristin
Anderson Moore et al., Marriage from a Childs Perspective: How Does Family
Structure Affect Children, and What Can We do About It?, Child Trends Research Brief
6 (June 2002) (Dfs. Ex. 23) ([R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure
matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family
headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.); id. at 1-2 ([I]t is not

18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

simply the presence of two parents . . . , but the presence of two biological parents that
seems to support childrens development.). It is also confirmed by the most reliable
studies. See Mathew D. Bramlett et. al., Adverse Family Experiences Among Children in
Nonparental Care, 2011-2012, National Health Statistics Report No. 74, Center for
Disease Control and Prevention, May 7, 2014, at 3, available at http://www.cdc.gov/
nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr074.pdf (Dfs. Ex. 24) (Children living with one biological parent
were between 3 and 8 times as likely as children living with two biological parents to
have experienced . . . caregiver violence[] or caregiver incarceration or to have lived
with a caregiver with mental illness or an alcohol or drug problem.); Wendy D.
Manning & Kathleen A. Lamb, Adolescent Well Being in Cohabiting, Married, and
Single-Parent Families, 65 J. Marriage & Fam. 876, 890 (2003) (Dfs. Ex. 25)
(Adolescents in married, two-biological-parent families generally fare better than
children in any of the family types examined here, including single-mother, cohabiting
stepfather, and married stepfather families. The advantage of marriage appears to exist
primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents. Our findings are
consistent with previous work . . . .); Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur, Growing Up
with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps 1 (1994) (Dfs. Ex. 26) (Children who
grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than
children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents, regardless of
the parents race or educational background, regardless of whether the parents are
married when the child is born, and regardless of whether the resident parent
remarries.).
35. In general, children raised in stepfamilies do not fare as well as children
raised by their biological parents in an intact family. See, e.g., Amicus Brief of
Professors of Social Science at 15-16, Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 13-4178 (10th Cir. Feb.
10, 2014) (Dfs. Ex. 22); Paul Amato, The Impact of Family Formation Change on the
Cognitive Social and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation, 15 The Future of

19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Children 75, 80 (2005) (Dfs. Ex. 27) ([T]he marriage of a single parent (to someone
other than the childs biological parent) does not appear to improve the functioning of
most children.); Cynthia C. Harper & Sara S. McLanahan, Father Absence and Youth
Incarceration, 14 Journal of Research on Adolescence 369, 390 (2004) (Dfs. Ex. 28)
(We expected that in a father-absent household, remarriage of the custodial parent
might help a child by providing household income and adult supervision or a role model
of the opposite sex, but youths in stepparent households faced incarceration odds almost
3 times as high as those in [biological] mother-father families, and significantly higher
than those in single-parent households, even though stepfamilies were relatively well off
on average.); David Popenoe, Life Without Father 150 (1996) (Dfs. Ex. 29) (stating that
it surely make[s] a difference in childrearing whether the father is biologically related
to the child); James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem 169-70 (2002) (Dfs. Ex. 9)
(discussing studies showing disparities between children raised by stepfathers and
children raised by their biological fathers); W. Bradford Wilcox et al., eds., Why
Marriage Matters 7, 14 (2d ed. 2005) (Dfs. Ex. 30) (hereafter Wilcox, Marriage
Matters II) (noting that girls raised in stepfamilies are much more likely to experience
premature sexual development often leading to teenage pregnancy); Witherspoon
Institute, Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles 10-11 (2008) (Dfs. Ex. 31)
(noting that boys raised in stepfamilies are much more likely to display antisocial
behavior).
36. Every set of biological parents provides their children with a parent of each
sex, and [t]he burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender-
differentiated parenting is important for human development. Popenoe, supra, at 146;
see also Amicus Brief of Professors of Social Science at 4-12, Kitchen v. Herbert, No.
13-4178 (10th Cir. Feb. 10, 2014) (Dfs. Ex. 22). Indeed, [t]he best psychological,
sociological, and biological research confirms that men and women bring different
gifts to the parenting enterprise, [and] that children benefit from having parents with

20

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

distinct parenting styles. W. Bradford Wilcox, Reconcilable Differences: What Social
Sciences Show About the Complementarity of the Sexes & Parenting, Touchstone, Nov.
2005, at 36 (Dfs. Ex. 32).
37. The weight of scientific evidence seems clearly to support the view that
fathers matter. Wilson, supra, at 169 (Dfs. Ex. 9). A substantial body of research now
indicates that high levels of involvement by fathers in two-parent families are associated
with a range of desirable outcomes in children . . . . The converse is also true: low levels
of involvement are associated with a range of negative outcomes. Adrienne Burgess,
Fathers and Public Services, in Daddy Dearest?, Institute for Public Policy Research 57
(Kate Stanley ed., 2005) (Dfs. Ex. 33); see, e.g., Jane Mendle et al., Associations
Between Father Absence and Age of First Sexual Intercourse, 80 Child Dev. 1463, 1463
(2009) (Dfs. Ex. 34) (Compared to children raised by both biological parents, children
who are raised in households without their biological father present exhibit both an
earlier age of first intercourse and significantly increased rates of teenage pregnancy.);
Bruce J. Ellis, Timing of Pubertal Maturation in Girls: An Integrated Life History
Approach, 130 Psychology Bulletin 920, 943 (2004) (Dfs. Ex. 35) ([G]irls from father-
absent homes tend to experience earlier pubertal development than do girls from father-
present homes, and the earlier father absence occurs, the greater the effect.); Elrini
Flouri & Ann Buchanan, The Role of Father Involvement in Childrens Later Mental
Health, 26 J. Adolescence 63, 63 (2003) (Dfs. Ex. 36) (Father involvement . . .
protect[s] against adult psychological distress in women.); Bruce J. Ellis et al., Does
Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage
Pregnancy?, 74 Child Dev. 801, 801 (2003) (Dfs. Ex. 37) (Greater exposure to father
absence [is] strongly associated with elevated risk for early sexual activity and
adolescent pregnancy.); Popenoe, supra, at 139-63 (Dfs. Ex. 29). President Obama, in
particular, has lamented the great social costs of fatherlessness:
We know the statisticsthat children who grow up without a father are five
times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more

21

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in
prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from
home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our
community are weaker because of it.

Barack Obama, Obamas Speech on Fatherhood (Jun. 15, 2008), transcript available at
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obamas_speech_on_fatherhood.html
(Dfs. Ex. 38).
38. In addition to tangible deficiencies in development, children raised without
a biological parent often experience intangible losses. Studies have shown that [y]oung
adults conceived through sperm donation (who thus lack a connection to their
biological father) experience profound struggles with their origins and identities.
Elizabeth Marquardt et al., My Daddys Name is Donor: A New Study of Young Adults
Conceived Through Sperm Donation, Institute for American Values, at 7 (Dfs. Ex. 39).
39. The vast majority of married man-woman couples do in fact create
children. See Anjani Chandra et al., Fertility, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health
of U.S. Women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (Dec. 2005), available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/
data/series/sr_23/sr23_025.pdf (Dfs. Ex. 40) (showing on Table 69 that 6,925 of 7,740
nearly 90%of married women between the ages of 40 and 44 have given birth); Anjani
Chandra et al., Infertility and Impaired Fecundity in the United States, 1982-2010: Data
from the National Survey of Family Growth, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(Aug. 14, 2013) (Dfs. Ex. 41) (indicating on Page 1 that only 6% of married women
between the ages of 15 to 44 are classified as infertile).
40. By granting recognition and support to man-woman couples, marriage
generally makes those potentially procreative relationships more stable and enduring,
and thus increases the likelihood that each child will be raised by the man and woman
whose sexual union brought her into the world. See, e.g., Elizabeth Wildsmith et al.,
Childbearing Outside of Marriage: Estimates and Trends in the United States, Child

22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Trends Research Brief 5 (Nov. 2011), available at http://www.childtrends.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/02/Child_Trends-2011_11_01_RB_NonmaritalCB.pdf (Dfs. Ex.
42) ([P]romoting marriage among unmarried parents remain[s] [an] important goal[] of
federal and state policies and programs designed to improve the well-being of women
and children . . . .); Wendy D. Manning et al., The Relative Stability of Cohabiting and
Marital Unions for Children, 23 Population Research & Poly Rev. 135, 135 (2004)
(Dfs. Ex. 43) ([C]hildren born to cohabiting parents experience greater levels of
instability than children born to married parents.).
The States Interest in Unintended Children
41. Unintended pregnancies account for nearly half of total births and nearly
seventy percent of out-of-wedlock births in the United States. See Lawrence B. Finer &
Mia R. Zolna, Unintended Pregnancy in the United States: Incidence and Disparities,
2006, 84 Contraception 478, 481 Table 1 (2011) (Dfs. Ex. 44).
42. Unintended births out of wedlock are associated with negative outcomes
for children. Wildsmith, supra, at 5 (Dfs. Ex. 42).
43. Children born from unplanned pregnancies where their mother and father
are not married to each other are at a significant risk of being raised outside stable family
units headed by their mother and father jointly. See William J. Doherty et al.,
Responsible Fathering, 60 J. Marriage & Fam. 277, 280 (1998) (Dfs. Ex. 45) (stating
that [i]n nearly all cases, children born outside of marriage reside with their mothers
and experience marginal father presence).
Projected Long-Term Consequences of Redefining Marriage
44. Complex social institutions like marriage comprise a set of norms, rules,
patterns, and expectations that powerfully (albeit often unconsciously) affect peoples
choices, actions, and perspectives. See Robert N. Bellah et al., The Good Society 10
(1991) (Dfs. Ex. 46) (In its formal sociological definition, an institution is a pattern of
expected action of individuals or groups enforced by social sanctions, both positive and

23

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

negative.); Peter L. Berger & Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A
Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge 72 (1966) (Dfs. Ex. 47) (Institutions . . . , by the
very fact of their existence, control human conduct by setting up predefined patterns of
conduct, which channel it in one direction as against the many other directions that
would theoretically be possible.); A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, Structure and Function in
Primitive Society 10-11 (1952) (Dfs. Ex. 48) (stating that the conduct of persons in their
interactions with others is controlled by norms, rules or patterns shaped by social
institutions).
45. Marriage in particular is a pervasive and influential social institution,
entailing a complex set of personal values, social norms, religious customs, and legal
constraints that regulate . . . particular intimate human relation[s]. Allen, Economic
Assessment, supra, at 949-50 (Dfs. Ex. 7).
46. Although the law did not create marriage, its recognition and regulation of
that institution has a profound effect on mold[ing] and sustain[ing] it. See Carl E.
Schneider, The Channelling Function in Family Law, 20 Hofstra L. Rev. 495, 503
(1992) (Dfs. Ex. 49).
47. Many genderless-marriage advocates acknowledge that redefining
marriage would drastically change marriage and its public meaning. See, e.g., William
N. Eskridge, Jr. & Darren R. Spedale, Gay Marriage: For Better or for Worse? What
Weve Learned from the Evidence 19 (2006) (Dfs. Ex. 50) ([E]nlarging the concept [of
marriage] to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something
new. (internal quotation marks omitted)); E.J. Graff, Retying the Knot, The Nation, Jun.
24, 1996, at 12 (Dfs. Ex. 51) (noting that after marriage is redefined, that venerable
institution will ever after stand for sexual choice, for cutting the link between sex and
diapers); Joseph Raz, Ethics in the Public Domain 23 (1994) (Dfs. Ex. 52) (When
people demand recognition of gay marriages, they usually mean to demand access to an
existing good. In fact they also ask for the transformation of that good. For there can be

24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

no doubt that the recognition of gay marriages will effect as great a transformation in the
nature of marriage as that from polygamous to monogamous or from arranged to
unarranged marriage.); Michelangelo Signorile, Bridal Wave, OUT Magazine,
Dec./Jan. 1994, at 161 (Dfs. Ex. 53) (urging same-sex couples to demand the right to
marry in order to radically alter an archaic institution).
48. Arizona and its voters may logically project that, over time, the
redefinition of marriage would likely lead to (1) a decrease in marriages among man-
woman couples who are having or raising children and (2) an increase in marital
instability. See Amicus Brief of Professor Robert P. George et al. at 14-24, Kitchen v.
Herbert, No. 13-4178 (10th Cir. Feb. 10, 2014) (Dfs. Ex. 54); Amicus Brief of Professor
Alan Hawkins et al. at 16-28, Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 13-4178 (10th Cir. Feb. 10, 2014)
(Dfs. Ex. 55).
49. While the redefinition of marriage is still a recent innovation, available
data lend credence to these projections. The most recent year for which national data
about marriage rates are available is 2011. At the beginning of 2011, only five States
(Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont) had redefined
marriage, and every one of those States experienced a decline in its marriage rate from
2010 to 2011. See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Vital Statistics
System, Marriage Rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2011, available at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/marriage_rates_90_95_99-11.pdf (Dfs. Ex. 56). Also,
Massachusettss divorce rate was 22.7% higher in 2011 (the most recent year for which
data are available) than it was in 2004 (the year that Massachusetts redefined marriage).
See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Vital Statistics System,
Divorce Rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2011, available at http://www.cdc.gov/
nchs/data/dvs/divorce_rates_90_95_99-11.pdf (Dfs. Ex. 57). The national divorce rate,
in contrast, was 2.7% lower when comparing those two years. See Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Vital Statistics System, National Marriage and

25

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Divorce Rate Trends, available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_
tables.htm (Dfs. Ex. 58).
50. Parental divorce is . . . linked to a range of poorer academic and
behavioral outcomes among children. Moore, supra, at 6 (Dfs. Ex. 23).
51. Significant social costs are associated with unwed childbearing and
divorce. See Benjamin Scafidi, The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed
Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All Fifty States 5 (2008) (Dfs. Ex.
59) (indicating that divorce and unwed childbearing cost[] U.S. taxpayers at least $112
billion each and every year, or more than $1 trillion each decade (emphasis omitted))
see also Robert P. George et al., What is Marriage? 45-46 (2012) (Dfs. Ex. 60)
(discussing other studies).
52. Researchers have observed that the culture of fatherhood and the conduct
of fathers change from decade to decade as social and political conditions change.
Doherty, supra, at 278 (Dfs. Ex. 45). This inconstant history of fatherhood has led many
scholars to surmise that fathering is more sensitive than mothering to contextual
forces. Id.
53. No-fault divorce laws increased divorce rates above their historical trends.
See Douglas W. Allen & Maggie Gallagher, Does Divorce Law Affect the Divorce Rate?
A Review of Empirical Research, 1995-2006, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy
Research Brief 1 (Jul. 2007), available at http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.
nofault.divrate.pdf (Dfs. Ex. 61); Allen M. Parkman, Good Intentions Gone Awry: No-
fault Divorce and the American Family 91-92 (2000) (Dfs. Ex. 62).


26

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: June 10, 2014

s/ Byron J. Babione
Byron J. Babione
James A. Campbell
Kenneth J. Connelly
J. Caleb Dalton

Thomas C. Horne
Attorney General

Robert L. Ellman
Solicitor General

Kathleen P. Sweeney
Todd M. Allison



27

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically transmitted the attached document to the
Clerks Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and service of a Notice of Electronic
Filing to the following recipients on this 10th day of June, 2014.

Shawn K. Aiken
Heather A. Macre
William H. Knight
Stephanie McCoy Loquvam
2390 East Camelback Road, Suite 400
Phoenix, AZ 85016
ska@ashrlaw.com
ham@ashrlaw.com
whk@ashrlaw.com
sml@ashrlaw.com

Mark Dillon
Dillon Law Office
P.O. Box 97517
Phoenix, AZ 85060
dillionlaw97517@gmail.com

Herb Ely
3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 1930
Phoenix, AZ 85012
herbely@eburlaw.com

Mikkel Steen Jordahl
Mikkel (Mik) Jordahl P.C.
114 North San Francisco, Suite 206
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
mikkeljordahl@yahoo.com

Ryan J. Stevens
Griffen & Stevens Law Firm, PLLC
609 North Humphreys Street
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
stevens@flagstaff-lawyer.com

Dated: June 10, 2014

s/ Byron J. Babione
Byron J. Babione


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Connolly, et al. v. Roche, et al.

Defendants Index of Summary Judgment Exhibits

Exhibit 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765)
Exhibit 2 John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690)
Exhibit 3 Bertrand Russell, Marriage & Morals (Liveright Paperbound Edition,
1970)
Exhibit 4 Claude Levi-Strauss, The View From Afar (1985)
Exhibit 5 G. Robina Quale, A History of Marriage Systems (1988)
Exhibit 6 Norval D. Glenn, The Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage, Society (2004)
Exhibit 7 Douglas W. Allen, An Economic Assessment of Same-Sex Marriage
Laws, 29 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 949 (2006)
Exhibit 8 W. Bradford Wilcox et al., eds., Why Marriage Matters (3d ed. 2011)
Exhibit 9 James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem (2002)
Exhibit 10 Kingsley Davis, Introduction: The Meaning and Significance of
Marriage in Contemporary Society, in Contemporary Marriage:
Comparative Perspectives on a Changing Institution 1 (Kingsley Davis
ed., 1985)
Exhibit 11 Joel Prentiss Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Marriage & Divorce
(1st ed. 1852)
Exhibit 12 Non-Exhaustive Compendium of Man-Woman Marriage Laws
Exhibit 13 Declaration of Defendant Chad Roche
Exhibit 14 Declaration of Defendant Michael K. Jeanes
Exhibit 15 Declaration of Defendant Deborah Young
Exhibit 16 Fact Sheet for S.B. 1133, Arizona State Senate (1998)
Exhibit 17 Steven L. Nock et. al., Covenant Marriage (2008)
Exhibit 18 Arizona Secretary of State, Publicity Pamphlet: Ballot Propositions and
Judicial Performance Review, General Election, Nov. 7, 2006
Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 53-1 Filed 06/10/14 Page 1 of 117

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Proposed
Exhibit 19
House Third Reading Calendar, Committee of the Whole, Forty-Eighth
Legislature, Second Regular Session, May 12, 2008
Proposed
Exhibit 20
Senate Committee of the Whole and Final Reading, Forty-Eighth
Legislature, Second Regular Session, June 27, 2008
Exhibit 21 Minutes of the Committee on Government Reform, Arizona House of
Representatives, Forty-Fourth Legislature, First Regular Session, Feb.
3, 1999
Exhibit 22 Amicus Brief of Professors of Social Science, Kitchen v. Herbert, No.
13-4178 (10th Cir. Feb. 10, 2014)
Exhibit 23 Kristin Anderson Moore et al., Marriage from a Childs Perspective:
How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We do
About It?, Child Trends Research Brief (June 2002)
Exhibit 24 Mathew D. Bramlett et. al., Adverse Family Experiences Among
Children in Nonparental Care, 2011-2012, National Health Statistics
Report No. 74, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, May 7, 2014
Exhibit 25 Wendy D. Manning & Kathleen A. Lamb, Adolescent Well Being in
Cohabiting, Married, and Single-Parent Families, 65 Journal of
Marriage & Family 876 (2003)
Exhibit 26 Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent:
What Hurts, What Helps (1994)
Exhibit 27 Paul Amato, The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive
Social and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation, 15 The
Future of Children 75 (2005)
Exhibit 28 Cynthia C. Harper & Sara S. McLanahan, Father Absence and Youth
Incarceration, 14 Journal of Research on Adolescence 369 (2004)
Exhibit 29 David Popenoe, Life Without Father (1996)
Exhibit 30 W. Bradford Wilcox et al., eds., Why Marriage Matters (2d ed. 2005)
Exhibit 31 Witherspoon Institute, Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles
(2008)

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Exhibit 32 W. Bradford Wilcox, Reconcilable Differences: What Social Sciences
Show About the Complementarity of the Sexes & Parenting,
Touchstone, Nov. 2005
Exhibit 33 Adrienne Burgess, Fathers and Public Services, in Daddy Dearest?,
Institute for Public Policy Research (Kate Stanley ed., 2005)
Exhibit 34 Jane Mendle et al., Associations Between Father Absence and Age of
First Sexual Intercourse, 80 Child Development 1463 (2009)
Exhibit 35 Bruce J. Ellis, Timing of Pubertal Maturation in Girls: An Integrated
Life History Approach, 130 Psychology Bulletin 920 (2004)
Exhibit 36 Elrini Flouri & Ann Buchanan, The Role of Father Involvement in
Childrens Later Mental Health, 26 Journal of Adolescence 63 (2003)
Exhibit 37 Bruce J. Ellis et al., Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special
Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?, 74 Child
Development 801 (2003)
Exhibit 38 Barack Obama, Obamas Speech on Fatherhood (June 15, 2008)
Exhibit 39 Elizabeth Marquardt et al., My Daddys Name is Donor: A New Study of
Young Adults Conceived Through Sperm Donation, Institute for
American Values
Exhibit 40 Anjani Chandra et al., Fertility, Family Planning, and Reproductive
Health of U.S. Women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family
Growth, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Dec. 2005)
Exhibit 41 Anjani Chandra et al., Infertility and Impaired Fecundity in the United
States, 1982-2010: Data from the National Survey of Family Growth,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Aug. 14, 2013)
Exhibit 42 Elizabeth Wildsmith et al., Childbearing Outside of Marriage:
Estimates and Trends in the United States, Child Trends Research Brief
(Nov. 2011)
Exhibit 43 Wendy D. Manning et al., The Relative Stability of Cohabiting and
Marital Unions for Children, 23 Population Research & Policy Review
135 (2004)
Exhibit 44 Lawrence B. Finer & Mia R. Zolna, Unintended Pregnancy in the
United States: Incidence and Disparities, 2006, 84 Contraception 478
(2011)

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Exhibit 45 William J. Doherty et al., Responsible Fathering, 60 Journal of
Marriage and the Family 277 (1998)
Exhibit 46 Robert N. Bellah et al., The Good Society (1991)
Exhibit 47 Peter L. Berger & Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of
Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (1966)
Exhibit 48 A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, Structure and Function in Primitive Society
(1952)
Exhibit 49 Carl E. Schneider, The Channelling Function in Family Law, 20
Hofstra Law Review 495 (1992)
Exhibit 50 William N. Eskridge, Jr. & Darren R. Spedale, Gay Marriage: For
Better or for Worse? What Weve Learned from the Evidence (2006)
Exhibit 51 E.J. Graff, Retying the Knot, The Nation, Jun. 24, 1996
Exhibit 52 Joseph Raz, Ethics in the Public Domain (1994)
Exhibit 53 Michelangelo Signorile, Bridal Wave, OUT Magazine, Dec./Jan. 1994
Exhibit 54 Amicus Brief of Professor Robert P. George et al., Kitchen v. Herbert,
No. 13-4178 (10th Cir. Feb. 10, 2014)
Exhibit 55 Amicus Brief of Professor Alan Hawkins et al., Kitchen v. Herbert, No.
13-4178 (10th Cir. Feb. 10, 2014)
Exhibit 56 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Vital Statistics
System, Marriage Rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2011
System, Divorce Rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2011
System, National Marriage and Divorce Rate Trends
Exhibit 59 Benjamin Scafidi, The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed
Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All Fifty States
(2008)
Exhibit 60 Robert P. George et al., What is Marriage? (2012)

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Exhibit 61 Douglas W. Allen & Maggie Gallagher, Does Divorce Law Affect the
Divorce Rate? A Review of Empirical Research, 1995-2006, Institute
for Marriage and Public Policy Research Brief 1 (Jul. 2007)
Exhibit 62 Allen M. Parkman, Good Intentions Gone Awry: No-fault Divorce and
the American Family (2000)
Exhibit 63 Alan P. Bell & Marten S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of
Diversity Among Men & Women (1978)
Exhibit 64 Mark Regnerus, How different are the adult children of parents who
have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures
Study, 41 Social Science Research 752 (2012)
Exhibit 65 Loren D. Marks, Same-sex parenting and childrens outcomes: A closer
examination of the American psychological associations Brief on
Lesbian and Gay Parenting, 41 Social Science Research 735 (2012)
Exhibit 66 Michael E. Lamb, Fathers: Forgotten Contributors to Child
Development, 18 Human Development 245 (1975)
Exhibit 67 Trial Transcript, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D.
Cal. 2010)
Exhibit 68 Jurisdictional Statement, Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (No. 71-
1027)
Exhibit 69 Julien O. Teitler et al., Effects of Welfare Participation on Marriage, 71
Journal of Marriage & Family 878 (2009)
Exhibit 70 William J. Goode, World Changes in Divorce Patterns (1993)
Exhibit 71 Judith S. Wallerstein et al., The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: The 25
Year Landmark Study (2000)


EXHIBIT 1
,
J
,
'\~:1
\
,
Volume
l
. ~ of the First Edition of 1765-1769
:f:~- *,~:_~
l'1Itnodl.etion ay Stanley N. Katz
'I
-~~
L i."
J
?"
"i
,
.~
t
i
"
4
;1
l
i
:i
,I
~.
Commentaries
on the
Laws of England
.
William Blackstone
A Facsimile of the First Edition
of i 765- i 769
VOLUME I
Of the
Rights of Persons
(i 765)
)'ith an Introduction by Stanley N. Katz
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago & London
Commentaries on the Laws of England, by Willam
Blackstone, is available in a clothbound set and
separate paperback volumes from the University
of Chicago Press.
VoL. 1 Of the Rights of Persons
VoL. 2 Of the Rights of Things
VoL. 3 Of Private Wrongs
VoL. 4 Of Public Wrongs
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637
The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London
(9 1979 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. published 1979
Printed in the United States of America
LCN: 79-11 753
0201 0099989796
10987
ISBN: paperback edition
0-226-05538-8 (volume 1)
0-226-05541-8 (volume 2)
0-226-05543-4 (volume 3)
0-226-05545-0 (volume 4)
The paper used in this publication meets the
minimum requirements of the American National
Standard for Information Sciences-Permanence
of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI
Z39.48-1984.
410
The RIG H T S BOOK
C HAP T E R THE F 0 U R TEE NTH.
o u MAS T ERA N D S E R V ANT.
H A V I N G thus commented on the rights and duties ot
perfons, as fianding in the public relations of magifirates;
and people; the method I have marked out now leads me to
confider their rights anci duties in private oeconomical relations.
TH E three great relations in private life are, i. That of m'!;
ler and flruant; which is founded in convenience, whereby a1
man is direcled to call in the afffiance of others, where his own d~
kil and labour wil not be fuffcient to anfwer the cares incum.:;
bent upon him. 2. That of huJband and wif; which is founded!
in nature, but modified by civil fociety: the one direcling man"
to continue and multiply his fpecies, the other prefcribing thcJ
manner in which that natural impulfe mufi be confined and re.Y
gulated. 3' That of parent and (htU, which is confequential to;~
that of marriage, being it's principal end and defign: and it i5j
by virtue of this relation that infants are protecled, maintained,
and educated. But, fince the parents, on whom this care is pri. .
marily incumbent, may be fnatched away by death or otherwifc,
before they have completed their duty, the law has therefore pro.
vided a fourth relation j A.. That of guardian and ward, which
is a kind of artificial parentage, in order to fupply the deficiency,
whenever it happens, of the natural. Of all thefe relations in
their order.
RIGHTS
of PE R SON s.
411
AND SERVANT.
, IN difcuffng the relation of mafer and flrvant, I hall~ fira,
1confider the feveral forts of fervants, and how this relation is
created an de1toyed: fecondly~ the effeas of this relation with
'regard to the parties themfelves: and, lafiy, it's effea: with re-
gard to other perfons.
I. A s to the feveral forts of fervants: I have formerly obfer-
"ved a that pure and proper avery does not, nay cannot, fubfil in
'England j fuch I mean, whereby an abfolute and unlimited power
tis given to the mafter over the life and fortune of the fiave. And
:indeed it
is repugnan to reafon~ and the principles of natural
law~ that fuch a ftate thould fubfift any where. The three orI-
: gins of the right of fivery affgned by Jufiinian b, are all of them
~buil upon falfe foundations. As, firfi, fiavery is held to a.rife
: "jure gentium," from a fiate of captivity in war; whence l1aves
.,' are called mancipia, ,1utt manu capti. The conqueror, fay the
civilians, had a right to the life of his 'captive ; and, having fpared
'that, has a right to deal with him as he pleafes. But it is an
:
untrue pofition, when taken generaly, that, by the law of na-
ture or nations, a man may kill his enemy: he has only a right
to kil him, in particular cafes j in cafes of abolute neceffty,
for felf-defence; and it is plain this abfolute neceffty did not
fubfift, fince the vidor did not aclually kill him, but made him
prifoner. War is itfelf juftifible only on principles of felf-pre-
fervation jand therefore it gives no other right over prifoners,
but merdy to 'difable them from doing harm to us, by confining
their perfons: much lers can it give a right to kil, torture, abufe,
plunder, or even to ennave, an enemy, when the war is over.
Since therefore the right of 11ing l1aves by captivity, depends
on a fuppofed right of llaughter, that foundation failing, the con-
fequence drawn from it muft fail likewife. But, fecondly, it is
, lid that avery may begin ujure civili;" when one man fells
himfelf to another. Thist if only meant of contraas to ferve or
E F 0 U R. TEE NTH.
,en ted on the rights and duties
1 the public relations of magifira
have marked out now leads me
~s in private oeconomical relation
in private life are, 'I.. That of m
)Unded in convenience, whereb
afffiance of others, where his 0
iffcient to anfwer the cares ineu
~ufand and wif j which is found'.
viI fodety: the one direcling m .
fpedes, the other prefcribing t
.1 impulfe muft be confined and re
rnd child, which is confequential t
rincipal end and defign: and it
: infants are protecled, maintained
parents, on whom this care is pr
atched away by death or otherwife
ieir duty, the law has therefore pro
rhat of guardian and ward, whic
~, in order to fupply the deficiency,
natural. Of al thefe relations in
a pag. 1 i3~ jlJrt gtn/ium, IItlt jlJrl tiflili: lIaja//lJr IX
b 81r1l; iil1t filill/, iil1t ,,4tlJntIlT: fluiit lll1tilliJ lIofriJ. Inft. I. 3' A-.
D d d 2 work
43+
The RIG H T S BOOK
C HAP T E R THE S I X TEE NTH.
o F PAR E N TAN D CHI L D.
TH E next, and the mofi univerfal relation in nature, is im.
mediately derived from the preceding, being that between
parent and child.
CHI L DR E N are of two forts; legitimate, and fpurious, or
bafiards: each of which we hall confider in their order; and
firfi of legitimate children.
1. ALE G I TIM ATE child is he that is born in lawful wed-
lock, or within a competent time afterwards. "Pater ef quem
U nuptiae demonjlrant," is the rule of the civil law a; and this
holds with the civilians, whether the nuptials happen before, or
after, the birth of the child. With us in England the rule is
narrowed, for the nuptials mufi be precedent to the birth; of
which more wil be faid when we come to confider the cafe of
bafiardy. At prefent let us enquire into, I. The legal duties of
parents to their legitimate children. 2. Their power over them.
3' The duties of fuch children to their parents.
I. AND, firfi, the duties of parents to legitimate children:
which principally confifi in three particulars; their maintenance,
their protection, and their education.
If. z.... 5.
THE
I GH T S
S i X TEE NTH.
AND CHI L D.
iniverfal relation in. nature, is i
:he preceding, being that betwe
rts; legitimate, and fpurious,.
~aii confider in their' order; a
L is he that is born in lawful we
:ime afterwards. "Pater ef qu
rule of the civil law a; and t
ier the nuptials happen before, .
With us in England the rule
ifi be precedent to the birth;
1 we come to confider the cafe
iuire into, i. The legal duties
irene 2. Their power over the
to their parents. ..
if parents to legitimate childre
ee particulars; their maintenan
:ation.
: z.... s.
of PER SON S.
435
. TH E duty of parents to provide for the maintenance of their
t children is a principle of natural law; an obligation, 1ys Puf-
! fendorfb, laid on them not only by nature herfelf, but by their
own proper act, in bringing them into the world: for they would
be in the highefi manner injurious to their itrue, if they only
gave the children life, that they might afterwards fee them perih.
By begetting them therefore they have entered into a voluiitary
obligation, to endeavour, as far as in them lies, that the life which
they have befiowed hall be fupyorted and preferved. And thus
the children wil have a pcrfect rjght of receiving maintenance
from their parents. And the prefident Montefquieu C has a very
jufi obfervation upon this head: that the elabli!hment of mar-
riage in all civilized fiates is built on this natural obligation of the
father to provide for his children; for that afcertains and makes
known the perfon who is bound to fulfil this obligation: whereas,
in promifcuous and ilicit conjunctions, the father is unknown;
and the mother finds a thoufand obfiac1es in her way; --- !harne,
remorfe, the confiraint of her fex, and the rigor of laws; ---
that fiifle her inc1inations to perform this duty: and befides, the
generally wants ability.
TH E municipal laws of all well-regulated fiates have taken
care to enforce this duty: though providence has done it more
effeclually than any laws, by implanting in the breal of every
parent that natural iropytf, or infuperable degree of affection,
which not even the deformity of perf
on or mind, not even the
wickedneCs, ingratitude, and rebellion of children, can totally
fuppreCs or extinguih.
TH E civil law d obliges the parent to provide maintenance for
his child; and, if he refufes, "judex d( ea re cognojet." Nay, it
carries this matter fo far, that it wil not Cuffer a parent at his
death totally to difinherit his child, without expre1y giving his
b L. ofN. 1.4-' c. 11.
~. Sip. 1. 1. Z3. c. z.
11 Ff.z5'3'S.
G g g 2
reafon
+36 The RIG H T Boo K I.
reafon for fo doing; and there are fourteen fuch reafons reckoned
up c, which rnay juftify fuch difinherifon. If the parent alleged
no reafon, or a bad, or falfe one, the child might fet the will afide,
tanquam ttJamentum tnolfcioJum, a teftament contrary to the natu-
ral duty of the parent. And it is remarkable under what colour
the children were to move for relief in fuch a cafe: by fuggel..
ing that the parent had loft the ufe of his reafon, when he made
the inolfctous teftament. And this, as Puffendorf obferves f, was
not to bring into difpute the teftator's power of difinheriting his
own offspring; but to examine the motives upon which he did
it: and, if they were found defeclive in reafon, then to fet them
afide. But perhaps this is going rather too far: every man has,
or ought to hwe, by the laws of fociety, a power over his own
property: and, as Grotius very well diftinguihes g, natural right
obliges to give a necelfry maintenance to children; but what is
more than that, they have no other fight to, than as it is given
them by the favour of their parents, or the pofitive confiitutions
of the municipal law.
LET us next fee what provifion our own laws have rnade for
this natural duty. It is a principle of law h, that there is an ob-
ligation on every man to provide for thofe defcended from his
loins: and the manner, in which this obligation hall be perform-
ed, is thus pointed out i. The father, and mother, grandfather,
and grandmother of poor impotent perfons hall maintain them
at their own charges, if of fuffcient ability, according as the
quarter feffons hall direct: and k if a parent runs away, and
leaves his children, the churchwardens and overfeers of the parih
ha1l feife his rents, goods, and chattels, and difpofe of them to-
wards their relief. By the interpretations which the courts Qf
law have made upon thefe fiatutes, if a mother or grandmother
marries again, and was before fuch fecond marriage of fuffcient
ability to keep the child, the huband hall be charged to main-
NII'1!5'
( I. +. c. i i. ~. 7.
l De j. c. f. ;. I. 'I. c. 7, n. 3.
h Raym. 500.
i Stat. +3 Eliz. c. z.
It Stat. S Geo. I. c.8.
tain

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3
BERTRAND,., RUSSELL
. '
MARRIAGE
AND
MORALS
LIVERIGHT
!\"EW YORK
COPYRIGHT @ R, I957, 3Y BERTRAND RUSSEL
COPYRIGHT, 1929, BY HORACE LIVERIGHT, IN(
MANUFACTURED IN THE U.S. A.
LIVERIGHT PAPERBOUND EDlTION 1970
.A8P
GIFT
PUBLISHLcrs
~ O P Y
CONTEr
I W"B. Y A SEXUAL ETHIC IS r
II. WHERE FATHERHOOD IS Ul'
III THE DOMINION OF THE FA'
IV PHALLIC WORSHIP, ASC
V CHRISTIAN ETHICS
VI ROMANTIC LOVE
Vll THE LIBERATION OF WC
VIII THE TABOO ON SEX KN1
IX THE PLACE OF LOVE IN
X MARRIAGE
XI P ROSTITUTION
Xll TRIAL MARRIAGE
M
A
R
R
I
A
G
E

A
N
D

M
O
R
A
L
S

c
o
u
r
t
s
h
i
p

w
h
i
c
h

g
i
v
e

r
i
s
e

t
o

l
o
v
e

p
o
e
t
r
y
.

I
n

a

s
t
a
t
e

o
f

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

f
r
e
e
d
o
m
,

o
n

t
h
e

o
t
h
e
r

h
a
n
d
,

a

m
a
n

c
a
p
a
b
l
e

o
f

g
r
e
a
t

l
o
v
e

p
o
e
t
r
y

i
s

l
i
k
e
l
y

t
o

h
a
v
e

s
o

m
u
c
h

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

h
i
s

c
h
a
r
m

t
h
a
t

h
e

w
i
l
l

s
e
l
d
o
m

h
a
v
e

n
e
e
d

o
f

h
i
s

b
e
s
t

i
m
a
g
i
n
a
-
t
i
v
e

e
f
f
o
r
t
s

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

a
c
h
i
e
v
e

a

c
o
n
q
u
e
s
t
.

T
h
u
s

l
o
v
e

p
o
e
t
r
y

d
e
p
e
n
d
s

u
p
o
n

a

c
e
r
t
a
i
n

d
e
l
i
-
c
a
t
e

b
a
l
a
n
c
e

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

c
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

f
r
e
e
d
o
m
'

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

l
i
k
e
l
y

t
o

e
x
i
s
t

i
n

i
t
s

b
e
s
t

f
o
r
m

w
h
e
r
e

.
t
h
i
s

b
a
l
a
n
c
e

i
s

u
p
s
e
t

i
n

e
i
t
h
e
r

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
.

L
o
v
e

p
o
e
t
r
y
,

h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,

i
s

n
o
t

t
h
e

o
n
l
y

p
u
r
-
p
o
s
e

o
f

l
o
v
e
,

a
n
d

r
o
m
a
n
t
i
c

l
o
v
e

m
a
y

f
l
o
u
r
i
s
h

h
e
r
e

i
t

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

l
e
a
d

t
o

a
r
t
i
s
t
i
c

e
x
p
r
e
s
-
s
i
o
n
.

b
e
l
i
e
v
e

m
y
s
e
l
f

t
h
a
t

r
o
m
a
n
t
i
c

l
o
v
e

i
s

t
h
e

s
o
u
r
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

m
o
s
t

i
n
t
e
n
s
e

d
e
l
i
g
h
t
s

t
h
a
t

l
i
f
e

h
a
s

t
o

o
f
f
e
r
.

U
n

t
h
e

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

a

m
a
n

a
n
d

w
o
m
a
n

w
h
o

l
o
v
e

e
a
c
h

o
t
h
e
r

w
i
t
h

p
a
s
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

i
m
a
g
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

t
e
n
d
e
r
n
e
s
s
,

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g

o
f

i
n
e
s
t
i
m
a
b
l
e

v
a
l
u
e
,

t
o

b
e

i
g
n
o
r
a
n
t

o
f

w
h
i
c
h

i
s

a

g
r
e
a
t

m
i
s
f
o
r
t
u
n
e

t
o

a
n
y

h
u
m
a
n

b
e
i
n
g
.

I

t
h
i
n
k

i
t

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t

t
h
a
t

a

s
o
c
i
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
u
c
h

a
s

t
o

p
e
r
m
i
t

t
h
i
s

j
o
y
,

a
l
t
h
o
u
g
h

i
t

c
a
n

o
n
l
y

b
e

a
n

i
n
g
r
e
d
i
e
n
t

i
n

l
i
f
e

a
n
d

n
o
t

i
t
s

m
a
m

I
n

q
u
i
t
e

m
o
d
e
r
n

t
i
m
e
s
,

t
h
a
t

i
s

t
o

s
a
y

s
i
n
c
e

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

p
e
r
i
o
d

o
f

t
h
e

F
r
e
n
c
h

R
e
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
,

a
n

i
d
e
a

h
a
s

g
r
o
w
n

u
p

t
h
a
t

m
a
r
r
i
a
g
e

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

t
h
e

7
4

R
O
M
A
N
T
I
C

L
O
V
E

o
u
t
c
o
m
e

o
f

r
o
m
a
n
t
i
c

l
o
v
e
.

M
o
s
t

m
o
d
e
r
n
s

a
t

.

'

a
n
y

r
a
t
e

m

E
n
g
l
i
s
h
-
s
p
e
a
k
i
n
g

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

t
a
k
e

t
h
i
s

f
?
r

g
r
a
n
t
e
d
,

a
n
d

h
a
v
e

n
o

i
d
e
a

t
h
a
t

n
o
'
t

l
o
n
g

a
g
o

1
t

w
a
s

a

r
e
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
.

T
h
e

n
o
v
e
l
s

a
n
d

p
l
a
y
s

o
f

a

h
u
n
d
r
e
d

y
e
a
r
s

a
g
o

d
e
a
l

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

s
t
r
u
g
g
l
e

o
f

t
h
e

y
o
u
n
g
e
r

g
e
n
-
e
r
a
t
i
O
n

t
o

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h

t
h
i
s

n
e
w

b
a
s
i
s

f
o
r

m
a
r
r
i
a
g
e

a
s

o
p
p
o
s
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

m
a
r
r
i
a
g
e

o
f

p
a
r
e
n
t
a
l

c
h
o
i
c
e
.

W
h
e
t
h
e
r

t
h
e

e
f
f
e
c
t

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

a
s

g
o
o
d

a
s

t
h
e

h
o
p
e
d

m
a
y

b
e

d
o
u
b
t
e
d
.

T
h
e
r
e

i
s

s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g

t
o

b
e

s
a
i
d

f
o
r

M
r
s
.

M
a
l
a
-
p
r
o
p
'
s

p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
,

t
h
a
t

l
o
v
e

a
n
d

a
v
e
r
s
i
o
n

b
o
t
h

w
e
a
r

o
f
f

i
n

m
a
t
r
i
m
o
n
y

s
o

t
h
a
t

i
t

i
s

b
e
t
t
e
r

t
o

b
e
g
i
n

w
i
t
h

a

l
i
t
t
l
e

a
y
e
r
s
i
o
n
.

C
e
r
t
a
i
n

i
t

i
s

t
h
a
t

w
h
e
n

p
e
o
p
l
e

m
a
r
r
y

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

s
e
x
u
a
l

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

o
f

e
a
c
h

o
t
h
e
r

a
n
d

u
n
d
e
r

t
h
e

i
n
-
f
l
u
e
n
c
e

o
f

r
o
m
a
n
t
i
c

l
o
v
e
,

e
a
c
h

i
m
a
g
i
n
e
s

t
h
e

t
o

b
e

p
o
s
s
e
s
s
e
d

o
f

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

m
o
r
t
a
l

p
e
r
-
f
e
c
t
i
O
n
s
,

a
n
d

c
o
n
c
e
i
v
e
s

t
h
a
t

m
a
r
r
i
a
g
e

i
s

g
o
i
n
g

t
?

b
e

o
n
e

l
o
n
g

d
r
e
a
m

o
f

b
l
i
s
s
.

T
h
i
s

i
s

e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y

h
a
b
l
e

t
o

b
e

t
h
e

c
a
s
e

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

w
o
m
a
n

i
f

s
h
e

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

b
r
o
u
g
h
t

u
p

i
g
n
o
r
a
n
t

a
n
d

p
u
r
e
,

a
n
d

t
h
e
r
e
-
f
o
r
e

i
n
c
a
p
a
b
l
e

o
f

d
i
s
t
i
n
g
u
i
s
h
i
n
g

s
e
x

h
u
n
g
e
r

f
r
o
m

c
o
n
g
e
n
i
a
l
i
t
y
.

I
n

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
,

w
h
e
r
e

t
h
e

r
o
:
.
.

m
a
n
t
i
c

v
i
e
w

o
f

m
a
r
r
i
a
g
e

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

t
a
k
e
n

m
o
r
e

s
e
r
i
o
u
s
l
y

t
h
a
n

a
n
y
w
h
e
r
e

e
l
s
e
,

a
n
d

w
h
e
r
e

l
a
w

a
n
d

c
u
s
t
o
m

a
l
i
k
e

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

u
p
o
n

t
h
e

d
r
e
a
m
s

7
5

M
A
R
R
I
A
G
E

A
N
D

M
O
R
A
L
S

o
f

s
p
i
n
s
t
e
r
s
,

t
h
e

r
e
s
u
l
t

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

a
n

e
x
t
r
e
m
e

p
r
e
v
a
l
e
n
c
e

o
f

d
i
v
o
r
c
e

a
n
d

a
n

e
x
t
r
e
m
e

r
a
r
i
t
y

o
f

h
a
p
p
y

m
a
r
r
i
a
g
e
s
.

M
a
r
r
i
a
g
e

i
s

s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g

m
o
r
e

~
u

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

p
l
e
a
.
s
.
.
_
u
r
e

o
f

t
w
o

p
e
o
p
l
e

i
n

e
a
c
h

o
t
h
e
r
'
s

C
!
!
l
p
_
a
.
l
l
Y
;

i
t

i
s

a
n

i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

w
h
i
c
h
,

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

t
h
e

f
a
c
t

t
h
a
t

i
t

g
i
v
e
s

r
i
s
e

t
o

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
,

f
o
r
m
s

p
a
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
t
i
m
a
t
e

t
e
x
t
u
r
e

o
f

s
o
c
i
e
t
y
,

a
n
d

h
a
s

a
n

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e

e
x
t
e
n
d
i
n
g

f
a
r

b
e
y
o
n
d

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

f
e
e
l
i
n
g
s

o
f

t
h
e

h
u
s
b
a
n
d

a
n
d

w
i
J
s
.
/

I
t

m
a
y

b
e

g
o
o
d
-
I

t
h
i
n
k

i
t

i
s

g
o
o
d
-
t
h
a
t

r
o
-
m
a
n
t
i
c

l
o
v
e

s
h
o
u
l
d

f
o
r
m

t
h
e

m
o
t
i
v
e

f
o
r

a

m
a
r
-
r
i
a
g
e
,

b
u
t

Q
t

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

u
n
d
e
r
s
t
o
o
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

k
i
n
d

o
f

l
o
v
e

w
h
i
c
h

w
i
l
l

e
n
a
b
l
e

a

m
a
r
r
i
a
g
e

t
o

r
e
m
a
i
n

h
a
p
p
y

a
n
d

t
o

f
u
l
f
i
l

i
t
s

s
o
c
i
a
l

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

i
s

n
o
t

r
o
m
a
n
t
i
c

b
u
t

i
s

s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g

m
o
r
e

i
n
t
i
m
a
t
e
,

a
f
f
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
t
e
,

a
n
d

r
e
a
l
i
s
t
i
S
J

I
n

r
o
m
a
n
t
i
c

l
o
v
e

t
h
e

b
e
l
o
v
e
d

o
b
j
e
c
t

i
s

n
o
t

s
e
e
n

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y
,

b
u
t

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

a

g
l
a
m
o
r
o
u
s

m
i
s
t
;

u
n
d
o
u
b
t
e
d
l
y

i
t

i
s

p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e

f
o
r

a

c
e
r
t
a
i
n

t
y
p
e

o
f

w
o
m
a
n

t
o

r
e
m
a
i
n

w
r
a
p
p
e
d

i
n

t
h
i
s

m
i
s
t

e
v
e
n

a
f
t
e
r

m
a
r
r
i
a
g
e

p
r
o
-
v
i
d
e
d

s
h
e

h
a
s

a

h
u
s
b
a
n
d

o
f

a

c
e
r
t
a
i
n

t
y
p
e
,

b
u
t

t
h
i
s

c
a
n

o
n
l
y

b
e

a
c
h
i
e

e
d

i
f

s
h
e

a
v
o
i
d
s

a
l
l

r
e
a
l

i
n
t
i
m
a
c
y

w
i
t
h

h
e
r

h
u
s
b
a
n
d

a
n
d

p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s

a

s
p
h
i
n
x
-
l
i
k
e

s
e
c
r
e
c
y

a
s

t
o

h
e
r

i
n
m
o
s
t

t
h
o
u
g
h
t
s

a
n
d

f
e
e
l
i
n
g
s
,

a
s

w
e
l
l

a
s

a

c
e
r
t
a
i
n

d
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

b
o
d
i
l
y

p
r
i
v
a
c
y
.

S
u
c
h

m
a
n
c
e
u
v
r
e
s
,

h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,

p
r
e
-
v
e
n
t

a

m
a
r
r
i
a
g
e

f
r
o
m

r
e
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

i
t
s

b
e
s
t

p
o
s
s
i
-
7
6

R
O
M
A
N
T
I
C

L
O
V
E

b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,

w
h
i
c
h

d
e
p
e
n
d

u
p
o
n

a
n

a
f
f
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
t
e

i
n
-
t
i
m
a
c
y

q
u
i
t
e

u
n
m
i
x
e
d

w
i
t
h

i
l
l
u
s
i
o
n
.

M
o
r
e
o
v
q
_
,

t
h
e

v
i
e
w

t
h
a
t

r
o
m
a
n
t
i
c

l
o
v
e

i
s

e
s
s
e
n
.
t
i
a

o

m
a
r
-
r
i
a
g
_
e

i
s

t
o
o

a
n
a
r
c
h
i
c
,

a
n
d
,

l
i
k
e

S
t
.

P
a
u
l
'
s

v
i
e
w
,

t
h
o
u
g
h

i
n

a
n

o
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

s
e
n
s
e
,

i
t

f
o
r
g
e
t
s

t
h
a
J
.

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

a
r
e

w
h
a
t

m
a
k
e
s

m
a
r
r
i
a
g
e

i
m
,
p
o
r
t
a

t
.

B
u
t

f
o
r

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
,

t
h
e
r
e

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

n
o

n
e
e
d

o
f

a
n
y

i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d

w
i
t
h

s
e
x
,

b
u
t

a
s

s
o
o
n

a
s

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

e
n
t
e
r

i
n
,

t
h
e

h
u
s
b
a
n
d

a
n
d

w
i
f
e
,

i
f

t
h
e
y

h
a
v
e

a
n
y

s
e
n
s
e

o
f

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
r

a
n
y

a
f
f
e
c
-
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

t
h
e
i
r

o
f
f
s
p
r
i
n
g
,

a
r
e

c
o
m
p
e
l
l
e
d

t
o

r
e
a
l
i
z
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
i
r

f
e
e
l
i
n
g
s

t
o
w
a
r
d
s

e
a
c
h

o
t
h
e
r

a
r
e

n
o

l
o
n
g
e
r

w
h
a
t

i
s

o
f

m
o
s
t

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
.

7
7


EXHIBIT 4
THE VIEW
FROMAFAR
Claude Levi-Strauss
, /
TRANSLATED BY
JOACHIM NEUGROSCHEL
AND
PHOEBE HOSS
Basic Books, Inc., Publishers / New York
GN3t, 2
, LL/7'1/J
1 r;5
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Levi-Strauss, Claude.
The view from afar.
Translation of: Le regard eloigne.
Bibliography: P.289
Ineludes index.
I. Structural anthropology-Addresses, essays, lectures. 2. Ethnology-Addresses,
essays, lectures.
I. Title.
~
,
In memory
6t1,ill I 17 I'} J ~ 8
ISBN 0-465-09025--7
J06
English translation, copyright 19B5 by Basic Books, Inc.
Originally published in French as Le Regard Eloign!, 19BJ Librairie Pion
Designed by Vincent Torre
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 J 2 1
I
r"l
I
Chapter 3
The Family
SO PLAIN seems the word family, and so close to daily experience is
the reality to which it refers, that one may expect to be confronted in
this chapter with a simple situation. Anthropologists, however, dis-
cover complications even in "familiar" things. As a matter of fact, the
comparative study of the family has given rise to bitter arguments
among anthropologists and has resulted in a spectacular reversal of
anthropological thought.
During the second half of the nineteenth century and the beginning
of the twentieth, anthropologists, influenced by biological evolution-
ism, were trying to organize in a unilineal sequence the institutions
that they observed throughout the world. Departing from the assump-
tion that our own institutions are the most complex and evolved, they
saw, in the modern institutions of so-called primitive people, the image
of institutions that could have existed in prehistoric periods. And since
the modern family is founded essentially on monogamous marriage,
these anthropologists immediately inferred that savage societies-
equated, for the purpose of their argument, with the societies of man
at the beginning of his existence--eould only have institutions of an
exactly opposite type.
It was thus necessary to gather and distort facts to fit the hypotheses.
Fanciful "early" stages of evolution were invented-such as "group
marriage" and "promiscuity"-to account for the period when man
was still so barbarous that he could not possibly conceive of the nice-
ties of the social life it is the privilege of civilized man to enjoy.
39
F AMIL Y, MAR RI AGE, KIN S HIP
Assigned its predetermined place and properly labeled, every custom
different from our own could illustrate one of the stages encountered
by humanity from its origin to our own day.
This position became ever less tenable in proportion to anthropol-
ogy's accumulation of new findings. These demonstrated that the style
of family characterized, in contemporary society, by monogamous
marriage, by independent establishment of the young couple, by warm
relationships between parents and offspring, and so on (traits that we
sometimes have difficulty disentangling from the intricate skein that
the customs of savage peoples present to our eyes) exists clearly also
among those societies that remained on, or returned to, a cultural level
that we judge rudimentary. To cite a few examples, the insular An-
damanese of the Indian Ocean, the Fuegians of the southernmost tip
of South America, the Nambikwara of central Brazil, and the Bush-
men of South Africa lived in small, semi-nomadic bands; they had little
or no political organization; and their technological level was very low:
some of these people had no knowledge of weaving or did not practice
pot making or construct permanent dwellings. Among them, however,
the only social structure worthy of the name was the family, often even
the monogamous family. The fieldworker had no trouble identifying
married couples, who were closely united by sentimental bonds, by
economic cooperation in every case, and by a common interest in their
children.
The conjugal family thus predominates at the two ends of the scale
on which one can arrange human societies according to their degree
of technical and economic development. This fact has been interpreted
in two ways. In societies that they place at the bottom of the scale,
some writers have seen the ultimate evidence of a sort of golden age,
which would have prevailed before men suffered the hardships and
were exposed to the perversions of a more civilized life. At this archaic
stage, it is claimed, humanity knew the benefits of the monogamous
family, only to forget it later until Christianity rediscovered it. But if
we except the Vienna school (whose position I have just stated), the
general trend is rather to acknowledge that family life is present every-
where in human societies, even in those whose sexual and educational
customs seem the most remote from our own. Thus, after having
claimed for nearly a century that the family, as modern societies know
it, is a relatively recent development, the outcome of a slow and
lengthy evolution, anthropologists now lean toward the opposite con-
viction: the family-based on a union, more or less durable, but so-
cially approved, of two individuals of opposite sexes who establish a
1
household and bear and rais,
universal phenomenon, prese
These extreme positions Sl
rare, it is true-where family
to exist. Among the Nayar, :
Malabar coast of India, the m(
a family. A purely symbolical
manent ties between spouses:
as she wished; and the childre
authority and property right.
husband-a negligible person
was cultivated by an inferic
woman's brothers were as corr
to devote themselves to milit:
Bizarre institutions have fr
viewed as the vestige of an an
ill' most societies. Highly spec
long historical evolution and
stages of humanity. On the 0'
Nayar represent an extreme f
quent in human societies thaI
Without going as far as the r
role of the conjugal family: th
among others. Such is the ca!
Chagga, whose youngest class
activities, lived in military se
tionaI and sexual relations wit
It was only after this active pe
a family. In such a system, the c
institutional promiscuity.
For different reasons, the s:
Bor6ro and other tribes of eel
other tribes of India and Ass:
arranged in such a way as t(
consistent, systematic, and 101
that it illustrates is manifested
embryonic form even in mode
Such was the case of Nazi
beginning to split: on the one t
military work and enjoying a sl
latitude of behavior; on the ot
KINSHIP
labeled, every custom
of the stages encountered
IY
proportion to anthropol-
emonstrated that the style
society, by monogamous
he young couple, by warm
;, and so on (traits that we
m the intricate skein that
If eyes) exists clearly also
eturned to, a cultural level
the insular An-
s of the southernmost tip
tral Brazil, and the Bush-
ladic bands; they had little
logical level was very low:
eaving or did not practice
:s. Among them, however,
was the family, often even
ad no trouble identifying
by sentimental bonds, by
. common interest in their
the two ends of the scale
according to their degree
i fact has been interpreted
the bottom of the scale,
;e of a sort of golden age,
lffered the hardships and
rilized life. At this archaic
lefits of the monogamous
ity rediscovered it. But if
In I have just stated), the
Imily life is present every-
,se sexual and educational
)wn. Thus, after having
as modern societies know
outcome of a slow and
toward the opposite con-
e or less durable, but so-
;ite sexes who establish a
The Family
household and bear and raise children-appears to be a practically
universal phenomenon, present in every type of society.
These extreme positions suffer from simplicity. We know cases-
rare, it is true-where family bonds as we conceive of them seem not
to exist. Among the Nayar, an important large group living on the
Malabar coast of India, the men, engrossed in war, could not establish
a family. A purely symbolical ceremony, marriage did not create per-
manent ties between spouses: the married woman had as many lovers
as she wished; and the children belonged to the maternal line. Family
authority and property rights were exercised not by the ephemeral
husband-a negligible person-but by the wife's brothers. Since land
was cultivated by an inferior caste, subservient to the Nayar, a
woman's brothers were as completely free as her insignificant husband
to devote themselves to military activities.
Bizarre institutions have frequently been misunderstood by being
viewed as the vestige of an archaic social organization, once common
in most societies. Highly specialized, the Nayar are the product of a
long historical evolution and can teach us nothing about the early
stages of humanity. On the other hand, there is little doubt that the
Nayar represent an extreme form of a tendency that is far more fre-
quent in human societies than is generally believed.
Without going as far as the Nayar, some human societies restrict the
role of the conjugal family: they recognize it, but only as one pattern
among others. Such is the case in Africa, among the Masai and the
Chagga, whose youngest class of adult men were dedicated to warlike
activities, lived in military settings, and established very free emo-
tional and sexual relations with the corresponding class of adult girls.
It was only after this active period that the men could marry and start
a family. In such a system, the conjugal family existed side by side with
institutional promiscuity.
For different reasons, the same dual pattern prevailed among the
Bor6ro and other tribes of central Brazil, and among the Muria and
other tribes of India and Assam. All the known instances could be
arranged in such a way as to make the Nayar represent the most
consistent, systematic, and logically extreme case. But the tendency
that it illustrates is manifested elsewhere, and one sees it reappear in
embryonic form even in modern societies.
Such was the case of Nazi Germany, where the family unit was
beginning to split: on the one hand, the men dedicated to political and
military work and enjoying a special prestige that allowed them a wide
latitude of behavior; on the other hand, the women, whose vocation
4
1
F A MIL Y, MAR R I AGE, KIN S HIP
consisted of the three K's-Kuche, Kirche, Kinder (that is "kitchen,"
"church," and "children"). Had this separation of masculine and femi-
nine functions been maintained for several centuries, along with the
increasing inequality of their respective states, it could very well have
led to a social organization without a recognized family unit, as among
the Nayar.
Anthropologists have taken great pains to show that, even among
people who practice wife lending (during religious festivals or, on a
more regular basis, between bereaved couples and including such re-
ciprocal rights), these customs do not constitute survivals of "group
marriage": they coexist with the family and involve it. It is true that,
in order to be able to lend a wife, a man must first have one. However,
several Australian tribes, such as the Wunambal of the northwestern
part of the continent, judge as "very greedy" a man who would refuse
to lend his wife to other potential husbands during the ceremonies:
that is, he would be trying to keep for himself a privilege that, in the
eyes of the group, could be shared by all those, however many they
might be, who are equally entitled to it. As this attitude exists along
with an official denial of physiological paternity, these groups doubly
deny any bond between the husband and his wife's children. The
family is no more than an economic association to which the man
brings the products of his hunt and the woman those of her collecting
and gathering. The theory that this social unit, founded on loans of
reciprocal services, proves that the family exists everywhere, is no
sounder than the theory that the "family" thus defined has little but
its name in common with the family in today's accepted meaning of
the term.
It is advisable to be prudent also in respect to the polygamous fam-
ily: that is to say, where there prevails sometimes polygyny (the union
of one man with several wives) and sometimes polyandry (the union of
one wife with several husbands). These general definitions must be
examined in detail. Sometimes the polygamous family consists of sev-
eral monogamous families side by side: the same man has several wives,
each living in a separate dwelling with her children. This situation has
been observed often in Africa. On the other hand, among the Tupi-
Kawahib of central Brazil, a chief may marry, simultaneously or in
sequence, several sisters or a mother and her daughters by a former
marriage. These women raise their respective children together with-
out seeming to mind very much whether they are caring for their own
children. Also, the chief willingly lends his wives to his younger broth-
ers, to his companions, or to passing visitors. Here we have a combina-
T
tion of polygyny and polyane
co-wives complicate further.
mother and her daughter, mar
of children who were, at the.
children to one, and half-brot
As for polyandry proper, it
among the Toda of India, whe
the same wife. At the time of;
performed a special ceremony
the children to be born until
fulfill the rites of paternity. II
be explained by sociological r,
encountered among the Nayal
ing life of guides or bearers, pe
to be, at all times, on the sp<
domestic affairs.
Neither polyandry nor pol}
its legal, economic, or even sel
the two patterns coexist? Up
illustrate this concurrence. T
right of polygamy and lends hi
als who mayor may not be m
the spouses differs more in c
which can be arranged in de
permanent, to occasional
marriage determines the chil
membership.
The evolution of the Toda
closer to what has been called
a form of polyandry
which created from the start
this custom was prohibited b
continued to practice polyandl
sharing one wife, it became pc
the case of the Nayar, the type
the conjugal family occur not
but in the relatively recent anc
development.
It would thus be wrong to
dogmatic spirit. At each instal
hands slips away. We do not kr

EXHIBIT 5
CHAPTER 1
Relationships Among Marriage Rules, Kinship
Rules, and Socioeconomic Conditions: A
Hypothesis of the Spiral-like Development of
Marriage Systems
Marriage systems involve the sets of rules used in societies to govern the
establishment, continuance, and dissolution of marriage. These include rules
concerning who may be married and who may not, among both kin and
nonkin. They also include rules concerning the holding and transmission of
property or status. However, to try to understand the actual operation of
a marriage system by looking at it in isolation from its full context is to
behave like a taxonomist rather than like a hunter. The hunter who discerns
a leopard in the forest would err profoundly in rushing to attack without
considering wind direction, sun position, ground conformation, paths of
escape open to the leopard, indications of the presence of other leopards
such as its mate or its cubs, indications of the presence of other animals the
leopard might be watching for, signals from hunting companions, or indi-
cations of the presence of other human beings. The leopard must be seen,
to be either avoided or attacked. But the leopard must then be fully related
to its context, if the hunter is to escape becoming the hunted.
The functioning of a marriage system also needs to be fully related to the
overall economic and political situation within which families and individ-
uals must make their way. That overall situation ought in turn to be looked
at historically, for it is constantly changing from the situation for which the
currently used rules were made. Sometimes that change may seem as violent
as a hurricane. Sorr:etimes it may seem almost glacially slow. But it is never
entirely absent. It is always forcing people to rethink what they should do,
how they should do it, and with whom they should do it.
Marriage is an alliance, before it is anything else. At a minimum, it is an
alliance between the two it brings together. However, in some societies it
may take less of their time and attention than it does in others.
Marriage is usually an alliance between the two families from which those
partners came. Still, it may be less of a preoccupation for t ose families in
some societies than in others.
2
History of Marriage Systems
Marriage Rules, Kinship Rules:
Marriage is an alliance whose members ordinarily hope it will be ex-
panded and continued through the coming of children. For most people in
most societies, children have until recently been the primary economic sup-
porters of their parents in later years. Children remain a primary psycho-
logical support to members of older generations in all societies.
Marriage is often an alliance through which property may be transmitted
in some way, or through which status of some type is conferred or confirmed.
Tn particular, marriage normally confers the statuses of wife and husband,
which have been and still are regarded in many societies as necessary to
being seen as an adult rather than as a child. Some anthropologists, like
Peter J. Wilson, in Man, The Promising Primate (1980), even suggest that
the socially recognized linking of a specific human male to a specific human
female and her offspring lies at the root of human beings' differences from
other primates.
Marriage is also likely to reinforce the realization-which social theorist
Talcott Parsons says, in Family, Socialization, and Interaction Process
(1960), that the members of every society need to their society
includes both kinfolk and other people. Parsons states that a child must
move from a sense of the circle of self-and-mother to a sense of self-and-
both-parents as a second circle, a sense of self-and-kin-beyond-parents as
a third, and a sense of self-and-nonkin-beyond-kin as a fourth one, in order
to be a fully effective member of the society into which it is born. That
sense of who are kin and who are not is likely to be reinforced at the time
of a marriage. Whether the marriage is an alliance between those who are
already kin before the marriage, or between those who will only become
kin through the marriage (and may not even see themselves as kin until the
marriage brings forth children), the advantages and disadvantages of having
chosen among the kin or among the nonkin are likely to be thoroughly
discussed.
Marriage, as the socially recognized linking of a specific man to a specific
woman and her offspring, can be found in all societies. Through marriage,
children can be assured of being born to both a man and a woman who
will care for them as they mature. Marriage thus helps to define descent,
or kinship, or who is kin to whom, whether it links one man and one woman
in monogamy, one man and more than one woman in polygyny, or one
woman and more than one man in polyandry. Tn some societies a man may
take more of the ongoing responsibility for providing for his sister's children
than he does for providing for his wife's children, while his wife similarly
expects her brother to take more interest in her children than her husband
does. Yet these societies, too, recognize and encourage the husband-father
to love his children. The proud military Nayar caste of pre-19th-century
central Kerala province in southwest India had a property-holding, marriage,
and inheritance system that was an extreme example of stressing the wife's
brother's responsibility for his sister's children and deemphasizing the hus-
band.'s relationship with his
publicly acknowledged fatht
in it. When the specific polil
deemphasizing the husband
that affectionate interest prc
marriage, and inheritance s
evidently wanted to be able
raising the children born to
continue to be torn betwee;
concern for their own, to tht
do little to help them if a b
than to his nieces and neph,
The Nayar system stresse
who remained at home to IT
soldier husband (usually a :
be lost in battle. It may dati
decline of the great Chola en
It was certainly well entren
India at the end of the 15th
amazed fascination. Its rise
endurance through centmie:
establishment of an effectiv
strate the vital need to
historical context, if their .....
No marriage system devel
lives. Among the Nayar tht
sponsibility for the econom
children. That made it possi
men to be gone on military
to accept the legitimacy of
bands, each of whom migh'
each of whom might on his
could go to another of then
entertaining another of her
stances of being a heredita
system, and to sustain it. 11
Nayar aristocracy held from
of rules for marriage, prope
min overlords, the ones wh
They needed different rules
the same time, as member:
political and economic syst'
Today (1976), they were in
that to look at either cultiv
band's relationship with his wife. Still even the Nayar anticipated that the
publicly acknowledged father of a child would take an affectionate interest
in it. When the specific political and social circumstances which had led to
deemphasizing the husband-father's role changed during the 19th century,
that affectionate interest proved so strong that the whole property-holding,
marriage, and inheritance system was overturned. Both men and women
evidently wanted to be able to treat their spouses as primary partners in
raising the children born to them. They clearly did not want to have men
continue to be torn between their duty to their sisters' children and their
concern for their own, to the distress of women whose own husbands could
do little to help them if a brother started giving more to a wife's children
than to his nieces and nephews.
The Nayar system stressed the role of a woman's eldest living brother,
who remained at home to manage the family property, over the role of her
soldier husband (usually a younger son of some other family) who might
be lost in battle. It may date as far back as the wars that accompanied the
decline of the great Chola'empire in southern India in the 12th century A.D.
It was certainly well entrenched by the time Europeans reached southern
India at the end of the 15th century, for they soon began to describe it, in
amazed fascination. Its rise in an era of frequent and bloody conflict, its
endurance through centuries of continuing strife, and its overturn after the
establishment of an effective peacekeeping central government all demon-
strate the vital need to look at marriage systems in their larger social and
historical context, if their workings are to be understood in full.
No marriage system develops in isolation from other elements in people's
lives. Among the Nayar the eldest brother who stayed home took all re-
sponsibility for the economic maintenance of the nonfighting women and
children. That made it possible for the husband to take none, and for most
men to be gone on military service most of the time. It also made it possible
to accept the legitimacy of marriages between a woman and several hus-
bands, each of whom might spend his military leave in her company, and
each of whom might on his side be wed to several women. In that way he
could go to another of them if the wife he chose to go to first was already
entertaining another of her husbands. However, it took the special circum-
stances of being a hereditary military group to lead to such a marriage
system, and to sustain it. The cultivators who grew the crops on lands the
Nayar aristocracy held from their Brahmin overlords had very different sets
of rules for marriage, property-holding, and inheritance. So did those Brah-
min overlords, the ones who relied on the Nayar men to fight their wars.
They needed different rules, even though they lived in the same region, at
the same time, as members of the same society, and in the same larger
political and economic system. As C. J. Fuller makes clear in The Nayars
Today (1976), they were in different political and social circumstances, so
that to look at either cultivator or Nayar or Brahmin in central Kerala In
History of Marriage Systems
rdinarily hope it will be ex-
children. For most people in
:n the primary economic sup-
remain a primary psycho-
inS in all societies.
property may be transmitted
ype is conferred or confirmed.
tatuses of wife and husband,
any societies as necessary to
. Some anthropologists, like
2te (1980), even suggest that
nan male to a specific human
man beings' differences from
social theorist
m, and Interaction Process
d to have-that their society
ons states that a child must
other to a sense of self-and-
:f-and-kin-beyond-parents as
-kin as a fourth one, in order
into which it is born. That
, to be reinforced at the time
ance between those who are
those who will only become
themselves as kin until the.
and disadvantages of having
are likely to be thoroughly
)f a specific man to a specific
societies. Through marriage,
1 a man and a woman who
:hus helps to define descent,
nks one man and one woman
woman in polygyny, or one
In some societies a man may
liding for his sister's children
ren, while his wife similarly
r children than her husband
1C0urage the husband-father
Ir caste of pre-19th-century
property-holding, marriage,
ample of stressing the wife's
and deemphasizing the hus-
Marriage Rules, Kinship Rules, and Socioeconomic Conditions 3

EXHIBIT 6
THE STRUGGLE FOR
SAME- SEX MARRI AGE
Norval
r ~c u e heated debates about same-sex marriage are fo-
sed largely on the probable social effects of same-
sex marriage, civil unions, and similar legal recogni-
tions of homosexual pairings. My concern here is with
a related but distinctly different topic, namely, what will
be (and already have been) the social consequences of
the political struggle for same-sex marriage. The ulti-
mate effects depend in large measure on the outcome of
the struggle, of course, but they also depend on such prop-
erties of the battle as its duration and the specific forms it
takes. There may be unintended casualties and/or benefits,
and some participants in the struggle admit to goals other
than attainment or prevention of same-sex marriage. To-
gether, these possible consequences are what ! call side
effects. I lack certain knowledge about what these gen-
erally undiscussed and unrecognized possible effects may
be, but I fear they are largely negative. More optimisti-
cally, I think they may be largely avoidable.
The main stated concern of opponents to same-sex
marriage and other legal recognitions of same-sex pair-
ings is likely harm to the institution of marriage. Al-
though it may be possible to open marriage to same-sex
couples without harming the institution, there are clear
dangers to marriage in the political and ideological con-
flict about same-sex marriage. These lie in a blurring of
the distinction between high and low commitment rela-
tionships, in a blurring of the distinction between mar-
riage as an institution and mere "close relationships,"
and in a politically motivated denial of the value of
fathers for the socialization, development, and well be-
ing of children. It also seems likely that the debate about
same-sex relationships will lead to a re-evaluation of
some aspects of the privileging of marriage over other
care-giving relationships-a development that, while ar-
guably overdue, poses risks for marriage.
Considerable blurring of the distinction between high
and low commitment relationships has already occurred
in the United States, and it has occurred to a greater
extent in several other countries. In the U. S., a good
many private companies and municipalities have given
insurance and similar benefits to the "domestic part-
D. Glenn
ners" of their employees. Although inauguration of these
benefits was in response to the gay rights movement,
they are often extended to cohabiting heterosexual part-
ners as well as to partners of homosexual employees.
There have apparently been two major reasons for the
inclusion of heterosexuals, first, to broaden the base of
support for the benefits, and second, to avoid legal chal-
lenge on the grounds of sex discrimination. Whatever
the reasons, an effect of the inclusion of heterosexuals
has been to extend some of the rights previously re-
served for married persons to those who are not willing
to marry and assume the responsibilities of marriage.
Whereas traditionally major social statuses have carried
both rights and responsibilities, which have been inex-
tricably linked, heterosexual domestic partnerships give
rights and perquisites without attendant responsibilities.
For instance, they often provide or partially pay for
medical insurance for partners even though the employ-
ees have no legal obligation to pay the partners' medical
bills. The same is true of homosexual domestic partner-
ships although gay and lesbian couples who would marry
if they could--and thus take on the risks, financial and
otherwise, that marriage entails--can hardly be blamed
for taking advantage of a one-sided arrangement. How-
ever, domestic partnerships allow many homosexual couples
who are not highly committed to one another, and who
would not take on the responsibilities and risks of mar-
riage if they could, to gain benefits previously reserved
for married couples. The destructive consequences for
marriage, and for society as a whole, seem rather obvious,
though they have rarely been discussed.
Consider that the family codes in all 50 states impose
on spouses some kind of obligation to provide financial
support to one another, often including specific obliga-
tions to support a spouse who cannot support himself or
herself. These obligations are somewhat less binding in
the present era of unilateral no-fault divorce than they
once were, but there are still strong social pressures
against abandoning a sick or disabled spouse. Although
not usually codified in family law, there are also strong
social obligations to provide physical care to spouses
THE STRUGGLE FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE 25
who need it. Thus, husbands and wives do a great deal
for one another to prevent either from becoming a bur-
den on society. Even deceased spouses usually leave
property and/or pension benefits that help keep the sur-
viving spouse from being dependent on the public cof-
fers. In return for the obligations spouses discharge vis
avis one another, they are granted, among other things,
spousal benefits from employers. Even when the cost
is paid by private employers, it is ultimately borne by
the public via the cost of goods and services. Thus spou-
sal employee benefits and spousal property rights are
an important part of an intricate web of costs and re-
wards that are expressions of the social contract. They
may exist largely for the benefit of children, but they
also provide for the care of adults.
Except in six states and the District of Columbia,
domestic partnerships in the United States are private
arrangements between employers and employees. In sev-
eral other modern societies, domestic partnerships and
similar arrangements are legally recognized statuses,
usually open to both homosexual and heterosexual
couples. However, their effects on marriage may be
less than in the United States. In many of those societ-
ies, the benefits attached to employment in the United
States are provided by the state and depend on neither
employment nor marital status. Furthermore, in some
of those countries so many other influences have tended
to blur the distinction between marriage and relationships
of low commitment that the effects on marriage of do-
mestic partnerships and similar state recognized pair-
ings may be largely superfluous.
The blurring of the distinction between marriage as
an institution and mere "close relationships" is also well
underway, largely for reasons unrelated to the political
struggle for same-sex marriage. This change has been
ratified (and according to some critics has been aided
and abetted) by the emergence of the academic spe-
cialty of "close personal relationships," which includes
marital relationships but gives little attention to the in-
stitutional aspects of marriage. This development in
modern societies has been associated with the emer-
gence (especially in the United States) of an extreme
form of the conjugal family system, in which marriage
is the central relationship in the family system, and the
socially approved purposes of marriage have become
personal and "hedonistic", as opposed to communalistic
and for the benefit of the extended family. This devel-
opment is reflected in the operational definition of
marital success in terms of the happiness and satisfac-
tion of the married persons.
The roots of this change go back for at least a couple
of centuries, well before the possibility of same-sex
marriage was contemplated by most observers of the
family. However, acceptance of the arguments made
by some advocates of same-sex marriage would bring
this trend to its logical conclusion, namely, the defini-
tion of marriage as being for the benefit of those who
enter into it rather than as an institution for the benefit
of society, the community, or any social entity larger
than the couple. A common recent argument has been
that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry in
recognition of the fact that they have "loving relation-
ships", the operational definition of loving relationships
being long-term sexual relationships. Historically, how-
ever, heterosexual marriage has very rarely been con-
sidered a reward for entering into mutually gratifying
relationships. Rather, it has been a condition for the
social recognition of such relationships, one imposed
for the purpose of regulation of sexual activity and pro-
vision for offspring that may result from it. To be sure,
persons have been given esteem and social approval for
entering into a socially recognized status, and these re-
wards have provided motivation for marrying, but the
social purpose of marriage has usually not been in doubt.
Current conditions are historically unique, of course,
including an unprecedented separation of sexual activ-
ity from reproduction. Sexual relations among unmar-
ried persons are now common and are not widely or
severely stigmatized. For many if not most adult mem-
bers of modern societies, marriage is not a condition for
the establishment of sexual relationships. Whether the lift-
ing of the stigma once associated with nonmarital sex is
good or bad is a matter of values and is the focus of
much disagreement, at least in the United States. What-
ever position one takes on this issue, however, it does not
logically support the argument that attainment of an on-
going sexual relationship should, in itself, be the basis for
social rights and privileges. Rather, the very separation of
sex from reproduction that is often given as a reason for
the restructuring of modern families undermines the
argument that almost any ongoing consensual adult
sexual relationship deserves to be socially privileged.
Another argument frequently advanced in support
of same-sex marriage as well as the joint adoption of
children by same-sex couples is that the gender of par-
ents does not matter, that two parents of the same sex can,
all else being equal, parent as effectively as two opposite-
sex parents. "Dozens of studies of same-sex parenting"
allegedly provide evidence for this conclusion.
There h a v e been dozens of studies of same-sex
parenting, but this body of research leaves open the
question about the relative efficacy of same-sex and
opposite-sex parenting. The most frequent criticism
made of the studies is that they all have used small
convenience samples that may not be representative of
all same-sex parents and their children, and that is an
26 SOCIETY | 9 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004
important limitation. More important for the issue at
hand, however, is that the studies have not used large
and carefully matched comparison groups of parents
and children in intact heterosexual families. The quite
valid argument made by the researchers is that since
most children living with same-sex parents have expe-
rienced a parental divorce, for the purpose of assessing
the effects of living in a [almost always] lesbian house-
hold, the appropriate comparison group is other chil-
dren of divorce and their parents. Although that argu-
ment is valid, the resulting research fails to cast light
on the same-sex-opposite-sex parenting issue.
The research that would provide relevant evidence
has not been done, and, because it would be expensive
and difficult, is not likely soon to be done. It would
require a large and representative sample of same-sex
parents in intact relationships and children with whom
both parents bonded while the children were infants.
The results might be different for male and female same-
sex parents, and thus a large number of parents of both
genders would be required. Only this kind of research,
which would include a large and representative com-
parison sample of heterosexual parents and their bio-
logical or adopted-in-infancy children, could come close
to separating the effects of parental gender from the
effects of such influences as parental divorce, a deficit
of parental resources in single-parent families, and the
frequent stresses and strains of step-family relationships.
The absence of this needed evidence also means of
course that there is no conclusive evidence about the
importance of both a father and a mother for child de-
velopment and well-being. However, there are strong
theoretical reasons for believing that both fathers and
mothers are important, and the huge amount of evi-
dence of relatively poor average outcomes among fa-
therless children makes it seem unlikely that these out-
comes are solely the result of the correlates of
fatherlessness and not of fatherlessness itself.
It would be unfortunate if the question about the
importance of opposite-sex parents were to be closed
prematurely in the absence of solid evidence. That may
well happen, though, due to the political struggle for
same-sex marriage. Given the widespread support for
same-sex marriage among social and behavioral scien-
tists, it is becoming politically incorrect in academic
circles even to suggest that arguments being used in
support of same-sex marriage might be wrong. There
already seems to be some reluctance on the part of re-
searchers and scholars to address issues concerning
fatherlessness and the relative merits of same-sex and
opposite-sex parenting.
The debate about same-sex marriage has raised is-
sues concerning why married and unmarried persons
are treated differently by employers and under the law.
Some of this questioning has come from conservatives
as well as from unmarried adults who feel they are
treated unfairly. For instance, Marvin Olasky, a Chris-
tian conservative, has asked why caring relationships
between persons who have a sexual relationship should
be privileged over, say, siblings who care for one an-
other, or over a caring relationship between a son or
daughter and an elderly parent. Unmarried adults who
take the position that the total compensation package for
married and unmarried employees should be the same have
been emboldened by the same-sex marriage debate to
reassert their position. As Shari Motro put it in a recent
Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, "Advocates for
gay marriage have exposed a huge blind spot: married-
only benefits also discriminate against America' s 86
million unmarried adults...." According to this line of
reasoning, allowing homosexuals to marry would serve
only a small proportion of the victims of marital ad-
vantage; thus the best way to eliminate discrimination
against gays would be to abolish the privileges of mar-
riage. As the battle for same-sex marriage continues,
advocates of this view are likely to become more vocal.
For reasons I discuss above, I think the assault on
spousal benefits is generally ill-advised; those who take
on the risks and responsibilities of marriage serve so-
cial ends and deserve support in doing so. If the struggle
for gay marriage should lead to any substantial reduc-
tion in such benefits, that would be an unfortunate side
effect. On the other hand, Olasky' s point that there are
nonmarital care-giving relationships that deserve so-
cial support is well taken. It would be difficult to argue
against privileging those relationships if that could be
done without substantially reducing the social rewards
of marriage. Furthermore, critics of marital privilege
are correct in pointing out that pre-nuptial agreements
now allow some married persons to avoid some of the
major risks and responsibilities that marriage normally
entails. Indeed, pre-nuptial agreements have contributed
to the blurting of the distinction between high and low
commitment relationships and are themselves a threat to
the institution of marriage--perhaps as much so as do-
mestic partnerships. However, this threat calls for restric-
tions on pre-nuptial agreements, or the withholding of
spousal benefits from couples with such agreements,
rather than a general reduction in spousal benefits.
Given all of the possible detrimental side effects of
the conflict about same-sex marriage, a reasonable po-
sition for the defenders of marriage might seem to be
that the sooner same-sex marriage is instituted and the
conflict is ended, the better. A good many centrists and
some conservatives have taken that position. They ad-
vocate a quick legitimating of same-sex marriage along
THE STRUGGLE FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE 27
wi t h el i mi nat i on of domest i c part nershi ps and ot her
hal fway measures to recognize same-sex relationships.
These persons want to open the door to what t hey as-
sume is a small percentage of homosexual s willing to
take on the risks and responsibilities of marri age and to
deny social recogni t i on and special rights and privi-
leges to couples, homosexual or heterosexual, wi t h mere
"enduri ng sexual relationships."
The reasoni ng behind this position mi ght seem un-
assailable, except for one thing: a qui ck l egi t i mat i ng of
same-sex marriage is not goi ng to happen. The redefi-
nition of marri age as including both het erosexual and
homosexual pairings is too radical, fl yi ng in the face of
thousands of years of tradition, and religious and moral
objections to same- sex marriage are too widespread, at
least in the Uni t ed States, for this resolution of the po-
litical struggle to be possible. The confl i ct will not soon
end, what ever the ultimate out come may be. Mi ni mi z-
ing negat i ve side effect s must be by cont rol l i ng the
nature of the struggle, not by qui ckl y endi ng it.
In warfare bet ween nations, there is a l ong tradition
of the combat ant s agreeing to certain rules of engage-
ment in order to avoi d unnecessary "col l at eral dam-
age, " such as civilian casualties. Perhaps it is not unre-
alistic to hope that the part i ci pant s in the same- sex
marriage "war " can be persuaded to wage their battles
in such a way as to avoid unnecessary collateral dam-
age to the institution of marriage. Although some advo-
cates of same-sex marriage may wish to weaken marriage
by stripping it of its institutional trappings, many want to
keep the institution strong and robust, and virtually all
opponents of same-sex marriage see t hemsel ves as de-
fenders of marriage. Those on each side of the debate
who value marri age as an institution could and shoul d
take certain steps to help protect marriage. I turn first
to what the advocates should do.
The position that any couple in a "l ovi ng relation-
ship" deserves the rights, protections, and privileges of
marri age shoul d be abandoned, not onl y because its
acceptance woul d harm marriage but because in the l ong
run it is unl i kel y to be useful to same-sex marri age
advocates. Accept ance of this position is i ndeed step-
ping out on the "slippery slope" discussed by such op-
ponents of same-sex marri age as Wi l l i am Bennett, Use
of the l ovi ng-rel at i onshi p ar gument makes same-sex
marriage advocates seem more radical t han t hey need
to be to make their case.
Those advocat es shoul d also make clear t hat t hey
are willing to dismantle all existing domest i c partner-
ship arrangement s in exchange for the right of homo-
sexuals to marry or enter civil uni ons, even t hough in
this exchange the aggregat e-l evel gain in benefi t s to
same-sex couples mi ght be rather small.
The most i mport ant step that same-sex marri age ad-
vocat es coul d t ake to avoi d har m to marri age woul d
probabl y be to stop cl ai mi ng that fathers are not im-
port ant for the devel opment and wel fare of children.
Al t hough this cl ai m has some political ut i l i t y to same-
sex marri age advocat es, it is not essential to their case.
Legi t i mat i ng of same-sex marri age woul d have a small
effect , at most , on the percent age of fat herl ess chil-
dren, and there is no precedent for prohibiting a f ami l y
arrangement because it creates less t han ideal condi -
tions for children. Havi ng two parents of the same gen-
der may not be ideal for children, but it shoul d be bet-
ter than havi ng onl y one parent, and chi l dren wi t h onl y
one parent are much more numerous t han children wi t h
same-sex parents are ever l i kel y to be. Most children
living wi t h same-sex parents are in st ep-fami l y situa-
tions, and there is no evi dence that homosexual step-
fami l i es are worse for children t han het erosexual step-
fami l i es, whi ch are known to be general l y less t han
ideal and are much more numerous t han homosexual
step-families. The bot t om line is t hat same-sex mar-
riage advocates gai n little from the fathers-are-not-im-
portant argument but risk harmi ng marriage, and chil-
dren, by maki ng it.
In vi ew of the fact that the overri di ng concern of
most opponent s of same-sex marri age seems to be the
"def ense of marri age, " it mi ght seem unnecessary to
give advice to t hose persons about how to avoi d harm
to marriage. However, the vi ew of some opponent s that
"al l is l ost " i f same-sex marri age is adopt ed mi ght be
harmful to marri age in the l ong run. I f the onl y thing
that matters is prevent i ng same-sex marriage, t hen little
or no at t ent i on will be gi ven to mi ni mi zi ng har m to
marri age in case same-sex marri age comes about. Uni-
versal adopt i on of same-sex mar r i age in the Uni t ed
States is not inevitable, but it is likely, gi ven the trends
in other modem societies and the fact that young Ameri -
cans are more receptive to same-sex marri age t han older
ones. Even the most adamant opponent s of legal recog-
ni t i on of homosexual pairings shoul d consi der "what
i f. " I f same-sex marri age does come about, what is the
best way for the change to happen? How can the insti-
tutional aspects of marri age be preserved as the redefi-
nition of marri age occurs? These and similar questions
should be entertained by persons who oppose same-sex
marriage, say for religious reasons, even as t hey stiffen
their opposition.
Norval D. Glenn is Ashbel Smith Professor of Sociology and
Stiles Professor of Ameri can Studies at the University of
Texas at Austin where he teaches courses on the f ami l y and
survey research methods. Glenn is also research director of
the Council on Families at the Institute f or American Values.
28 SOCIETY | 9 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004

EXHIBIT 7

AN ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE LAWS
DOUGLAS W. ALLEN
*

This Article argues that marriage is an economically efficient
institution, designed and evolved to regulate incentive prob-
lems that arise between a man and a woman over the life cycle
of procreation. As such, its social and legal characteristics will
provide a poor match for the incentive problems that arise in
the two distinctly different relationships of gay and lesbian
couples. Forcing all three relationships to be covered by the
same law will lead to a sub-optimal law for all three types of
marriage.
I. INTRODUCTION
Marriage is a word familiar to toddlers, and yet so compli-
cated that most adults cannot articulate its real meaning.
1
Mar-
riage is an institution.
2
It is a complex set of personal values,
social norms, religious customs, and legal constraints that regu-

* Burnaby Mountain Professor, Simon Fraser University. Thanks to Leigh
Anderson, Dean Lueck, and the participants of the Federalism and the Law of
Marriage conference, Harvard Law School, August 2005, for their comments.
1. This is hardly a failure of those attempting to defend marriage:
Many of the institutions of society which are indispensable conditions for
the successful pursuit of our conscious aims are in fact the result of
customs, habits or practices which have been neither invented nor are
observed with any such purpose in view. We live in a society in which we
can successfully orientate ourselves . . . because [we] are also confined by
rules whose purpose or origin we often do not know and of whose very
existence we are often not aware.
1 F.A. HAYEK, LAW, LEGISLATION AND LIBERTY, RULES AND ORDER 11 (1973).
2. Douglass North defines institutions as the humanly devised constraints that
shape human interaction. DOUGLASS NORTH, INSTITUTIONS, INSTITUTIONAL
CHANGE, AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE 3 (1990). Economists often mischaracter-
ize marriage by calling it a contract. Although there are contractual aspects to
marriage, its details go well beyond this description.

950 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Vol. 29
late a particular intimate human relation over a life span.
3

Families are organized around marriage, and marriage pro-
vides benefits to families in terms of survival and success. The
source of these benefits springs from the incentives created by
the rich fabric of characteristics laced throughout the formal
and informal marital rules. Social norms on personal sacrifice
within the context of marriage encourage husbands and wives
to devote their lives and resources to each other and their chil-
dren. Signaling, self-binding commitments, and third-party
sanctions (to name a few) are part of the marriage incentives
that encourage socially good behavior and punish socially bad
behavior, which incentives are necessary because both hus-
bands and wives often have private incentives at odds with the
interests of the community and other family members.
Marriage has never been a static, monolithic institution. Over
time, the roles of men and women within marriage have
changed. Social views on multiple wives, interracial relations,
and divorce have changed. Legal rules regulating everything
from the treatment of children and division of property to the
grounds for divorce have changed. Yet certain elements of the
institution of marriage have remained relatively constant for
centuries.
4
For instance, marriage has always entailed more
than a mere contract. Marriage involves not just a couple, but
extended family members, non-blood relations, and impersonal
third parties like the church, state, or tribe. Marriage has al-
ways required an intention for a life-long commitment. Mar-
riage has always contained the expectation of fertility.
Marriage has always been prohibited between siblings. Of
course, until very recently, marriage was available only to het-
erosexual couples.
5
This Article argues that the best explana-

3. The general public commonly thinks of marriage as a creation of the state. As
an institution, however, marriage is larger than and existed prior to the state even
though state regulation is now part of marriage.
4. Throughout this Article marriage means western marriage. Exceptions to
the marriage definition can be found for any definition of marriage within some
small tribe in a remote location or ancient time. As argued below, these types of
marriages can be ignored because they do not survive or are unsuccessful in
generating large populations. See infra notes 2021 and accompanying text.
5. Polygamy, though exceedingly rare, stands as an exception. It was, however,
always heterosexual. Although marriage as an institution has had these constant
characteristics, individual exceptions have existed when they have imposed no
social costs. The two obvious ones are ex post infertile marriages and marriage by
those beyond childbearing years.

No. 3] Economic Assessment of Same-Sex Marriage Laws 951
tion for the evolution of some marriage characteristics while
others do not change is that marriage is an institution uniquely
equipped to handle incentive problems between a man and a
woman over their full life cycle.
6

To some people, the idea of same-sex marriage is a funda-
mental departure from other marital changes, while for others,
it is a natural extension of changes begun long ago. Thus,
where same-sex marriage begins is a matter of debate. Some
proponents go back to the Old Testament relationship of David
and Jonathan. Others start with the Enlightenment concept of
freedom of choice in spouse, and the radical idea of the pursuit
of happiness in marriage.
7
Still others start with legal changes.
Holland, followed by Belgium and Canada, became the first
modern nation to legalize same-sex marriages at the turn of
this century.
8
Other jurisdictions (including, for example, Scan-
dinavian countries, Vermont, and California) have developed
various types of registered civil unions that recognize and give
partial marital rights to same-sex couples, and these often oc-
curred before the current court decisions and legislation on
same-sex marriage.
9

6. Although solving incentive problems is the core of marriage, this has never
prevented societies from using the institution of marriage as a platform to accom-
plish other goals. Historically, marriage has been used to connect kin groups for
trade and political stability, improve legitimacy over claims of inheritance, and
provide life and old-age social insurance. These latter functions, however, were
never the reasons for marriage. Rather, marriage supported these services in a
world where states and other third-party enforcement mechanisms were weak.
When these services were separated from marriage over the past two hundred
years, marriage continued to exist.
7. See STEPHANIE COONTZ, MARRIAGE, A HISTORY 7 (2005). Although same-sex
marriage is a small part of her thesis, she views its modern version as a logical
conclusion of the premise that marriage is grounded in love.
8. Dutch Legislators Approve Full Marriage Rights for Gays, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 13,
2000, at A4; Marlise Simons, World Briefing Europe: Belgium: Parliament Approves
Gay Marriages, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 31, 2003, at A6. The first Canadian same-sex
marriages took place on January 14, 2001 at the Metropolitan Community Church
of Toronto. Debra Black, Lesbians Hope Walk up Aisle Will Pave Way for Legal
Marriage, TORONTO STAR, Jan. 14, 2001, at A7. These became the basis of a legal
challenge that ended at the Ontario Court of Appeal on June 10, 2003. Halpern v.
Toronto (City), [2003] O.A.C. 276 (Can.). Many Canadian same-sex supporters
thus date the arrival of same-sex marriage at the date of the marriages, which
makes Canada the first country to adopt same-sex marriage laws.
9. See Stanley Kurtz, Slipping Toward Scandinavia, NATL REV. ONLINE, Feb. 2, 2004,
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402020917.asp; Carey Goldberg, In
Vermont, Gay Couples Head for the Almost-Altar, N.Y. TIMES, July 2, 2000, 1, at 10;


The ultimate political fate of same-sex marriage, what form it
takes, and how it relates to traditional marriage are still unde-
termined issues. An enormous debate continues over the issue
of same-sex marriage, even in countries where the basic prem-
ise has been accepted, like Canada, where the government
passed formal legislation changing the legal definition of mar-
riage in the summer of 2005.
10
Within this context, the pressure
to change laws in the United States, where more than thirty
states have passed some type of Defense of Marriage Act,
including in some cases constitutional amendments that pro-
hibit same-sex marriage,
11
will only increase.
This pressure makes a debate over the nature of marriage
necessary. Such a debate is made difficult, however, because of
legal inertia, public and academic exhaustion, and its place
within a larger debate over questions of divorce, marriage
regulations, and the entire existence of family law. Many argue
for a return to traditional covenant-based marriage, with diffi-
cult exit and entry provisions, while others argue that the con-
cept of marriage should either be eliminated or expanded to
include virtually all combinations of human quasi-familial rela-
tionships under the general legal regulation of contract law.
The arguments for same-sex marriage are now quite familiar.
Couched in language of civil or human rights, they essentially
evolve around constitutional definitions of equality, and inter-
pretations of universal promises of civil rights for all citizens.
12

Same-sex relations are the same as heterosexual relations, the
argument goes, and therefore should be regulated in the same
way. In this context, the same usually means that both types

Jennifer Warren, Bill Expanding Domestic Partners Rights Signed, L.A. TIMES, Oct. 15,
2001, pt. 2, at 6.
10. Civil Marriage Act, 2005 S.C., ch. 33 (Can.); Daniel Girard, Gay Marriage Fight
Over, TORONTO STAR, July 13, 2005, at A12.
11. Heritage Found., Marriage in the 50 States, http://www.heritage.org/
Research/Family/Marriage50/Marriage50States.cfm (last visited Mar. 17, 2006).
12. All citizens, interestingly enough, does not include polygamists.
Polygamy is considered immoral by same-sex proponents, no doubt because they
have in mind exploitive historical and modern examples where young women are
involuntarily matched with older men. See Joe Rollins, Same-Sex Unions and the
Spectacles of Recognition, 39 LAW & SOCY REV. 457, 462 (2005) (critiquing the
aligning [of] homosexuality with abominations such as incest, bestiality, and
polygamy). This, however, ignores the advocates of more modern polyamorous
relations that claim triadic matches are more equitable than dyadic ones.

of relationships are based on love.
13
Beyond this argument, the
case is made that marriage is always changing and same-sex
marriage is a natural evolution in the law. Marriage is an insti-
tution providing social benefits to loving couples and this ad-
vantageous arrangement should be extended to other loving
couples. More marriage will strengthen marriage as an institu-
tion. And finally, in light of the benefits, the costs of extending
the franchise of marriage should be trivial since the fraction of
homosexuals in the population is small.
The arguments against same-sex marriage are also well
known. There are faith-based arguments (homosexuality is a
sin and should not be promoted by the state) and slippery
slope arguments (if same-sex marriage, then why not polyg-
amy, incest, and pedophilic marriages?).
14
Some arguments
build upon the premise that marriage is defined as dual-
gendered, that the ability to have children defines marriage, or
that children have the legal right to be raised in a traditional
family. A final brand of argument tends to focus on the impor-
tance of marriage in terms of procreation, and the value mar-
riage has in providing incentives for generating human capital
in the next generation.
What all of the arguments, both for and against, have in com-
mon is that they are unacceptable to the other side. The heated
rhetoric of the debate tends to be quite remarkable, with sting-
ing words regularly slung from both sides.
This Article provides an economic assessment of same-sex
marriage that opponents will no doubt accept, but which
should also cause proponents to pause. The economic case
against same-sex marriage, based on new institutional ideas, is
that it is likely a bad idea for both heterosexual and homosex-
ual couples. The argument is rooted in the contracting problems
involved in procreation; however, unlike other arguments, this
argument focuses on the economic role of marriage, the nature

13. Arguments in favor of same-sex marriage often attack the issue of
procreation, noting that elderly couples and infertile couples are allowed to
marry.
14. Proponents of same-sex marriage are quite dismissive of these arguments.
See, e.g., EVAN WOLFSON, WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS: AMERICA, EQUALITY, AND
GAY PEOPLES RIGHT TO MARRY 71 (2004) (Slippery-slope diversions are what
opponents of equality try when they dont have a good reason to justify ongoing
discrimination, the equivalent of a lawyer with no arguments and no evidence
pounding the table.).

of the institutional constraints, and the interaction between legal
rules and behavior. This Article argues that the institutional de-
tails of marriage are designed with specific purposes in mind,
and that these purposes generally have little to do with homo-
sexual relations. The fundamental point of this Article is that
when different human relationships fall under a one size fits
all law, the result is a bad fit for everyone.
15
Alterations to het-
erosexual institutions resulting from contracting problems aris-
ing in homosexual relations will have profound effects on
heterosexual marriage, and heterosexual pressures on marriage
law will likely be inappropriate for homosexual couples.
The problem with having a set of laws that does not provide
a good fit for the couple is the ultimate effect such laws will
have on children. Marriage stability is often sensitive to
changes in the law, with greater divorce rates a common out-
come. The effects of divorce are often ambiguous on the hus-
band and wife, but for children they are mostly negative.
16

Arguing that marriage is efficiently designed to have children
raised by both biological parents, and that tampering with this
design can lead to dire consequences, might appear as nothing
more than theoretical hot air. Proponents of same-sex marriage,
however, use the same arguments and marriage models em-
ployed by no-fault divorce reformers. After discussing the
theoretical issues of same sex marriage, this Article briefly ex-
amines the history and effects of no-fault divorce. The purpose
of this exercise is to point out that first, the same love-based
view of marriage was used in the earlier debate; second, no
harmful or surprising outcomes were expected; and third, the
eventual reality was exactly the opposite. The no-fault divorce
experience serves to discredit the theory that marriage is based
on loving relationships, but supports the theory that mar-
riage is an institution designed around procreation. In this
sense the discussion provides evidence in favor of my argu-
ment against same-sex marriage.

15. This argument is briefly made in Frank Buckley, Marriage and Homosexuals,
in IT TAKES TWO: THE FAMILY IN LAW AND FINANCE 102, 104 (Douglas W. Allen &
John Richards eds., 1999).
16. Since the introduction of no-fault divorce laws, many argued a priori that
divorce might be good for children. Empirically, this has not been the case on
average. See Donald Moir, A New Class of Disadvantaged Children, in IT TAKES TWO:
THE FAMILY IN LAW AND FINANCE, supra note 15, at 63, 6768.

II. AN ECONOMIC EXPLANATION OF MARRIAGE
A. Institutions and Efficiency
Institutions do not come into existence ex nihilo. Institutions
result from intentional actions on the part of collections of hu-
mans for the purpose of achieving some objective. How institu-
tions are achieved, how they evolve, and what effects they
have on behavior are the subject matter of the field called new
institutional economics (NIE).
17
This body of economic theory
has the general hypothesis that institutions are designed to
maximize wealth, net of the costs of establishing and maintain-
ing these organizations.
18
Although economists generally see
individuals coming together for cooperative exchange and
production as generating much more wealth (broadly defined)
than they could on their own, such cooperation also enables
people to take advantage of one another or behave opportunis-
tically. For example, employees shirk their duties, people write
bad checks, spouses commit adultery, and so on. To mitigate
these opportunistic behaviors, successful societies create insti-
tutions that constrain private incentives. These institutions are
wide ranging, and at a general level include firms, families,
laws, customs, and governments. Within each of these there are
vast arrays of rules and norms to regulate opportunistic behav-
ior at the relevant level. When societies were successful in
adopting the optimal rules for their particular circumstances,
they tended to outperform other societies. Eventually, only
those societies with optimal rules survive.
19

17. For an early articulation of the main ideas in this field, see THRAINN
EGGERTSSON, ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR AND INSTITUTIONS 56 (1990) and NORTH,
supra note 2. Their work is fundamentally based on Ronald Coase, The Problem of
Social Cost, 3 J.L. & ECON. 1 (1960). Hayek articulates a theory of institutions that
significantly overlaps the arguments of the later writers. Hayek would take issue
with the claim that institutions are designed; he would claim they result from
human actions, accidental or otherwise. Still, he would fully support the idea that
efficient institutions tend to survive. See generally HAYEK, supra note 1.
18. These costs are an example of transaction costs. See Coase, supra note 17, at
15 (describing how these costs influence the design of the law). For a brief
introduction to the subject of transaction costs, see Douglas W. Allen, No-Fault
Divorce and the Divorce Rate, in IT TAKES TWO: THE FAMILY IN LAW AND FINANCE,
supra note 15, at 1, 18. In maximizing wealth net of transaction costs economists
refer to institutions being efficient in the second best sense.
19. See Armen A. Alchian, Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory, 58 J. POL.
ECON. 211, 21314 (1950) (stating the classic articulation that efficient institutions
survive, while inefficient ones die out). Economists, over the past forty years, have


How institutions actually come into being is irrelevant to the
question of efficiency. Intentions do not matter; whether con-
structed in order to achieve a specific goal or developing by
chance, only optimal institutions survive in the competitive
world of social interactions. The implication is that surviving,
or long-lasting, institutions are economically efficient.
20
In the
context of marriageperhaps the oldest institutionthe sur-
vival criteria are quite obvious. Societies incapable of replicat-
ing themselves in numbers and quality relative to competing
societies simply die out or are taken over.
21
In dealing with the
legal regulation of marriage, courts and legislatures form laws
that either work well or do not in varying degree. Poorly de-
signed laws lead to lobbying efforts and appeals that result ei-
ther in successful regulation of marriage or in unsuccessful
marriages, which in turn lead to low fertility, low quality off-
spring, and ultimately a decline in the society. Either way, the
Darwinian conclusion is inevitable: the general institutions of
marriage we observe today are efficient, as they are the result
of centuries of evolution. It is not the purpose of this Article to
defend or develop this general hypothesis of NIE, but rather to
explain its implication for heterosexual marriage and the intro-
duction of same-sex couples to that franchise.

theoretically and empirically shown how institutions are important for economic
growth. See generally YORAM BARZEL, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
(2d ed. 1997) (analyzing the distributions of property rights); HERNANDO DE SOTO,
THE MYSTERY OF CAPITAL (2000) (describing economic development); DAVID D.
FRIEDMAN, LAWS ORDER (2000) (explaining efficiency in law); CLAUDE MENARD
& MARY M. SHIRLEY, HANDBOOK OF NEW INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS (2005)
(describing regulation, law, and governance); NORTH, supra note 2 (describing
economic development); RICHARD A. POSNER, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW (6th
ed. 2003) (explaining efficiency in law). Of course, how long it takes for inefficient
institutions to die out is a matter of debate, and any recent changes may or may
not be efficient.
20. Note that the social evolutionary argument for institutions only tells us that
long-lived institutions are efficient in that they have a survival characteristic. It
says nothing about current social changes, other than that we should be skeptical
of them in light of millennia of past different practices.
21. In her fascinating history of marriage, Coontz describes dozens of exotic
marriage types that have existed over time. COONTZ, supra note 7, at 2434. What
is striking, however, is how these arrangements only developed in isolation and
never generated significant populations. When these societies made contact with
others, they did not survive. No doubt there are many reasons for their failures,
but the point here is that their marriage institutions did not survive.

B. Marriage: An Efficient Institution
Starting with the idea that long-lasting institutions efficiently
regulate or constrain behavior, a question is presented: what is
being regulated in the context of marriage, and for what pur-
pose?
22
Many economists have concluded that marriage is pri-
marily (but not exclusively) designed to regulate procreative
behavior because the private incentives of men and women at
various points in their life cycles are often incompatible with
the social objectives of the marriage.
23

On the surface, this argument seems ridiculous. The alterna-
tive, that marriage is based fundamentally on love, seems more
reasonable. However, the love hypothesis is over- and under-
inclusive. Many people love one another in both sacrificial and
sexual ways (for example, cohabitants, polygamists, homo-
sexuals), but are not married. At the same time, there are love-
less marriages in which love, though once present, no longer
exists, and arranged marriages in which love is not present at
the beginning. Historically, love played almost no role in mar-
riage; matches were arranged between kinship groups.
24
Ulti-
mately, however, theories of marriage must be tested
empirically. As this Article argues, at least in the context of no-
fault divorce laws, evidence does not support the love-based
marriage hypothesis.
25

22. In NIE, wealth is defined broadly, so that raising successful children, if this
is the desire of the couple, is a form of wealth. To the non-economist, it may be
better to state the NIE hypothesis as marriage maximizes the family objectives
net of the costs of organizing. This hypothesis lies at the foundation of an
enormous body of empirical literature testing various hypotheses about marriage
and family life. See infra Part III.
23. See Lloyd R. Cohen, Rhetoric, The Unnatural Family, and Womens Work, 81 VA.
L. REV. 2275, 2290 (1995) (Marriage . . . is a marvelous invention. I say again, it is
not natural. Marriage is a cultural invention. It is designed to harness mens
energies to support the only offspring they may legitimately have, or are likely to
have, legitimately or otherwise, in a world in which marriage is the norm.).
24. See COONTZ, supra note 7, for a readable history of the recent view that
marriage is based on love.
25. There is a third, public choice theory of marriage: marriage is a means of
transferring wealth from individuals without children to those with legitimate
children. This theory predicts that the demand for same-sex marriage simply re-
flects the desire of homosexuals to capture these wealth transfers. This hypothesis,
however, is belied by the experience in Canada. Although the Canadian Supreme
Courts decision in M v. H, [1999] D.L.R. (4th) 577, afforded cohabiting and same-
sex couples all the benefits of marriage since 1999, the demand for same-sex mar-
riage has continued.

Another objection to the economic argument is that there are
heterosexual marriages without children, and elderly and infer-
tile couples are nonetheless allowed to marry. These cases,
however, do not affect the ex ante presumption that marriage
will be procreative, which, for reasons discussed below, re-
quires legitimate sex to take place within the marriage. That ex
post a couple remains childless does not challenge the pre-
sumption and intention of the institution. In addition, socially
encouraging all heterosexual intercourse to take place through
marriage ensures that procreative sex necessarily occurs there
as well.
26

In the context of marriage, the conflict between the private
and social incentives is often linked to the biology of procrea-
tion. For example, because women bear children at a young
age, they make large, family-specific investments early in their
lives. Such investments place them at risk of abandonment by
men who initially indicate commitment in exchange for sex.
But biology cuts both ways; because men seldom know the pa-
ternity of their children with certainty, a woman who mates
with a given man might be able to breed up by exchanging
sexual intercourse with a higher quality male, allowing the
original mate to raise the latters child unknowingly. These are
just two examples of how biology could create a conflict be-
tween private and social incentives. Rules restricting aban-
donment, punishing adultery, and restricting male-female
interactions are ways to mitigate these problems. In general,
though, marriage is designed to deal with the myriad issues
that arise between a husband and a wife, and to create incen-
tives to procreate and to invest in their offspring so that they
will be successful members of the next generation. An implica-
tion of this theory is that the optimal marriage rules have been
remarkably constant across time and cultures, because these
issues remain relatively constant across heterosexual couples.
27

26. This is the likely reason that societies have made alternative forms of sex
(bestiality, sodomy, fornication, adultery, incest, necrophilia) illegal.
27. It also explains the consistency in the evolution of marriage. Marriage has
changed over time, but these changes all take place within a procreative setting
and in response to changes in the transaction costs of marriage. See Douglas W.
Allen, Marriage as an Institution: A New Institutional Economic Approach (Aug.
2005) (unpublished manuscript, on file with author) (laying out many of these
conflicting incentives and pointing out how marriage rules mitigate or solve the
problems).

EXHIBIT 8
Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition
Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences
Institute for American Values
National Marriage Project
A Report from Family Scholars
T
HIS STATEMENT comes from a team of family scholars chaired by
W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia. The state-
ment is sponsored by the Center for Marriage and Families at
the Institute for American Values and the National Marriage Project at
the University of Virginia. The sponsors are grateful to The Lynde and
Harry Bradley Foundation, The William H. Donner Foundation, and
Fieldstead and Company for their generous support.
On the cover: Woman Writing List That
Binds Two Hearts by Bonnie Timmons.
Bonnie Timmons/The Image Bank/
Getty Images.
2011, Institute for American Values.
No reproduction of the materials con-
tained herein is permitted without the
written permission of the Institute for
American Values.
First edition published 2002. Second edi-
tion 2005. Third edition published 2011.
ISBN #978-1-931764-24-7
1841 Broadway, Suite 211
New York, NY 10023
Tel: (212) 246-3942
Fax: (212) 541-6665
Website: www.americanvalues.org
Email: info@americanvalues.org
Table of Contents
The Authors.............................................................................................
Introduction.............................................................................................
Five New Themes.............................................................................
A Word about Selection Effects........................................................
Our Fundamental Conclusions........................................................
The Thirty Conclusions: A Snapshot......................................................
The Thirty Conclusions...........................................................................
Family................................................................................................
Economics.........................................................................................
Physical Health and Longevity.........................................................
Mental Health and Emotional Well-Being........................................
Crime and Domestic Violence..........................................................
Conclusion...............................................................................................
Appendix: Figures...................................................................................
Endnotes..................................................................................................
4
6
7
9
11
12
14
14
23
28
33
37
42
44
47
Page 4
The Authors
W. BRADFORD WILCOX is associate professor of sociology and director of
the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.
JARED R. ANDERSON is assistant professor of marriage and family therapy
at Kansas State University.
WILLIAM DOHERTY is professor of family social science and director of
the Citizen Professional Center at the University of Minnesota.
DAVID EGGEBEEN is associate professor of human development and soci-
ology at Pennsylvania State University.
CHRISTOPHER G. ELLISON is the Deans Distinguished Professor of Social
Science at the University of Texas at San Antonio.
WILLIAM GALSTON is Ezra K. Zilkha Chair and Senior Fellow in
Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution.
NEIL GILBERT is Chernin Professor of Social Welfare and co-director of
the Center for Child and Youth Policy at the University of California at
Berkeley.
JOHN GOTTMAN is professor emeritus of psychology at the University of
Washington.
RON HASKINS is a senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program and co-
director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings
Institution, and a senior consultant at the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Page 5
ROBERT I. LERMAN is an institute fellow at the Urban Institute and pro-
fessor of economics at American University.
LINDA MALONE-COLN is chair of the Department of Psychology and
executive director of the National Center on African American Marriages
and Parenting at Hampton University.
LOREN MARKS holds the Kathryn Norwood and Claude Fussell Alumni
Professorship and is associate professor of family studies at Louisiana
State University.
ROB PALKOVITZ is professor of human development and family studies
at the University of Delaware.
DAVID POPENOE is professor emeritus of sociology at Rutgers
University.
MARK D. REGNERUS is associate professor of sociology at the University
of Texas at Austin.
SCOTT STANLEY is a research professor and co-director of the Center for
Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver.
LINDA WAITE is the Lucy Flower Professor of Sociology at the University
of Chicago.
JUDITH WALLERSTEIN is senior lecturer emerita at the School of Social
Welfare at the University of California at Berkeley.
Page 6
I
N THE LATTER HALF OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, divorce posed the
biggest threat to marriage in the United States. Clinical, academic,
and popular accounts addressing recent family changefrom Judith
Wallersteins landmark book, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, to Sara
McLanahan and Gary Sandefurs award-winning book, Growing Up with
a Single Parent, to Barbara Dafoe Whiteheads attention-getting Atlantic
article, Dan Quayle Was Rightfocused largely on the impact that
divorce had upon children, and rightly so. In the wake of the divorce
revolution of the 1970s, divorce was the event most likely to undercut
the quality and stability of childrens family lives in the second half of
the twentieth century.
No more. In fact, as divorce rates have come down since peaking in the
early 1980s, children who are now born to married couples are actually
more likely to grow up with both of their parents than were children
born at the height of the divorce revolution (see figure 1). In fact, the
divorce rate for married couples with children has fallen almost to pre-
divorce revolution levels, with 23 percent of couples who married in the
early 1960s divorcing before their first child turned ten, compared to
slightly more than 23 percent for couples who married in the mid 1990s.
Today, the rise of cohabiting households with children is the largest
unrecognized threat to the quality and stability of childrens family lives.
In fact, because of the growing prevalence of cohabitation, which has
risen fourteen-fold since 1970, todays children are much more likely to
spend time in a cohabiting household than they are to see their parents
divorce (see figure 2).
1
Now, approximately 24 percent of the nations children are born to
cohabiting couples, which means that more children are currently born
to cohabiting couples than to single mothers.
2
Another 20 percent or so
of children spend time in a cohabiting household with an unrelated
adult at some point later in their childhood, often after their parents
marriage breaks down.
3
This means that more than four in ten children
are exposed to a cohabiting relationship. Thus, one reason that the insti-
tution of marriage has less of a hold over Americans than it has had for
Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition
Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences
Introduction
Page 7
most our history is that cohabitation has emerged as a powerful alter-
native to and competitor with marriage.
For this reason, the third edition of Why Marriage Matters focuses new
attention on recent scholarship assessing the impact that contemporary
cohabitation is having on marriage, family life, and the welfare of chil-
dren. This edition also picks up on topics that surfaced in the first two
editions of the report, summarizing a large body of research on the
impact of divorce, stepfamilies, and single parenthood on children,
adults, and the larger commonweal. The report seeks to summarize
existing family-related research into a succinct form useful to policy
makers, scholars, civic, business, and religious leaders, professionals,
and others interested in understanding marriage in todays society.
Five New Themes
Children are less likely to thrive in cohabiting households,
compared to intact, married families. On many social, educa-
tional, and psychological outcomes, children in cohabiting house-
holds do significantly worse than children in intact, married families,
and about as poorly as children living in single-parent families. And
when it comes to abuse, recent federal data indicate that children in
cohabiting households are markedly more likely to be physically,
sexually, and emotionally abused than children in both intact, mar-
ried families and single-parent families (see figure 3). Only in the
economic domain do children in cohabiting households fare consis-
tently better than children in single-parent families.
Family instability is generally bad for children. In recent years,
family scholars have turned their attention to the impact that tran-
sitions into and out of marriage, cohabitation, and single parent-
hood have upon children. This report shows that such transitions,
especially multiple transitions, are linked to higher reports of
school failure, behavioral problems, drug use, and loneliness,
among other outcomes. So, it is not just family structure and family
process that matter for children; family stability matters as well. And
the research indicates that children who are born to married par-
ents are the least likely to be exposed to family instability, and to
the risks instability poses to the emotional, social, and educational
welfare of children.
1.
2.
Page 8
American family life is becoming increasingly unstable for
children (see figure 4).
4
Sociologist Andrew Cherlin has observed
that Americans are stepping on and off the carousel of intimate rela-
tionships with increasing rapidity.
5
This relational carousel spins par-
ticularly quickly for couples who are cohabiting, even cohabiting
couples with children. For instance, cohabiting couples who have a
child together are more than twice as likely to break up before their
child turns twelve, compared to couples who are married to one
another (see figure 5). Thus, one of the major reasons that childrens
lives are increasingly turbulent is that more and more children are
being born into or raised in cohabiting households that are much
more fragile than married families.
The growing instability of American family life also means
that contemporary adults and children are more likely to live
in what scholars call complex households, where children and
adults are living with people who are half-siblings, stepsiblings, step-
parents, stepchildren, or unrelated to them by birth or marriage.
Research on these complex households is still embryonic, but the ini-
tial findings are not encouraging. For instance, one indicator of this
growing complexity is multiple-partner fertility, where parents have
children with more than one romantic partner. Children who come
from these relationships are more likely to report poor relationships
with their parents, to have behavioral and health problems, and to
fail in school, even after controlling for factors such as education,
income, and race. Thus, for both adults and children, life typically
becomes not only more complex, but also more difficult, when parents
fail to get or stay married.
The nations retreat from marriage has hit poor and working-
class communities with particular force. Recent increases in
cohabitation, nonmarital childbearing, family instability, and family
complexity have not been equally distributed in the United States;
these trends, which first rose in poor communities in the 1970s and
1980s, are now moving rapidly into working-class and lower-middle-
class communities. But marriage appears to be strengthening in more
educated and affluent communities. As a consequence, since the
early 1980s, children from college-educated homes have seen their
family lives stabilize, whereas children from less-educated homes
have seen their family lives become increasingly unstable (see figure
6). More generally, the stratified character of family trends means that
3.
4.
5.
Page 9
the United States is devolving into a separate-and-unequal family
regime, where the highly educated and the affluent enjoy strong and
stable [families] and everyone else is consigned to increasingly unstable,
unhappy, and unworkable ones.
6
We acknowledge that social science is better equipped to document
whether certain facts are true than to say why they are true. We can
assert more definitively that marriage is associated with powerful social
goods than that marriage is the sole or main cause of these goods.
A Word about Selection Effects
Good research seeks to tease out selection effects, or the preexisting
differences between individuals who marry, cohabit, or divorce. Does
divorce cause poverty, for example, or is it simply that poor people
are more likely to divorce? Scholars attempt to distinguish between
causal relationships and mere correlations in a variety of ways. The
studies cited here are for the most part based on large, nationally
representative samples that control for race, education, income, and
other confounding factors. In many, but not all cases, social scientists
used longitudinal data to track individuals as they marry, divorce, or
stay single, increasing our confidence that marriage itself matters.
Where the evidence appears overwhelming that marriage causes
increases in well-being, we say so. Where marriage probably does so
but the causal pathways are not as well understood, we are more
cautious.
We recognize that, absent random assignment to marriage, divorce, or
single parenting, social scientists must always acknowledge the possi-
bility that other factors are influencing outcomes. Reasonable scholars
may and do disagree on the existence and extent of such selection
effects and the extent to which marriage is causally related to the better
social outcomes reported here.
Yet, scholarship is getting better in addressing selection effects. For
instance, in this report we summarize three divorce studies that follow
identical and nonidentical adult twins in Australia and Virginia to see
how much of the effects of divorce on children are genetic and how
much seem to be a consequence of divorce itself. Methodological inno-
vations like these, as well as analyses using econometric models, afford
us greater confidence that family structure exercises a causal influence
for some outcomes.
Page 10
Departures from the norm of intact marriage do not necessarily harm
most of those who are exposed to them.
7
While cohabitation is associ-
ated with increased risks of psychological and social problems for chil-
dren, this does not mean that every child who is exposed to cohabita-
tion is damaged. For example, one nationally representative study of
six- to eleven-year-olds found that only 16 percent of children in cohab-
iting families experienced serious emotional problems. Still, this rate
was much higher than the rate for children in families headed by mar-
ried biological or adoptive parents, which was 4 percent.
8
While marriage is a social good, not all marriages are equal. Research
does not generally support the idea that remarriage is better for children
than living with a single mother.
9
Marriages that are unhappy do not
have the same benefits as the average marriage.
10
Divorce or separation
provides an important escape hatch for children and adults in violent or
high-conflict marriages. Families, communities, and policy makers inter-
ested in distributing the benefits of marriage more equally must do
more than merely discourage legal divorce.
But we believe good social science, despite its limitations, is a better
guide to social policy than uninformed opinion or prejudice. This report
represents our best judgment of what current social science evidence
reveals about marriage in our social system.
Page 11
The intact, biological, married family remains the gold stan-
dard for family life in the United States, insofar as children are
most likely to thriveeconomically, socially, and psychologically
in this family form.
Marriage is an important public good, associated with a range of
economic, health, educational, and safety benefits that help local,
state, and federal governments serve the common good.
The benefits of marriage extend to poor, working-class, and
minority communities, despite the fact that marriage has weakened
in these communities in the last four decades.
F
AMILY STRUCTURE AND PROCESSES are only one factor contributing to
child and social well-being. Our discussion here is not meant to
minimize the importance of other factors, such as poverty, child
support, unemployment, teenage childbearing, neighborhood safety, or
the quality of education for both parents and children. Marriage is not
a panacea for all social ills. For instance, when it comes to child well-
being, research suggests that family structure is a better predictor of
childrens psychological and social welfare, whereas poverty is a better
predictor of educational attainment.
11
But whether we succeed or fail in building a healthy marriage culture
is clearly a matter of legitimate public concern and an issue of para-
mount importance if we wish to reverse the marginalization of the most
vulnerable members of our society: the working class, the poor, minori-
ties, and children.
1.
2.
3.
Our Fundamental Conclusions
Page 12
The Thirty Conclusions: A Snapshot
Marriage increases the likelihood that fathers and mothers have
good relationships with their children.
Children are most likely to enjoy family stability when they are
born into a married family.
Children are less likely to thrive in complex households.
Cohabitation is not the functional equivalent of marriage.
Growing up outside an intact marriage increases the likelihood
that children will themselves divorce or become unwed parents.
Marriage is a virtually universal human institution.
Marriage, and a normative commitment to marriage, foster high-
quality relationships between adults, as well as between parents
and children.
Marriage has important biosocial consequences for adults and
children.
Family
Divorce and unmarried childbearing increase poverty for both
children and mothers, and cohabitation is less likely to alleviate
poverty than is marriage.
Married couples seem to build more wealth on average than
singles or cohabiting couples.
Marriage reduces poverty and material hardship for disadvan-
taged women and their children.
Minorities benefit economically from marriage also.
Married men earn more money than do single men with similar
education and job histories.
Parental divorce (or failure to marry) appears to increase childrens
risk of school failure.
Parental divorce reduces the likelihood that children will graduate
from college and achieve high-status jobs.
Economics
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Page 13
Children who live with their own two married parents enjoy
better physical health, on average, than do children in other
family forms.
Parental marriage is associated with a sharply lower risk of
infant mortality.
Marriage is associated with reduced rates of alcohol and sub-
stance abuse for both adults and teens.
Married people, especially married men, have longer life
expectancies than do otherwise similar singles.
Marriage is associated with better health and lower rates of
injury, illness, and disability for both men and women.
Marriage seems to be associated with better health among
minorities and the poor.
Physical Health and Longevity
Children whose parents divorce have higher rates of psycho-
logical distress and mental illness.
Cohabitation is associated with higher levels of psychological
problems among children.
Family breakdown appears to increase significantly the risk of
suicide.
Married mothers have lower rates of depression than do single
or cohabiting mothers.
Mental Health and Emotional Well-Being
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Boys raised in non-intact families are more likely to engage in
delinquent and criminal behavior.
Marriage appears to reduce the risk that adults will be either
perpetrators or victims of crime.
Married women appear to have a lower risk of experiencing
domestic violence than do cohabiting or dating women.
A child who is not living with his or her own two married parents
is at greater risk of child abuse.
There is a growing marriage gap between college-educated
Americans and less-educated Americans.
Crime and Domestic Violence
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Page 14
Family
Marriage increases the likelihood that fathers and
mothers have good relationships with their children.
Mothers as well as fathers are affected by the absence of marriage. Single
mothers on average report more conflict with and less monitoring of their
children than do married mothers.
12
As adults, children from intact mar-
riages report being closer to their mothers on average than do children of
divorce.
13
In one nationally representative study, 30 percent of young adults
whose parents divorced reported poor relationships with their mothers,
compared to 16 percent of children whose parents stayed married.
14
But childrens relationships with their father depend even more on mar-
riage than do childrens relationships with their mother. Sixty-five per-
cent of young adults whose parents divorced had poor relationships
with their fathers (compared to 29 percent from non-divorced fami-
lies).
15
On average, children whose parents divorce or never marry see
their fathers less frequently
16
and have less affectionate relationships
with their fathers
17
than do children whose parents got and stayed mar-
ried. Studies of children of divorce suggest that losing contact with their
father in the wake of a divorce is one of the most painful consequences
of divorce.
18
Divorce appears to have an even greater negative effect on
relationships between fathers and their children than remaining in an
unhappy marriage.
19
These detrimental relationship effects may be long-
term; unpartnered disabled elderly individuals who divorced receive
less in the way of social support and practical assistance from their chil-
dren than those who were widowed. Those who remarried were less
likely to receive cash transfers from their children.
20
Some evidence suggests even cohabiting, biological fathers who live
with their children are not as involved and affectionate with their chil-
dren as are married, biological fathers who reside with their children,
21
although others have found no difference between these types of
fathers or even a positive effect of cohabitation.
22
Even so, the effect of
marriage on higher-quality parenting practices is even stronger for
social fathers (i.e., stepfathers) than for biological fathers.
23
And fathers
who are married to the mother of their children prior to birth are much
more likely to maintain a long-term relationship with their children than
fathers who are not married at birth.
24
The Thirty Conclusions
1.
Page 15
Children are most likely to enjoy family stability when
they are born into a married family.
There is an emerging scholarly consensus that family stability in and of
itself is linked to positive child outcomes.
25
By contrast, children who
are exposed to family transitionsfrom a divorce to the breakup of a
mothers romantic relationship with a live-in boyfriendare more likely
to experience behavioral problems, drug use, problems in school, early
sex, and loneliness. The evidence also suggests that multiple transitions
(where children are exposed to more than one breakup or new rela-
tionship) are especially harmful for children.
26
Family transitions are thought to harm a mothers ability to interact pos-
itively with her child(ren) by affecting her economic, social, and psy-
chological resources. They also necessitate the establishment of new
routines and relationships that may be difficult for children to navigate.
27
Selection may also be at work; that is, pre-existing maternal attributes
made lead both to multiple union transitions and poor child outcomes,
though selection does not appear to tell the whole story.
28
Children born to married parents are the most likely to enjoy family
stability over their childhood. According to data from the Fragile
Families and Child Wellbeing Study, which follows children in twenty
cities around the U.S., only 13 percent of children born to married par-
ents experience a maternal partnership transition (i.e., the end or start
of a relationship) by age 3, compared to 50 percent of those born to
cohabiting parents, 69 percent of those born to visiting (i.e., dating
but not cohabiting) parents, and 74 percent of those born to a single
mother (i.e., a mother no longer in a romantic relationship with the
father).
29
Indeed, a number of studies suggest that cohabitation in a range of
cultural and national contexts is less stable than marriage.
30
Latino
and African American children born into cohabiting unions were
more likely to see their parents break up than their peers who were
born to married parents.
31
Cohabitations are unstable not just in the
United States. In one study of seventeen Western countries, parental
cohabitation was associated with higher risk of parental separation,
even in Sweden where parental cohabitation is very common
(although the difference between parental cohabitation and marriage
in Sweden is less pronounced than in other countries).
32
In fact, one
new study of family instability in Sweden found that children born to
cohabiting couples are more than 70 percent more likely to see their
2.
Page 16
parents separate by age fifteen, compared to children born to married
couples.
33
Unfortunately, in part because childbearing and childrearing in a
cohabiting household is becoming more common in the United States,
family stability has declined for children in the United States over the
course of the last three decades even though the divorce rate has
declined.
34
This overall decline in family stability for children is partic-
ularly striking because children born to married couples now enjoy
more stability than they did thirty years ago. This decline is also strik-
ing because the deinstitutionalization of marriage has largely been lim-
ited to working-class and poor communities in the United States. For
both economic and cultural reasons, more educated and affluent
Americans are now markedly more likely to succeed in marriage than
their less privileged fellow citizens.
35
This means that children in poor
and working-class communities are triply disadvantaged: they have
fewer economic resources, their parents are less likely to be married,
and they are more likely to be exposed to numerous family transitions
over the course of their lives.
Children are less likely to thrive in complex households.
Over the last four decades, increases in divorce, cohabitation, and
nonmarital childbearing have increased the prevalence of complex
householdswhere children share a household with stepsiblings,
half-siblings, stepparents, or with adults with whom they are unrelated
by marriage, adoption, or blood. Children are more likely to suffer
economically, psychologically, and socially when they live in complex
households, in part because such households often do not have clear
norms, boundaries, and a clear family identity to provide stability,
direction, and purpose to their members, and to the relationships
within these households.
Research indicates that children in stepfamilies are more likely to expe-
rience school failure, delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and incarcera-
tion than children growing up in intact, married families.
36
This is in
part, as Andrew Cherlin has pointed out, because stepfamilies are
incomplete institutions that have fewer commonly understood norms,
roles, and rituals than intact, married families.
37
As a consequence, step-
parents often have more difficulty relating to their stepchildren than do
biological parents, which is one reason that stepchildren are less likely
to thrive than children from intact, married families.
3.
Page 17
Children whose parents have engaged in multiple-partner fertility
(MPF), where adults have children with two or more partners, have
similar problems. Because MPF can be associated with baby mama
drama (i.e., conflict between former romantic partners or spouses
who had a child together, or between one of them and a new romantic
partner of the other partner or spouse), and because it is practically
difficult for mothers and fathers to invest financially, emotionally, and
temporally in children across different households, children from such
MPF families are more likely to suffer health problems, externalizing
behaviors such as fighting, lower academic achievement, and lower
quality relationships with their parents, compared to children in intact,
married families.
38
Interestingly, even children living in a family with their own biolog-
ical, married parents appear to be more likely to suffer if they are
exposed to complexity, in the form of step- or half-siblings located
in their own household. New research suggests that children living
with their married biological parents were more likely to fail in
school, to suffer from depression, and to engage in delinquent
behavior if they live with stepsiblings from a parents prior union.
39
This is probably because the stresses of stepfamily living and the
challenges of supporting a former spouse can undercut the parenting
of mothers and fathers who head up a blended family. This new
research provides more evidence that children are more likely to
thrive when their parents succeed in channeling their reproductive
lives into one marriage.
As a group, cohabitors in the United States more closely resemble sin-
gles than married people, though cohabitation is an exceptionally het-
erogenous status, with some partners treating it as a prelude to mar-
riage, others as an alternative to marriage, others as an opportunity to
test for marriage, and still others as a convenient dating relationship.
40
Adults who live together are more similar to singles than to married
couples in terms of physical health
41
and emotional well-being and
mental health,
42
as well as in assets and earnings.
43
Children with cohabiting parents have outcomes more similar to
the children living with single (or remarried) parents than chil-
dren from intact marriages.
44
In other words, children living in
cohabiting unions do not fare as well as children living in intact,
4.
Page 18
married families. For instance, one recent study found that
teenagers living in cohabiting unions were significantly more
likely to experience behavioral and emotional difficulties than
were teenagers in intact, married families, even after controlling
for a range of socioeconomic and parenting factors.
45
Another
problem is that cohabiting parents are less likely to devote their
financial resources to childrearing. One study found that cohab-
iting parents devoted a larger share of their income to alcohol
and tobacco, and a smaller share of their income to childrens
education, compared to married parents.
46
Selection effects account for a portion of the difference between
married people and cohabitors. As a group, cohabitors (who are not
engaged) have lower incomes and less education.
47
Couples who
live together also, on average, report relationships of lower quality
than do married coupleswith cohabitors reporting more conflict,
more violence, and lower levels of satisfaction and commitment.
48
This lower relationship quality among cohabitors explains their
higher levels of depression compared to married individuals.
49
Even
biological parents who cohabit have poorer quality relationships
and are more likely to part than parents who marry.
50
Cohabitation differs from marriage in part because Americans
who choose solely to live together are less committed to each
other as partners and their future together.
51
Partly as a conse-
quence, cohabiting couples are less likely than married couples
to pool their income.
52
Another challenge confronting cohabiting
couples is that partners often disagree about the nature and
future of their relationshipfor instance, one partner may antic-
ipate marriage and the other partner may view the relationship
as a covenient form of dating.
53
New research also suggests that
the instability and lower levels of commitment associated with
cohabitation can be deleterious for the elderly, who appear to
be more likely to be institutionalized or abandoned if they are
cohabiting rather than married.
54
In a society that still largely reveres marriageeven if marriages
are less and less likely to happennonmarriage often means
something relative to marriage. Marriage is a clear, mutual, non-
ambiguous signal of commitment; in contrast, cohabitation is
widely recognized as ambiguous when it comes to signaling
commitment in the absence of some other strong signal of mar-
ital intention such as engagement.
55
Page 19
Growing up outside an intact marriage increases the likeli-
hood that children will themselves divorce or become
unwed parents.
Children whose parents divorce or fail to marry are more likely to
become young unwed parents, to enter their marriages with lower
commitment, to experience divorce themselves someday, to marry as
teenagers, and to have unhappy marriages and/or relationships.
56
Daughters raised outside of intact marriages are approximately three
times more likely to end up young, unwed mothers than are children
whose parents married and stayed married.
57
Parental divorce increas-
es the odds that adult children will also divorce by at least 50 percent,
partly because children of divorce are more likely to marry prematurely
and partly because children of divorce often marry other children of
divorce, thereby making their marriage even more precarious.
58
Divorce is apparently most likely to be transmitted across the genera-
tions when parents in relatively low-conflict marriages divorced.
59
There is ongoing debate about whether the link between parental and
offspring divorce has weakened over time (as divorce rates increased
up through the early 1980s and then fell slightly), but there is consensus
that this association remains significant.
60
Moreover, remarriage does
not appear to help children. For instance, girls in stepfamilies are
slightly more likely to have a teenage pregnancy compared to girls in
a single-parent family, and much more likely to have a teenage preg-
nancy than girls in an intact, married family.
61
Children who grow up
in stepfamilies are also more likely to marry as teenagers, compared to
children who grow up in single-parent or intact, married families.
62
Finally, research also indicates that the effects of divorce cross three
generations: that is, grandchildren of couples who divorced are signif-
icantly more likely to experience marital discord, negative relationships
with their parents, and low levels of educational attainment, compared
to grandchildren whose grandparents did not divorce.
63
Marriage exists in virtually every known human society.
64
The shape of
marriage varies considerably in different cultural contexts, but at least
since the beginning of recorded historyin all the flourishing varieties
of human cultures documented by anthropologistsmarriage has been
a universal human institution. As a virtually universal human idea, mar-
riage involves regulating the reproduction of children, families, and
society. While marriage systems differ (and not every person or class
6.
5.
Page 20
within a society marries), marriage across societies is a publicly
acknowledged and supported sexual union that creates kinship obliga-
tions and resource pooling between men, women, and the children that
their sexual union may produce.
Marriage, and a normative commitment to marriage,
foster high-quality relationships between adults, as well
as between parents and children.
Some say that love, not marriage, makes a family. They argue that family
structure per se does not matter; rather, what matters is the quality of
family relationships.
65
Others argue that the marital ethic of lifelong
commitment needs to be diluted if we seek to promote high-quality
relationships; instead, the new marital ethic should be conditional, such
that spouses should remain together only so long as they continue to
love one another.
66
However, these arguments overlook what we know about the
effect of marriage, and a normative commitment to the institution
of marriage, on intimate relationships. By offering legal and nor-
mative support and direction to a relationship, by providing an
expectation of sexual fidelity and lifelong commitment, and by fur-
nishing adults a unique social status as spouses, marriage typical-
ly fosters better romantic and parental relationships than alterna-
tives to marriage.
67
For all these reasons, in part, adults who are
married enjoy happier, healthier, and less violent relationships,
compared to adults who are in dating or cohabiting relationships.
68
Even among older adults who were previously married, remarriage
seems to lead to happier relationships than cohabitation, though
differences on several other aspects of relationship quality are not
evident.
69
Parents who are married enjoy more supportive and less
conflictual relationships with one another, compared to parents
who are cohabiting or otherwise romantically involved with one
another.
70
In turn, as we have seen, married parents generally have
better relationships with their children than do cohabiting,
divorced, unmarried, or remarried parents.
71
Some of the associa-
tions between family structure and family process are products of
selectionthat is, couples with better relationships are more likely
to get and stay married. But, as this report makes clear, the
research also suggests that social, legal, and normative supports
provided by marriage foster better intimate relationships and parent-
child relationships.
7.
Page 21
But so does the idea of marriage. Individuals who value the institution
of marriage for its own sakethat is, who oppose easy divorce, who
believe that children ought to be born into marriage, and who think
marriage is better than cohabitationare more likely to invest them-
selves in their marriages and to experience high-quality marital rela-
tionships. Ironically, individuals who embrace a conditional ethic to
marriagethat is, one that suggests marriages ought to continue only
so long as both spouses are happyare less happy in their marriages.
One longitudinal study found that individuals who oppose divorce are
more likely to devote themselves to their spouse, even after controlling
for the initial quality of the marriage.
72
Two studies show that spouses,
particularly husbands, are more likely to sacrifice for their spouse if they
are strongly committed to the future of their marriages.
73
A recent study
finds that womens marital happiness, and their reports of happiness
with their husbands affection and understanding, are strongly and pos-
itively linked to high levels of shared spousal commitment to pro-mar-
riage norms.
74
Another study found that fathers who are normatively
commited to marriage are significantly more likely to praise and hug
their children than fathers who are not committed to marriage.
75
Scholars speculate that a strong normative commitment to marriage
makes married adults less likely to look for alternative partners and
more conscious of the long-term character of their relationship, both of
which encourage them to invest more in their current relationship.
76
Thus, adults who hold a strong normative commitment to marriage
appear to enjoy higher-quality relationships with family members, com-
pared to adults who are not strongly committed to the institution of
marriage.
Marriage has important biosocial consequences for
adults and children.
Marriage has biological consequences for adults and children. We are
just beginning to discover the myriad ways that marriage seems to pro-
mote good outcomes in what social scientists call the biosocial area of
lifethe connection between our social relationships and how our bod-
ies function. In the last decade, two marriage-related biosocial outcomes
have emerged as particularly important.
First, marriage appears to reduce mens testosterone levels. More than
five studies analyzing different populations find that married men (espe-
cially married fathers) have lower testerone levels than similar men who
are never-married or divorced.
77
For this outcome, however, cohabiting
8.
Page 22
men appear to be affected just as much as are married men. What seems
to matter for mens testorone levels are intimate, ongoing, and everyday
relationships with one woman.
78
Given that testosterone is associated
with aggression, sensation-seeking, and a range of other antisocial
behaviors, one of the ways that marriage may influence men is by reduc-
ing their levels of testosterone.
79
Of course, there may be selection effects
at work: that is, it may be that men with lower levels of testosterone are
less likely to engage in antisocial behavior and more likely to marry. The
two longitudinal studies done so far have obtained mixed results. One
strongly suggests that, for men, marriage plays a causal role in driving
down testosterone (as well as cortisol).
80
The other has found no effect
of becoming partnered (defined as a long-term monogamous relation-
ship) on mens testosterone level.
81
Future research will have to further
unpack the relationships between marriage, testosterone, fatherhood,
and antisocial behavior among men.
Second, girls appear to benefit in their sexual development from grow-
ing up in an intact, married family. Extensive research by psychologist
Bruce Ellis and others indicates that adolescent girls who grow up apart
from an intact, married household are significantly more likely to have
early menstruation, premature sexual activity, and a teenage pregnancy.
82
He finds that girls who have close, engaged relationships with their
fathers have menstruation at a later age and that girls who lose their bio-
logical father as young children have menstruation at an earlier age.
Moreover, girls who live with an unrelated male (e.g., stepfather, moth-
ers boyfriend) have menstruation even earlier than girls living in a sin-
gle-mother household. Ellis speculates that girls sexual development is
influenced by the male pheromonesbiological chemicals that individ-
uals emit to one another, which have been associated with accelerated
sexual development in mammalsthey encounter in their social envi-
ronment. The pheromones of their father appear to inhibit premature
sexual development, while the pheromones of an unrelated male appear
to accelerate such development. In Elliss words: These findingsare
broadly consistent with the hypothesis that pheromonal exposure to the
biological father inhibits pubertal development in daughters.
83
Early sexual development, in turn, is associated with significantly high-
er levels of premature sexual activity and teenage pregnancy on the part
of girls, even after controlling for economic and psychological factors in
the household that might otherwise confound the relationship between
family structure and girls sexual activity.
84
So this line of research
strongly suggests that an intact, married household protects girls from
premature sexual development and, consequently, teen pregnancy. One
Page 23
genetically-informed study, however, suggests that much of this associa-
tion may be due to selection into family structure by genetic predisposi-
tion (i.e., both mother and daughter have an underlying biological make-
up that makes them more likely to have early menstruation). In a study
of children of sisters, including twin sisters, there was no difference in
age at first sex for the offspring of twin sister dyads where one child had
a father in the home and the other did not, but there was for the children
of non-twin sisters.
85
Future research will have to determine if genes,
environment, or some combination thereof account for the association
between father absence and early menstruation among adolescent girls.
Economics
Divorce and unmarried childbearing increase poverty for
both children and mothers, and cohabitation is less likely
to alleviate poverty than is marriage.
Research has consistently shown that both divorce
86
and unmarried
childbearing
87
increase the economic vulnerability of both children and
mothers. The effects of family structure on poverty remain powerful,
even after controlling for race and family background. Changes in family
structure are an important cause of new entries into poverty (although
a decline in the earnings of the household head is the single most
important cause). Child poverty rates are high in part because of the
growth of single-parent families.
88
In fact, some studies indicate that all
of the increase in child poverty since the 1970s can be attributed to
increases in single parenthood due to divorce and nonmarital child-
bearing.
89
When parents fail to marry and stay married, children are
more likely to experience deep and persistent poverty, even after con-
trolling for race and family background. The majority of children who
grow up outside of intact, married families experience at least one year
of dire poverty (family incomes less than half the official poverty thresh-
old).
90
Divorce as well as unmarried childbearing plays a role: between
one-fifth and one-third of divorcing women end up in poverty follow-
ing the divorce.
91
Cohabitation does not alleviate poverty as well as mar-
riage does. The ratio of income to needs for children in cohabiting fam-
ilies is .43 points lower than that of those in married families.
92
The effect of divorce on womens incomes persists in contemporary
America, but it appears to have lessened since 1980 as womens labor
market position has improved.
93
Single mothers income gains have
been only marginal across the same time period.
94
9.
Page 24
Married couples seem to build more wealth on average
than singles or cohabiting couples.
Marriage seems to be a wealth-creating institution. Married couples
build more wealth on average than do otherwise similar singles or
cohabiting couples, even after controlling for income.
95
Analysis of the
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (1979 cohort), which tracked
respondents from adolescence to their early forties, reveals that the per
person net worth of married individuals is 93 percent higher than it is
for single individuals, and divorced individuals have a per person net
worth 77 percent lower than single respondents.
96
The economic advan-
tages of marriage stem from more than just access to two incomes.
Marriage partners appear to build more wealth for some of the same
reasons that partnerships in general are economically efficient, includ-
ing economies of scale and specialization and exchange. Marital social
norms that encourage healthy, productive behavior and wealth accu-
mulation (such as buying a home) also appear to play a role. Married
parents also more often receive wealth transfers from both sets of
grandparents than do cohabiting couples; single mothers almost never
receive financial help from the childs fathers kin.
97
Interestingly, the
effect of fatherhood on asset accumulation varies by marital status: mar-
ried fathers increased their rate of asset accumulation after becoming
fathers while unmarried fathers saw their rate of asset accumulation
decline.
98
Marriage reduces poverty and material hardship for dis-
advantaged women and their children.
A growing body of research by economist Robert I. Lerman and others
indicates that the economic benefits of marriage extend even to women
who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Focusing on low-income
families, Lerman found that married couples with children generally had
lower levels of material hardshipthat is, they were less likely to miss
a meal or fail to pay their utilities, rent, or mortgagecompared to
other families, especially single-mothers living alone.
99
In another study,
he found that mothers with low academic abilities who married saw
their living standards end up about 65 percent higher than similar single
mothers living with no other adult, over 50 percent higher than single
mothers living with another adult, and 20 percent higher than mothers
who were cohabiting.
100
Other research has found that disadvantaged
mothers are significantly less likely to be in poverty if they had their first
child in marriage, compared to similar mothers who had their first child
10.
11.
Page 25
out-of-wedlock. This research found that 35 percent of disadvantaged
African American mothers who had a nonmarital first birth are below
the poverty line, compared to 17 percent of African American mothers
who had a marital first birth. The protective effect of marriage is even
stronger among women at high risk of poverty versus those at low
risk.
101
Why is marriage more likely to help poor women and children than
cohabitation? Married couples appear to share more of their income and
other property, they get more support from extended families and
friends, and they get more help from civic institutions (churches, food
pantries, etc.).
102
There are two caveats to this work. First, marriage does
not produce as many benefits for women who have a premarital birth.
103
Second, marriage also does not produce much of an economic boost for
women who go on to divorce, and divorce is more common among
women with comparatively low levels of income and education.
104
So
women, particularly poor women, do not much benefit economically
from marriage unless their marriages are stable.
Minorities benefit economically from marriage also.
The economic benefits associated with marriage are not limited to
whites. Research also suggests that African Americans and Latinos ben-
efit materially from marriage. Studies find marriage effects at the com-
munity and individual levels. At the societal level, black child poverty
rates would be almost 20 percent lower than they currently are had the
proportion of black children living in married families not fallen below
1970 levels.
105
At the individual level, one study found that black single mothers who
marry see their income rise by 81 percent (compared to an income
increase of 45 percent for white single mothers). This same study found
that the income of black children fell by 53 percent two years after a
divorce.
106
Another study of older women indicates that married African
American women enjoy significantly more income than their widowed,
divorced, and never married peers.
107
Both black and Hispanic older
women experience declines in household income and assets following
marital disruption, be it divorce or widowhood.
108
Black men who marry
also see a significant increase in their income, about $4000 according to
one estimate.
109
Black men see bigger increases in their household
incomes than do white men (increases of 31 percent and 23 percent,
respectively) because black women are more likely to work than white
12.
Page 26
women.
110
Finally, African Americans and Latinos who are married also
enjoy significantly higher levels of household equity, compared to their
peers who are not married.
111
Married men earn more money than do single men with
similar education and job histories.
A large body of research, both in the United States and other developed
countries, finds that married men earn between 10 and 40 percent more
than do single men with similar education and job histories.
112
While
selection effects may account for part of the marriage premium (insofar
as men with more stable and better-paying jobs are more likely to
marry),
113
the most sophisticated, recent research appears to confirm that
marriage itself increases the earning power of men on the order of 21
to 24 percent.
114
A study of identical twin pairs, which was able to
account more rigorously for selection effects, similarly found an earn-
ings increase of 26 percent.
115
Why do married men earn more? The causes are not entirely under-
stood, but married men appear to have greater work commitment, more
strategic approaches to job searches, and healthier and more stable per-
sonal routines (including sleep, diet, and alcohol consumption). One
study found that married men were more likely to quit with a new job
in hand, less likely to quit without a new job in hand, and less likely to
be fired, compared to unmarried men.
116
Husbands also benefit from
both the work effort and emotional support that they receive from
wives.
117
A study of German men finds that married men may also be
less content with their earnings, which may spur them to work harder
and earn higher wages.
118
All of the findings along these lines are consistent with the larger propo-
sition advanced by sociologist Steven Nock that men undergo an impor-
tant average transformation in their sense of themselves and their
responsibilities in the transition from nonmarriage to marriage.
119
Parental divorce (or failure to marry) appears to increase
childrens risk of school failure.
Parental divorce or nonmarriage has a significant, long-term negative
impact on childrens educational attainment. Children of divorced or
unwed parents have lower grades and other measures of academic
13.
14.
Page 27
achievement, are more likely to be held back, and are more likely to
drop out of high school. The effects of parental divorce or nonmarriage
on childrens educational attainment remain significant even after con-
trolling for race, family background, and genetic factors.
120
Another
nationally-representative study of more than 1,000 adolescents that con-
trolled for differences in parental education and income found that
teenagers were 60 percent less likely to graduate from high school if
they came from cohabiting families, compared to their peers who came
from intact, married families.
121
Likewise, kindergarteners living with
cohabiting parents have lower reading, math, and general knowledge
scoreswhether they are living with their biological cohabiting parents
or one parent and a cohabiting partner. The differences in math and
general knowledge are explained by differences in parenting practices
and maternal depression, but differences in reading ability remain even
after having accounted for these factors.
122
Adolescents who live in
stable cohabiting families become less engaged in school than those in
stable biological married families, single-mother families, or married
stepfamilies. Those in single-mother families have decreased engage-
ment compared to those in stable biological married families.
Transitioning into a cohabiting family lowers school engagement as
well, as does transitioning from a cohabiting family to a married step-
family.
123
Indeed, family transitions in general have been linked to poor-
er academic achievement,
124
and both family structure and transitions
appear to matter for educational outcomes.
125
Children whose parents
divorce end up with significantly lower levels of education than do chil-
dren in single-mother families created by the death of the father.
126
Children whose parents remarry do no better, on average, than do chil-
dren who live with single mothers.
127
It is not yet clear if the effects of
family structure vary by race. Some studies indicate that African
American educational performance is affected more than white per-
formance by father absence, whereas other studies come to the oppo-
site conclusion.
128
Parental divorce reduces the likelihood that children will
graduate from college and achieve high-status jobs.
Parental divorce appears to have long-term consequences on chil-
drens socioeconomic attainment. While most children of divorce do
not drop out of high school or become unemployed, as adults, chil-
dren of divorced parents have lower occupational status and earnings
and have increased rates of unemployment and economic hardship.
129
They are less likely to attend and graduate from college and also less
15.
Page 28
likely to attend and graduate from four-year and highly selective col-
leges, even after controlling for family background and academic and
extracurricular achievements.
130
One reason for this may be that
divorced parents contribute significantly less money to their childrens
college education. While married parents contribute a median of
$1,804 per year to college costs, divorced (and not remarried) parents
contribute just $502, and remarried parents just $500differences that
persist after controlling income and other relevant factors. Divorced
parents may have underreported their ex-spouses contribution, but
even so their contribution is not likely to rise anywhere near the level
of married parents.
131
Children who live with their own two married parents
enjoy better physical health, on average, than do children
in other family forms.
Divorce and unmarried childbearing appear to have negative effects
on childrens physical health and life expectancy.
132
Longitudinal
research suggests that parental divorce and cohabitation increase the
incidence of health problems in children.
133
For example, in one
recent longitudinal study the probability that a five-year-old child
with stably-married parents was in excellent health was .69, com-
pared to probabiliies of .65 for those whose parents divorced, .62 for
those whose parents stably cohabited, and .59 for those whose par-
ents dissolved their cohabitation.
134
The health advantages of married
homes remain, even after taking socioeconomic status into account.
Even in Sweden, a country with an extensive social welfare system
and a nationalized health care system, children who grow up outside
an intact family are much more likely to suffer serious disadvantages.
One recent study of the entire Swedish population of children found
that boys who were reared in single-parent homes were more than
50 percent more likely to die from a range of causese.g., suicide,
accidents, or addictionthan boys who were reared in two-parent
homes. Moreover, even after controlling for the socioeconomic status
and psychological health of parents, Swedish boys and girls in single-
parent families were more than twice as likely as children in two-
parent families to suffer from psychiatric diseases, suicide attempts,
alcoholism, and drug abuse; they were also more likely to experience
traffic injuries, falls, and poisonings than their peers in two-parent
families.
135
16.
Page 29
The health effects of family structure extend into adulthood. One study
that followed a sample of academically gifted, middle-class children for
seventy years found that parental divorce reduced a childs life
expectancy by four years, even after controlling for childhood health
status and family background, as well as personality characteristics such
as impulsiveness and emotional instability.
136
Another analysis found
that forty-year-old men whose parents had divorced were three times
more likely to die in the next forty years than were forty-year-old men
whose parents stayed married. [I]t does appear, the researchers con-
clude, that parental divorce sets off a negative chain of events, which
contribute to a higher mortality risk among individuals from divorced
homes.
137
Parental marriage is associated with a sharply lower risk
of infant mortality.
Babies born to married parents have lower rates of infant mortality. On
average, having an unmarried mother is associated with an approxi-
mately 50 percent increase in the risk of infant mortality.
138
While
parental marital status predicts infant mortality in both blacks and
whites, the increased risk due to the mothers marital status is greatest
among the most advantaged: white mothers over the age of twenty.
139
The cause of this relationship between marital status and infant mortal-
ity is not well known. There are many selection effects involved:
Unmarried mothers are more likely to be young, black, less educated,
and poor than are married mothers. But even after controlling for age,
race, and education, children born to unwed mothers generally have
higher rates of infant mortality.
140
While unmarried mothers are also less
likely to get early prenatal care,
141
infant mortality rates in these
instances are higher not only in the neonatal period, but through infancy
142
and even early childhood.
143
Children born to unmarried mothers have
an increased incidence of both intentional and unintentional fatal
injuries.
144
The sharp differences in infant mortality between married
women who list a fathers name on the birth certificate and both mar-
ried and unmarried women who dont, compared to the smaller (but
still signficant) difference between married and unmarried women who
list a fathers name on the birth certificate, suggests paternal involve-
ment may be a key factor in avoiding infant mortality and explaining
the marital advantage.
145
Marital status remains a powerful predictor of
infant mortality, even in countries with nationalized health care systems
and strong supports for single mothers.
146
17.
Page 30
Marriage is associated with reduced rates of alcohol and
substance abuse for both adults and teens.
Married men and women have lower rates of alcohol consumption and
abuse than do singles (including cohabitors). Longitudinal research con-
firms that young adults, particularly men, who marry tend to reduce
their rates of alcohol consumption and illegal drug use.
147
Children
whose parents marry and stay married also have lower rates of sub-
stance abuse, even after controlling for family background and the
genetic traits of the parents.
148
Twice as many young teens in single-
mother families and stepfamilies have tried marijuana (and young teens
living with single fathers were three times as likely). Young teens whose
parents stay married are also the least likely to experiment with tobacco
or alcohol.
149
Data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse
show that, even after controlling for age, race, gender, and family
income, teens living with both biological parents are significantly less
likely to use illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco.
150
How does family fragmentation relate to teen drug use? Many pathways
are probably involved, including increased family stress, reduced
parental monitoring, and weakened attachment to parents, especially
fathers.
151
Married people, especially married men, have longer life
expectancies than do otherwise similar singles.
Married people live longer than do otherwise similar people who are
single or divorced.
152
Husbands as well as wives live longer on average,
even after controlling for race, income, and family background.
153
In
most developed countries, middle-aged single, divorced, or widowed
men are about twice as likely to die as married men, and nonmarried
women face risks about one-and-a-half times as great as those faced by
married women.
154
These differences by marital status have persisted
over time, and the differences between married and widowed individ-
uals may even have intensified in recent years.
155
One recent study argues that rather than crude measures of marital sta-
tus, marital historiesthe nexus of marital status, timing, transitions, and
durationare predictive of mortality. Indeed, marital status was the
least robust indicator of longer life, and accumulation of marriage dura-
tion the most robust. Nevertheless, each of these marital factors was
important in predicting survival. The effect of marriage on life expectancy
18.
19.
Page 31
begins in young adulthood and accrues across the life course as indi-
viduals remain in, exit, and reenter marital relationships.
156
Thus, even
for adults, the stability of married life across the life course plays an
important role in fostering adult health.
Marriage is associated with better health and lower rates
of injury, illness, and disability for both men and women.
Both married men and women enjoy better health on average than do
single, cohabiting, or divorced individuals.
157
Selection effects regarding
divorce or remarriage may account for part of this differential, although
research has found no consistent pattern of such selection.
158
Married
people appear to manage illness better, monitor each others health,
have higher incomes and wealth, and adopt healthier lifestyles than do
otherwise similar singles.
159
For example, one recent study finds married
men have higher serum carotenoid levels than never-married, divorced,
or widowed men, and married women have higher levels of the same
than do widowed women, suggesting marriage promotes diets higher
in fruit and vegetable intake.
160
A recent study of the health effects of marriage drawn from 9,333
respondents to the Health and Retirement Survey of Americans between
the ages of fifty-one and sixty-one compared the incidence of major dis-
eases, as well as functional disability, in married, cohabiting, divorced,
widowed, and never-married individuals. Without exception, the
authors report, married persons have the lowest rates of morbidity for
each of the diseases, impairments, functioning problems and disabili-
ties. Marital status differences in disability remained dramatic even
after controlling for age, sex, and race/ethnicity.
161
Another study from
the federally-funded Centers for Disease Control found that married
adults were less likely to be in poor health, to have activity limitations,
to have headaches, to suffer serious pyschological distress, to smoke,
and to have a drinking problem, compared to widowed, divorced, and
cohabiting adults.
162
However, studies also suggest that the health effects of marriage vary by
marital quality, especially for women. Research by psychologist Janice
Kiecolt-Glaser and her colleagues indicates that womens health is par-
ticularly likely to suffer when they are in poor-quality relationships and
thrive when they are in high-quality relationships. For instance, negative
marital behaviors (e.g., criticisms, put-downs, sarcasm) are associated
with increased levels of stress hormones (epinepherine, ACTH, and
20.
Page 32
norepinephrine), with higher blood pressure, and with declines in
immune functioning.
163
So, particularly for women, marital quality, not
simply marital status, is strongly correlated to better health outcomes.
Moreover, there is a negative effect of poor marital quality on self-rated
health that appears to grow with age,
164
and remaining in a long-term,
low-quality marriage may actually be worse for ones overall health than
getting divorced.
165
Low marital quality has been implicated as one
reason why single mothers who marry do not reap the marital benefits
that childless women who marry do.
166
Marital conflict also appears to be
tied to functional impairment among midlife and older adults.
167
As with studies of marriage and mortality, marital status may not ade-
quately gauge the effect of marital history on physical health. For both
men and women, marriage duration is associated with lower rates of
disease. For women, early marriage (at or before age eighteen) and
number of divorce transitions predict poorer health outcomes; for men,
divorce duration and widowhood transitions are important.
168
But here,
again, the research suggests that a stable, lifelong marriage typically
benefits women and mens health.
Despite the overall health advantages for married individuals, the tran-
sition to marriage is associated with at least one disadvantage: weight
gain.
169
In one recent study, researchers found that those who married
had BMI scores 1.129 units higher, on average, than those who
remained unmarried three years laterthe equivalent of gaining eight
pounds for a person 510 tall and weighing 170 pounds.
170
Both men
and women who marry are more than two times more likely to become
obese than those who are in a non-cohabiting, dating relationship.
171
Here, adults who marry probably feel less pressure to stay fit to attract
or keep a partner, compared to their unmarried peers.
Marriage seems to be associated with better health
among minorities and the poor.
A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control indicates that
African American, Latino, and low-income adults also enjoy health ben-
efits from marriage. African American and Latino adults who are married
are less likely to be in poor health, to have activity limitations, to smoke,
to have a drinking problem, and to suffer serious pyschological distress,
compared to cohabiting, never-married, divorced, and widowed adults
who were African American or Latino. Poor married adults were less
likely to be in poor health, to have activity limitations, to smoke, to have
21.
Page 33
a drinking problem, or to suffer serious psychological distress, compared
to cohabiting, divorced, and widowed adults. (However, they did not do
consistently better than never-married adults).
172
Nevertheless, marriage
may also increase the risk of obesity for African American women.
173
Marriage also has implications for child health. Studies indicate that
Latino and African American infants are significantly more likely to die
at or around birth, suffer from low birth weight, or be born premature
if they are born outside of marriage.
174
More research needs to be done
on the health consequences of marriage for low-income and minority
populations to confirm and extend these findings.
Children whose parents divorce have higher rates of psy-
chological distress and mental illness.
In the last four decades, a large body of research on divorce has accu-
mulated that generally indicates that divorce often causes children con-
siderable emotional distress and doubles the risk that they will experi-
ence serious pyschological problems later in life.
175
Children of divorce
are at higher risk for depression and other mental illness over the
course of their lives, in part because of reduced educational attainment,
increased risk of divorce, marital problems, and economic hardship.
176
A twenty-five-year study by psychologist Judith Wallerstein and her col-
leagues found that that the effects of divorce on children crescendoed
as they enter adulthood. Their relationships with the opposite sex were
often impaired by acute fears of betrayal and abandonment, and many
also complained that they had never witnessed a man and a woman in
a happy relationship and doubted that achieving such a relationship
was possible.
177
Indeed, the recent growth of cohabitation flows in part
from the loss of confidence that many children of divorce have in mar-
riage.
178
Having witnessed divorce up close, many young adults are
afraid that they will not achieve lifelong love and they feel handicapped
in their search for love and marriage by their lack of models of a happy
relationship between a man and a woman, their lack of knowledge
about how to resolve differences, and their expectation of betrayal and
abandonment by their lover, wife, or husband.
179
So they cohabit, date,
or hookup instead of marrying.
Since Wallerstein published her pioneering book, Second Chances:
Men, Women, and Children a Decade After Divorce, which suggested
22.
Page 34
that divorce was associated with a fear of abandonment, sleeplessness,
a rise in aggression, and chronic anxiety among the children of divorce,
a large body of research on divorce has accumulated, which generally
indicates that divorce often causes children considerable emotional dis-
tress and doubles the risk that they will experience serious pyscholog-
ical problems later in life. Children of divorce are at higher risk for
depression and other mental illness over the course of their lives, in part
because of reduced educational attainment, increased risk of divorce,
marital problems, and economic hardship.
The timing of the breakup may matter as well. Family instability prior
to the end of kindergarten (be it divorce or another type of parental
breakup) but not from first through fourth grades heightens externaliz-
ing behavior problems and lowers peer compentency among fifth
graders.
180
There is mixed evidence as to whether these higher rates of psycho-
logical distress are causally related to parental divorce or instead to
some genetic factor(s). Studies from two sitesAustralia and Virginia
conducted by the same research team report very different results. Two
of these studies followed identical and nonidentical twins in Australia
who married and had children. Some of these twins went on to
divorce. By comparing the children of divorce with children from intact
families in this sample, the researchers were able to determine the role
that genetic factors played in fostering psychological problems among
the children of divorce. Specifically, these studies found that children
of divorce were significantly more likely to suffer from depression,
alcohol and drug abuse, delinquency, and thoughts of suicide.
181
In the
researchers own words: The results of the modeling indicated that
parental divorce was associated with young-adult offspring psychopathol-
ogy even when controlling for genetic and common environmental
factors related to the twin parent.
182
However, in a similarly-designed
study of Virginians, the researchers found that the apparent effect of
parental divorce on emotional problems could be attributed to genetic
differences among parents who divorced, even as genetics did not
explain the association between parental divorce and alcohol problems.
183
The researchers note that cross-cultural differences, measurement dif-
ferences, or sampling differences may account for the discrepancy.
There is some additional evidence that the psychological effects of
divorce differ depending on the level of conflict between parents prior
to divorce. When marital conflict is high and sustained, children benefit
psychologically from divorce. When marital conflict is low, children
Page 35
suffer psychologically from divorce. Unfortunately, about two-thirds of
divorces appear to be taking place among low-conflict spouses.
184
Cohabitation is associated with higher levels of psycho-
logical problems among children.
Studies find that children in cohabiting families are significantly more
likely to experience depression, difficulty sleeping, feelings of worth-
lessness, nervousness, and tension, compared to children in intact, mar-
ried households.
185
For example, one nationally-representative study of
six- to eleven-year-olds found that 15.7 percent of children in cohabit-
ing families experienced serious emotional problems (e.g., depression,
feelings of inferiority, etc.), compared to just 3.5 percent of children in
families headed by married biological or adoptive parents.
186
Kindergartners in cohabiting stepfamilies report more sadness and lone-
liness than those who live with their married biological parents. Those
who cohabit with their biological parents do not differ from those who
live with their married parents. Both types of cohabiting families, how-
ever, are associated with lower levels of self-control among kindergart-
ners.
187
Adolescents in stably cohabiting stepfamilies experience more
increases in depression than their counterparts in stable biological par-
ent families, and transitioning from a cohabiting stepfamily to a married
stepfamily also appears to increase depression among adolescents.
188
The effect of cohabitation may be contingent on its social institutional-
ization. For example, children born born to Latina mothers in countries
where cohabitation is more prevalent and accepted exhibit less exter-
nalizing behavioral problems than those born in countries where it is
less institutionalized.
189
But, in the United States at least, cohabitation is
a risk factor for childrens mental health.
Family breakdown appears significantly to increase the
risk of suicide.
High rates of family fragmentation are associated with an increased risk
of suicide among both adults and adolescents.
190
Divorced men and
women are more than twice as likely as their married counterparts to
attempt suicide.
191
Married individuals were also substantially less likely
to commit suicide than were divorced, widowed, or never-married
individuals.
192
In the last half-century, suicide rates among teens and
23.
24.
Page 36
young adults have tripled. The single most important explanatory vari-
able, according to one new study, is the increased share of youths liv-
ing in homes with a divorced parent. The effect, note the researchers,
is large, explaining as much as two-thirds of the increase in youth
suicides over time.
193
Another study suggests that if family structure
remained as it was in 1970, 179,000 fewer children per year would con-
sider suicide and 71,000 fewer children would attempt suicide.
194
Married mothers have lower rates of depression than do
single or cohabiting mothers.
The absence of marriage is a serious risk factor for maternal depression.
Married mothers have lower rates of depression than do cohabiting or
single mothers. Cohabiting mothers are more likely to be depressed
because they are much less confident that their relationship will last,
compared to married mothers.
195
Married mothers also perceive that they
receive more support from their child(ren)s father.
196
Single mothers are
more likely to be depressed by the burdens associated with parenting
alone. One study of 2,300 urban adults found that, among parents of
preschoolers, the risk of depression was substantially greater for unmar-
ried as compared to married mothers.
197
Single mothers who marry (and
remain married), moreover, receive the same mental health benefits as
childless women who marry.
198
Marriage protects even older teen moth-
ers from the risk of depression. In one nationally representative sample
of eighteen- and nineteen-year-old mothers, 41 percent of single white
mothers having their first child reported high levels of depressive symp-
toms, compared to 28 percent of married white teen mothers in this age
group.
199
Longitudinal studies following young adults as they marry, divorce, and
remain single indicate that marriage boosts mental and emotional well-
being for both men and women.
200
We focus on maternal depression
because it is both a serious mental health problem for women and a
serious risk factor for children.
201
Not only are single mothers more likely
to be depressed, the consequences of maternal depression for child
well-being are greater in single-parent families, probably because single
parents have less support and because children in disrupted families
have less access to their (nondepressed) other parent.
202
One study found that single mothers who are no longer in a romantic
relationship (of any kind) with their childs father one year after the
birth exhibit the most mental health problems, but even those who are
25.
Page 37
cohabiting with the father or in a romantic, non-cohabiting relationship
with the father have more mental health problems than married moth-
ers. In this study, about 29 percent of mothers who were no longer in
a romantic relationship with their childs father report at least one mental
health problem, compared to 24 percent of those in a romantic, non-
cohabiting relationship, 23 percent of those in a cohabiting relationship,
and 16 percent of those who were married. These differences persisted
even after controls for relevant background characteristics.
203
Crime and Domestic Violence
Boys raised in non-intact families are more likely to
engage in delinquent and criminal behavior.
Even after controlling for factors such as race, mothers education,
neighborhood quality, and cognitive ability, one recent study found that
boys raised in single-parent homes are about twice as likely (and boys
raised in stepfamilies are more than two-and-a-half times as likely) to
have committed a crime that leads to incarceration by the time they
reach their early thirties. (The study found that slightly more than 7 per-
cent of boys were incarcerated at some point between the ages of fif-
teen and thirty.)
204
Teens in both one-parent and remarried homes display more deviant
behavior and commit more delinquent acts than do teens whose par-
ents stayed married.
205
Teens in one-parent families are on average less
attached to their parents opinions and more attached to their peer
groups. Combined with lower levels of parental supervision, these atti-
tudes appear to set the stage for delinquent behavior.
206
However, some
research indicates that the link between single-parenthood and delin-
quency does not hold for African American children.
207
The research on cohabiting families and youth crime and delinquency
is still in its infancy. Nevertheless, studies indicate that adolescents in
cohabiting families are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior, to
cheat, and to be suspended from school.
208
Moreover, white and Latino
adolescents in cohabiting households were more likely to have behav-
ioral problems than adolescents living in intact, married households and
adolescents living in single-mother households.
209
One reason that teens
in cohabiting households appear to do worse than teens living in single-
parent homes is that cohabiting households are usually led by their
mother and an unrelated male. Such boyfriends are more likely to be
26.
Page 38
abusive than a married father, and they are also more likely to compete
with the child for the attention of the mother.
210
Family transitions are also related to increases in delinquency among
adolescents. Specifically, moving from a two-biological parent family to
a single-mother family and moving from a single-mother family to either
a cohabiting or married stepfamily is associated with an increase in
delinquency for adolescents. However, moving to a single-mother family
from a married or cohabiting stepfamily does not appear to matter, nor
does moving from a cohabiting stepfamily to a married stepfamily. In
other words, children who transition out of a stable, intact, married
family are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior.
211
Marriage appears to reduce the risk that adults will be
either perpetrators or victims of crime.
Overall, single and divorced women are four to five times more likely
to be victims of violent crime in any given year than are married
women. Single and divorced women are almost ten times more likely
than are wives to be raped, and about three times more likely to be the
victims of aggravated assault. For instance, the U.S. Department of
Justice estimates that the violent victimization rate was 17 per 1000 mar-
ried women compared to more than 60 per 1000 single and divorced
women in 19921993. Similarly, compared to husbands, unmarried men
are about four times as likely to become victims of violent crime.
212
Marriage also plays a crucial role in reducing male criminality.
213
A study
of five hundred chronic juvenile offenders found that those who mar-
ried and enjoyed high-quality marriages reduced their offense rate by
two-thirds, compared to criminals who did not marry or who did not
establish good marriages.
214
Research by sociologist Robert Sampson
indicates that murder and robbery rates in urban America are strongly
tied to the health of marriage in urban communities. Specifically, he
found that high rates of family disruption and low rates of marriage
were associated with high rates of murder and robbery among both
African American and white adults and juveniles.
215
In his words,
Family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor
of variations in urban violence across cities in the United States.
216
Another recent study comes to a similar conclusion, claiming that the
difference in family structure between whites and blacks is one of the
most consistent explanations for the black-white homicide gap.
217
Marriage also reduces criminality in the Netherlands, indicating the
27.
Page 39
effect is not unique to the American context.
218
Other research indicates
that declines in marriage rates among working-class and poor men in
the 1970s drove crime rates markedly higher in that decade. The rea-
son? Married men spend more time with their wives, who discourage
criminal behavior, and less time with peers, who often do not.
219
Some
of the most rigorous research on the causal relationship between mar-
riage and crime finds that marriage reduces the odds of a man com-
mitting a crime by about 35 percent.
220
Married women appear to have a lower risk of experi-
encing domestic violence than do cohabiting or dating
women.
Domestic violence remains a serious problem both inside and outside
of marriage.
While young women must recognize that marriage is not a good strategy
for reforming violent men, a large body of research shows that being
unmarried, and especially living with a man outside of marriage, is asso-
ciated with an increased risk of domestic abuse.
221
One analysis of the
National Survey of Families and Households found that cohabitors were
over three times more likely than spouses to say that arguments became
physical over the last year (13 percent of cohabitors versus 4 percent of
spouses). Even after controlling for race, age, and education, people
who live together are still more likely than married people to report vio-
lent arguments.
222
Mothers of infants likewise report higher incidence of
partner violence when they are either cohabiting or in a non-cohabiting
romantic relationship.
223
During young adulthood, however, when mar-
riage is less normative and dating more so, there does not appear to be
differences in relationship violence between marrieds and daters. Even
so, the difference between marrieds and cohabitors persists for young
adult women.
224
Another study of domestic violence among African
Americans found that African American women were more likely to be
victimized if they were living in neighborhoods with higher proportions
of cohabiting couples.
225
Overall, as one scholar sums up the relevant
research, Regardless of methodology, the studies yielded similar results:
Cohabitors engage in more violence than do spouses.
226
Selection effects play a powerful role. Women are less likely to marry,
and more likely to divorce, violent men. So, one reason that women in
cohabiting relationships are more likely to have a violent partner is that
cohabiting women in nonviolent relationships are more likely to move
28.
Page 40
into marriage, whereas cohabiting women in violent relationships are
less likely to move on to marriage; this means that the most violent rela-
tionships are more likely to remain cohabiting ones.
227
However, scholars
suggest that the greater integration of married men into the community,
and the greater investment of spouses in each other, also play a role.
228
Married men, for example, are more responsive to policies such as
mandatory arrest policies, designed to signal strong disapproval of
domestic violence.
229
A child who is not living with his or her own two married
parents is at greater risk of child abuse.
Children living with single mothers, mothers boyfriends, or stepfathers
are more likely to become victims of child abuse.
230
Children living in
single-mother homes have increased rates of death from intentional
injuries.
231
Another national study found that 7 percent of children who
had lived with one parent had experienced sexual abuse, compared to
4 percent of children who lived with both biological parents, largely
because they had more contact with unrelated adult males.
232
Other
research found that, although boyfriends contribute less than 2 percent
of nonparental childcare, they commit half of all reported child abuse
by nonparents. The researcher concludes that a young child left alone
with a mothers boyfriend experiences elevated risk of physical
abuse.
233
A recent federal report on child maltreatment found that
[c]hildren living with two married biological parents had the lowest rate
of overall Harm Standard maltreatment, at 6.8 per 1,000 children,
whereas [c]hildren living with one parent who had an unmarried partner
in the household had the highest incidence of Harm Standard maltreat-
ment (57.2 per 1,000).
234
Another study focusing on fatal child abuse in
Missouri found that preschool children were 47.6 times more likely to
die in a cohabiting household, compared to preschool children living in
an intact, married household.
235
Stepfathers also present risks to children. As psychologists Martin Daly
and Margo Wilson reported, Living with a stepparent has turned out
to be the most powerful predictor of severe child abuse yet.
236
Studies
have found that young children in stepfamilies are more than fifty
times more likely to be murdered by a stepparent (usually a stepfa-
ther) than by a biological parent.
237
One study found that a preschool-
er living with a stepfather was forty times more likely to be sexually
abused than one living with both of his or her biological parents.
238
29.
Page 41
There is a growing marriage gap between college-edu-
cated Americans and less-educated Americans.
As late as the 1970s, the vast majority of adult Americans were living in
an intact marriage, and almost nine in ten children were born into mar-
ried families. No longer. Now, less than half of adults are married, and
almost half white high-school educated Americans.
239
Clearly, the
nations retreat from marriage has dramatically reshaped the nature of
adult life, and the context of family life for children.
But this retreat from marriage has hit poor, working-class, and
minority communities with particular force. By contrast, marriage
trends among more educated and affluent Americans have largedly
stabilized or taken a turn for the better. For instance, nonmarital child-
bearing rose more than six-fold from 5 percent in 1982 to 34 percent
in 20062008 among white high-school educated Americans. Over this
same period, it did not rise at all for white college-educated
Americans, among whom only 2 percent of children were born ou
tside of marriage in the 1980s and the 2000s. Similarly, over this same
period, family instability rose among Americans who did not have col-
lege degrees, but fell among college-educated Americans. Since 1982,
the percentage of fourteen-year-olds living with both of their parents
has declined for children living with parents who do not have college
degrees, while it has increased for children whose parents have college
degrees.
240
Thus, in the United States today, there is a growing marriage gap such
that the educated and the affluent are enjoying more stable and high-
quality marriages, and the less educated and less affluent are experi-
encing lower-quality and less stable marriages. Indeed, poor and working-
class Americans are increasingly foregoing marriage entirely, opting
instead for cohabiting unions that often do not serve them and their
children well over the long term.
The growing marriage gap is troubling for at least two reasons. It
leaves working-class and poor adults more distanced from an institu-
tion that has historically lent purpose, meaning, responsibility, mutual
aid, and a sense of solidarity to the lives of countless men and
women. And it leaves children in poor and working-class communities
doubly disadvantaged, insofar as children in these communities have
access to fewer socioeconomic resources and fewer intact, married
families.
30.
Page 42
Conclusion
M
ARRIAGE IS MORE THAN A PRIVATE EMOTIONAL RELATIONSHIP. It is
also a social good. This is not to claim that every person can
or should marry. Or that every child raised outside of marriage
is damaged as a result. Marriage is not a panacea that will solve all of
our social problems.
But marriage matters. Children in average intact, married families are
more likely to thrive than children in average single- and stepparent
families, and families headed by cohabiting couples. Communities
where good-enough marriages are common have better outcomes for
children, women, and men than do communities marked by high rates
of divorce, unmarried childbearing, cohabition, and high-conflict or vio-
lent marriages. Moreover, as we have seen, the benefits of a strong mar-
riage culture extend across lines of race, ethnicity, and class.
Indeed, if we adapt a public health perspective in thinking about the
effects of marriage on the commonweal, we can see that the effects of
marriage areat the societal levelquite large. Sociologist Paul Amato
recently estimated the effects of returning marriage rates for households
with children to the level they were in 1980. This is what he found:
Increasing marital stability to the same level as in 1980 is associated
with a decline of nearly one-half million children suspended from
school, about two hundred thousand fewer children engaging in
delinquency or violence, a quarter of a million fewer children receiv-
ing therapy, about a quarter of a million fewer smokers, about
80,000 fewer children thinking about suicide, and about 28,000
fewer children attempting suicide.
241
So the institutional strength of marriage in our society has clear conse-
quences for children, adults, and the communities in which they live.
If policy makers are concerned about issues as varied as poverty, crime,
child well-being, rising economic inequality, and the fiscal limits of the
contemporary welfare state, they should recognize that the nations
retreat from marriage is closely connected to all of these issues. To
strengthen marriage, more funding is needed for research that points
the way toward new public policies, community initiatives, and public
campaigns to help strengthen marriage, particularly in minority and
low-income communities most affected by the retreat from marriage.
We also need ongoing, basic scientific research on marriage, cohabitation,
Page 43
and family instability that contributes to the development of strategies
and programs that help strengthen marriage and slow the relational
merry-go-round that all too many adults and children now find them-
selves riding.
242
There is promising evidence of successful strategies,
243
but such strategies should continue to be informed by ongoing
research.
We need to answer questions like the following: What are the long-term
consequences for children of growing up in increasingly unstable and
complex families? How can we prevent nonmarital childbearing and
bridge the marriage gap? How can families, marriage educators, thera-
pists, and public policy help working-class and poor parents recognize
that cohabitation does not compare to marriage when it comes to start-
ing a family? How can communities be mobilized to promote a marriage-
friendly culture? And how do we bring together those who are doing
the grassroots work of strengthening marriage with researchers and
public officials in order to create synergies of knowledge, practice, and
public policy?
If marriage is not merely a private preference, but also a social and
public good, concerned citizens, as well as scholars, need and deserve
answers to these and similar questions.
Page 44
Appendix: Figures
FIGURE 2. PERCENT OF CHILDREN EXPERIENCING PARENTAL DIVORCE/SEPARATION AND
PARENTAL COHABITATION, BY AGE 12; PERIOD LIFE TABLE ESTIMATES, 2002-07
50
40
30
20
10
0
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
PARENTAL DIVORCE PARENTAL COHABITATION
Source: Kennedy and Bumpass, 2011. Data from National Survey of Family
Growth. Note: The divorce/separation rate only applies to children born to
married parents.
24%
42%
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
FIGURE 1. PERCENT OF FIRST CHILDREN EXPERIENCING PARENTAL DIVORCE BY AGE 10,
BY PARENTS YEAR OF MARRIAGE (1960-1997)
Source: SIPP Data, 2001, 2004, and 2008. Women with premarital births excluded.
1960
TO
1964
1965
TO
1969
1970
TO
1974
1975
TO
1979
1980
TO
1984
1985
TO
1989
1990
TO
1994
1995
TO
1997
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
Page 45
20
15
10
5
0
FIGURE 3. INCIDENCE PER 1,000 CHILDREN OF HARM STANDARD ABUSE BY
FAMILY STRUCTURE AND LIVING ARRANGEMENT, 2005-2006
Source: Figure 5-2 in Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect
(NIS-4): Report to Congress.
1.9
9.8
8.2
19.5
5.9
6.8
0.5
4.3
2.4
9.9
5.3
0.8
5.0
2.5
2.9
4.0
PHYSICAL ABUSE SEXUAL ABUSE EMOTIONAL ABUSE
2.4
8.2
Married biological parents
Other married parents
Cohabiting biological parents
Parent with cohabiting partner
Single parent, no partner
Neither parent
FIGURE 4. PERCENT OF 16-YEAR-OLDS LIVING WITH MOTHER AND FATHER,
1978-1984 AND 1998-2004
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
1978-1984 1998-2004
Source: General Social Survey, 1980-2010.
66%
55%
Page 46
FIGURE 5. PERCENT OF CHILDREN EXPERIENCING PARENTAL SEPARATION BY AGE 12
BY MOTHERS RELATIONSHIP STATUS AT BIRTH; PERIOD LIFE TABLE ESTIMATES, 2002-07
MARRIED MOTHER COHABITING MOTHER
Source: Kennedy and Bumpass, 2011. Data from National Survey of Family
Growth.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
24%
65%
FIGURE 6. PERCENT OF 14-YEAR-OLD GIRLS LIVING WITH MOTHER AND FATHER,
BY MOTHERS EDUCATION AND YEAR
100
80
60
40
20
0
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
Source: National Survey of Family Growth, 1982 and 2006-08.
65%
52%
74%
58%
80%
81%
MOTHER HAD NO
HIGH SCHOOL
DEGREE
MOTHER HAD HIGH
SCHOOL DEGREE,
NO FOUR-YEAR
COLLEGE DEGREE
MOTHER HAD
FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE
DEGREE
1974-1981
2000-2007
Page 47
Endnotes
Endnotes are located online at:
http://www.americanvalues.org/wmm/endnotes.php
About the Institute for American Values
The Institute for American Values, founded in 1987, is a private, nonpartisan
organization devoted to research, publication, and public education on issues
of family well-being and civil society. By providing forums for scholarly
inquiry and debate, the Institute seeks to bring fresh knowledge to bear on
the challenges facing families and civil society. Through its publications and
other educational activities, the Institute seeks to bridge the gap between
scholarship and policy making, bringing new information to the attention of
policy makers in the government, opinion makers in the media, and decision
makers in the private sector.
About the National Marriage Project
The National Marriage Project, founded in 1997 at Rutgers University, is a
nonpartisan, nonsectarian, and interdisciplinary initiative now located at
the University of Virginia. The Projects mission is to provide research and
analysis on the health of marriage in America, to analyze the social and cul-
tural forces shaping contemporary marriage, and to identify strategies to
increase marital quality and stability.
1841 Broadway
Suite 211
New York, NY 10023
Tel: (212) 246-3942
Fax: (212) 541-6665
info@americanvalues.org
www.americanvalues.org
National Marriage Project
The University of Virginia
P.O. Box 400766
The Dynamics Building
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4766
Tel: (434) 321-8601
Fax: (434) 924-7028
marriage@virginia.edu
www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/

EXHIBIT 9

EXHIBIT 10

EXHIBIT 11
COMMENTARiES
ONHE LAW O
MARRIAGE AN I
IVORCE, AND
EVI!ENCE!N. . .
Joel
Prentiss
Bishop
C0MMENTRIEs
LUOEN1
L
ART'
TUE LAw
3I, 1) GE AND DIVORCE,
x0
E1VIDENCE IN MTIU3IO NI StITS.
J0EL PRExT1ss BISH0P,
BOSTaN+
LITTLE, :13RowN AND c0MpNY.
I.0'1+
wI MxWL
185t
CPTERx l I.
0'
225+ Tai onl y impediment to marriage, or ground of
nnl l iwhich remains to be discussed, is impotence.Mar~
T i n g e be twe e n two rsons of one 8CX coul d have no yal idi
as none of the ends ma&imony coul d be accompl ished
there I t has al ways, therefore, been deemed requisite to
the entire val idity of evemarriage, not onl y that the parties
shoul d be of different sex, but that they shoul d be essential l y
compl ete in their sexual organization and capabil ities. rhe
l imite and consequences of this docine, we are now to cone
der.
223."As the first cause and reason of matrimonsays
y l ife,"ought to be the design of having an offspring;so the
second ought to be the avoiding of fornieation,"J And the
l aw recognizes these two as the "principaL ends of matri-
mony," namel y, "a l awful indul gencehe passions to pre.
vent l icentiousness, and the procreatn of chil dren according
to the evident design of Divine Providence."2 When on
knowingl y marries anotherwhoi,p~~ tthe geof procreation,
cannot compl ain on tha ground of unfruitful ne&the
party married be within that age and have the power of copu-
l ation, there is ordinaril y no means of certainl y determin-
gthat tthe time fthe niarri ge u incurabl e steril ity
l A 1.Parer.
'Dr Luahizigton, inD~~~~ ~Ave1ing 1 Robert 279, 2981 Lord BWwI 1
0B
z~~ r Morg&n, 3
'Bm BTown
Phil i4 32A.(1 EPE!408,409)
Ug ,'",(3 E.I 2"')
7
227 NULLlES 0F MAl.R'
[HOOK IlL
cxisted, Indeed , medical writers have stated withoutq ualica~
t i o n, t hat t he r e i s n o uch meanwhich is probahly true wher
ever there is no di'coverabie malformation. In all the reported
cases, therefore, the principal inquhas been as to the ability
tocpulate, And whenom anyeause which is irremediable,
there is an inabilithe ect of marriage is frustrate4 "Q:
ma rirnmiurn ordiniiun fut," says0Lighton,"non sohim ad
rritandirn Fornica nem, sed etiam ad proles procreanda, si
ifatrimonim (tai quzie) fueri , inJcr Pirum. et Mu&rem, de
facto, so/em,tixcthm1 qui omnino i biles sun4 non propter a2a-
kin, sed prop ter zliquod nattrale irnpedmentum, w rolcs susci-
Landas, ulpote, propter irapotentiarn 11 fr dilatem, nuileficcn-
tiara, et simula, qu ' ipso Jure, reddanjiismodi mat rimoniwm
nullum' Hac impedimenta na4nralia auando conlingan!, tarn
Mullere, quam in VireL prsg ratiatt arere potest
causa nul/itatis matrimonii."2
227+ Every contract of marriage, therefore, implies a capa-
biliin th parties of consummation 'When a person, know~
i n g hi s o wn d e f e c t, i n d uc e s an o t he r who i s i gn o nt tto
marryim,hecommitsag~~~~ fraud an d grievous injury
and when he is himself ignoran t it, there is equy a V
lati'n of the contract, and an equal iury, though there be
no intentional wrong4 Iu the former case, the maniage
would be clearly voidable on the sine ground of fraud, if
the princes which govern ordinary contracts were to be
applicdto it;and the latter case wo nldseem to be
equally so on the ground mistake, and the violation of the
implied warranty. Bowing to the peculiar nature fthe
'GuForewiic M*L 1IarperAm. ed. 51.
' Oughtot , tit.1l7.
'rr Mar. &Div23;SheQnM r,&fliv, 20 Oughton,
193,,17;Ct~~~~ ~~~~nL 518.
'Br i gi Morgan, S ThIIL 3 , E,E,R.O8,'I0')
0Ante100,1 7r Rut.her(o,puts! hi m ~ trtbu,:"Th3i c o n t r a4,
l i k e * 11 o t hi r i, i s bi n d i n g c o n d i i o n a11y ~ ~hat ure L} f p fonnance
one part re1tae c obIigatiun of the other part. inipo&euey, therefore, on
the part Un man, r ibeapici QTh th part oCthe woman, wilt the
176

EXHIBIT 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Thomas C. Horne
Attorney General

Solicitor General

1275 W. Washington
Telephone: (602) 542-3333
Fax: (602) 542-8308

Telephone: (480) 444-0020
Fax: (480) 444-0028



Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.

NON-EXHAUSTIVE COMPENDIUM
OF ARIZONA MAN-WOMAN
MARRIAGE LAWS AND
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT


3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Non-Exhaustive Compendium of Arizona Man-Woman Marriage Laws

1. Property Law
a. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-211 (All property acquired by either husband or wife
during the marriage is the community property of the husband and wife
. . .).
b. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 33-452 (A conveyance or incumbrance of community
property is not valid unless executed and acknowledged by both husband
and wife.).
c. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 33-431 (A. Except as otherwise provided in this section,
all grants and devises of real property made to two or more persons create
estates in common and not in joint tenancy, except grants or devises in
trust, or to executors, or to husband and wife. . . . C. A grant or devise to a
husband and wife may by express words vest the estate in the surviving
spouse on the death of one of the spouses when expressly declared in the
grant, transfer or devise to be an estate in community property with right of
survivorship. An estate in community property with right of survivorship
may also be created by grant or transfer from a husband and wife, when
holding title as community property or otherwise, to themselves or from
either husband or wife to both husband and wife. D. In the case of real
property owned by a husband and wife as community property with right
of survivorship, the right of survivorship is extinguished as provided in
14-2804 or on the recordation in the office of the recorder of the county
or counties where the real property is located an affidavit entitled affidavit
terminating right of survivorship executed by either spouse under oath that
sets forth a stated intent by the spouse to terminate the survivorship right, a
description of the instrument by which the right of survivorship was
created including the date the instrument was recorded and the county

4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

recorders book and page or instrument reference number and the legal
description of the real property affected by the affidavit. The recordation
shall not extinguish the community interest of either spouse.).
d. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 11-1134 (B. The affidavit and fee required by this
article do not apply to a transfer of title: . . . 3. When the transfer of title
has only nominal actual consideration for the transfer of residential
property between: (a) Husband and wife or ancestor of the husband and
wife.).
e. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 33-405 (B. A beneficiary deed may designate multiple
grantees who take title as joint tenants with right of survivorship, tenants in
common, a husband and wife as community property or as community
property with right of survivorship, or any other tenancy that is valid under
the laws of this state.).
f. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 32-2101(25) (25. Fractional interest means an
undivided interest in improved or unimproved land, lots or parcels of any
size created for the purpose of sale or lease and evidenced by any receipt,
certificate, deed or other document conveying the interest. Undivided
interests in land, lots or parcels created in the names of a husband and wife
as community property, joint tenants or tenants in common, or in the
names of other persons who, acting together as part of a single transaction,
acquire the interests without a purpose to divide the interests for present or
future sale or lease shall be deemed to constitute only one fractional
interest.).
2. Estate Administration
a. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 14-1201 (8. Community property means that property
of a husband and wife that is acquired during the marriage and that is
community property as prescribed in 25-211.).

5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

b. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 14-2804 (I. For the purpose of this section: . . . 2.
Divorce or annulment . . . does not include a decree of separation that
does not terminate the status of husband and wife.).
c. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 14-3101 (B. If a husband and wife both die, and the
administration of one of their estates is not completed prior to
commencement of administration of the other, their estates may be
combined in a single administration with the same personal representative,
if feasible.).
d. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 14-2802 (A. A person who is divorced from the
decedent or whose marriage to the decedent has been annulled is not a
surviving spouse unless, by virtue of a subsequent marriage, that person is
married to the decedent at the time of death. A decree of separation that
does not terminate the status of husband and wife is not a divorce for
purposes of this section. B. For the purposes of this section, surviving
spouse does not include: 1. A person who obtains or consents to a final
decree or judgment of divorce from the decedent or an annulment of the
marriage if that decree or judgment is not recognized as valid in this state,
unless they subsequently participate in a marriage ceremony purporting to
marry each to the other or live together as husband and wife.).
e. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 14-9106 (A. . . . Except in a transfer or declaration for
use and benefit of husband and wife, for whom survivorship is presumed, a
right of survivorship does not exist unless the instrument creating the
custodial trust specifically provides for survivorship or survivorship is
required as to community or marital property.).
f. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 14-5426(B) (If the court determines that the community
property shall be managed by the other spouse, and if the protected spouse
is the husband, the wife may become the manager of the community

6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

property during the conservatorship and may dispose of community
personal property in the interests of the community.).
3. Criminal Code
a. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-4062 (A person shall not be examined as a witness
in the following cases: 1. A husband for or against his wife without her
consent, nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent, as to
events occurring during the marriage, nor can either, during the marriage
or afterwards, without consent of the other, be examined as to any
communication made by one to the other during the marriage. These
exceptions do not apply in a criminal action or proceeding for a crime
committed by the husband against the wife, or by the wife against the
husband, nor in a criminal action or proceeding against the husband for
abandonment, failure to support or provide for or failure or neglect to
furnish the necessities of life to the wife or the minor children. . . .).
b. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-3609 (D. For the purposes of this section [Child
Bigamy Prohibition]: 1. Marriage means the state of joining together as
husband and wife through an agreement, promise or ceremony regardless
of whether a marriage license has been issued by the appropriate authority.
2. Marry means to join together as husband and wife through an
agreement, promise or ceremony regardless of whether a marriage license
has been issued by the appropriate authority. 3. Spouses means two
persons living together as husband and wife, including the assumption of
those marital rights, duties and obligations that are usually manifested by
married people, including but not necessarily dependent on sexual
relations.).


7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4. Civil Code
a. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 12-2231 (In a civil action a husband shall not be
examined for or against his wife without her consent, nor a wife for or
against her husband without his consent, except as provided in 12-
2232.).
b. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 12-2264 (A birth, death or fetal death certificate is
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, but if an alleged father of a
child is not the husband of the mother, the certificate shall not be prima
facie evidence of paternity if that fact is controverted by the alleged
father.).
5. Tax Code
a. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 43-309 (If a husband and wife are required to file a
return pursuant to 43-301, they may file a joint return under the
following conditions: 1. No joint return shall be made if husband and wife
have different taxable years. . . .).
b. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 43-1043 (2. A head of a household or a married
individual, a personal exemption of four thousand two hundred dollars
under this paragraph. A husband and wife shall receive but one personal
exemption of four thousand two hundred dollars. If the husband and wife
make separate returns, the personal exemption may be taken by either or
divided between them. 3. A married couple who claim at least one
dependent, an exemption of six thousand three hundred dollars. If the
husband and wife make separate returns, the personal exemption may be
taken by either or divided between them. An exemption under this
paragraph is in lieu of the exemption under paragraph 2.).

8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

c. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 42-2079 (C. For the purposes of this section: 1.
Affected taxpayer means: . . . (e) The spouse of an affected taxpayer,
solely with regard to a joint return of the husband and wife.).
d. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 43-311 (A. . . . A joint return filed by the husband and
wife for such taxable year, and all payments, credits, refunds or other
repayments made or allowed with respect to the separate return of either
spouse for such taxable year, shall be taken into account in determining the
extent to which the tax based upon the joint return has been paid.).
e. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 43-1022 (20. . . . In the case of a husband and wife who
file separate returns, the subtraction may be taken by either taxpayer or
may be divided between them, but the total subtractions allowed both
husband and wife shall not exceed three thousand dollars.).
f. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 43-943 (If husband and wife file separate returns, the
department may distribute, apportion or allocate gross income between the
spouses . . . .).
g. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 43-1090.01 (D. A husband and wife who file separate
returns for a taxable year in which they could have filed a joint return may
each claim only one-half of the tax credit that would have been allowed for
a joint return.).
h. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 43-1083 (D. A husband and wife who file separate
returns for a taxable year in which they could have filed a joint return may
each claim only one-half of the tax credit that would have been allowed for
a joint return.) (solar energy credit); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. 43-
1089.03 (school tuition credit); Ariz. Rev. Stat. 43-1089.01 (public
school fees credit); Ariz. Rev. Stat. 43-1086 (military relief fund credit);
Ariz. Rev. Stat. 43-1089 (school tuition organization credit).

9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

i. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 43-1041 (D. In the case of a husband and wife, the
standard deduction provided for in subsection A of this section shall not be
allowed to either if the taxable income of one of the spouses is determined
without regard to the standard deduction.).
j. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 43-310 (A. If a husband and wife have filed a joint
return for a taxable year for which separate returns could have been made
by them . . . , and the time prescribed by this title for filing the return for
such taxable year has expired, the spouses may nevertheless make separate
returns for such taxable year.).
k. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 43-1089.02 (D. . . . If the property is donated by a
husband and wife who file separate returns for a taxable year in which they
could have filed a joint return, they may determine between them the share
of the credit each will claim. . . .).
l. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 43-301 (B. In the case of a husband and wife, the
spouse who controls the disposition of or who receives or spends
community income as well as the spouse who is taxable on such income is
liable for the payment of taxes imposed by this title on such income. . . .).
6. Labor Law
a. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 23-1064 (A. The following persons are conclusively
presumed to be totally dependent for support upon a deceased employee: 1.
A wife upon a husband whom she has not voluntarily abandoned at the
time of the injury. 2. A husband upon a wife whom he has not voluntarily
abandoned at the time of the injury.).
7. Corporations and Associations
a. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 10-2060 (A husband and wife may hold a joint
membership in a cooperative.).

10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

b. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 10-1623 (G. In this section: 1. Controlling includes
the total shares of stock issued to a husband and wife and their relatives to
the first degree of consanguinity.).
c. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 10-2058 (E. If a husband and wife hold a joint
membership in a cooperative, either one, but not both, may be elected a
director.).
8. Domestic Relations
a. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-1256 (I. The defense of immunity based on the
relationship of husband and wife or parent and child does not apply in a
proceeding under this chapter.).
b. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-1060 (D. A privilege against disclosure of
communications between spouses and a defense of immunity based on the
relationship of husband and wife or parent and child shall not be invoked
in a proceeding under this article.).
c. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 8-103 (A. Any adult resident of this state, whether
married, unmarried or legally separated is eligible to qualify to adopt
children. A husband and wife may jointly adopt children.).
d. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 8-805 (B. Except as provided in subsection C of this
section, the physician-patient privilege, husband-wife privilege, or any
privilege except the attorney-client privilege, provided for by professions
such as the practice of social work or nursing covered by law or a code of
ethics regarding practitioner-client confidences, both as they relate to the
competency of the witness and to the exclusion of confidential
communications, shall not pertain in any civil or criminal litigation in
which a childs neglect, dependency, abuse or abandonment is in issue nor
in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report submitted pursuant to
this article.).

11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 36-334 (C. If a fathers name is stated on a birth
certificate, the fathers name shall be stated on a birth certificate as
follows: 1. Except as provided in 25-814, if the mother is married at the
time of birth or was married at any time in the ten months before the birth,
the name of the mothers husband. 2. If a mother and father who are not
married to each other at the time of birth and were not married to each
other in the ten months before the birth voluntarily acknowledge paternity
pursuant to 25-812, the name of the father acknowledging paternity. 3. If
the state registrar receives an administrative order or a court order
establishing paternity, the fathers name in the order. D. If the
acknowledgement of paternity is rescinded pursuant to 25-812, the state
registrar shall remove the fathers name from the registered birth
certificate.).
f. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-902 (A husband and wife may enter into a covenant
marriage by submitting to the clerk of the superior court or any other
official designated by the clerk pursuant to 25-126 or 25-127 the
declaration prescribed in 25-901, subsection B, paragraphs 1 and 3 and a
sworn statement of their names and the date and place their marriage was
contracted and by paying the fee prescribed in 12-284, subsection A. The
clerk shall file all documentation required by this section and shall issue to
the husband and wife a certificate that documents the conversion. A
husband and wife who apply for a covenant marriage conversion under this
section are not required to receive premarital counseling required by 25-
901 and are not required to have the converted covenant marriage
separately solemnized. Conversion to a covenant marriage does not make
valid a marriage that is prohibited pursuant to this title or that is not validly
contracted in this state.).

12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

g. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-904 (Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, if a
husband and wife have entered into a covenant marriage pursuant to this
chapter the court shall not enter a decree of legal separation pursuant to
chapter 3, article 2 of this title unless it finds any of the following . . .).
h. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-901 (B. A declaration of intent to enter into a
covenant marriage shall contain all of the following: 1. The following
written statement: A Covenant Marriage We solemnly declare that
marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman who agree to live
together as husband and wife for as long as they both live. . . .).
9. Welfare Code
a. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 46-453 (A. . . . . Except as provided in subsection B of
this section the physician-patient privilege, husband-wife privilege or any
privilege except the attorney-client privilege, provided for by professions
such as the practice of social work or nursing covered by law or a code of
ethics regarding practitioner-client confidences, both as they relate to the
competency of the witness and to the exclusion of confidential
communications, shall not pertain in any civil or criminal litigation in
which a vulnerable adults exploitation, abuse or neglect is an issue nor in
any judicial or administrative proceeding resulting from a report,
information or records submitted or obtained pursuant to 46-454 nor in
any investigation of a vulnerable adults exploitation, abuse or neglect
conducted by a peace officer or a protective services worker.).
10. Constitutional Provision
a. Ariz. Const. art. IX, 18(7) (If the property is owned by two or more
persons, including a husband and wife, at least one of the owners must be
sixty-five years of age or older and the owners combined total income
from all sources including nontaxable income shall not exceed five

13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

hundred per cent of the supplemental security income benefit rate
established by section 1611(b)(1) of the social security act.).


EXHIBIT 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Thomas C. Horne
Attorney General

Solicitor General

1275 W. Washington
Telephone: (602) 542-3333
Fax: (602) 542-8308

Telephone: (480) 444-0020
Fax: (480) 444-0028



Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.

DECLARATION OF CHAD ROCHE,
PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CLERK, IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1 I, Chad Roche, Pinal County Superior Court Clerk, declare as follows:
2 1. I am a defendant in the above-captioned case.
3 2. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge.
4 3. I am the Pinal County Superior Court Clerk.
5 4. In my capacity as Superior Court Clerk, I have a ministerial duty to issue
6 marriage licenses in accordance with the requirements and restrictions imposed by state
7 law.
8 5. My duties as Superior Court Clerk do not include recognizing marriage
9 certificates or licenses issued by other States or jurisdictions for any purpose other than
10 converting a recognized marriage to a covenant marriage under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-
11 901 through 25-906. Except for converting recognized marriages to covenant marriages,
12 I have no authority to recognize a marriage certificate or license issued by another State
13 or jurisdiction, regardless of whether the certificate or license was issued to an opposite-
14 sex couple or a same-sex couple.
15 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true
Executed
and correct.
on June ,, 2014

Chad Roche,
Pinal County Superior Court Clerk
6

8

Q
/

0

1

1
J

l

'

2

EXHIBIT 14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Thomas C. Horne
Attorney General

Solicitor General

1275 W. Washington
Telephone: (602) 542-3333
Fax: (602) 542-8308

Telephone: (480) 444-0020
Fax: (480) 444-0028



Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL
JEANES, MARICOPA COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK, IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

1 I, Michael Jeanes, Maricopa County Superior Court Clerk, declare as follows:
2
3
4
5
1.
2.
3.
4.
I am a defendant in the above-captioned case.
I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge.
I am the Maricopa County Superior Court Clerk.
In my capacity as Superior Court Clerk, I have a ministerial duty to issue
7 law.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. My duties as Superior Court Clerk do not include recognizing marriage
certificates or licenses issued by other States or jurisdictions for any purpose other than
converting a recognized marriage to a covenant marriage under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-
901 through 25-906. Except for converting recognized marriages to covenant marriages,
'
I have no authority to recognize a marriage certificate or license issued by another State
or jurisdiction, regardless of whether the certificate or license was issued to an opposite-
sex couple or a same-sex couple.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. 1J
q,RcJf
Executed on JuneJ 2014.
2
Maricopa C
Clerk

EXHIBIT 15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Thomas C. Horne
Attorney General

Solicitor General

1275 W. Washington
Telephone: (602) 542-3333
Fax: (602) 542-8308

Telephone: (480) 444-0020
Fax: (480) 444-0028



Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.

DECLARATION OF DEBORAH
YOUNG, COCONINO COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK, IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

1 I, Deborah Young, Coconino County Superior Court Clerk, declare as follows:
2
3
4
5
1.
2.
3.
4.
I am a defendant in the above-captioned case.
I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge.
I am the Coconino County Superior Court Clerk.
In my capacity as Superior Court Clerk, I have a ministerial duty to issue
7 law.
8 5.
My duties as Superior Court Clerk do not include recognizing marriage
9 certificates or licenses issued by other States or jurisdictions for any purpose other than
10 converting a recognized marriage to a covenant marriage under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-
11 901 through 25-906. Except for converting recognized marriages to covenant marriages,
12 I have no authority to recognize a marriage certificate or license issued by another State
13 or jurisdiction, regardless of whether the certificate or license was issued to an opposite-
14 sex couple or a same-sex couple.
15 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the
16 foregoing is true and correct.
17 Executed on June _J_, 2014 .
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
.
Deborah Young,
Coconino County Superior Court
Clerk

EXHIBIT 16
Assigned to FS & APP AS PASSED BY THE SENATE
ARIZONA STATE SENATE
Phoenix, Arizona
FINAL REVISED
FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1133
covenant marriages
Purpose
Establishes an optional covenant marriage contract parties can enter into when they apply for a marriage
license.
Background
Currently, Arizona law allows parties to unilaterally obtain a decree of dissolution of marriage by
demonstrating that the marriage is irretrievably broken; that at least one party to the marriage is a
resident of Arizona; that child custody, support and property disposition have been considered and
provided for and that conciliation and domestic relations education provisions have been met as
required. Neither party to a marriage is currently required to show fault for a decree of dissolution of
marriage to be entered.
Parties who choose the covenant marriage proposal will only be granted a decree of dissolution of
marriage under specified circumstances. Decrees of dissolution of marriage would be granted to parties
who have been physically or legally separated after a specified period. The length of the separation
varies depending upon the circumstances, but the minimum period is two years. The other situations in
which the court is authorized to grant a dissolution include a finding of adultery, felony conviction,
physical or sexual abuse, domestic violence and abandonment. Parties choosing the covenant marriage
would be required to obtain premarital counseling provided by clergy or a counselor, which emphasizes
that marriage is intended to be a lifelong commitment. In addition, parties would also have to agree to
seek counseling during times of marital difficulty.
Proponents of S.B. 1133 are concerned with the ease with which one can get married and divorced. They
believe that the escalating divorce rate has weakened the family structure and devalued marriage. They
see a covenant marriage contract as bringing more meaning and significance to marriage.
Opponents of the measure are concerned with the limitations placed on filing for dissolution. They are
Page 1 of 4 SB1133 - 432R - Senate Fact Sheet - final revised
5/29/2014 http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/43leg/2r/summary/s.1133fr.fs.htm
concerned that this may make divorce difficult or even impossible in some situations when divorce
would be in the best interests of the family.
FACT SHEET S.B. 1133 - Final Revised Page
S.B. 1133 requires the Supreme Court to produce pamphlets describing a covenant marriage. The bill
appropriates $10,000 from the state general fund to the Administrative Office of the Courts for FY
1998-1999 fro the production of the "Covenant Marriage in Arizona" pamphlet.
Provisions
1. Allows parties to enter into a covenant marriage by declaring their intent to do so on their marriage
license application.
2. Establishes the requirements for a declaration of intent to enter into a covenant marriage including a
written statement outlining the provisions of a covenant marriage, an affidavit by the parties stating that
the parties have received premarital counseling from a member of the clergy or a marriage counselor, a
notarized statement signed by a member of the clergy or counselor confirming that the parties received
premarital counseling and the information pamphlet developed by the Supreme Court and the signature
of both parties witnessed by a court clerk. Includes requirements for premarital counseling.
3. Allows parties to convert an existing marriage to a covenant marriage. Stipulates that members of an
existing marriage need not receive premarital counseling.
4. States that the court shall only enter a decree of dissolution if it finds that the parties have been
physically or legally separated under specified conditions or that a respondent spouse has committed
adultery, has physically or sexually abused the spouse, child or relative, has committed domestic
violence or emotional abuse, has committed a felony and been sentenced to death or imprisonment, has
abandoned the matrimonial domicile, has habitually abused dugs or alcohol or upon the mutual
agreement of the parties.
5. Stipulates that the court shall only enter a decree of separation if the respondent spouse has committed
adultery, abandoned the matrimonial domicile, committed a felony and been sentenced to death or
imprisonment, physically or sexually abused the spouse, child or a relative, committed domestic
violence or emotional abuse or if the court finds the spouses have been living apart under specified
circumstances or if the respondent's spouse's habitual intemperance, alcohol or drug abuse or ill
treatment of the other spouse is of such a nature as to render their living together insupportable.
6. Clarifies that, while grounds for dissolution of marriage or legal separation do not presently exist (as
in the case of abandonment or separation), temporary orders pursuant to Section 25-315 may be made by
the court.
7. Requires the Supreme Court to publish a pamphlet describing the requirements to enter into a
covenant marriage and the grounds necessary to obtain a decree of separation or dissolution. This
pamphlet is to be provided to any person who provides counseling on covenant marriages.
8. Stipulates that the fee paid for marriage conversion is the same as the marriage license fee.
9. Provides for temporary orders of support and spousal maintenance at any time after a petition for
dissolution of marriage or legal separation has been entered.
10. Appropriates $10,000 from the state general fund to the Administrative Office of the Courts for FY
1998-1999 for the production of the "Covenant Marriage in Arizona" pamphlet.
Amendments Adopted by Family Services Committee
1. Requires that the signatures of both parties be witnessed by a court clerk rather than by a notary.
2. Stipulates that the fee paid for marriage conversion is the same as the marriage license fee.
3. Adds abuse of a relative living in the matrimonial domicile and domestic violence to criteria for
dissolution of marriage and legal separation.
4. Removes hard labor as element of sentencing. Now must be sentenced to any type of correctional
facility.
5. Provides for temporary orders of support and spousal maintenance at any time after a petition for
dissolution of marriage or legal separation has been entered.
6. Removes requirement that couples with children remain apart for 18 months from the date of legal
separation to receive a dissolution of marriage.
7. Removes the language that if abuse of a child is the reason for separation, a dissolution may be
granted if the couple has been apart for one year. Also removes the suggestion that the entire period of
legal separation must end before a dissolution can be granted in cases where dissolution could have been
granted originally.
8. Appropriates $10,000 from the state general fund to the Administrative Office of the Courts for FY
1998-1999 for the production of the "Covenant Marriage in Arizona" pamphlet.
9. Contains a general effective date.
Amendments Adopted by Committee of the Whole
1. Strikes the reference to recognized religion thus clarifying that a member of the clergy (or a marriage
counselor) must perform premarital counseling before a couple can be married under covenant marriage.
2. Removes the requirement for dissolution of marriage or legal separation that the respondent spouse
has abused a child of one of the spouses . Allows for dissolution or separation when the respondent
spouse has abused any child.
3. Clarifies that, while grounds for dissolution of marriage or legal separation do not presently exist (as
in the case of abandonment or separation), temporary orders pursuant to Section 25-315 may be made by
the court.
4. Allows for dissolution of marriage or legal separation if the respondent spouse commits emotional
abuse.
5. Allows for a dissolution of marriage if the respondent spouse has habitually abused drugs.
Amendments Adopted by the House of Representatives
1. Allows a divorce when there is mutual agreement of the parties.
2. Allows a divorce or separation when a spouse habitually abuses drugs or alcohol.
Senate Action House Action
FS 2/11/98 DPA 5-2-0-0 GRSR 4/21/98 DPA 7-2-1-1-0
APP 2/11/98 DP 8-4-2-0 3rd Read on 5/18/98 32-22-6-0
3rd Read 4/13/98 16-13-1-0 Reconsideration
Final Read 5/20/98 16-14-0-0
Governor Signed 5/21/98
Chapter 135
Prepared by Senate Staff
May 27, 1998
Bills | Members | FloorCalendars | CommitteeAgendas | Session Laws| Statutes| Arizona
Constitution
Click here to return to the A.L.I.S. Home Page.

EXHIBIT 17
MARRIAGE
STEVEN L. NocK, LAURA A. SANCHEZ,
AND ]AMES D. WRIGHT
r- _ ___ )
Covenant Marriage
THE MOVEMENT TO RECLAIM
TRADITION IN AMERICA
STEVEN L. NocK
LAURA ANN SANCHEZ
JAMES D. WRIGHT
Rutgers University Press
New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London
Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Nock, Steven L.
Covenant marriage : the movement to reclaim tradition in America I Steven L. Nock,
Laura Ann Sanchez, James D. Wright.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8135-4325-3 (hardcover : alk. paper)-ISBN 978-0-8135-4326--D (pbk. :
alk. paper)
l. Marriage law-Louisiana. 2. Law reform-Louisiana. I. Sanchez, Laura Ann,
1963- II. Wright, James D. III. Title.
KFL95.N63 2008
346.76301 '6-dc22 2007037879
A British Cataloging-in-Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
Gopyright- 2008 by Steven L. Nock, Laura Ann Sanchez, and James D. Wright
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written
permission from the publisher. Please contact Rutgers University Press, 100 Joyce Kilmer
Avenue, Piscataway, NJ 08854--8099. The only exception to this prohibition is "fair use" as
defined by U.S. copyright law.
Visit our Web site: http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu
Manufactured in the United States of America
10 Covenant Marriage
of children than just one. Increasingly, the question is not whether these
would be worthwhile goals to pursue, but whether there is any realistic way
for policy to intervene in the private affairs of individuals.
Covenant Marriage and the "Marriage Movement"
We ee, finally what covenant marriage has to do with al l the ocial
and political change discussed in this chapter. Beginning roughly with the
advent of effective contraception in the 1960s and continuing through the
nationwide wave of no-fault divorce laws in the 1970s and 1980s. the gen-
eral drift was toward increasingly lenient rules for divorce, more divorces,
and more casual attitude about the nece sity of marriage for sex or child-
bearing. Evidence of and concern for the downside of these trends have
timulated a reaction and a wide variety of pro-marriage, anti-divorce
reforms (mainly at the state level). One of the more prominent and much
di cussed Qf these reforms has been covenant marriage especially a
enacted in Louisiana.
The concept of a covenant marriage is noteworthy mainly because
much of twentieth-century family-law reform ha aLtempted to liberal-
ize provisions for divorce. Covenant marriage is one of the first steps in
the opposite direction. The no-fau lt divorce concept rested on an assump-
tion that the misery of poor marriages and the cost of prolonged, difficult
divorces could be lessened by access to easier, less-punitive grounds and
procedures for divorce. The a sumption behind covenant marriage i that
the miseries of marital di solution can be le sened or avoided altogether
by helping couple better under tand the fu ll implications of getting mar-
ried, encouraging them to take their marriage vows more eri u ly, and by
making divorce more difficult to obtain. As we see in the next chapter, this
is exactly what Louisiana legislation meant to accompli h.
In facL, covenant maniage is thus perhap the most conspicuou (bm
by no means the only) example of a larger movement that aro e in the 1990
in re pon e to the various developments reviewed above, a trend often call ed
the marriage movemenT. This movement has produced books. articles, work-
shops, and conferences, pawned numerous institutes, think tanks, and Web
sites, and wrought ignificant changes in federal and tate policies.
In all its manifestation , the marriage movement intends to promote
and trengthen marriages, reduce divorce curb child\ earing outside of
marriage di courage cohabitation, and bolster marriage as an honorable,
desirable status. The movement draws its trength from diver e ources
I
\
Covenant Marriage and the Marriage Movement 11
including religious leaders, elected officials, social scientists, and public
intellectuals. Despite occasional internecine disputes about rationale, jus-
tification, or proposed solutions, movement advocates are united in the idea
that marriage is a public institution, not solely a private relationship.
What does it mean that marriage is a public institution? It means that
marriage is (or better, should be) important to society at large, not just to
the spouses and children who reside inside a particular marriage. Move-
ment activists believe that marriage should occupy a central place in society
and in the lives of its members. They n v i s i ~ n the marital relationship as
an important connection between individuals and their broader community.
From marriage, family; and from family, a principal mode of being in the
community and larger social world.
Accordingly, those seeking to strengthen marriage call for a variety
of public initiatives, both secular and religious: changes in state domestic
relations laws (such as reenactment of fault grounds as a route to divorce,
restrictions on unilateral no-fault divorce, covenant marriage), public poli-
cies (such as marriage and family-education curricula in high schools),
community marriage-promotion programs (whether faith based or secular),
educational and counseling programs (provided to those contemplating
marriage, to new spouses or parents, and to couples seeking divorce), even
public-service announcements on television and radio. That the movement
is a force to be reckoned with is evident in the enactment in various places
of all these initiatives (Institute for American Values 2000; Ooms, Bouchet,
and Parke, 2004).
The idea that others, especially governments, have a legitimate role
in issues of marriage and domestic life now seems controversial, but only
because we have become so adamant in our belief that marriage is and
should be a private matter. This intensely privatized vision of marriage is,
in fact, a quite recent social and legal development. Governments and com-
munities have long been involved in setting terms and conditions of marital
fife (Cott 2000). The main difference between earlier times and today is
that in the past the state's main concern was in restricting who could marry
and under what terms (and likewise, how marriages could be dissolved and
under what terms), whereas today, the state's interest is increasingly one of
strengthening and promoting marriage as one solution to a wide range of
personal and public ills (Nock 2005).
In certain respects, today's marriage movement is surprising and
perhaps even superfluous. After all, most Americans still value mar-
riage and the overwhelming majority marry sooner or later (Bramlett and
Mosher 2002). Indeed, American marriage rates are among the highest in
the Western world, and the divorce rate has been slowly falling since the
1980s. What, one might ask, is the problem for which a marriage move-
ment is the solution?
The problem is that the institution of marriage has undergone dra-
matic transformations. All the rapid demographic and social changes that
we reviewed have disrupted traditional marriage and family patterns. In
many respects, the current debate about marriage as framed by the mar-
riage movement represents a collective effort to make sense of these pro-
found changes. It is a reaction against those trends, a denial that marriage is
just about the private lives of married couples, and an affirmation of a larger
public interest in promoting marriage, restricting divorce, and discouraging
intimate relationships that depart from marriage.
Politics, Religion, and the Origins of the Marriage Movement
The marriage movement draws on a diverse and loosely knit group
of individuals and organizations. Many are in religious communities, espe-
cially conservative Protestant denominations. Their aim, as we have said,
is to rebuild a traditional model of lifelong monogamous marriage. Others,
practitioners and professionals in various fields, are motivated by concerns
about the economic consequence of rising divorce rates for states, or about
the welfare of couples, individual adults, and children. Many are therapy
oriented and seek to educate or counsel people about strategies and skills to
build a healthy relationship, whether marital or otherwise. Others belong to
fatherhood groups concerned about absent fathers. Still others are state gov-
ernment officials concerned about the problems of the poor (and the costs
of those problems). Most of these latter individuals are affiliated with pro-
grams that target unmarried parents, many of which spring from changes
in welfare laws ("welfare reform") in the mid-1990s. What binds them is a
general belief that the transformation of American households and families
from the late 1960s through the late 1980s weakened an important foun-
dation of society. Seen from the perspective of earlier decades, especially
mid-twentieth century, it is not hard to understand why many see things this
way (Cherlin 1992).
The baby boom era following World War II was one of the most homo-
geneous and idealized cultural periods of U.S. history in matters of mar-
riage and living arrangements. The postwar decades featured historically
high fertility, low divorce rates, and youthful ages at marriage. The postwar
economy and veterans' programs significantly expanded the middle class.
Attendance at religious services was high. Culturally, the 1950s and early
1960s were also the most "familistic" decade of the century: the family was
understood as the crucial social institution, both for the individual and for
society as a whole.
In 1950s-era America, the ideology of familism found expression
in popular television shows such as The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet,
Father Knows Best, and Leave It to Beaver. In the American mainstream of
the time, at least as depicted in Hollywood, dads wore suits and ties to the
office, moms stayed home in pretty dresses and starched aprons, and every
childhood naughtiness was immediately' regretted and atoned. That none
of this was quite true, of course, doesn't matter. It is the symbolism of the
1950s family that is important, not the reality (Coontz 2005).
Against this backdrop, the political and cultural trends of the 1960s
and 1970s raised concerns among conservative religious communities,
who saw them as signs of moral and cultural decay. Youth culture, anti-
war protest, feminism, the sexual revolution, legalized abortion, divorce,
cohabitation, homosexuality, and open challenges to authority energized
the rise of a religiously affiliated movement, what came to be called the
New Christian Right, to restore the basic features of 1950s familism and
religious conservatism.
The New Christian Right included such groups as Jerry Falwell's
Moral Majority, Beverly LaHaye's Concerned Women for America, James
Dobson's Focus on the Family, Jerry Regier's Family Research Council
(now headed by Tony Perkins, the sponsor of covenant marriage legislation
in Louisiana), and dozens of others. It quickly became a powerful political
force, mobilizing millions of voters and establishing lobbying groups with
close ties to Republican leaders and conservative members of Congress. The
advent of Christian mass media and its leaders (such as Pat Robertson, Jay
Sekulow, and Ed Vitagliano) certainly increased the visibility and influence
of the movement. More generally, conservative Protestantism has been and
remaifls an important force in matters of the family because its adherents
are very active, devoting more time and money to their churches and affili-
ated organizations than any other major religious group in America (Smith
1998; Wuthnow 1988).
Increased sexual freedoms drove many of the liberalizing trends of
the latter twentieth century, so it is not surprising that sexual matters were
the focus of much of the New Christian Right reaction. As Karen Arm-
strong notes in her historical review, the fundamentalists of the 1970s and
1980s "associated the integrity and even the survival of their society with
0 '
14 Covenant Mm-,-iage
the traditional position of women" (2000, 312). Opposition to feminism,
homosexuality, and abortion were (and remain) central themes in the reli-
gious movement to restore family values (Armstrong 2000; Weaver 2000) .
Others who became involved in the marriage movement were profes-
sionals, practitioners, and social scientists motivated not by their religious
views but their interests in divorce and marital stability. Psychologists
have analyzed interpersonal behaviors and strategies associated with vari-
ous relationship outcomes and have identified styles of conflict resolution,
coping, and communication as critical elements in marriage. Demogra-
phers and sociologists have identified background traits such as cohabita-
tion, parental divorce, young age at marriage, and unstable employment as
predictors of divorce. These and other disciplines produced a large, if not
seamless, body of evidence on .the benefits of marriage and the costs of
divorce that has been used in targeted ways to support the general thrust of
the marriage movement. I
About twenty-five years \go, 'a field now kndwn as couples education
or marriage education also beJan integrating social science research inw
therapeutic approaches to helping couples prepare for or prevent problems in
relationships. Couples education, offered in class-like settings, teaches both
individuals and couples strategies to avoid the known risks to marriages.
Yet another group of professionals launched programs to promote and help
fathers. Fatherhood programs, many sponsored by state governments, focus
on pregnancy prevention (most target young men), child-support enforce-
ment and paternity establishment, visitation issues, and services for poor
fathers, especially those unable to comply with child-support orders. Pro-
fessionals in these fields contributed actively to the marriage movement.
Several independent professionals, national professional organiza-
tions, and educational and research institutions have launched efforts on
behalf of marriage that also promote the goals of the marriage movement.
Academic centers at universities and at well-funded think tanks such as
the Brookings Institution, the Urban Institute, and the Heritage Founda-
tion produce analyses of and take positions on issues related to marriage.
And marriage therapists, religious leaders, and think-tank intellectuals have
launched community marriage initiatives, typically in couple-to-couple for-
mats that target entire communities. In the mid-1980s, journalist Michael
McManus began promoting a faith-based project called Marriage Savers,
which involved couple-to-couple mentoring organized through religious
congregations. Diane Sollee, a marriage and family therapist who coined
the term "marriage education," founded the Coalition for Marriage, Family,
and Couples Education in 1995. She sponsors a national clearinghouse for
marriage information, an annual national conference called Smart Mar-
riages, and maintains Web sites and Listservs to provide additional infor-
mation. The Center for Law and Social Policy, which maintains a section
on families and couples, publishes policy-related materials and maintains a
Web site with links to such information. The Institute for American Values
maintains a Council on Families that sponsors conferences, publishes origi-
nal research, and reviews public policy relating to marriage .
.A Summary of Marriage Movement Policies and Programs
Policy analyst Theodora Ooms and her colleagues (2004) have traced
the origins of public-policy efforts to promote and strengthen marriage to
the late 1980s, when evidence documenting the adverse effects on children
of growing up in single-parent homes began to accumulate. State efforts
focused initially on making divorce more difficult, and subsequently on
marriage and couples education programs. The following is a brief sum-
mary of the most conspicuous efforts.
With the election of President George W. Bush in 2000, federal
funding to support marriage promotion programs grew. The Healthy Mar-
riage Initiative within the Administration for Children and Families (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services 2006) supports many such
projects. Examples include programs for unwed parents that emphasize the
importance of marriages for their children, promoting the establishment of
paternity, and strengthening marital and co-parenting relationships with
nonresident fathers. Some develop and test curricula and training programs
to help welfare staff address issues of marriage and family formation.
The emphasis of the Healthy Marriage Initiative is to help couples
"who chose marriage for themselves" create a strong and healthy marriage
rather than simply promoting marriage per se (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services 2006). The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (passed
Febru.ary 8, 2006) provides $150 million each year until 2011 for healthy-
marriage promotion and fatherhood programs (no more than $50 million
is to be spent yearly on fatherhood programs). To date (2007), the Admin-
istration for Children and Families has allocated almost all of this amount
to a wide range of programs and services throughout the country. All are
focused on marriage education, pre-marriage education, marriage skills,
divorce reduction, high school education on the value of marriage, marriage
mentoring, and programs to reduce disincentives to marry in means-tested
aid programs (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2006).
The range of state marriage efforts is impressive by any standard.
Every state has done something to encourage marriage, reduce divorce, or
strengthen two-parent families. In the past decade, ten states have intro-
duced policy initiatives such as high-level commissions, media campaigns,
proclamations, or conferences, or implemented laws and policies to estab-
lish and fund programs to strengthen marriage and reduce divorce. Many
states have also made changes in their marriage and divorce laws, including
incentives for couples to prepare for marriage with counseling or education.
Five states offer reduced fees for marriage licenses to couples who use such
services. Three states have enacted covenant marriage laws, and another
twenty state legislatures have debated such legislation.
Likewise, many states offer fatherhood-promotion and marriage-
education programs. Some encourage an unmarried father to marry the
mother of his child. At least eleven states now fund fatherhood programs
that promote co-parenting. The programs stress greater involvement by
nonresident fathers, offer mediation services and co-parenting classes to
help estranged parents resolve problems, and encourage marriage.
The most conspicuous state marriage-related programs are those
called couples and marriage education. Thirty-two states have at least one
such program, as do all branches of the U.S. military. Many cooperative
extension county educators (once known as county extension agents) are
trained family-life educators. Six states have launched new marriage-related
activities that are being conducted by these agents through land-grant uni-
versities. Public schools also offer marriage education. Six states offer such
programs through high schools as electives. Many more individual school
districts do so as well. Florida requires four hours of relationship and mar-
riage education for high school graduation.
States have also made big changes in their welfare regulations. The
1996 welfare reform law gave states considerable latitude in establish-
ing such rules. In response, states reduced disincentives that discouraged
couples from remaining together in households that receive welfare grants.
Under the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) rules,
welfare was generally available only to single-parent families, with lim-
ited funds for two-parent families. Since 2002, thirty-six states have elimi-
nated two-parent family eligibility requirements, and another eleven have
partially eliminated them. As of 2002, twenty-two states operated separate
programs for two-parent families and funded them solely with state dollars.
Families served are exempt from federal participation and work require-
ments. Nine states offer welfare recipients financial incentives to marry,
including a one-hundred-dollar monthly bonus. Other incentives exclude a
spouse's earnings in determining financial eligibility or grant amounts, and
forgive child-support arrearages owed by a noncustodial parent to the state
if the parents marry or reunite.
Incentives for Action
The economic implications of single parenthood have featured con-
spicuously in state debates about marriage and family policy. In 1999, for
example, Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating launched the nation's larg-
est marriage initiative, supported with $10 milli0n of unspent federal wel-
fare funds, to cut the state's high divorce and out-of-wedlock birth rates.
Keating's move came on the heels of a 1998 report showing that his state's
economy was flagging in part because high rates of family breakdown were
driving many Oklahomans into poverty. Likewise, Louisiana first authorized
covenant marriage in 1997 following legislative debate that highlighted the
costs of poverty resulting from divorce (Sanchez et al. 2002).
At the federal level, concern about marriage in the welfare reforms
was driven primarily by increasing rates of unmarried births and corre-
sponding claims on public assistance. Activists who had already been work-
ing to promote marriage understandably welcomed this novel role for the
federal government. But both liberals and conservatives expressed reserva-
tions. Among conservatives, the debate was over whether the focus of federal
efforts should be on reducing illegitimacy or mandating work for welfare
recipients. Those endorsing the latter argued that there was little evidence
that efforts to reduce unmarried births could work (Haskins 2006). Lib-
eral concern was similar. The National Organization for Women (NOW),
for example, objected that marriage promotion efforts divert welfare funds
from basic economic supports for mother-headed families, intrude on pri-
vate decisions, place some women at greater risk of domestic violence by
coercing them to stay in bad or dangerous marriages, waste public funds on
ineffective p.olicies, limit state flexibility by earmarking welfare funds for
specified programs, and generally lack public support (NOW Legal Defense
and Education Fund 2005).
Although these and similar concerns continue, policy analysts Will
Marshall and Isabel Sawhill (2004) see a political consensus emerging
over complex challenges facing American families-single, teen, and
unwed parenting; economic insecurity; health care; and balancing home
and work. Like others, they call for comprehensive family policy to address
all such issues.
Much of the contemporary federal concern about marriage and
unmarried fertility sounds much like arguments first advanced in 1965 by
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then assistant secretary of labor for President
Lyndon Johnson (Moynihan 1965). Moynihan claimed that female-headed
households were a primary cause of poverty and wei fare dependency among
Black Americans. In 1984, welfare r i ~ i Charles Murray elaborated thi
theme, arguing that welfare encouraged dependency by making it economi-
cally rational for a poor mother to remain single and unemployed rather
than marry.
The problem of welfare dependency became a central theme in the
federal welfare reform debate that Jed to a major overhaul of welfare poli -
cies in 1996. As political scientist R. Kent Weaver write , Murray's "conser-
vatjve diagnoses and pre criptions for wei fare reform were part of a broader
conservative renai sance that began in the 1970s and gained momentum
with the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency in 1980 . .. . Conser-
vatives were far from united on their pre criptions for what to do about
AFDC ... but did succeed in making the reduction of welfare dependency
the focus of welfare debates in the 1990s" (2000, 104-5).
Tackling welfare dependency would require dealing with issue
of unmarried births moving welfare recipients into the labor force, and
making falhers contribute- financially, at lea t-to rearing their children.
The e i sues, raised by Congre s in initial deliberations about welfare
reform during th 1980 and 1990 , continue to be debated today. Thu wel-
fare reform was a turning point in American family policy because it sought
to promote traditional family norms. It defined many demographic trends
as problematic and dangerou (for example, increases in out-of-wedlock
births, high dependency on state assistance for rearing children, high rates
of single-mother families produced by divorce). In short, welfare reform
made a public issue of what many had previously viewed as little more than
private choices about alternative living arrangements.
A natural question to be asked about the various marriage-movement
reforms being enacted is whether they might have any consequences of note
on rates of marriage, divorce, unmarried childbirth, or cohabitation. All
these proclamations, events, programs, acts, and (in a very few cases) laws
are designed to combat the "retreat from marriage" that began in the second
half of the twentieth century. Could they have their intended effects? It is
much too soon to try to answer such a question definitively, although very
serious research programs are now being conducted to do just that. The Sup-
porting Healthy Marriages, Community Healthy Marriage Initiatives: An
Evaluation, and the Growing Healthy Families research projects sponsored
by the Administration for Children and Families (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services 2006) have this as their explicit objectives. All three
projects will span many years and will study thousands of individuals.
Conclusion
We began this chapter by noting the changing values and demograph-
ics that have come to surround marriages in the United States. Some say
these changes have supplanted a "culture of marriage" with a "culture of
divorce" (Whitehead 1997). Rhetorical flourish aside, we argue that these
changes stimulated concern about family and marriage patterns that has in
turn fostered a national movement, what we and others call the marriage
movement. We are only now beginning to ask serious scientific questions
about the many programs and policies undertaken by those involved in the
marriage movement. This present study is the only comprehensive evalua-
tion yet conducted of one of the signal achievements of the marriage move-
ment, the covenant marriage laws passed in Louisiana.
In the next chapter, we consider the legal, historical, and political
forces that led to the passage of Louisiana's covenant marriage legislation.
Chapter 3 considers whether covenant marriage was implemented success-
fully in Louisiana. Chapter 4 examines what social science researchers call
selection effects-what are the characteristics of those who choose cov-
enant marriage, do they differ in significant ways from those who choose
standard marriage, and most important for any rigorous study, do these dif-
ferences affect the validity of the findings? Chapter 5 takes up in some
detail a key way that covenant marriages are distinguished from standard
marriages, namely, in the degree of religious sentiment and behavior that
characterizes covenant marriages. While it is true that the two kinds of
marriages here differ in many ways, they are most distinct in the role reli-
giol:ls belief and faith plays. Compared even with very religious standard
couples, the covenants are remarkable in their intensity of religiosity and
shared mutuality of faith.
In the remaining two analysis chapters, we return again to the basic
policy-relevant questions of whether covenant marriage, or its constituent
components of premarital and marital counseling, promote marital quality
and stability. Chapter 6 demonstrates that covenant marriages are not just
different from standard marriages in the beginning, but they evolve and
mature differently as the years pass. Chapter 7 documents that covenant
marriages have much lower divorce rates, about half the rate among stan-
dard couples. We find that the enhanced marital quality associated with
maturing covenant marriages are tied very strongly to religiosity. Similarly,
we find that the lower divorce rates of covenant marriage are driven by the
effects of both the husband's and wife's religiosity and their commitment to
an initial intensive participation in premarital counseling.
We conclude with reflections about the intended and unintended
effects of marriage reform and the lessons we have learned from its various
components. We speculate on the u t l t ~ of premarital counseling (or edu-
cation) as well as marriage counseling. We also close with some thoughts
about the larger, more challenging issue raised by the connection between
civil and religious marriage and the challenges this poses for social policy.

EXHIBIT 18
PUBLICITY PAMPHLET
General Election
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Ballot Propositions
&
Judicial
Performance
Review
For a Spanish version of this publicity pamphlet call toll-free 1-877-THE VOTE (1-877-843-8683)
Para una versin en espaol de este folleto informativo, llame gratis al 1-877-THE VOTE (1-877-843-8683).
Issued by
Janice K. Brewer
Arizona Secretary of State
www.azsos.gov
1-877-THE VOTE
Arizona
2006 Ballot Propositions
P
R
O
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

1
0
7
Spelling, grammar and punctuation were reproduced as submitted in the for and against arguments.
74
General Election
November 7, 2006
Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
PROPOSITION 107
OFFICIAL TITLE
AN INITIATIVE MEASURE
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION
OF ARIZONA; BY ADDING ARTICLE XXX; RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF MARRIAGE
TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Be it enacted by the People of Arizona:
1. Article: XXX. Constitution of Arizona is proposed to
be added as follows if approved by the voters and on
proclamation of the Governor:
ARTICLE XXX. MARRIAGE
TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT MARRIAGE IN THIS
STATE, ONLY A UNION BETWEEN ONE MAN AND
ONE WOMAN SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED
AS A MARRIAGE BY THIS STATE OR ITS POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS AND NO LEGAL STATUS FOR
UNMARRIED PERSONS SHALL BE CREATED OR
RECOGNIZED BY THIS
STATE OR ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS THAT IS
SIMILAR TO THAT OF MARRIAGE.
2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition
to the voters at the next general election as provided
by article XXI, Constitution of Arizona.
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Pursuant to Arizona state statute, marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited. Arizona
law does not recognize a marriage contracted in any other state or country that is between two persons of the
same sex.
Proposition 107 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that in order to preserve and protect mar-
riage:
1. Only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage by the State of
Arizona or its cities, towns, counties or districts.
2. The State of Arizona and its cities, towns, counties or districts shall not create or recognize a legal status
for unmarried persons that is similar to marriage.
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal
impact of certain ballot measures. Proposition 107 is not projected to have a state cost.
ARGUMENTS FOR PROPOSITION 107
Protect Marriage Arizonas Statement
Protect Marriage Arizona has been formed as a grassroots response to attacks on marriage in state after
state. We say, Let the people decide. We believe Arizona citizens should be given the opportunity to vote on
our states marriage policy, and we are confident that Arizona will join 20 other states that have voted to reaffirm
the reality that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
A state constitutional amendment provides the strongest possible legal protection for marriage against redef-
inition by activist state court judges. We also hope to show our national leaders that states want the opportunity
to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting marriage.
Marriage between a man and woman is the basic building block of society. As the Supreme Court put it, in a
case upholding laws that prevented marriage from being redefined to include polygamy, marriage is the sure
foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.
Arizona promotes and benefits marriage because marriage between a man and a woman benefits Arizona.
Children do best when they have the security of living with a married mother and father. With all the challenges
to marriage in society today, the last thing Arizona needs is to redefine marriage in a way that guarantees some
children will never have either a mom or a dad.
Unfortunately, todays courts seem bent on destroying that foundation. Its time for the people to respond by
voting yes on the Protect Marriage Amendment.
The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment does exactly what it is entitled to do, that is, protect the definition
of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
NAME, the National Association of Marriage Enhancement, encourages Arizonans to vote Yes on this
amendment to protect, for future generations, the long-standing definition of marriage as one man and one
woman.
The traditional definition of marriage must be protected. Some would say marriage is a right; it is not -- it is a
privilege that carries responsibilities. Society confers legal benefits to marriage, because marriage benefits soci-
ety. Historically, healthy marriages have been foundational building blocks to any successful society -- Arizona
included. This amendment to Arizona's constitution will affirm marriages traditional definition, ensuring it for
future generations by prohibiting its redefinition by activist judges and others.
Research indicates many benefits for children who are raised by a mother and father, including: they are
more likely to succeed academically, are physically healthier, emotionally healthier, demonstrate less behavioral
Larry Hall, Chair, Protect Marriage Arizona, Phoenix
Paid for by Protect Marriage Arizona
Arizona
General Election
November 7, 2006
P
R
O
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

1
0
7
75
problems, less likely to be victims of abuse, and more than 10 other profound benefits. Women, likewise, have
the benefits from healthy marriages to a man, including: they are less likely to be victims of domestic violence,
sexual assault or other violent crimes, and are emotionally healthier and eight other pronounced benefits. Men,
also, receive benefit from marriage to a woman, including: they live longer, are physically healthier, wealthier,
emotionally healthier, less likely to attempt or commit suicide, and seven other important benefits.
Marriage between one man and one woman protects the interests of children and society in a stable social
order. Arizonans must do what is in the best interest of children and society: vote Yes to protect marriage and
our future.
Get the facts. Opponents of traditional marriage will say anything to get you to vote against protecting mar-
riage. Here are some of their distortions.
Myth: Arizona does not recognize same-sex marriage, so this is unnecessary.
Fact: With lawsuits filed across the country to redefine marriage, we cannot sit and wait for the next lawsuit
here. A constitutional amendment is the maximum protection Arizona can provide for the definition of marriage.
Myth: Hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights will be taken away.
Fact: Under state law, anyone can choose to have anyone visit them in the hospital or make medical deci-
sions for them. The amendment doesnt change this.
Myth: Private contracts will be voided.
Fact: The amendment only applies to the government. It has nothing to do with private agreements.
Myth: Domestic-violence laws will be voided.
Fact: This amendment will have no effect on Arizonas domestic-violence laws because they cover anyone
living in the same house, regardless of whether they are in a marriage-like relationship.
Myth: Inheritance rights will be voided.
Fact: Anyone can choose who they want to inherit their estate. The amendment does nothing to change
this.
Myth: Businesses will be required to limit their employment benefits.
Fact: The amendment does not apply to businesses. In fact, without this amendment businesses that con-
tract with municipalities in Arizona are at risk of being told they MUST offer domestic-partnership benefits.
Myth: Blocking recognition of marriage counterfeits is unusual.
Fact: Lots of states are choosing to protect marriage with amendment like this one. Of the 20 states that
have passed marriage amendments, 11 have language prohibiting recognition of marriage counterfeits. They
are: AR, GA, KY, LA, MI, NE, ND, OH, OK, TX, and UT.
THE CENTER FOR ARIZONA POLICY
The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment will preserve the definition of marriage as a union between one
man and one woman and prohibit the creation of any other legal status similar to that of marriage. It will assure
that marriage is defined by the voice of the people and not by a few activist judges.
A yes vote will protect Arizona from having marriage radically changed to a union of any two people regard-
less of gender. It will affirm that both mothers and fathers play significant roles in the raising of children and that
the legal union between a man and a woman deserves special status in producing the next generation of respon-
sible citizens.
A yes vote will not prohibit same-sex couples or anyone else from forming relationships. It will, however,
keep schools, media, organizations, religious denominations, and other societal institutions from being forced to
validate, and promote same-sex marriage.
A yes vote will not invalidate anyones civil rights. Marriage is about bringing men and women together, not
about civil rights.
A yes vote will not restrict private companies from voluntarily granting benefits to domestic partners, nor will
it prevent domestic relationships from taking advantage of existing laws that enable these individuals to share
health insurance or death benefits, designate hospital visitation rights, or grant medical durable power of attorney
to anyone.
A yes vote will affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of a strong family and
that strong families are the foundation of great nations.
Dr. Leo Godzich, President, NAME, Phoenix Randall Smith, Treasurer, NAME, Scottsdale
Paid for by The National Association of Marriage Enhancement
Cathi Herrod, Interim President, The Center for
Arizona Policy, Scottsdale
Peter Gentala, General Counsel, The Center for
Arizona Policy, Gilbert
Paid for by Center for Arizona Policy, Inc.
Carol Soelberg, President, United Families
Arizona, Mesa
Nancy Salmon, Community Outreach Director,
United Families Arizona, Mesa
Sharon Slater, President, United Families
International, Gilbert
Julie Walker, Executive Director, United
Families International, Gilbert
Paid for by United Families International
Arizona
P
R
O
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

1
0
7
76
General Election
November 7, 2006
Vote Yes to protect marriage in Arizona!
Marriage between a man and a woman should be protected because it is the foundation of our society. Ari-
zona uniquely promotes and supports marriage because marriage benefits society!
Marriage is extraordinarily beneficial for children. Countless studies have found that the best environment
for a child to be raised in is a home with a married mother and father. Children benefit not only from the security
of knowing that their mother and father are committed to one another for life, but also from the unique nurturing
and mentoring that only a mother and father can give. Society does not benefit from marriage models that
intentionally deny a child a mother or a father.
Marriage is good for men and good for women. In surveys, men and women report that marriage positively
effects their health, financial security, and personal happiness.
Marriage also helps society by providing a stable social structure. When marriages and families break down,
government must fill the void with programs to address the increased rates of poverty, drug abuse, delinquency,
and a host of other problems that occur more often when children dont have moms and dads. Strong, stable,
traditional marriages tend to produce family members that protect and provide for each other, reducing the strain
on society and government.
Arizona has always promoted marriage as between a man and a woman. We dont need to change mar-
riage---we need to protect it for future generations. For the benefit of children, men and women, and our society
as a whole, please vote Yes on protecting marriage.
Ballot Pamphlet Argument in Favor of Protect Marriage Arizona
As business leaders of Arizona, we are proud to support the Protect Marriage Arizona amendment. Mar-
riage is critically important to our society and businesses ought to support this measure. Here are a few reasons
why.
First, this measure will not affect the ability of private businesses to choose what benefits to grant their
employees. The amendment clearly applies only to public employers in the state of Arizona, for it states that no
marriage substitutes can be recognized by the state or its political subdivisions. Private businesses clearly do
not fall in this category.
Second, if this measure does not pass, private businesses will actually be more vulnerable to forced
changes in their benefits policies. If marriage is redefined by the courts, private businesses will be pressured
and possibly even compelled to give benefits to same-sex couples or polygamous unions.
Third, marriage is good for society and good for businesses! Studies have consistently shown that people
who are married tend to be healthier and happier than those who are not married, contributing to a more produc-
tive work environment. Private businesses ought to be free to give benefits to attract and retain married employ-
ees.
When marriage is protected, families benefit, children benefit, and businesses benefit. This amendment will
not restrict the rights of private businesses on the contrary, it will help to protect those rights. We urge a YES
vote on the Protect Marriage Amendment.
As a husband and father of two wonderful sons as well as the Republican candidate for Governor of Arizona,
I ask you to support this Ballot Measure that protects the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one
woman as the cornerstone of our society. It seems almost crazy that we must put this in writing since the impor-
tance of this bedrock principle has been proven in social, scientific and every other accepted standard of mea-
surement throughout recorded history.
Again, activist judges who were appointed to determine the appropriate application of laws passed by legis-
latures and Congress, have over stepped their authority and created law without precedent or legislative founda-
tion across America. It is now necessary for the people to speak through Constitutional Amendments to protect
a primary pillar of our society.
Please join me in supporting this important Ballot Measure. **Paid for by Goldwater for Governor Commit-
tee.**
Cathi Herrod, Interim President, The Center for
Arizona Policy, Scottsdale
Peter Gentala, General Counsel, The Center for
Arizona Policy, Gilbert
Paid for by Center for Arizona Policy, Inc.
Tom Barnett, Phoenix
Robert Baum, Sun Valley Masonry, Inc.,
Paradise Valley
John Rang, Kachina Automotive, Gilbert
Ross Farnsworth, Farnsworth Webb & Greer
Insurance, Tempe
Dennis Barney, Landmark Interiors, Mesa
Chris Danielson, 90.3 Family Life Radio,
Phoenix
Kenneth L. Nessler, Jr., Sun Valley Masonry,
Inc., Phoenix
Paid for by Protect Marriage Arizona
Don Goldwater, Goldwater for Governor, Laveen

EXHIBIT 19

DVD to be filed with
the court once leave
has been granted

EXHIBIT 20

DVD to be filed with
the court once leave
has been granted

EXHIBIT 21
Arizona State Legislature
Bill Number Search:
Forty-fourth Legislature - First Regular Session change session | printer friendly version
Email a Member | Email Webmaster
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM FEBRUARY 3, 1999 ARIZONA HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES Forty-fourth Legislature - First Regular Session
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, February 3, 1999 House Hearing Room 4 8:30 a.m.
(Tape 1, Side A)
The meeting was called to orde at 8:45 a.m. by Chairman Cooley and attendance was noted by
the secretary.
Members Present
Mrs. Brimhall Mrs. Landrum Mr. W. Gardner, V. Chairman
Mr. Cardamone Mr. Wieirs Mr. Cooley, Chairman
Members Absent
None
Speakers Present
Elizabeth Hatch, Majority Research Analyst, Committee on Government Reform
Karen Osborne, Maricopa County Election Director, Maricopa County
Names of people recognized by the Chair who appeared in support of H.B. 2184 but
did not speak
(Page 3)
Names of people recognized by the Chair who appeared in support of H.B. 2368 but did not
speak
(Page 4)
Names of people recognized by the Chair who appeared in opposition of H.B. 2368
but did not speak
(Page 4)
Isaac Gabriel, Majority Intern, Committee on Banking and Insurance
Representative Karen Johnson, Sponsor
Representative Steve May, Sponsor
Patricia Oldroyd, Concerned Women for America of Arizona
Jess Park, Citizen, Representing Himself
Dwight Cook, representing Himself
Names of people recognized by the Chair who appeared in opposition to H.B. 2524
but did not speak
(Page 7 and 8)
Eleanor Eisenberg, Executive Director, Arizona Civil Liberties Union
Kent Fairbarin, Assistant Director, League of Arizona Cities and Towns
Frank Meliti, Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition
Henry L. Barnwell, Pastor, Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship
John Atkins, representing Himself
Rev. Andrew Cosentino, Director, Interfaith League for Sound Government
speak
(Page 8)
Dr. Ncholas Hagen, representing Himself
Norm Helber, Chief Probation Officer, Maricopa County Adult Probation
Donad T. Nichols, General Manager, TnMeridian, Inc.
Kenneth Lucas, Community Relations Specialist, Valley Hope Treatment
Paula Burns, Deputy Director, Arizona Counsel on Compulsive Gambling
Laura Plimpton, Director, Arizona Lottery
Senate House Legislative Council JLBC More Agencies Bills Committees Calendars/News
Page 1 of 8 Format Document
6/6/2014 http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/44leg/1R/comm_min/House/02...
did not speak
(Page 10)
GladysAnn Wells, Director, Department of Library and Archives
Jim Allen, Director, Arizona Department of Health Services
Lee Payne, Majority Intern, Committee on Government Reform
Representative Mark Anderson, Spinsor
Ken Karouzos, representing Himself
Len Munsil, President, Center for Arizona Policy
Sally Bender, Assistant Director, County Supervisors Association
David Mendoza, Legislative Director, American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME)
did not speak
(Page 13)
Russell Smolden, Manager of Government Relations, Salt River Project (SRP)
Names of people recognized by the Chair who appeared in support of H.B. 2081 but did
not speak
(Page 13)
Guest List (Attachment 1)
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS
H.B. 2183, ballot measures; pamphlet description - WITHDRAWN
Chairman Cooley announced that H.B. 2183 was withdrawn.
H.B. 2411, federal incentives; 0.08; open containers - HELD
Chairman Cooley announced that H.B. 2411 will be held.
H.B. 2442, mobile home landlord tenant; technical correction - HELD
H.B. 2443, workers' compensation; increase benefit level - HELD
H.B. 2182, candidate nomination petitions - DO PASS AMENDED
Elizabeth Hatch, Majority Research Analyst, explained H.B. 2182 (Attachment 2) and the
amendment (Attachment 3).
Karen Osborn, Maricopa County Election Director, Maircopa County, spoke in support of
H.B. 2182. Ms. Osborne discussed the large number of signatures required to run for precinct
committeemen. Ms. Osborne explained the difficulty I obtaining signatures from the remote
areas and the fenced in areas and stated that ten signatures would suffice as it demonstrated
the public's interest.
Vice Chairman Gardner moved that H.B. 2182 do pass.
Vice Chairman Gardner moved that the 7-line Cooley amendment dated 2/2/99 (Attachment 3)
be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice Chairman Gardner moved that H.B. 2182 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll
call vote of 4-0-0-2 (Attachment 4).
H.B. 2184, open primaries; ballot designation - DO PASS
Elizabeth Hatch, Majority Research Analyst, explained H.B. 2184 (Attachment 5).
Names of people recognized by the Chair who appeard in support of H.B. 2184 but did not speak
Karen Osborne, Maricopa County Election Director, Maricopa County
Vice Chairman Gardner moved that H.B. 2184 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call
vote of 4-0-0-2 (Attachment 6).
H.B. 2368, nonexplosive devises - DO PASS
not speak
Terry Smalley, B.J. Alan Company
Mike Williams, Lobbyist, U.S. Fireworks Safety Council
Tad Trout, Member, United States Fireworks Safety Council
Names of people recognized by the Chair who appeared in opposition of H.B. 2368 but
did not speak
Penny Allee, Specialist/Government Affairs, Southwest Gas
Kent Fairbairn, Assistant Director, League of Arizona Cities and Towns
Tim Hill, Executive Vice President, Professional Firefighters of Arizona
Keith Meyer, Legislative Liaison, Arizona State Land Department
Bill Lanford, District Chief, Buckeye Valley Fire District
Jan Hauk, President, Arizona Fire District Association
Alan Brunacini, Fire Chief, City of Phoenix
John Vack, Executive Director, Prevent Blindness America
Tom Hinton, Administrative Director, U.S. Fireworks Safety Council
Question was called to move H.B. 2368.
The motion carried by a roll call vote of 4-2-0-0 9 (Attachment 8).
H.B. 2524, marriage; blood tests - DO PASS AMENDED
Isaac Gabriel, Majority Intern, Committee on Banking and Insurance, explained H.B. 2524
(Attachment 9) and the amendment (Attachment 10).
Representative Karen Johnson, Sponsor, spoke in support of H.B. 2524. Ms. Johnson explained
the following three components of the bill:
Tax Dollars
Ms. Johnson stated that it is not the proper role of the government to use tax dollars to grant
insurance benefits to couples that are cohabitating or to reward couples with tax dollar benefits,
be they heterosexual or homosexual.
Medical Issues
Ms. Johnson explained the medical consequences of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle. Ms.
Johnson stated that the typical married heterosexual relationship is often short lived and may
result in sexually transmitted diseases or STD. Ms. Johnson added that with regard to
homosexual relationships, research affirms that the average length of a relationship is 2.7 years
and the life expectancy of a homosexual male who has AIDS is 39 years, while the life
expectancy of a homosexual male who does not have AIDS is 42 years.
Ms. Johnson explained that the insurance rates will rise as a result of the types of diseases that
follow the acts of those in a promiscuous heterosexual sex life as well as a homosexual lifestyle.
Moral Issues
Ms. Johnson stated that it is critical to our national health to restore social virtue and purity to
our state and nation. Ms. Johnson questioned the "goodness" of living together without the
benefit of marriage and the "goodness" of homosexuality and added that if cohabitating and
homosexuality are essentially detrimental to the individual and to society, in addition to being
against the law, society then has a responsibility to resist it and not reward such behavior with
the benefit of state tax dollars. Ms. Johnson stated the different health risks involved with
homosexual relationships and added that if the focus is kept on the medical consequences,
moral judgement against such behavior are overwhelmingly supported by the best scientific data
presently available.
Ms. Johnson stated that such ajudgement does not precede from prejudice, bigotry or
homophobia but that it is grounded in the concrete effect brought on by the kinds of sexual
activity in which gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and promiscuous heterosexuals often participate in
and given the extreme medical risks and the fundamental psychological problems involved, the
undermining of the natural family and the threat to basic freedom, which a sexually
promiscuous lifestyle constitutes, then these lifestyles are not harmless and certainly are not
beneficial.
Ms. Johnson concluded that unlike laws, morals are carved in stone and that due to the
consequences waiting at the "lower end of the behavioral spectrum", history tells us that good
public policy can not accept varying levels of morality.
In response to inquiry from Mr. Cardomone as to whether any other cities or counties in Arizona
have adopted a domestic partners ordinance, Ms. Johnson responded that Tucson has as well as
Pima County and that Phoenix and Tempe have been looking into this.
Mr. Cardomone asked if Ms. Johnson had check with the Rules committee regarding whether or
not this piece of legislation is constitutional under special legislation or equal protection statutes.
Ms. Johnson explained that it would be making its way to the Rules committee if it leaves
this committee.
Representative Steve May spoke in opposition of H.B. 2524. Mr. May stated that he felt an
obligation to respond to Ms. Johnson's comments and that he could not sit quietly in his office
because he felt that his family and his freedom were under attack. Mr. May explained that he
was deeply offended and disgusted by the "lies" told by Ms. Johnson and he challenged Ms.
Johnson to provide "real facts" regarding the statistics she related to the committee.
Specifically to the bill, Mr. May stated that the city of Tucson spends approximately $14,000,000
per year in health benefits and that Tucson's domestic partners benefits cost $25,000 per year.
Pima County spends about $225,000 per year on domestic partner benefits which is 11/2% of
their total expenditures on total health benefits.
Mr. May stated that he should be treated fairly'under the law, that the bill is very poor public
policy and posed the following questions:
Why are we dictating to the cities and counties and other political subdivisions management
decisions?
Why are we removing their right to reimburse and compensate their employees as they best see
fit?
Mr. May concluded by saying that what this piece of legislation is really about is taking away his
ability to care for his family.
Patricia Oldroyd, Concerned Women for America of Arizona (CWAA), spoke in support of
H.B. 2410. Ms. Oldroyd stated that the CWAA supports this bill for the following reasons:
The government should not take a position that would encourage people to ignore a healthy
family structure because children raised in a married household are much happier than children
raised in a household where partners are shifting and there is no permanent bonding.
Offering health insurance to domestic partners would almost be a "slap in the face" to the
institution of marriage.
The administration of health insurance for domestic partners could be a logistics nightmare
resulting in higher costs.
Mr. May spoke regarding his earlier testimony and retracted his statement directly calling Ms.
Johnson a liar. Mr. May explained that he preferred to state that the facts were incorrect. Mr.
May stated that he did not mean to call another Member a liar but would like that Member to
prove the comments she stated were fact.
Jess Park, representing himself, spoke in favor of H.B. 2524. Mr. Park expressed his support of
this bill by reading an article from the Gay Community News (Attachment 10).
Dwight Cook, Citizen, spoke in opposition to H.B. 2524. Mr. Cook explained that he is a gay man
and that he works for Honeywell. Mr. Cook commented that Honeywell is one of the employers
in the valley that has conducted a very careful analysis about whether or not to grant health
benefits to same sex partners. Looking at their bottom line, their study determined that it was
very much in their best interest to offer health benefits to same sex couples from the standpoint
that it allowed them to compete in a very tight labor market and obtain the most qualified
people for the jobs in their corporation. Mr. Cook pointed out that most corporations are
evaluating this program and they are realizing that it is in their best interest to attract qualified
labor to offer these benefits.
Mr. Cook stated that the data presented earlier had been refuted time and again by the
American Psychological Association and the data regarding life expectancy was nothing more
than an over published myth.
Mr. Cook added that the bill looked like a message of hatred and that if supporting long term
relationships and monogamy is in the best interest of government, then granting health benefits
to same sex partners does exactly that. It supports the people who have chosen to live
together. Mr. Cook pointed out that many of those people would marry if they had the option.
Mr. Cook concluded that as a society, we don't want to push homosexuals into heterosexual
relationships. Rather, allow homosexual relationships to live out their natural ability to be loving
relationships and that is in the best interest of government.
Names of people recognized by the Chair who appeared in opposition to H.B. 2524 but did not
speak:
Art Chapa, Legislative Counsel, Pima County Board of Supervisors
Eleanor Eisenberg, Executive Director, Arizona Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), spoke in opposition
of H.B. 2524. Ms. Eisenberg stated that she tries to be dispassionate when addressing
committees, however, this bill is nothing more than moral and sexual McCarthiasm. Ms.
Eisenberg explained that she understands the state's interest in the stability of relationships and
even marriage. Perhaps the answer then is allow people who are not heterosexual to marry and
be covered.
Ms. Eisenberg pointed out that it should be in the best economic interest of the state to have
people covered by insurance so that the risks can be spread rather than have people who are
uninsured and the total care for their illness, if it should occur, to be born by the state. Ms.
Eisenberg added that if this is an unconstitutional bill, it does set out a group of people by virtue
of their status and treat them differently than others. Ms. Eisenberg stated that she believed this
bill violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and the Arizona
Constitution and the applicability of the United States Constitution to the fourteenth
amendment.
Ms. Eisenberg concluded that tax dollars would be well spent to provide this coverage and that
the amendment is an improvement in that it would at least provide coverage to those who have
children and that reflects an understanding that it is in the state's interest to insure people
rather than not. Ms. Eisenberg suggested it may be possible to set standards if people are
concerned about relationships not bound by marriage although certain people are getting
divorced at rates that equal those that are dissolving relationships that are not bound by
marriage.
Frank Meliti, Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition, spoke in support of H.B. 2524.
Henry L. Barnwell, Pastor, Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship, spoke in support of H.B. Mr. Barnwell
referred to Roman 1 of the Holy Bible and placed emphasis on the word "health" and its
meaning in both the Bible and in H.B. 2524.
John Atkins spoke in support of H.B. 2524. Mr. Atkins testified that he did not believe that tax
dollars should be used to foster or promote illegal activity and pointed out that we have
cohabitation laws and
sodomy laws in this state.
Kent Fairbairn, Assistant Director, Arizona League of Cities and Towns, spoke in opposition of
H.B. 2410 on the basis of pre-emption. Mr. Fairbairn pointed out that the legislature, to date,
had never gotten involved with local personnel policy and that there is nothing in state statute
that restricts what a city or state can do as it relates to local personnel policies.
Mr. Gardner inquired as to whether or not Mr. Fairbairn had checked with the members of the
league of cities and was speaking at their directive. Mr. Fairbaim replied that the League of
Arizona Cities and had been extremely consistent over the years and opposes every piece of
legislation that includes pre-emption of officials ability to make decision locally.
Names of people recognized by the Chair who appeared in opposition of H.B. 2524
but did not speak
Ruth Grove, representing herself
Robert Arnold, representing herself
Rev. Andrew Cosentino, Director, Interfaith League for Sound Government, spoke in support of
H.B. 2524.
did not speak
Elder Harold Bates, Director Emeritus, Interfaith League for Sound Government
Charlotte Reed, representing herself
Thayer Verschoor, representing herself
(Tape 1, Side B)
Dr. Nicholas Hagan spoke in support of H.B. 2524.
not speak
Tony Mackelprang, representing himself
Chuck Daggs, representing himself
Charlie Powell, representing himself
Kyle Hindman, representing himself
Vice Chairman Gardner moved that the 14-line Cooley strike everything amendment dated
2/1/99 (Attachment 11) be adopted.
Vice Chairman Gardner moved that the 5-line Cooley amendment dated 2/2/99 (Attachment 12)
to the 14-line Cooley strike everything amendment dated 2/1/99 (Attachment 10) be adopted.
The motion carried.
Vice Chairman Gardner moved that the 14-line Cooley strike everything amendment dated
2/1/99 (Attachment 10) as amended be adopted. The motion carried.
H.B. 2410, compulsive gambling; prevention and treatment - DO PASS
Lee Payne, Majority Intern, explained H.B. 2410 (Attachment 14).
Norm Helber, Chief Probation Officer, Maricopa County Adult Probation, spoke in support of
H.B. 2410. Mr. Helber stated he supported the bill primarily because compulsive gambling is
referred to by many as the "hidden addiction" and in our state because of the voter supported
initiatives, we have had sufficient funding for us to deal effectively with thos that have other
compulsive behavior, such as addictions to drugs or alcohol but we have not allotted anything
for those who get caught up in the addiction of gambling. Mr. Helber explained that the way this
bill is strucured, the money would come from those who are supporting the state lottery and
part of the funding from that would go to serve those individuals and families who are suffering
from this addiction as well.
Donald T. Nichols, General Manager, Tn Meridian, Inc., spoke in support of H.B. 2410. Mr.
Nichols discussed the devastation that takes place as a result of compulsive gambling and added
that, because the state has elected to remain in the gaming industry, it is then correct and
proper that the state provide some sort of resources to correct the problem of compulsive
gambling.
Kenneth Lucas, Community Relations Specialist, Valley Hope Treatment, spoke in support of
H.B. 2410. Mr. Lucas explained that the Valley Hope Treatment was opened in 1986 and since
the Fall of 1995, has treated 40 persons for compulsive gambling and that many of those
individuals had other addictions, such as drugs or alcohol. Mr. Lucas stated that treatment
outcome studies reflect that the treatments work. Mr. Lucas pointed out that H.B. 2410 speaks
directly to the problem of funding the treatment of compulsive gambling and stated that most
who seek treatment do so after they are financially bankrupt. This means that treatment is
denied because the state of Arizona lacks the statutory authority to intervene. Mr. Luas
concluded that a full month of treatment at Valley Hope Treatment Center costs $7,000.
Paula Bums, Deputy Director, Arizona Council on Compulsive Gambling (ACCG), spoke in
support of H.B. 2410. Ms. Bums stated that the ACCG began in 1994 to try to provide resources
for people who suffered from compulsive gambling and their families. Ms. Burns explained that
her job is to arrange training and certify professionals for family counselors and pointed out that
four years ago, there were no
people in Arizona who were certified family gambling counselors and today there are 80. Ms.
Burns explained the different counseling programs available through the ACCG. Ms. Burns
cocluded by discussing the problems of gambling and high school seniors and stated that it is
the responsibility of the state to get involved with educational and awareness programs as well
as funding for treatment.
Laura Plimpton, Director, Arizona Lottery, spoke in support of H.B. 2410. Ms. Plimpton stated
that this bill would reduce the amount of money that goes into the general fund and anticipate
funding the compulsive gambling fund as they did last year.
speak
Viki Davis, Assistant Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Health Services
H.B. 2521, vital records; transfer - DO PASS
GladysAnn Wells, Director, Department of Library and Archives, stated that her department does
not seek this bill but will comply if necessary.
Jim Allen, Director, Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS), spoke is opposition of
H.B. 2521. Mr. Allen stated that H.B. 2521 is not in the best interest of serving the needs of the
state in terms of transferring the office of vital records it would make it extremely difficult to
handle their functions efficiently and effectively.
Representative Karen Johnson, Sponsor, discussed the importance of properly caring for vital
records and stated that the best place for records to be retained and properly taken care of
would be Library and Archive Records. In response to inquiry from Ms. Landrum regarding staff
overload as a result of the move and new responsibilities, Ms. Johnson stated that customer
service would not suffer because of the move.
H.B. 2519, gambling; minimum age - DO PASS
Paula Burns, Deputy Director, Arizona Council on Compulsive Gambling, spoke in support of
H.B. 2519.
Ms. Bums pointed out that if we are going to allow 18 year olds to gamble in the casinos in
Arizona, then we need to educate them about the dangers of this disease.
Laura Plimpton, Assistant Director, Arizona Lottery, spoke in support of H.B. 2519.
(Tape 2, Side A)
H.B. 2403. library employees: personnel system: exemption - DO PASS
GladysAnn Wells, Director, Department of Library Archives, spoke in support of H.B. 2403.
In response to inquiry from Chairman Cooley, Ms. Wells replied that the Department of Library
Archives reports to the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate and two other
selected members, in this case, Representative Kathy Foster and Senator Ruth Solomon.
Ms. Wells added that those employees who are on the merit system who have the option to stay
whre they are or elect to be exempt.
H.B. 2409, public schools, Internet access - DO PASS AMENDED
Representative Mark Anderson, Sponsor, spoke in support of H.B. 2409. Mr. Anderson explained
that the purpose of this bill is to try to prevent minors from accessing pornography in school or
public libraries, which are public facilities. Mr. Anderson stated that the bill has nothing to do
with adults and is strictly focused on children. Mr. Anderson pointed that the federal funds the
schools receive to install computers and the internet require that they have filters. When
discussing possible opposition that may come from the library association, Mr. Anderson
referred to page 2, line 6 of the bill regarding the implementation of a policy to restrict minors
from gaining access to materials that is harmful to minors.
Ken Karouzos, Representing himself, spoke in support of H.B. 2409. Mr. Karouzos discussed the
psychological dangers that can occur as a result of children viewing pornography.
Eleanor Eisenberg, Executive Director, Arizona Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), spoke in opposition
of H.B. 2409. Ms. Eisenberg stated that this issue should be a parental decision and not dictated
by government.
Len Munsil, President, Center for Arizona Policy, spoke in support of H.B. 2409.
Vice Chairman Gardner moved that the 2-page Strike Everything Cooley amendment dated
2/1/99 (Attachment 23) be adopted. The motion carried.
H.B. 2441, waste tires - HELD
Sally Bender, Assistant Director, County Supervisors Association, spoke in opposition to H.B.
2441. Ms. Bender expressed her concern that this bill is one of three that will be introduced
regarding the waste tire program and stated that until she sees what a number of those changes
are to the program, it is very difficult to gage whether this $1.13 fee will support the program
given that the changes include bringing more tires into the program. Ms. Bender pointed out
that retailers do keep .10 cents per tire of the tires they sell for an administrative fee.
H.B. 2452, state printing; private competition; study - DO PASS
Mr. Wieirs, Sponsor, spoke in support of H.B. 2452. Mr. Wieirs asked the committee to support
the study committee.
Mr. Wieirs moved that H.B. 2452 do pass.
David Mendoza, Legislative Director, AFSCME, spoke in opposition of H.B. 2452. Mr. Mendoza
stated that H.B. 2452 is duplicative and added that there is no representation from the work
force.
speak
Heidi Koopman, Executive Director, Fiscal Accountability and Reform Efforts (FAIR) Samantha
Fearn, State Director, National Federation of Independent Business (NEIB)
Question was called for motion on H.B. 2452. The motion passed by a
roll call vote of 4-2-0-0 (Attachment 27).
H.B. 2081. campaign contributions: organizations and associations - DO PASS AMENDED
Lee Payne, Majority Intern, explained H.B. 2081 (Attachment 28) and the amendment
(Attachment 29).
Russell Smolden, Manager Government Relations, Salt River Project (SRP), spoke in support of
H.B. 2081 and the amendment.
speak
Michael Curtis, Arizona Municipal Power Users
Robert S. Lynch, Attorney, Irrigation and Electrical Districts Association
Vice Chairman Gardner moved that the 22-line Cooley Amendment
dated 1/26/99 (Attachment 29) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice Chairman Gardner moved that H.B. 2081 as amended do pass.
The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-0-0-0 (Attachment 30).
THE MEETING RECESSED AT 11:45 A.M.
THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 4:55 P.M.
All members were present.
Speakers Present
Elizabeth Hatch, Majority Research Analyst
John Pearce, Attorney/Lobbyist, Arizona Petroleum Marketers Association
Charlie Stevens, Legislative Counsel, Western States Petroleum Association
Jim Bush, ARCO
Jesse Lugo, Member, Arizona Auto
Ruben Bermudez, President, Arizona Auto
Barry Aarons, Consultant, Equilon, Inc.
Debra Margraf, Executive Director, Arizona Automobile Trade Organization
Names of people recognized by the Chair who appeared in opposition of H.B. 2556 but
did not speak
(Page 15)
Norris Nordyold, Programs Coordinator, City of Phoenix
speak:
(Page 15)
Tami Stowe, Majority Intern, Committee on Government Operations
Ed Wren, Legislative Counsel, Arizona Highway Patrol Association
speak:
(Page 16)
Jay Kaprosy, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Education
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS
H.B. 2556. motor vehicle fuel pricing - DO PASS
John Pearce, Attorney/Lobbyist, Arizona Petroleum Marketers Association, discussed H.B. 2556
and expressed his opposition to H.B. 2556.
Charlie Stevens, Legislative Counsel, Western States Petroleum Association, spoke in opposition
to H.B. 2556. Mr. Stevens stated that this bill will raise gasoline prices throughout the state. Mr.
Stevens referred to the bill as "anti-competitive" and "unwarranted".
In response to inquiry from Chairman Cooley regarding the possibility of a "monopoly" with
regard to gasoline prices, Mr. Stevens explained that there is no "monopoly" as it is prohibited
by federal and state laws.
Jim Bush, ARCO, spoke in opposition of H.B. 2556. Mr. Bush explained that, prior to 1981,
gasoline priced were high because pricing was controlled by the federal government. Mr. Bush
discussed the issue of contracts with lessees and their obligation to sell a particular brand of
gasoline. Mr. Bush added that his thoughts were that franchise owners may feel advantageous if
this bill passes because prices may go up, causing their margin may go up and they will make
more money. Mr. Bush concluded by stating that if this bill passes, it will not benefit the
consumer.
Jesse Lugo, Member, Arizona Auto, spoke in support of H.B. 2556.
Ruben Bermudez, President, Arizona Auto, spoke in support of H.B. 2556. Mr. Bermudez asked
the committee to consider and support the bill.
Barry Aarons, Consultant, Equilon, Inc., spoke in opposition of H.B. 2556. Mr. Aarons stated that
by voting for this bill, you will be voting for the government to legally impose price controls on
the sale of gasoline.
Debra Margraf, Executive Director, Arizona Automobile Trade Organization, spoke in support of
H.B. 2556. Ms. Margraf stated that this bill is asking the competitive market work as it should.
Ms. Margraf discussed the differences in gasoline prices in different cities throughout the valley
and stated that she felt Phoenix should be considered one marketing zone and that the gasoline
retailers should be consistent with the pricing throughout their various locations.
Chairman Cooley asked Ms. Margraf about the concerns of the dealers who belong to her trade
organization. Ms. Margraf explained that their concerns are in regards to the difference in pricing
between the dealers.
Names of people recognized by the Chair who appeared in opposition of H.B. 2556 but did not
speak
Wendy Briggs, Attorney, Mobil Oil
Bob Fannin, Attorney, Mobil Oil
Randy Smith, Director of Government Affairs, Mobile Oil
John K. Mangum, Tosco Corporation
H.B. 2274. design-build pilot program: operation - DO PASS AMENDED
Elizabeth Hatch, Majority Research Analyst, explained H.B. 2274 (Attachment 33) and the
amendment (Attachment 34).
Norris Nordvold, Programs Coordinator, City of Phoenix, spoke in support of H.B. 2274.
Mr. Nordvold discussed the people he had worked with and stated that they were all comfortable
with the amendment.
speak
Janice L. Burnett, Executive Director, Arizona Consulting Engineers Association
Vice Chairman Gardner moved that the 2-page Cooley amendment dated
2/2/99 (Attachment 34) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice Chairman Gardner moved that H.B. 2274 as amended do pass.
The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-0-0-0 (Attachment 35).
H.B. 2275 - PSPRS: 75% at 25 years - DO PASS
Tami Stowe, Majority Intern, Committee on Government Operations, explained H.B. 2275
(Attachment 36).
Ed Wren, Legislative Counsel, Arizona Highway Patrol Association, spoke in support of H.B.
2275.
speak
Jack Cross, Administrator, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS)
Andy Swann, Highway Patrolman, Associated Highway Patrol of Arizona
Terry Sills, President, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association
Rick Knight, Lieutenant, Arizona Department of Public Safety
Vice Chairman Gardner moved that H.B. 2275 do pass. The motion
carried by a roll call vote of 6-0-0-0 (Attachment 37).
H.B. 2292. charter schools, omnibus - DO PASS
Jay Kaprosy, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Education, spoke in support of H.B.
2292.
Vice Chairman Gardner moved that H.B. 2292 do pass. The motion
carried by a roll call vote of 6-0-0-0 (Attachment 39).
Without objection, the meeting recessed at 6:35 p.m.
Robyne Clark, Committee Secretary
(Original minutes, attachments, and tape filed in the Office of the Chief Clerk)
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM FEBRUARY 3, 1999 rc 2/5/99
Bills | Members | FloorCalendars | CommitteeAgendas | Session Laws| Statutes| Arizona Constitution
Click here to return to the A.L.I.S. Home Page.
2007 Arizona State Legislature. privacy statment

EXHIBIT 22

Case Nos. 13-4178, 14-5003, 14-5006

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DEREK KITCHEN, individually, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
GARY R. HERBERT, in his official
capacity as Governor of Utah, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the District of Utah,
Civil Case No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS
MARY BISHOP, et al.,
and
SUSAN G. BARTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
v.
SALLY HOWE SMITH, in her official
capacity as Court Clerk for Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma,
Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma,
Civil Case No. 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW

__________________________________________

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE SOCIAL SCIENCE PROFESSORS IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL
__________________________________________

David C. Walker, Esq.
2000 S. Colorado Blvd.
Tower 2, Ste 700
Denver, CO 80222
Tel: (303) 329-3363
Fax: (303) 393-8438
Email: dwalker@bbdfirm.com

Attorney for Social Science Professors
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019199704 Date Filed: 02/10/2014 Page: 1 Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019199739 Date Filed: 02/10/2014 Page: 1

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .............................................................................. 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 2
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 4
I. Compelling Evidence Shows that Children Benefit from the Unique
Parenting Contributions of Both Men and Women. ........................................ 4
II. The Claim of No Difference In Outcomes of Children Raised By
Gay and Lesbian Parents and Intact Biological Parents Is Empirically
Undermined by Significant Methodological Limitations. .............................12
A. The APA studies are based on small sample sizes. .............................14
B. The APAs studies are largely based on homogeneous samples. .......17
C. Most of the samples in the APA-cited studies relied on non-
random, convenience sampling. ..........................................................18
III. The Largest Population-Based Studies Do Not Confirm the No
Differences Conclusion About Child Outcomes Among Same-Sex
Parents. ...........................................................................................................21
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................28
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a) ......................................29
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................30
CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION .......................................................32


ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bowen v. Gilliard,
483 U.S. 587 (1987)......................................................................................... 5
Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services,
358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004) ....................................................................... 14
Perry v. Schwarzenegger,
704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ............................................................. 6
Other Authorities
Douglas W. Allen et al.,
Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A
Comment on Rosenfeld, Demography, November 2012,
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13524-012-0169-
x/fulltext.html ................................................................................................ 14
Douglas W. Allen,
High school graduation rates among children of same-sex
households, Rev. Econ. Household, Sept. 2013 23
Paul R. Amato,
More Than Money? Mens Contributions to Their Childrens Lives?,
in Men in Families, When Do They Get Involved? What Difference
Does It Make? 267 (1998) ............................................................................... 8
Paul R. Amato & Fernando Rivera,
Paternal Involvement and Childrens Behavior Problems, 61 Journal
of Marriage and the Family 375 (1999) ........................................................ 11
Gunnar Anderson et al.,
The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages In Norway and Sweden,
43 Demography 79 (2006) ............................................................................. 25
Marilyn Coleman et al.,
Reinvestigating Remarriage: Another Decade of Progress, 62 Journal
of Marriage and the Family 1288 (2000) ...................................................... 16

iii

Scott Coltrane,
Family Man 54 (1996) ..................................................................................... 7
Suzanne A. Denham et al.,
Prediction of Externalizing Behavior Problems From Early to Middle
Childhood: The Role of Parental Socialization and Emotion
Expression, in Development and Psychopathology 23 (2000)........................ 8
M. DeWolff & M. van Izjendoorn,
Sensitivity and Attachment: A Meta-Analysis on Parental Antecedents
of Infant Attachment, 68 Child Development 571 (1997) ................... FN2, P6
Greg Duncan & Jeanne Brooks-Gunn,
Consequences of Growing Up Poor (1999) .................................................... 8
Ruth Feldman,
Oxytocin and Social Affiliation In Humans, 61 Hormones and
Behavior 380 (2012) ........................................................................................ 5
Mark V. Flinn et al.,
Fluctuating Asymmetry of Stepchildren, 20 Evolution of Human
Behavior 465 (1999) ...................................................................................... 15
Norval D. Glenn,
The Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage, 41 Society 27 (2004) .............. 9, 19, 20
Colleen Hoff & Sean Beougher,
Sexual Agreements Among Gay Male Couples, 39 Archives of Sexual
Behavior 774 (2010) ...................................................................................... 25
Sandra L. Hofferth et al.,
The Demography of Fathers: What Fathers Do,in Handbook of Father
Involvement: Multidisciplinary Perspectives 81 (2002) ................................. 7
Michael E. Lamb,
Fathers: Forgotten Contributors to Child Development,18 Human
Development 245 (1975) ............................................................................. 5, 6
Robert Lerner & Althea K. Nagai,
No Basis: What the Studies Dont Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting
(Marriage Law Project, 2001) ......................................................... FN7 P19

iv

Laura Lott-Whitehead and Carol T. Tully,
The Family Lives of Lesbian Mothers,63 Smith College Studies in
Social Work 275 (1993) ................................................................................ 17
Eleanor Maccoby,
The Two Sexes 266 (1998) ............................................................ FN3,7, 8, 10
M. Main & J. Solomon,
Discovery of an Insecure-Disorganized/Disoriented Attachment
Pattern,in Affective Development in Infancy 95 (1986) ................... FN2 - P6
Wendy D. Manning & Kathleen A. Lamb,
Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married, & Single-Parent
Families, 65 Journal of Marriage and the Family 876 (2003)......................... 4
Loren D. Marks,
Same-Sex Parenting and Childrens Outcomes: A Closer Examination
of the American Psychological Associations Brief on Lesbian and
Gay Parenting, 41 Social Science Research 735 (2012) ........14,15, 17, 18, 19
Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur,
Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps 1 (1994) ...... 4, 8
Brent Miller et al.,
Comparisons of Adopted and Non-Adopted Adolescents In a Large,
Nationally Representative Sample, 71 Child Development 1458
(2000) ................................................................................................ FN6 - P13
Kristen Anderson Moore, et al,
Marriage from a Childs Perspective,Child Trends Research Brief
(2002) ............................................................................................................... 4
C.A. Nelson and M. Bosquet,
Neurobiology of Fetal and Infant Development: Implications for
Infant Mental Health, in Handbook of Infant Mental Health 37 (2d ed.
2000) ................................................................................................... FN2 - P6
Affidavit of Professor Steven Lowell Nock,
Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada, Case No. 684/00 (Ontario
Sup. Ct. Justice 2001),
http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/Law/cases/Canada/ontario/halpern/aff_noc
k.pdf .................................................................................................. FN7 - P19

v

Barack Obama,
Statement at Apostolic Church of God (June 15, 2008),
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obamas_speech_on
_fatherhood.html .............................................................................. FN5,11,12
Daniel Paquette & Mark Bigras,
The Risky Situation: A Procedure for Assessing the Father-Child
Activation Relationship, 180 Early Childhood Development and Care
33 (2010) .......................................................................................................... 9
Ross D. Parke,
Fatherhood (1996) .................................................................................. 7, 8,10
C.J. Patterson,
Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents, 63 Child Development 1025
(1992) ............................................................................................................. 17
David Popenoe,
Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence that Fatherhood &
Marriage are Indispensable for the Good of Children & Society 146
(1996) ............................................................................................................ 5,9
Thomas G. Powers et al.,
Compliance and Self-Assertion: Young Childrens Responses to
Mothers Versus Fathers, 30 Developmental Psychology 980 (1994) .......... 10
Mark D. Regnerus,
How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex
Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, 41
Social Science Research 752 (2012) .................... 12, FN6-P13, 15, 18, 21, 23
Mark D. Regnerus,
Parental Same-Sex Relationships, Family Instability, and Subsequent
Life Outcomes for Adult Children: Answering Critics of the New
Family Structures Study with Additional Analysis, 41 Social Science
Research 1367 (2012) ............................................................................... 23,24
Mark D. Regnerus & Laura B. Luchies,
The Parent-Child Relationship and Opportunities for Adolescents
First Sex, 27 Journal of Family Issues 159 (2006) ........................................ 11

vi

Michael J. Rosenfeld,
Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School, 47
Demography 755 (2010) .................................................................... 14, 26, 27
S. Sarantokas,
Children In Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social
Development, 21 Children Australia 23 (1996) ............................................. 17
Shmuel Shulman and Moshe M. Klein,
Distinctive Role of the Father in Adolescent Separation-Individuation,
62 New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 41 (1993) ........ 10
Walter R. Schumm,
What Was Really Learned From Tasker & Golomboks (1995) Study
of Lesbian & Single Parent Mothers?, 95 Psychological Reports 422
(2004) ............................................................................................................. 19
Walter R. Schumm,
Methodological Decisions and the Evaluation of Possible Effects of
Different Family Structures on Children: The New Family Structures
Survey, 41 Social Science Research 1357 (2012) ......................................... 26
Tom A. Snijders,
Estimation on the Basis of Snowball Samples, 36 Bulletin de
Methodologie Sociologique 59 (1992) .......................................................... 19
Judith Stacey & Timothy Biblarz,
(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 American
Sociological Review 159 (2001) ................................................................... 20
Fiona Tasker,
Lesbian Mothers, Gay Fathers and Their Children: A Review, 26
Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 224 (2005) ............................ 18, 19
W. Brad Wilcox, et al.,
Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social
Sciences (3d ed. 2011) ................................................................................... 11
James Q. Wilson,
The Marriage Problem (2002) ...................................................................... 12


1

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
1
Amici have studied and published on parental and household distinctions and
their association with child and young-adult developmental outcomes. Amicis
expertise in these fields would assist the Courts consideration of the issues
presented by these cases. Amici include (in alphabetical order):

Douglas W. Allen (Ph.D., Economics, University of Washington) is
Burnaby Mountain Professor of Economics at Simon Fraser University, BC,
Canada.
David J. Eggebeen (Ph.D., Sociology, University of North Carolina) is an
Associate Professor of Human Development and Sociology at Penn State
University.
Byron R. Johnson (Ph.D., Criminology, Florida State University) is a
Distinguished Professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University.
Catherine R. Pakaluk (Ph.D., Economics, Harvard University) is an
Assistant Professor of Economics at Ave Maria University and a Faculty
Research Fellow at the Stein Center for Social Research at Ave Maria
University.
Joseph Price (Ph.D., Economics, Cornell University) is an Assistant

1
No partys counsel authored the brief in whole or in part, and no one other than
the amici curiae or their counsel contributed money that was intended to fund
preparing or submitting the brief. This brief is filed with consent of all parties; thus
no motion for leave to file is required. See Fed. R. App. P. 29(a).

2

Professor of Economics at Brigham Young University.
Mark D. Regnerus (Ph.D., Sociology, University of North Carolina) is an
Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, and a
Faculty Research Associate at the Population Research Center of the
University of Texas.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
A persistent claim by those supporting same-sex marriage is that there is no
difference in the outcomes of children raised by a biological mother and father
and those who have been raised by two women or two men. That claim is made by
associations like the American Psychological Association (APA). But as recent
scholarship indicates, the claim is difficult to support because nearly all of the
studies upon which the no difference assertion is based are rather limited,
involving non-random, non-representative samples, often with relatively few
participants. Specifically, the vast majority of the studies were based on samples of
fewer than 100 parents (or children), and typically representative only of well-
educated, white women (parents), often with elevated incomes. These are hardly
representative samples of the lesbian and gay population raising children, and
therefore not a sufficient basis to make broad claims about child outcomes of
same-sex parenting structures.

3

These and other methodological limitations make the APAs confident no
difference conclusion suspect. The claim also contradicts longstanding research
asserting the view that the ideal environment for raising children is a stable
biological mother and father. The science on comparative parenting structures is
relatively new, especially that concerning same-sex households. Therefore, a claim
that another parenting structure provides the same level of benefit should be
rigorously tested and based on sound methodologies and representative samples.
Nearly all of the studies cited by the APA fail to meet those criteria.
Indeed, the only studies that were based on large, random, representative
samples tended to reveal the opposite conclusion, finding significant differences in
the outcomes of children raised by parents in a same-sex relationship and those
raised by a married biological mother and father. What is clear is that much more
study must be done on these questions. But there is no dispute that a biological
mother and father provide, on average, an effective and proven environment for
raising children. And it is reasonable to conclude that a mother and father function
as a complementary parenting unit and that each tends to contribute something
unique and beneficial to child development.
The States of Utah and Oklahoma thus have a rational interest in supporting
that proven parenting structure by reserving the title and status of marriage to
unions comprised of a man and a woman.

4

ARGUMENT
I. Compelling Evidence Shows that Children Benefit from the Unique
Parenting Contributions of Both Men and Women.
It is a well-established and well-regarded sociological finding that
[c]hildren who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse
off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their
biological parents . . . regardless of whether the resident parent remarries. Sara
McLanahan & Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts,
What Helps 1 (1994); see also Wendy D. Manning & Kathleen A. Lamb,
Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married, & Single-Parent Families, 65 J.
Marriage & Fam. 876, 890 (2003) (The advantage of marriage appears to exist
primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents.); Kristen
Anderson Moore, et al, Marriage from a Childs Perspective, Child Trends
Research Brief at 1-2 (2002) ([I]t is not simply the presence of two parents . . . but
the presence of two biological parents that seems to support childrens
development.).
Indeed, a few decades ago Justice William Brennan recognized what was
likely considered a very unremarkable proposition when he stated that the optimal
situation for the child is to have both an involved mother and an involved father.
Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 614 (1987) (Brennan, J. dissenting). Experts have
long contended that both mothers and fathers make unique contributions to

5

parenting. As sociologist David Popenoe explains, [t]he burden of social science
evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for
human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique
and irreplaceable. David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling New
Evidence that Fatherhood & Marriage are Indispensable for the Good of Children
& Society 146 (1996). Indeed, even Respondents expert, Professor Michael Lamb,
advocated that same view prior to his advocacy for same-sex marriage, when he
noted that [b]oth mothers and fathers play crucial and qualitatively different roles
in the socialization of the child. Michael E. Lamb, Fathers: Forgotten
Contributors to Child Development, 18 Human Dev. 245, 246 (1975).
Current research on the psycho-social development of children continues to
affirm that the complementarity of an intact family, with a mother and a father
serving unique relational roles, is optimal for a childs healthy development. See,
e.g., Ruth Feldman, Oxytocin and Social Affiliation in Humans, 61 Hormones &
Behav. 380-391 (2012) (noting the different roles that mothers and fathers play
across species, the importance of those differences to human development, and
suggesting that human oxytocin systems may account for the different yet
complementary maternal and paternal functions). Indeed, in his testimony in the
Proposition 8 trial, Dr. Lamb admitted he had previously stated that men and
women are not completely interchangeable with respect to skills and abilities and

6

that data suggests that the differences between maternal and paternal behavior are
more strongly related to either the parents biological gender or sex roles, than to
either their degree of involvement in infant care or their attitudes regarding the
desirability of paternal involvement in infant care. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704
F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), trial transcript at 1064 & 1068.
Dr. Lambs statement is consistent with a great deal of scholarship on the
distinct ways in which separate maternal and paternal contributions promote
positive child development outcomes. For example, distinctive maternal
contributions are numerous and significant. The natural biological responsiveness
of a mother to her infant fosters critical aspects of neural development and
capabilities for interactivity in the infant brain.
2

2
See C.A. Nelson & M. Bosquet, Neurobiology of Fetal and Infant Development:
Implications for Infant Mental Health, in Handbook of Infant Mental Health 37-59,
(C.H. Zeanah Jr. ed., 2d ed. 2000); M. DeWolff & M. van Izjendoorn, Sensitivity
and Attachment: A Meta-Analysis on Parental Antecedents of Infant Attachment,
68 Child Dev. 571-91 (1997); M. Main & J. Solomon, Discovery of an Insecure-
Disorganized Disoriented Attachment Pattern, in Affective Development in
Infancy 95-124 (T.B. Brazelton & M.W. Yogman eds., 1986).
Mothers are also able to extract the
maximum return on the temporal investments of both parents in a two-parent home
because mothers provide critical direction for fathers on routine caretaking
activities, particularly those involving infants and toddlers. See Sandra L. Hofferth
et al., The Demography of Fathers: What Fathers Do, in Handbook of Father
Involvement: Multidisciplinary Perspectives 81 (Catherine Tamis-Lamonda &

7

Natasha Cabrera eds., 2002); Scott Coltrane, Family Man 54 (1996). This direction
is needed in part because fathers do not share equally in the biological and
hormonal interconnectedness that develops between a mother and a child during
pregnancy, delivery, and lactation.
In comparison to fathers, mothers generally maintain more frequent and
open communication and enjoy greater emotional closeness with their children, in
turn fostering a sense of security in children with respect to the support offered by
the family structure. Ross D. Parke, Fatherhood 7 (Developing Child Series,
Jerome Bruner et al. eds., 1996). Mothers typical mode of parent-child play is
predictable, interactive, and geared toward joint problem-solving, which helps
children to feel comfortable in the world they inhabit. Eleanor Maccoby, The Two
Sexes 266-67 (1998)
3
Mothers also uniquely play a greater role in cultivating the language and
communication skills of their children. Parke, supra at 6. Mothers help children to
understand their own feelings and respond to the feelings of others, in part by
encouraging open discussion of feelings and emotions within the family unit. See
; see also Parke, supra at 5. Mothers also impose more limits
and tend to discipline more frequently, albeit with greater flexibility when
compared with fathers. Maccoby, supra at 273.

3
Professor Maccoby, who is a distinguished feminist psychologist at Stanford
University and who championed the idea that sex differences were caused only by
socialization, is now acknowledging the importance of biology in explaining sex
differences in parenting. Maccoby, supra at 314.

8

Suzanne A. Denham et al., Prediction of Externalizing Behavior Problems From
Early to Middle Childhood: The Role of Parental Socialization and Emotion
Expression, in Development and Psychopathology 23-45 (2000); Maccoby, supra
at 272. Active maternal influence and input is vital to the breadth and depth of
childrens social ties, and mothers play a central role in connecting children to
friends and extended family. Paul R. Amato, More Than Money? Mens
Contributions to Their Childrens Lives?, in Men in Families, When Do They Get
Involved? What Difference Does It Make? 267 (Alan Booth & Ann C. Crouter
eds., 1998).
Fathers also make distinctive contributions to the upbringing of their
children, and positive paternal contributions play a key role in avoiding a variety of
negative outcomes that arise with greater frequency in homes where a father is not
present. Having a father is associated with an increase in positive outcomes for
children in domains such as education, physical health, and the avoidance of
juvenile delinquency. McLanahan & Sandefur, supra (1994); Greg Duncan &
Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Consequences of Growing Up Poor (1999). As Professor
Norval Glenn explains, there are strong theoretical reasons for believing that both
fathers and mothers are important, and the huge amount of evidence of relatively
poor average outcomes among fatherless children makes it seem unlikely that these
outcomes are solely the result of the correlates of fatherlessness and not of

9

fatherlessness itself. Norval D. Glenn, The Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage, 41
Socy 27 (2004).
Fathers engage proactively in spontaneous play with their children, and
children who roughhouse with their fathers . . . quickly learn that biting, kicking,
and other forms of physical violence are not acceptable. Popenoe, supra at 144. A
study conducted by developmental psychologist Daniel Paquette found that fathers
are also more likely to supervise children at play while refraining from intervention
in the childs activities, a pattern that stimulates exploration, controlled risk-
taking, and competition. Daniel Paquette & Mark Bigras, The Risky Situation: A
Procedure for Assessing the Father-Child Activation Relationship, 180 Early
Childhood Dev. & Care 33-50 (2010).
4
Paternal modes of play activity are only one example of the ways in which
fathers encourage their children to take risks. Compared to mothers, fathers are
more likely to encourage children to try new things and to embrace novel situations
and challenges. See Parke, supra at 6. One study summarized this aspect of
Boys who do not regularly experience the
love, discipline, and modeling of a good father are more likely to engage in what is
called compensatory masculinity where they reject and denigrate all that is
feminine and instead seek to prove their masculinity by engaging in domineering
and violent behavior. Popenoe, supra at 157.

4
See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37741738 (last visited January 25, 2012).

10

paternal input and observed that [f]athers, more than mothers, conveyed the
feeling that they can rely on their adolescents, thus fathers might provide a
facilitating environment for adolescent attainment of differentiation from the
family and consolidation of independence. Shmuel Shulman and Moshe M. Klein,
Distinctive Role of the Father in Adolescent Separation-Individuation, 62 New Dir.
Child & Adolesc. Dev. 41, 53 (1993).
Fathers also tend to utilize a different discipline style than mothers, in that
they discipline with less frequency, but greater predictability and less flexibility in
terms of deviating from pre-determined consequences for particular behavior. See
Thomas G. Powers et al., Compliance and Self-Assertion: Young Childrens
Responses to Mothers Versus Fathers, 30 Dev. Psychol. 980-89 (1994). Children
respond differently to paternal discipline, and are comparatively more likely to
resist maternal commands and comply with paternal requests. Maccoby, supra at
274-75. This may be one reason why a number of studies have found that paternal
influence and involvement plays an outsized role in preventing adolescent boys
from breaking the law, and lowering the odds that a teenage girl will become
pregnant. See, e.g., Paul R. Amato & Fernando Rivera, Paternal Involvement and
Childrens Behavior Problems, 61 J. Marriage & Fam. 375-84 (1999) (finding that
paternal involvement is linked to lower levels of delinquency and criminal activity,
even after controlling for maternal involvement); Mark D. Regnerus & Laura B.

11

Luchies, The Parent-Child Relationship and Opportunities for Adolescents First
Sex, 27 J. Fam. Issues 159-83 (2006) (study of 2000 adolescents noted that father-
daughter relationship, rather than mother-daughter relationship, was an important
predictor of whether and when adolescent girls transitioned to sexual activity); see
also W. Brad Wilcox, et al., Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-Six Conclusions from
the Social Sciences, 14, 22-23 (3d ed. 2011) (discussing evidence suggesting that
female sexual development is slowed by early childhood exposure to pheromones
of biological father, and accelerated by regular early childhood exposure to
pheromones of adult male who is not childs biological father).
As President Obama has noted:
We know the statisticsthat children who grow up without a father
are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine
times more likely to drop out of schools, and twenty times more likely
to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems,
or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And
the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.
Barack Obama, Statement at Apostolic Church of God (June 15, 2008)
5
In sum, a substantial body of evidence exists documenting that both mothers
and fathers make unique contributions to a childs development. Same-sex
; see also
James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem 169 (2002) (The weight of scientific
evidence seems clearly to support the view that fathers matter.).

5
Available at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obamas_speech_
on_fatherhood.html (last visited January 25, 2013).

12

parenting structures, by definition, exclude either a mother or a father. Certainly
same-sex couples, like other parenting structures, can make quality and successful
efforts in raising children. That is not in question. But the social science evidence,
especially evidence founded on conclusions from population-based samples,
suggests that there remain unique advantages to a parenting structure consisting of
both a mother and a father, political interests to the contrary notwithstanding.
Therefore it remains rational for government to provide distinctive recognition and
incentive to that proven parenting structure through the status of marriage.
II. The Claim of No Difference In Outcomes of Children Raised By Gay
and Lesbian Parents and Intact Biological Parents Is Empirically
Undermined by Significant Methodological Limitations.
Decades of study on various other parenting structures yield the near
uniform conclusion that a biological mother and father provide optimal child
outcomes. Mark Regnerus, How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who
Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, 41
Soc. Sci. Research 752, 763 (2012) [hereinafter How Different?]. So the claim that
another parenting relationship produces child outcomes just as good as (or even
better than) intact biological parents is a surprising proposition, to say the least,

13

and one that must be rigorously tested (and until then, viewed with healthy
suspicion).
6
A closer examination of the studies purporting to show no difference
between same-sex parenting and parenting by biological parents suggests that they
cannot bear the weight that advocates place on them. Most striking is that all but
one failed to involve a large, random, representative sample of the population.
While this can be attributed to the fact that such a sample is difficult to locate
randomly, it nevertheless ought to raise concern when they are used to support
broad public policy changes, like those at issue in this case. In short, it is faulty to
credibly, much less confidently, claim no difference with such thin support.

The Eleventh Circuit has recognized these limitations in the research on gay
and lesbian parenting, noting significant flaws in the studies methodologies and
conclusions, such as the use of small, self-selected samples; reliance on self-report

6
Although outcomes of children raised by adoptive parents are often positive,
outcomes for those children are not typically as positive as children raised by
biological parents in an intact marriage, despite the rigorous screening process that
adoption entails. Regnerus, How Different?, supra at 754-55 ([S]tudies of
adoptiona common method by which many same-sex couples (but more
heterosexual ones) become parentshave repeatedly and consistently revealed
important and wide-ranging differences, on average, between adopted children and
biological ones. In fact, these differences have been so pervasive and consistent
that adoption experts now emphasize that acknowledgement of difference is
critical for both parents and clinicians when working with adopted children and
teens. (citing Brent Miller et al., Comparisons of Adopted and Non-Adopted
Adolescents In A Large, Nationally Representative Sample, 71 Child Dev. 1458
(2000)).

14

instruments; politically driven hypotheses; and the use of unrepresentative study
populations consisting of disproportionately affluent, educated parents. Lofton v.
Secy of the Dept of Children and Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804, 825 (11th Cir.
2004).
A. The APA studies are based on small sample sizes.
Most of the studies that the APA relies on to support its no-difference
conclusion are based on small, non-representative, convenience samples of fewer
than 100 participants. Loren D. Marks, Same-Sex Parenting and Childrens
Outcomes: A Closer Examination of the American Psychological Associations
Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting, 41 Soc. Sci. Res. 735, 736-38 (2012); see
also Douglas W. Allen et al., Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress
Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld, Demography November 2012,
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13524-012-0169-x/fulltext.html
[hereinafter Comment on Rosenfeld] (Although there has been considerable
research on the effect of family structure on child outcomes, almost none of the
research using nationally representative samples has included same-sex parents as
part of the analysis.).
The hallmark of a rigorous study is a large, representative pool of
participants drawn from a population-based random sample. Regnerus, How
Different?, supra at 754 (2012). Indeed, it is very difficult to draw reliable

15

conclusions from the data used in small samples because the conclusions from
such limited studies cannot be confidently extrapolated to the general population
and the risk of erroneously attributing statistical insignificance to between-group
comparisons (that is, mistakenly concluding there are no differences between
groups) is high. Marks, supra at 736. Even analyzing matched samples, as a
variety of studies have done, fails to mitigate the challenge of locating statistically-
significant differences when the sample size is small. This is a concern in all social
science, but one that is doubly important when there may be motivation to confirm
the null hypothesis (that is, that there are in fact no statistically-significant
differences between groups). Regnerus, How Different?, supra at 754.
Because of the small sample sizes in these studies, expected differences in
children raised by biological and non-biological parents could not be measured in a
meaningful way. For example, it is well established that having a stepfather in the
home tends on average to result in less optimal child outcomes. Mark V. Flinn et
al., Fluctuating Asymmetry of Stepchildren, 20 Evol. Hum. Behav. 465 (1999) (In
summary, the absence of a genetic relationship between stepchildren and
stepparents may affect the quality and quantity of careincluding specific
behaviors that affect nutrition, sleep routines, hygiene, medical attention, work
loads, instruction, comforting, protection and so forthwith consequent affect on
growth.); Marilyn Coleman et al., Reinvestigating Remarriage: Another Decade

16

of Progress, 62 J. Marriage & Fam. 1288, 1293 (2000) ([M]ost researchers
reported that stepchildren were similar to children living with single mothers on
the preponderance of outcome measures and that step-children generally were at a
greater risk for problems than were children living with both of their parents.).
That is relevant for the matter at hand, since every child in a planned gay or
lesbian family has at least one nonbiological step parent. But because of the
small sample sizes of same-sex parents represented in the studies (and especially of
gay fathers), these outcome differences have not often surfaced (or even been
evaluated), raising additional questions about the reliability of the studies
purporting to show no differences. Alternately, comparisons are most often made
between children in heterosexual stepfamilies and those in gay unions, which
overlook the general consensus about the importance of two biological connections
to begin with.
Even one of the larger studies that the APA cites, but does not discuss,
showed significant outcome differences between children raised by same-sex
parents and those raised by biological parents in an intact relationship. Overall,
the study has shown that children of married couples are more likely to do well at
school in academic and social terms, than children of cohabiting and homosexual
couples. Marks, supra at 742-43 (quoting S. Sarantokas, Children In Three
Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development, 21 Children Australia 23

17

(1996), and describing the studys findings in detail, its comparative statistical
strength, and the APAs puzzling de-emphasis of it).
B. The APAs studies are largely based on homogeneous samples.
Not only are most of the studies claiming no differences in same-sex
parenting based on small sample sizes, they also tend to draw upon homogeneous
samples of privileged lesbian mothers to represent all same-sex parents. Marks,
supra at 739. For example, many of the studies cited by the APA include no
minorities with samples predominantly composed of white, well-educated, middle-
to upper-class women. Id. at 738. As one study candidly acknowledged, the study
sample was small and biased toward well-educated, white women with high
incomes. These factors have plagued other [same-sex parenting] studies, and
remain a concern of researchers in this field. Id. (quoting Laura Lott-Whitehead
and Carol T. Tully, The Family Lives of Lesbian Mothers, 63 Smith Coll. Studies
Soc. Work 275 (1993)); see also C.J. Patterson, Children of Lesbian and Gay
Parents, 63 Child Dev. 1025, 1029 (1992) (Despite the diversity of gay and
lesbian communities, both in the United States and abroad, samples of children
[and parents] have been relatively homogenous . . . . Samples for which
demographic information was reported have been described as predominantly
Caucasian, well-educated, and middle to upper class.).

18

And very few of the APA-cited studies on same-sex parenting analyzed the
outcomes of children raised by gay fathers. Only eight of the fifty-nine cited
studies included gay fathers, and only four of those included a heterosexual
comparison group. Marks, supra at 739. Systematic research has so far not
considered developmental outcomes for children brought up from birth by single
gay men or gay male couples (planned gay father families), possibly because of the
difficulty of locating an adequate sample. Fiona Tasker, Lesbian Mothers, Gay
Fathers and Their Children: A Review, 26 Dev. & Behav. Pediatr. 224, 225 (2005).
C. Most of the samples in the APA-cited studies relied on non-
random, convenience sampling.
It is not surprising that the samples in these studies are so homogenous,
given that most of the people in them were recruited by use of non-random,
convenience (snowball) sampling. Regnerus, How Different?, supra at 753 (2012).
For example, one data-collection effort that has been the subject of at least 19
different peer-reviewed publications to date recruited entirely by self-selection
from announcements posted at lesbian events, in womens bookstores, and in
lesbian newspapers in Boston, Washington, and San Francisco. Id. This method
of recruitment was common among the APA-cited studies. Id. Such snowball
sampling is known to have some serious problems because it is impossible to
generalize the findings of such a specific subgroup to the general population. Id.

19

(quoting Tom A. Snijders, Estimation on the Basis of Snowball Samples, 36
Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique 59 (1992)).
In short, because such studies samples are garnered from people who have a
great deal in common with each other, how well their findings characterize a
broader population of gay families remains unknown. By their own reports, social
researchers examining same-sex parenting have repeatedly selected small, non-
representative, homogeneous samples of privileged lesbian mothers to represent all
same-sex parents. Marks, supra at 739; see also Walter R. Schumm, What Was
Really Learned From Tasker & Golomboks (1995) Study of Lesbian & Single
Parent Mothers?, 95 Psych. Reports 422, 423 (2004) ([O]ne has to be very
careful in interpreting research on homosexual issues and be wary of outcomes
when samples are very small and often nonrandom, so the null hypothesis is not
rejected but is used for political purposes as if a meaningful result had been
obtained). Other research has likewise found that studies purporting to show no
difference between children raised by same-sex couples and those raised by
married mothers and fathers share these significant limitations.
7

7
One of the most extensive critiques of the research was offered by Professor
Steven Lowell Nock of the University of Virginia. Nock Aff., Halpern v. Attorney
General of Canada, Case No. 684/00 (Ontario Sup. Ct. Justice 2001), available at
http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/Law/cases/Canada/ontario/halpern/aff_nock.pdf. See
also Glenn, supra at 26-27; Schumm, supra at 423; Robert Lerner & Althea K.
Nagai, No Basis: What the Studies Dont Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting
(Marriage Law Project, 2001).


20

If these studies were being employed to shed light on the outcomes of
children raised by highly educated and affluent middle to upper class white
women, their conclusions would have merit. But the studies ought not be
generalized to the childhood and adolescent experiences of the wide spectrum of
gay and lesbian parents, since gay and lesbian parents are, in reality, economically,
racially, and socially far more diverse than those studies imply.
The issue is further complicated by the political climate surrounding this
issue. Given the widespread support for same-sex marriage among social and
behavioral scientists, it is becoming politically incorrect in academic circles even
to suggest that arguments being used in support of same-sex marriage might be
wrong. Glenn, supra at 25; see also Judith Stacey & Timothy Biblarz, (How)
Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 American Sociol. Rev. 159,
161 (2001) ([T]oo many psychologists who are sympathetic to lesbigay parenting
seem hesitant to theorize at all and are apt to downplay the significance of any
findings of differences.).
Given such limitations characteristic of a youthful domain of inquiry, the
vast majority of the studies relied upon by the APA for its general claim that there
is no difference in outcomes of children raised by gay and lesbian parents and
those raised by heterosexual parents are poorly poised to address the broad
propositions asserted in this case.

21

III. The Largest Population-Based Studies Do Not Confirm the No
Differences Conclusion About Child Outcomes Among Same-Sex
Parents.
Recent research using larger, randomly selected, nationally representative
samples suggests that there are significant differences in the outcomes of children
raised by parents who have had a same-sex relationship and children raised by
intact biological parents. This research, called the New Family Structures Study
(NFSS), was conducted on young adults with a very large sample size of nearly
3,000 participants, which comprised a racially, socioeconomically, and
geographically diverse group that reflects the diversity noted in demographic
mappings of the gay and lesbian population in America. Regnerus, How
Different?, supra at 755, 757. The study surveyed adults aged 18-39 who reflected
on their parent(s) past same-sex relationship behavior, which occurred as recently
as a few years ago or as far back as 30 or more years.
8
The study looked at social behaviors, health behaviors, and relationships
comparing child outcomes (as reported by the adult children in the study rather
Among that sample, 175
people reported living with a mother who was (and may still be) in a same-sex
romantic relationship, and 73 who had reported living with a father who had been
in a same-sex romantic relationship.

8
The NFSS may best capture what might be called an earlier generation of
children of same-sex parents, and includes among them many who witnessed a
failed heterosexual union.

22

than by those who raised them) among various groups, including married
biological parents, stepparents, single parents, and parents who had been in a same-
sex romantic relationship, among other types of families. When compared with
children who grew up in biologically (still) intact, mother-father families, the
children of women who reported a same-sex relationship look markedly different
on numerous outcomes, including many that are obviously suboptimal (such as
education, depression, employment status, or marijuana use). Id. at 764.
Specifically, some of the statistically significant differences where adult children
who reported living in a household with their mother and her partner for at least
some period of time (MLR for mother in a lesbian relationship) fared worse than
children raised by intact biological parents (IBF for intact biological family)
included:
cohabitation (9% of the IBF and 27% of the MLR group),
receiving welfare while growing up (17% of the IBF and 70%
of the MLR group),
currently receiving public assistance (10% of the IBNF and
49% of the MLR group),
current full-time employment status (49% of the IBF and 17%
of the MLR group),
current unemployment (8% of the IBF and 40% of the MLR
group),
having an affair while married or cohabitating (13% of the IBF
and 38% of the MLR group),
having been touched sexually by a parent or other adult
caregiver (2% of the IBF and 26% of the MLR group), and
having been forced to have sex against their will (8% of the IBF
and 27% of the MLR group).

23

Mark Regnerus, Parental Same-Sex Relationships, Family Instability, and
Subsequent Life Outcomes for Adult Children: Answering Critics of the New
Family Structures Study with Additional Analysis, 41 Soc. Sci. Res. 1367, 1372-74
(2012) [hereinafter Parental Same-Sex Relationships]; see also Douglas W. Allen,
High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households, Rev. Econ.
Household, Sept. 2013 (Children living with gay and lesbian families in 2006
were about 65% as likely to graduate compared to children living in opposite sex
marriage families.).
Because of the smaller sample size for fathers who have had gay
relationships, there were not as many significant findings as compared to mothers
who have had lesbian relationships. However, adult children of fathers who are or
have been in a same-sex relationship are more apt than [adult children raised by
intact biological parents] to smoke, have been arrested, pled guilty to non-minor
offenses, and report more numerous sex partners. Regnerus, How Different?,
supra at 764. The studys author asserts that the study is not poised to assess
causation or definitively answer political questions. Indeed, the suboptimal
outcomes may not be due to the sexual orientation or sexual behavior of the parent.
Rather, the author simply asserts that the groups display numerous, notable
distinctions, the exact sources of which would be difficult if not impossible to
adequately sequester.

24

When the NFSS-based study was released in summer 2012, it initiated much
heated discussion about same-sex parenting, and encountered widespread criticism
and a level of scrutiny unusual for a published sociological study based on
nationally-representative data. Regnerus, Parental Same-Sex Relationships, supra
at 1367. One of the most frequent criticisms by supporters of same-sex marriage
was that the study compared apples to oranges, by comparing the numerous adult
children of stably intact biological parents with both adult children whose mother
or father left a heterosexual union for a same-sex one, and the rare scenarios in
which children were raised consistently and stably in a same-sex household. Id.
But as the authors follow-up study noted, that criticism is unfair for at least
two reasons. First, if stability is a key asset for households with children, then it is
sensible to use intact biological families in any comparative assessment. Id. at
1368. Indeed, part of the problem of nearly all previous studies is that they seldom
included a married biological family control group. Id. at 1368-69. Second, the fact
that most of the same-sex households were at some point unstable raises the
question of whether stable same-sex households were genuinely undercounted in
the study, or whether same-sex relationships were more short-lived. Id. The last
scenario is possible, if not probable, given other research on the comparative
volatility of lesbian relationships.
A study of Norwegian and Swedish same-sex marriages notes that
divorce risk is higher in same-sex marriages and that the risk of

25

divorce for female partnerships actually is more than twice that for
male unions. Moreover, early same-sex marriagesthose occurring
shortly after a shift in marriage lawexhibited a similar risk of
divorce as did more recent unions, suggesting no notable variation in
instability over time as a function of new law or pent-up demand
among more stable, longstanding relationships. The study authors
estimate that in Sweden, 30% of female marriages are likely to
end in divorce within 6 years of formation, compared with 20%
for male marriages and 13% for heterosexual ones.
Id. at 1370 (emphasis added) (quoting Gunnar Anderson et al., The Demographics
of Same-Sex Marriages In Norway and Sweden, 43 Demography 79, 89 (2006)).
Other studies show similar instability, especially among lesbian couples. Id. While
gay mens relationships appear more stable than lesbian relationships, they are less
likely to be monogamous. Id. (citing Colleen Hoff & Sean Beougher, Sexual
Agreements Among Gay Male Couples, 39 Arch. Sex. Beh. 774 (2010)).
An important, unanswered question then is whether the NFSS-based study
randomly undercounted stable same-sex parenting relationships, or whether its
small number of such stable relationships (a) was a product of an earlier era
exhibiting a poorer social climate for same-sex households, or (b) reflects possible
greater instability in same-sex parenting relationships, thus limiting their easy
location via random sampling. Whatever the answer, and it is empirically
unknown, what is clear is that there remains much to be studied in this domain, and
hence confident assertions of no difference ought to be viewed with suspicion.
As the study author indicated,

26

Perhaps in social reality there are really two gold standards of family
stability and context for childrens flourishinga heterosexual stably-
coupled household and the same among gay/lesbian householdsbut
no population-based sample analysis is yet able to consistently
confirm wide evidence of the latter. Moreover, a stronger burden of
proof than has been employed to date ought to characterize studies
which conclude no differences, especially in light of longstanding
reliance on nonrandom samples of unknown bias and the high risk of
making [significant] errors in small-sample studies. Simply put, the
science here is young. Until much larger random samples can be
drawn and evaluated, the probability-based evidence that exists
suggests that the biologically-intact two-parent household remains an
optimal setting for long-term flourishing of children.
Id. at 1377 (citations omitted); see also Walter R. Schumm, Methodological
Decisions and the Evaluation of Possible Effects of Different Family Structures on
Children: The New Family Structures Survey, 41 Soc. Sci. Research 1357-66
(2012) (validating methodological decisions made in New Family Structures
Study, and noting similar decisions in other large-scale surveys).
Other population-based studies have similarly identified better outcomes for
children raised by a biological mother and father than other parenting structures. In
his assessment of group differences in academic progress through school,
Rosenfeld noted no differences in school progress for children raised by same-sex
parents. Michael J. Rosenfeld, Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress
Through School, 47 Demography 755 (2010). However, a reanalysis of his high-
quality, Census-based samplethis time including the children of all couples, not
just those who were residentially stable for at least five yearsrevealed that

27

children being raised by same-sex couples are 35% less likely to make normal
progress through school. Douglas W. Allen et al., Comment On Rosenfeld (noting
findings that are strikingly different from those of the original [Rosenfeld]
study). Thus the original no differences conclusion may be a result of dropping
more unstable households from his analytic sample. While the Census is optimal
for a comparison of same-sex and opposite-sex couples, it is not poised to assess
the households of gay or lesbian single parents, since the Census does not ask
questions about sexual orientation.
Indeed, no existing study yet bears the ability to randomly compare large
numbers of children raised by gay couples with the same among heterosexual
couples over a long period of time. The social science of same-sex parenting
structures remains young, and subject to significant limitations about what can be
known, given that the influence of household structures and experiences on child
outcomes is not a topic for experimental research design. But those analyses that
employ large, population-based samples continue to document differences, in
contrast to contrary scholarly claims. With so many significant outstanding
questions about whether children develop as well in same-sex households as in
opposite-sex households, it remains prudent for government to continue to
recognize marriage as a union of a man and a woman, thereby promoting what is
known to be an ideal environment for raising children.

28

CONCLUSION
Marriage is the legal means by which children are stably united with their
biological mothers and fathers and poised for optimal development. Opposite-sex
parenting allows children to benefit from distinctive maternal and paternal
contributions. Given these facts, safeguarding marriage is a liberty to be accorded
to children at least as much as to their parents.
Thus, Amici respectfully request that the Court reverse the lower court
decisions.

Dated: February 10, 2014.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ David C. Walker
Tower 2, Ste 700
Denver, CO 80222
Tel: (303) 329-3363
Fax: (303) 393-8438


29

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(A)
Certificate of Compliance with Type-Volume Limitation,
Typeface Requirements, and Type Style Requirements

1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 6,403 words, excluding the parts of the
brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this
brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word
in 14-point Times New Roman font.

s/ David C. Walker
Tower 2, Ste 700
Denver, CO 80222
Tel: (303) 329-3363
Fax: (303) 393-8438


30

I hereby certify that on February 10, 2014, I electronically filed the
foregoing using the Courts CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such
filing to the following:
David C. Codell
dcodell@nclrights.org
Kathryn Kendell
kkendell@nclrights.org
Shannon Price Minter
SMinter@nclrights.org
National Center for Lesbian Rights
870 Market Street, Suite 370
San Francisco, CA 94102-0000

James E. Magleby
magleby@mgpclaw.com
Jennifer Fraser Parrish
parrish@mgpclaw.com
Magleby & Greenwood
170 South Main Street, Suite 850
Salt Lake City, UT 84101

Peggy Ann Tomsic
tomsic@mgpclaw.com
Magleby & Greenwood
170 South Main Street, Suite 850

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
Philip S. Lott
phillott@utah.gov
Office of the Attorney General for the
State of Utah
Heber M. Wells Building Offices
P.O. Box 140811

Gene C. Schaerr
Special Assistant Utah Attorney General
PO Box 140856
160 East 300 South, sixth floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0856
gschaerr@gmail.com

John J. Bursch
jbursch@wnj.com

Stanford E. Purser
spurser@utah.gov
Office of the Attorney General for the
State of Utah
160 East 300 South, 6th Floor
P.O. Box 140856

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants


31

Ralph E. Chamness
rchamness@slco.org
Salt Lake City Attorneys Office
Po Box 145478
451 S State St Ste 505

Darcy Marie Goddard
dgoddard@slco.org
Salt Lake County District Attorney
S-3700
2001 South State Street

Attorneys for Defendant Swensen

s/ David C. Walker
Tower 2, Ste 700
Denver, CO 80222
Tel: (303) 329-3363
Fax: (303) 393-8438


32

CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION
I hereby certify that:
(1) all required privacy redactions have been made per 10th Cir. R. 25.5;
(2) if required to file additional hard copies, the ECF submission is an exact
copy of those documents;
(3) the digital submissions have been scanned for viruses with the most
recent version of a commercial virus scanning program, Trend Micro Client/Server
Security Agent, version 16.0.3052, last updated on February 9, 2014, and
according to the program are free of viruses.
s/ David C. Walker
Tower 2, Ste 700
Denver, CO 80222
Tel: (303) 329-3363
Fax: (303) 393-8438


EXHIBIT 23
Marriage from a Childs Perspective: How Does Family Structure
Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?
By Kristin Anderson Moore, Ph.D., Susan M. Jekielek, M.A., and Carol Emig, M.P.P. June 2002
O
verview Policies and proposals to promote marriage have been in the public eye for several years,
driven by concern over the large percentages of American children growing up with just one parent.
The Bush Administration has proposed improving childrens well-being as the overarching purpose of
welfare reform, and its marriage initiative is one of its chief strategies for doing so. In this context,
what does research tell us about the effects of family structure and especially of growing up with two
married parents on children?
This brief reviews the research evidence on the effects of family structure on children, as well as key
trends in family structure over the last few decades. An extensive body of research tells us that children
do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. At the same time,
research on how to promote strong, low-conflict marriages is thin at best. This brief also discusses
promising strategies for reducing births outside of marriage and promoting strong, stable marriages.
This brief is one of a series prepared by
researchers at Child Trends to help inform
the public debate surrounding this years
reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the
centerpiece of the 1996 welfare law.
Family Structure and
Child Well-Being
Research findings linking family structure and
parents marital status with childrens well-being
are very consistent. The majority of children who
are not raised by both biological parents manage to
grow up without serious problems, especially after
a period of adjustment for children whose parents
divorce.
1
Yet, on average, children in single-parent
families are more likely to have problems than are
children who live in intact families headed by two
biological parents.
Children born to unmarried mothers are more
likely to be poor, to grow up in a single-parent
family, and to experience multiple living
arrangements during childhood. These factors,
in turn, are associated with lower educational
attainment and a higher risk of teen and
nonmarital childbearing.
2
Divorce is linked to academic and behavior
problems among children, including depression,
antisocial behavior, impulsive/hyperactive
behavior, and school behavior problems.
3
Men-
tal health problems linked to marital disruption
have also been identified among young adults.
4
Children growing up with stepparents also have
lower levels of well-being than children growing
up with biological parents.
5
Thus, it is
not simply the presence of two parents, as
some have assumed, but the presence of
4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20008
Phone 202-362-5580 Fax 202-362-5533 www.childtrends.org
RESEARCH BRIEF
two biological parents that seems to support
childrens development.
Of course, the quality of a marriage also affects
children. Specifically, children benefit from a
low-conflict marriage. Children who grow up in
an intact but high-conflict marriage have worse
emotional well-being than children whose par-
ents are in a low-conflict marriage.
6
Indeed,
domestic violence can be very destructive to
childrens development.
7
Although research is limited, when researchers
have compared marriage to cohabitation, they
have found that marriage is associated with bet-
ter outcomes for children. One reason is that
cohabiting unions are generally more fragile
than marriage. This fragility means that chil-
dren born to unmarried, cohabiting parents are
likely to experience instability in their living
arrangements, and research shows that multiple
changes in family structure or living arrange-
ments
8
can undermine childrens development.
9
Thus research clearly finds that different family
structures can increase or decrease childrens
risk of poor outcomes, for a variety of reasons.
For example, families are more likely to be poor
or low-income if they are headed by a single par-
ent. Beyond this heightened risk of economic
deprivation, the children in these families have
poorer relationships with their parents, particu-
larly with their biological father, and receive
lower levels of parental supervision and monitor-
ing.
10
In addition, the conflict surrounding the
demise and breakup of a marriage or relationship
can be harmful to children.
Trends in Family Structure
and Childrens Living
Arrangements
Given these consequences for children, it is a
source of concern that an increasing percentage
of children have been growing up with just one
parent over recent decades. This circumstance
has occurred for a variety of reasons, including
rising rates of divorce, nonmarital childbearing,
and cohabitation.
Rising divorce rates accounted for the
initial increase in single parenthood dur-
ing the latter half of the twentieth century.
Single-parent families formed by widowhood
were the initial impetus for providing welfare
and Social Security benefits for children in the
1930s. In the 1970s, however, divorce began to
supplant widowhood as the primary cause of sin-
gle-parent families.
11
Divorce rates continued
to increase into the 1970s and early 1980s, before
stabilizing and then declining in the late 1980s
and 1990s.
12
Births to unmarried women increased
steadily during the post-war decades,
accelerating in the 1980s. This trend also
contributed to an increase in single parenthood.
Over the last 40 years, an historic shift occurred
in the percentage of children living with a parent
who has never married. In the early 1960s, less
than 1 percent of children lived with a parent
who had never married. By 2000, nearly one in
ten children lived with a never-married parent.
13
In addition, today nearly one-third of all births
occur to unmarried women (including never-
married, divorced, and widowed women),
accounting for more than a million births
annually.
14
Contrary to popular perceptions, teenagers
account for less than three in ten nonmarital
births, with women in their twenties accounting
for more than half.
15
Moreover, nonmarital
births are not all first births. Only about half of
all nonmarital births in 1998 were first births,
16
and more than one-third of unmarried mothers
already have children by an earlier partner.
17
Recent data indicate that the nonmarital birth
rate stabilized during the late 1990s. While this
development has been hailed as good news, a
closer examination of the data reveals a more
complex picture. The overall decline in the non-
marital birth rate has been driven by declining
2
birth rates among teens. Among women in their
twenties, the nonmarital birth rate continued to
increase in the late 1990s
18
(see Figure 1).
Cohabitation has increased markedly over
the last several decades. An unmarried par-
ent is not necessarily a parent without a partner.
The increase in families headed by a never-married
parent has been driven by a dramatic increase in
cohabiting couples men and women who, while
not legally married, nevertheless live together in a
marriage-like relationship. And many of these
couples have children. The percentage of adults
who have ever cohabited jumped from 33 percent
in 1987 to 45 percent in 1995, for example.
19
The proportion of children living with two
parents declined for several decades but
has recently increased slightly. The per-
centage of children in the United States living
with two parents decreased from about 88
percent in 1960 to 68 percent in 1996
20
(see Figure 2). There is some indication that
this trend might be reversing, as the percentage
of children living with two parents increased
slightly to 69.1 percent by the year 2000, and the
percentage of children living with just one par-
ent decreased from 27.9 percent in 1996 to 26.7
percent in the year 2000.
21
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
c
b
a
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Age in Years
15-19 20-24 25-29
B
i
r
t
h
s

p
e
r

1
,
0
0
0

u
n
m
a
r
r
i
e
d

w
o
m
e
n
74.5
62.2
39.6
FI GUR E 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
Living with two parents Living with one parent
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
10
30
50
70
90
87.7%(1960)
9.1%(1960)
26.7%(2000)
27.9%(1996)
69.1%(2000)
68.0%(1996)
FI GUR E 2
3
Birth Rates for Unmarried Women by Age of Mother,
Women 15-29 Years Old
Percent of Children under 18 Years Old Living in Two-Parent
and One-Parent Families
Source: Martin, J.A., Hamilton, B.E, Ventura, S.J., Menacker F., & Park M.M. Births: Final Data for 2000, Table18.
National Vital Statistics Reports; Vol. 50, no. 5. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. 2000.
Source: Living Arrangements of Children Under 18 Years Old: 1960 to Present. U.S. Bureau of the Census, online.
Available: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabCH-1.xls; accessed 01/28/02.
Trend data are less available on whether or not
children in two-parent families are living with
both biological parents or in a stepfamily.
Recent data indicate that slightly less than two-
thirds of all children live with both biological
parents (63.6 percent in 1999, according to data
from the National Survey of Americas Families).
22
Welfare reform is only one factor
that might explain the slight decrease in
the percent of children living with only
one parent. The teen birth rate has been
declining since 1991, when it was at its peak, and
the nonmarital birth rate has been relatively sta-
ble since 1994. Also, low levels of unemployment
and the generally strong economy that charac-
terized much of the late 1990s probably made
many men more attractive marriage partners.
These same factors may have increased womens
economic independence, however, lessening their
financial need to marry. Also, changes in the
Earned Income Tax Credit have increased family
incomes, but the marriage penalty may discour-
age marriage. Rising male incarceration rates
have also been cited as contributing to a dimin-
ished pool of marriageable men.
23
Thus welfare reform is one of many factors that
may be contributing to changes in family struc-
ture, but it is not the only or even the most
important factor. Also, researchers will need to
follow this trend over time to determine whether
this recent, slight decline of children living in
single-parent families will continue.
Promoting Healthy Marriages
and Reducing Nonmarital
Childbearing
While research clearly indicates that children
benefit from growing up with both biological par-
ents in a low-conflict marriage, there has been
very little rigorous research on how to promote
and sustain healthy marriages. This is particu-
larly the case for disadvantaged populations,
such as parents likely to be affected by
welfare reform.
Approximately eight in ten pregnancies to teens
and never-married adults are unintended at the
time of conception,
24
and 63 percent of pregnan-
cies to formerly-married adults are unintend-
ed.
25
Helping couples avoid unintended pregnan-
cies is therefore one logical strategy for
increasing the likelihood that children are born
to two married parents who are ready to assume
the responsibilities of parenthood. However,
while there is a growing knowledge base about
how to discourage teen childbearing, there is
not yet an equivalent body of research about
how to reduce births outside of marriage by
adult partners.
Preventing Teen Pregnancy. Several preg-
nancy prevention programs targeted at teens
have been shown to be effective.
26
While purely
informational sex education does not seem to
change sexual behavior, education about preg-
nancy, contraception, and sexually transmitted
diseases is more effective when it meets certain
criteria: it is focused on specific behaviors; it is
based on theory; it gives a clear message; it pro-
vides basic, accurate information; it includes activ-
ities, participant involvement models, and prac-
tice; it uses a variety of teaching methods; it helps
teens develop communication skills; it uses trained
staff; and it uses approaches appropriate for the
age, culture, and experience of its students.
27
In addition, programs that combine youth devel-
opment and sexuality education, and service
learning approaches that provide a sense of con-
nectedness and positive alternatives such as
the Childrens Aid Society program in New York
City have reduced adolescent sexual activity or
childbearing in a number of sites. A similar
result is associated with two high-quality early
childhood intervention programs, notably the
Abecedarian program, which operated in North
Carolina, and the High/Scope Perry Preschool
Project of Ypsilanti, Michigan.
28
In light of this
evidence and strong public consensus for reduc-
ing teen childbearing, policy attention to such
approaches for preventing teen pregnancy are
likely to be fruitful.
29
4
Preventing Nonmarital Childbearing
among Adults. The majority of births outside
of marriage are to adults ages 20 and over, not
teens. At this point, though, other than provid-
ing contraceptive services, little is known about
how to reduce nonmarital pregnancy among
adults. Accordingly, it seems prudent to conduct
studies of varied approaches to reduce sexual
risk-taking, build relationships, and increase
contraceptive use among couples older than
twenty, as well as among teens.
Helping Unmarried Parents to Marry.
Nearly half of all the births that take place out-
side of marriage occur to cohabiting couples,
30
making them a likely target of opportunity for
marriage promotion efforts. Although many
cohabiting couples have one or more children,
the families they form are often fragile, with less
than half of these relationships lasting five years
or more.
31
Another kind of fragile family struc-
ture is what social scientists call a visiting rela-
tionship.
32
This refers to an unmarried mother
and father who, while not living together, are
romantically involved and have frequent contact.
Analyses of data from the Fragile Families and
Child Wellbeing Study provide insights into both
types of unions.
33
The study follows a group of
approximately 5,000 children born to mostly
unwed parents in urban areas at the turn of the
21st century. Of these children, half were born
to unmarried mothers who were living with the
father at the time of the birth, while another
third were in visiting relationships. In both situ-
ations, most fathers were highly involved during
the pregnancy and around the time of the birth,
and a majority of the couples were optimistic
about a future together.
34
Moreover, the study
found that many unmarried mothers and fathers
hold pro-marriage attitudes and want to marry
the other parent of their newborn children.
35
These insights suggest that unmarried parents
may be most receptive to marriage promotion
efforts immediately around the time of birth.
Successful efforts to increase employment and
education among disadvantaged adults may also
indirectly promote marriage. Non-experimental
analyses of data from the Fragile Families and
Child Wellbeing Study suggest that the ability of
either the mother or the father to get and keep a
job (as indicated by levels of education and
recent work experience) increases the likelihood
that an unmarried couple with a child will
marry. These same analyses also suggest that
the likelihood that a couple will marry decreases
if the mother has a child by a previous partner
36
another reason to discourage teen childbearing.
Eliminating or reversing the tax penalty for
married couples on the Earned Income Tax
Credit and in the income tax code may also
remove a disincentive to marriage.
37
Strengthening Existing Marriages and
Relationships. The research consensus is that
a healthy marriage and not just any
marriage is optimal for child well-being. Mar-
riages that are violent or high conflict are cer-
tainly unhealthy, for both children and
adults.
38
Research provides some guidance on
marital practices that are highly predictive of
divorce, including negative communication pat-
terns such as criticism, defensiveness, contempt,
stonewalling, and rejection of a wifes
influence.
39
At this point, though, researchers are only begin-
ning to understand how to promote strong, sta-
ble marriages. The knowledge gap is particular-
ly acute for highly disadvantaged couples, many
of whom have economic and social as well as
relationship problems. The Becoming a Family
Project is a rare instance of a marriage promo-
tion effort that has been rigorously evaluated
(though not for disadvantaged couples). Couples
were recruited for this project from the San
Francisco Bay Area. Results suggest that a pre-
ventive intervention can both enhance marital
stability and promote child well-being.
40
The
program was designed to support communication
5
between partners as they make the transition to
becoming parents (a period during which marital
satisfaction often declines).
Results of an experimental investigation revealed
that couples who took part in the program reported
less decline in marital satisfaction in the first two
years of parenthood than couples with no interven-
tion. There were no separations or divorces among
the parents participating in the couples groups until
the children were three, whereas 15 percent of the
couples without the intervention had already sepa-
rated or divorced.
41
The longer-term evaluation was
mixed. By the time the children completed kinder-
garten, there was no difference in divorce rate
between the experimental and control groups, but
the intervention participants who had stayed
together maintained their marital satisfaction over
the whole period, while satisfaction of couples in the
control group continued to decline. These results
suggest that the potential positive effects of an early
intervention for partners becoming parents might
be maintained longer with periodic booster
shots.
42
The Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Pro-
gram (PREP) has received considerable attention in
policy circles, in part because it is at the heart of
Oklahomas much-publicized marriage promotion
efforts. PREP is an educational approach available
both to married and unmarried couples that empha-
sizes strategies that help marriages succeed. Non-
experimental studies of PREP suggest that couples
who plan to marry can be recruited to participate in
the program
43
and that such couples who complete
the program can improve their relationship
skills.
44
The National Institute of Mental Health is
currently funding a rigorous, large-scale evaluation
to test the programs effectiveness.
Providing Premarital Counseling. Unmarried
couples with plans to marry may be stronger targets
for strengthening relationships than those without
plans to marry. Compared to unmarried parents
with low expectations of marrying, unmarried par-
ents with a greater likelihood of marrying have
higher levels of agreement in their relationships,
regardless of their living arrangements. Both
groups, however, rate lower on agreement than
married couples. However, couples with plans to
marry are similar to married couples when it comes
to incidents of abuse and levels of supportiveness.
45
Relationship counseling might help couples decide
whether to marry and also help them to strengthen
their relationship. Finally, evidence that unmarried
couples who marry have higher levels of acquired
skills and education suggests that efforts to provide
job training and education for fathers, as well as
mothers, may enhance their marriage prospects.
Implications for Public Policy
Marriage, divorce, and childbearing (particularly
childbearing by teens and unmarried women) are
highly controversial social issues in the nation
today. They are also intensely personal and
profound individual decisions, with the potential to
alter for better or worse the life trajectories of
adults and children. Not surprisingly, then, there is
relatively little societal consensus on the role of
public policy the role of government in
this arena.
At least three conclusions drawn from research may
help shape a productive public dialogue on
these issues.
First, research clearly demonstrates that family
structure matters for children, and the family struc-
ture that helps children the most is a family headed
by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
Children in single-parent families, children born to
unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or
cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor
outcomes than do children in intact families headed
by two biological parents. Parental divorce is also
linked to a range of poorer academic and behavioral
outcomes among children. There is thus value for
children in promoting strong, stable marriages
between biological parents.
Second, while there may not be societal consensus
on nonmarital childbearing, there is consensus that
childbearing by teens is undesirable for the teen,
for her baby, and for the larger society. There is
also mounting evidence that a variety of programs
and interventions are effective at discouraging teen
6
pregnancy. While specific interventions (such
as sex education, abstinence education, and
the provision of contraceptives) may be con-
troversial, the knowledge that a variety of
effective approaches exist to prevent teen
childbearing should help parents, communi-
ties, and government make progress on this
front. In particular, programs that combine
youth development and sexuality education,
and community service approaches are effec-
tive.
46
Further, evidence indicates that high-
quality early childhood programs can prevent
adolescent childbearing a decade or more
later.
Finally, there is not yet a proven approach for
building strong marriages, particularly for dis-
advantaged unmarried couples only promis-
ing insights from research studies and exist-
ing programs. This is an area in which
carefully designed and rigorously evaluated
demonstration programs could inform both
private decisions and public policies.
Child Trends, founded in 1979, is an independ-
ent, nonpartisan research center dedicated to
improving the lives of children and families by
conducting research and providing science-
based i nf ormat i on t o t he publ i c and
decision-makers.
Child Trends gratefully acknowledges the John
D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for
support of our Research Brief series, and the
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the
David and Lucile Packard Foundation for support
of this brief. Additional support for Child Trends
communications efforts is generously provided
by Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Editor: Harriet J. Scarupa
Research Assistant: Kristy Webber
Endnotes
1
Hetherington M.E. & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse:
Divorce reconsidered. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
2
Seltzer, J. (2000). Families formed outside of marriage. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 1247-1268; McLanahan, S. &
Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts,
what helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
3
Peterson, J.L., & Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child
relationships, and behavior problems in children. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 48, 295-307. Amato, P. R. (2000). The con-
sequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 62(4), 1269-1287.
4
Cherlin, A., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & McRae, C. (1998). Effect of
parental divorce on mental health. American Sociological Review,
63(2), 239-249.
5
Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating
remarriage: Another decade of progress. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 62(4), 1288-1307.
6
Amato, P.R. (2000).
7
Domestic violence and children. The Future of Children, Winter
1999, 9(3). Los Altos, CA: The David and Lucile Packard Founda-
tion.
8
Graefe, D.R. & D.T. Lichter. (1999). Life course transitions of
American children: Parental cohabitation, marriage and single
motherhood. Demography, 36(2), 205-217.
9
Wu, L. L. & Martinson, B.C. (1993). Family structure and the
risk of a premarital birth. American Sociological Review, 58, 210-
232; Wu, L.L. (1996). Effects of family instability, income, and
income instability on the risk of premarital birth. American Socio-
logical Review, 61(3), 386-406; Moore, K.A., Morrison, D.R., &
Glei, Dana A. (1995). Welfare and adolescent sex: The effects of
family history, benefit levels, and community context. Journal of
Family and Economic Issues, 16(2/3), 207-238.
10
Amato, Paul P.R. (2000).
11
Cherlin, A.J. (1992) Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
12
U.S. Census Bureau (2000). Statistical Abstract of the United
States. The National Data Book. Table Number 77;
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm
13
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Indi-
cators of welfare dependence. Annual report to Congress 2001.
Table Birth 4. Washington, D.C.
14
Ventura, S., Backrach, C., Hill, L., Kaye, K., Holcomb, P., &
Koff, E. (1995). The demography of out-of-wedlock childbearing.
Report to Congress on out-of-wedlock childbearing. Hyattsville,
Maryland: Public Health Service.
15
Ventura S.J. & Bachrach, C.A. (2000). Nonmarital childbearing
in the United States, 1940-1999. National Vital Statistics Reports;
Vol. 48, no. 16. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for
Health Statistics.
16
Terry-Humen, E., Manlove, J., & Moore, K. A. (2001, April).
Births outside of marriage: Perceptions vs. reality. Research Brief.
Washington, DC: Child Trends.
17
Mincy R. & Huang, C. C. (2001). Just get me to the church:
Assessing policies to promote marriage among fragile families.
Paper prepared for the MacArthur Network Meeting.
18
Martin J.A., Hamilton B. E., Ventura S. J., Menacker F., & Park
M. M. (2000) Births: Final data for 2000, Table 18. National
Vital Statistics Reports; Vol. 50, no. 5. Hyattsville, Maryland:
National Center for Health Statistics.
19
Bumpass, L. & Lu, H. H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and
implications for childrens family contexts in the United States.
Population Studies, 45, 29-41.
20
Source: Living arrangements of children under 18 years old:
1960 to present. U.S. Bureau of the Census, online. Available:
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabCH-1.xls;
accessed 01/28/02.
21
Ibid. See also Dupree, A. & Primus, W. (2001). Declining share
of children lived with single mothers in the late 1990s. Washing-
ton, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Acs, G. & Nel-
son, S. (2001) Honey, Im home: Changes in living arrangements
in the late 1990s. Assessing the New Federalism Policy Brief, B-
38. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Cherlin, A. & Fomby,
P. (2002). A closer look at changes in living arrangements in low-
income families. Welfare, children, and families: A three-city
study. Working paper 02-01. Bavier, R. (2002). Recent increases
in the share of young children living with married mothers.
(Unpublished manuscript). Washington, DC: Office of Manage-
ment and Budget.
7

EXHIBIT 24
Number 74 n May 7, 2014
Adverse Family ExperiencesAmong Children in
Nonparental Care, 20112012
by Matthew D. Bramlett, Ph.D., National Center for Health Statistics; Laura F. Radel, M.P.P., Department of Health
and Human Services, Office of theAssistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
Abstract
ObjectiveThis report presents estimates of the proportion of children who
have experienced selected adverse family events by the number of biological
parents in the household, with a focus on comparisons among subgroups of
children in nonparental care defined by caregiver type.
Data sourcesData were drawn from the 20112012 National Survey of
Childrens Health, a nationally representative telephone survey of households
with children conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics.
ResultsChildren in nonparental care were 2.7 times as likely as children
living with two biological parents to have had at least one adverse experience,
and more than 2 times as likely as children living with one biological parent and
about 30 times as likely as children living with two biological parents to have
had four or more adverse experiences. More than one-half of children in foster
care had experienced caregiver violence or caregiver incarceration and almost
two-thirds had lived with someone with an alcohol or drug problem. Estimates
for children in other nonparental care subgroups were lower than for foster care,
but still elevated above those of children living with biological parents.
ConclusionsChildren in nonparental care, especially those in foster care,
are particularly likely to have experienced adverse family events.These events
could have occurred at any time in the childs life and could have preceded or
contributed to the childs current living situation. Nevertheless, children in
nonparental care may be vulnerable to poorer health and well-being outcomes
that are often associated with having had adverse experiences.
Keywords: foster care grandparent care relative care State and LocalArea
IntegratedTelephone Survey
experienced that can have lasting
Introduction
negative consequences into adulthood
Adverse family experiences are
(1,2).Adverse family experiences have
potentially traumatic events or
been linked to poor adult health
circumstances that children may have
outcomes (1), risk of illicit drug abuse
(3), and risk of suicide (4).
The 20112012 National Survey of
Childrens Health (NSCH) included
questions about nine adverse family
experiences: whether the child had
experienced 1) divorce or separation, 2)
death, or 3) incarceration of a parent or
guardian; whether the child had ever
lived with anyone who 4) was mentally
ill or suicidal or severely depressed or
5) had an alcohol or drug problem;
whether the child 6) ever witnessed any
violence in the household, 7) was the
victim of violence or witnessed violence
in the neighborhood, or 8) ever suffered
racial discrimination; and 9) whether the
childs caregiver had often found it hard
to get by on the familys income.
Adata brief based on NSCH data
describing adverse family experiences
for the population of all children was
published online by the Child and
Adolescent Health Measurement
Initiative (5).AnASPE Research Brief
by the current authors examined adverse
family experiences, among other
measures of health and well-being, for
children living with two biological
parents, children living with one
biological parent and no other parents,
and children living with no biological,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Health Statistics
Page2 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 74 n May 7, 2014
step, or adoptive parentsi.e., children
in nonparental care (6).This report
extends that comparative analysis to
include data on the cumulative number
of different types of adverse family
events experienced, as well as
comparisons among subgroups of
children in nonparental care defined by
caregiver type, including children in
foster care, grandparent care, and other
nonparental care.
Thereareseveralreasonswhyafocus
onadverseexperiencesamongchildrenin
nonparentalcareiswarranted.The
extensiveliteraturedocumentingthat
childrenofsingleparentshavepoorer
well-beingthanchildrenlivingwithbothof
theirparents(7)suggeststhatchildren
livingwithoutatleastoneparentpresent
maybefurtherdisadvantaged.Inaddition,
caregivingtransitionsareproblematicfor
childrenswell-being(8)andmostchildren
livingapartfromtheirparentshavealready
experiencedatleastonechangein
caregiver.Thecumulativeeffectofmultiple
traumascanbeserious;researchhasshown
thatthemoreadverseeventsexperienced,
thehighertheriskofserioushealth
conditionsornegativehealthoutcomes(9).
Itispossiblethatthecaregiving
situationistheresultofhavingexperienced
adverseeventsorneglectthatnecessitated
theremovalofthechildfromtheirparents
household.Theseadverseeventsand
circumstancescouldhaveoccurredatany
timeinthechildslife,andmayhave
precededorevencontributedtothechilds
currentlivingsituation.Regardlessofwhen
theadverseeventsoccurred,however,it
remainsthecasethatthesechildrenare
particularlyvulnerabletopoorwell-being.
Most data sources either do not
have the sample size to make
examination of children in nonparental
care subgroups feasible, do not identify
the living arrangements of children
sufficiently to enable such an analysis,
or do not include data on child well-
being outcomes.The NSCH meets all of
these requirements.
Methods
The data are drawn from the
20112012 NSCH, which is a nationally
representative survey sponsored by the
Health Resources and Services
Administrations Maternal and Child
Health Bureau and conducted by the
Centers for Disease Control and
Preventions (CDC) National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS) as a module of
the State and LocalArea Integrated
Telephone Survey (10,11). In 2011
2012, the NSCH was fielded as a
random-digit-dial telephone survey of
households with children aged 017
years in the United States; the sample
included both landlines and cell phones.
Contacted households were screened
for the presence of children, and one
child was randomly selected from
identified households with children to be
the subject of the survey.Atotal of
95,677 interviews were completed from
February 2011 to June 2012.The
respondent was a parent or guardian in
the household who was knowledgeable
about the childs health.The
relationships of all adults in the
household to the sample child were
captured. If there were no parents
identified in the household, an
additional question was asked to
determine if the child was currently in
foster care to identify those children in
relative foster care whose foster parents
were identified as grandmotheror
other relative.
Comparisons are made by the
number of biological parents living in
the childs household (two, one, or zero)
and among subgroups of children in
nonparental care.Adopted children have
been shown to have poorer health
outcomes but better health care access
than biological children (12) and
stepchildren have been shown to have
poorer well-being than biological
children, although this relationship can
differ by whether the stepparent has
adopted the child or not (13).Thus,
children living with adoptive or
stepparents have been excluded from the
comparative analysis to avoid
confounding the comparison or
outcomes by number of parents.
Asampling weight was provided by
NCHS with the data record for each
child.This weight is based on the
probability of selection of the childs
telephone number, with adjustments for
known survey response biases and
further adjustments to ensure that
weighted estimates match demographic
control totals from the Census Bureaus
American Community Survey. Estimates
based on these weights, including all
national estimates produced for this
report, are representative of the
noninstitutionalized population of U.S.
children aged 017 years.
Weighted point estimates and
variances were calculated in SUDAAN
to account for the complex sample
design. Comparisons described in the
text are statistically significant at the
0.05 level, unless otherwise noted.
The overall NSCH response rate
was 23.0%.When only noncooperation
among eligible households was
examined, more than one-half of eligible
parents and guardians who were
contacted to participate in the survey did
so. Nonresponse bias analyses suggest
that, although the potential for bias
cannot be ruled out, nonresponse bias in
weighted estimates is likely smaller than
sampling error (10,11). Please see
Technical Notes for details.
For more information about NSCH,
including its sample design, data
collection procedures, and questionnaire
content, please visit: http://www.cdc.
gov/nchs/slaits/nsch.htm.
Results
Table1 shows the sample sizes,
population estimates, and percent
distributions of children by the number
of biological parents in the household
and, for children in nonparental care, by
caregiver type. Only 3.1% of all
children, or nearly 2.25 million children,
lived in nonparental care in 20112012.
Among children in nonparental care,
almost 15% were in foster care; 25.2%
lived with their grandparent(s) only
while 37.9% lived with grandparent(s)
and others; and almost one-quarter lived
without foster parents or grandparents,
and were being raised by other relatives
or nonrelatives.
Table2 presents prevalence
estimates for each of the nine adverse
family experiences by the number of
biological parents in the household and,
for children in nonparental care, by
caregiver type. Selected findings from
Twobiologicalparents Onebiologicalparent Nobiologicalparents
inhousehold inhousehold inhousehold
0
10
20
30
40
50
4.0
18.9
42.2
4.7
13.6
24.4
1.9
15.3
29.2
1.9
13.3
33.5
3.9
16.2
24.8
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Neighborhood Caregiver Caregiver Mentallyill Alcohol/drug

violence violence incarceration caregiver problem
NOTE:Childrenlivingwithsteporadoptiveparentswereexcluded.
SOURCE:CDC/NCHS,StateandLocalAreaIntegratedTelephoneSurvey,NationalSurveyofChildrensHealth,20112012.
100
0AFEs
1AFE
2AFEs
3AFEs
4ormoreAFEs 29.9
11.9
16.8
22.6
18.7
13.6
21.0
12.5
31.2
21.7
22.2
70.0
5.2
1.8
0.9
80
60
40
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
20
0
Twobiological Onebiological Nobiological
parentsin parentin parentsin
household household household
NOTES:Childrenlivingwithsteporadoptiveparentswereexcluded.AFEisadversefamilyexperience.
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 74 n May 7, 2014 Page3
this table are highlighted in the figures
and described in the text.
The number of biological parents in
the household was inversely associated
with the likelihood of having had an
adverse family experience (Figure1).
Children living with one biological
parent were between 3 and 8 times as
likely as children living with two
biological parents to have experienced
neighborhood violence, caregiver
violence, or caregiver incarceration or to
have lived with a caregiver with mental
illness or an alcohol or drug problem.
Children in nonparental care, in turn,
were about 1.5 to 2.5 times as likely as
those living with one biological parent
to have experienced each of these five
adverse experiences.Thus, children in
nonparental care were between 5 and 17
Figure 1. Percentage of children aged 017 years with selected types of adverse family
experiences, by number of biological parents living in the household: United States,
20112012
times as likely as children living with
two biological parents to have
experienced each of these five adverse
experiences.
Thecumulativenumberofdifferent
typesofadversefamilyexperiencesvaried
bythenumberofbiologicalparentsinthe
household(Figure2).Seventypercentof
childrenlivingwithbothbiologicalparents
hadexperiencednoneoftheadverse
experiencesassessedinthesurvey,
comparedwithabout20%ofchildren
andlessthan1%ofchildrenlivingwith
bothbiologicalparents.
livingwithonebiologicalparentorno
parents.Thus,childrenlivingwithno
parentswere2.7timesaslikelytohave
experiencedatleastoneadverse
experience,comparedwithchildrenliving
withbothbiologicalparents(81.3%versus
30.0%).Almostone-third(29.9%)of
childreninnonparentalcarehad
experiencedfourormoreadverse
experiences,comparedwithonly13.6%of
childrenlivingwithonebiologicalparent
When examining the prevalence of
Figure 2. Percent distribution of number of different types of adverse family experiences
for children aged 017 years, by number of biological parents living in the household:
United States, 20112012
children with no adverse experiences
versus any adverse experiences, the
difference between children in
nonparental care and children living
with one biological parent was quite
small. However, as the number of
cumulative experiences compared
increased, the differences between
children in nonparental care and
children living with one biological
parent grew. Children in nonparental
0
20
40
60
80
100
48.3
9.7
13.5
12.8
15.7
26.0
11.1
20.9
19.7
22.3
25.2
12.7
15.0
30.2
16.9
30.1
13.0
17.7
19.3
19.9 0AFEs
1AFE
2AFEs
3AFEs
4ormoreAFEs
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Fostercare Grandparent(s) Grandparent(s) Nonfoster,

only andothers nongrandparent
NOTE:AFEisadversefamilyexperience.
Figure 3. Percent distribution of number of different types of adverse family experiences
for children aged 017 years in nonparental care, by type of nonparental caregiver:
care were about twice as likely as
children living with one biological
parent to have experienced four or more
adverse events.
The number of different types of
adverse family experiences for children
in nonparental care varied among
caregiver-type subgroups (Figure3).
About 80% of children in each subgroup
had had at least one adverse experience
and more than one-half of children in
each subgroup had had at least two
adverse experiences. Nearly one-half of
children in foster care (48.3%) had had
four or more adverse experiences,
compared with 25%30% of children in
each of the other three caregiver
subgroups.Among those other
nonparental care subgroups, differences
were smaller and mostly nonsignificant.
Some adverse family experiences
were particularly prevalent among
children in foster care (Figure4).
Children in foster care were
significantly more likely than other
children in nonparental care to have
ever witnessed or experienced
neighborhood violence, caregiver
violence, or caregiver incarceration or to
have lived with someone with mental
illness or an alcohol or drug problem.
More than one-half of children in foster
care had ever experienced caregiver
violence or caregiver incarceration and
almost two-thirds had lived with
someone who had an alcohol or drug
problem. Differences among the
nonfoster subgroups were not
significant.
Summary and
Discussion
Children in nonparental care were
2.7 times as likely as children living
with two biological parents to have had
at least one of the adverse experiences
assessed in NSCH, and were more than
2 times as likely as children living with
one biological parent and about 30 times
as likely as children living with two
biological parents to have had four or
more different types of adverse
experiences. Children in foster care were
particularly likely to have had multiple
types of adverse experiences; almost
one-half of them had had four or more.
More than one-half of children in foster
care had ever experienced caregiver
violence or caregiver incarceration and
almost two-thirds had lived with
someone who had an alcohol or drug
problem.
It is likely that some children in
nonparental care find themselves in that
situation because they had experienced
certain adverse family circumstances
that necessitated the removal of the
child from the birth familythat is, the
adverse experience preceded and
perhaps even contributed to the
nonparental care status rather than being
merely associated with it. For example,
more than one-half of children entering
foster care in 2007 had experienced
severe parental neglect and nearly 30%
had experienced parental alcohol or drug
abuse as contributing reasons for
entering foster care (14).Among
children whose families were
investigated for child abuse and neglect
in 20082009, children living in foster
or nonparental relative care 4 months
after the investigation were much more
likely to have a history of child
maltreatment, caregiver incarceration,
caregiver mental illness, caregiver
alcohol abuse, caregiver drug abuse, and
familial financial deprivation, compared
with children still living with the
investigated family (15).The
comparisons in this report are not
intended to suggest that being in
nonparental care necessarily causes or is
caused by adverse family experiences.
As a cross-sectional survey, NSCH is
not appropriate to use to draw causal
inferences of this sort.
Nevertheless, children in
nonparental care are particularly
vulnerable to poor well-being outcomes.
The cumulative effect of multiple
traumas can be serious; research has
shown that the more adverse
experiences suffered, the higher the risk
of serious health conditions or negative
health outcomes (9).The very high
prevalence of several adverse
experiences among children in foster
care may indicate that the child welfare
system has stepped in to care for
children in the worst circumstances.
Households in NSCH with children
who were identified as living in
nonparental care were asked to
participate in a follow-up survey, the
2013 National Survey of Children in
Foster care Grandparent(s) only Grandparent(s) and others Nonfoster, nongrandparent
70
42.2
34.6
41.4
64.7
25.4
20.7
19.3
43.3
36.2
29.3
28.0
51.1
Caregiver
incarceration
27.5
24.9
24.1
53.1
26.3
20.1
21.1
43.2
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Neighborhood Caregiver Mentally ill Alcohol/ drug
violence violence caregiver problem
SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, State and Local Area Integrated Telephone Sur vey, National Sur vey of Childrens Health, 20112012.
Figure 4. Percentage of children aged 017 years with selected types of adverse family experiences, by type of nonparental caregiver:
Nonparental Care (NSCNC).The
NSCNC was sponsored by the
Department of Health and Human
Services Office of theAssistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,
with supplemental funding from the
Annie E. Casey Foundation. Data
collection for the NSCNC is now
complete and data from the survey have
just been released.The survey collected
information on the health and well-being
of the children and their caregivers and
the childrens living arrangements,
custody issues, contact with parents, and
service accessibility. More information
about NSCNC, including public-use
microdata, questionnaire content, sample
design, and sample size, can be found at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/slaits/
nscnc.htm.
References
1. FelittiVJ,Anda RF, Nordenberg D,
Williamson DF, SpitzAM, Edwards
V, et al. Relationship of childhood
abuse and household dysfunction to
many of the leading causes of death
in adults.TheAdverse Childhood
Experiences (ACE) Study.Am J Prev
Med 14(4):24558. 1998.
2. Anda RF, FelittiVJ, Bremner JD, 6. Radel LF, Bramlett MD. Children in
Walker JD,Whitfield C, Perry BD, et nonparental care: Findings from the
al.The enduring effects of abuse and 20112012 National Survey of
related adverse experiences in Childrens Health.ASPE research
childhood.Aconvergence of brief.Washington, DC: U.S.
evidence from neurobiology and Department of Health and Human
epidemiology. EurArch Psychiatry Services, Office of theAssistant
Clin Neurosci 256(3):17486. 2006. Secretary for Planning and
3. Dube SR, FelittiVJ, Dong M, Evaluation.Washington, DC. 2014.
Chapman DP, GilesWH,Anda RF. Available from: http://aspe.hhs.gov/
Childhood abuse, neglect, and hsp/14/ChildrenNonparentalCare/
household dysfunction and the risk of rb_nonparentalcare.pdf.
illicit drug use:TheAdverse 7. Dunifon R. Single parenthood and
Childhood Experiences Study. child well-being:Trends, theories,
Pediatrics 111(3):56472. 2003. and evidence. In: Peters HE, Dush
4. Dube SR,Anda RF, FelittiVJ, CK (eds.). Marriage and Family:
5.
Chapman DP,Williamson DF, Giles
WH. Childhood abuse, household
dysfunction, and the risk of
attempted suicide throughout the life
span: Findings from theAdverse
Childhood Experiences Study. JAMA
286(24):308996. 2001.
Child andAdolescent Health
Measurement Initiative. Overview of
adverse child and family experiences
among U.S. children. Data Resource
Center for Child &Adolescent
Health.Available from: http://
www.childhealthdata.org/docs/drc/
aces-data-brief_version-1-
8.
9.
10.
Perspectives and Complexities. New
York, NY: Columbia University
Press. 93113. 2009.
Fomby P, CherlinAJ. Family
instability and child well-being.Am
Sociol Rev 72(2):181204. 2007.
RobertWood Johnson Foundation.
The truth aboutACEs. Infographic.
2013.Available from: http://
www.rwjf.org/en/about-rwjf/
newsroom/newsroom-content/2013/
05/Infographic-The-Truth-About-
ACEs.html.
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Center for
0.pdf?Status=Master. Health Statistics, State and Local
Area IntegratedTelephone Survey.
20112012 National Survey of
Childrens Health FrequentlyAsked
Questions.April 2013.Available
from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/slaits/
nsch.htm.
11.OConnor KS, Bramlett MD, George
JM, et al. Design and operation of
the National Survey of Childrens
Health, 20112012. National Center
for Health Statistics.Vital Health Stat
1. [Forthcoming].
12.Bramlett MD, Radel LF, Blumberg
SJ.The health and well-being of
adopted children. Pediatrics
119(S1):S5460. 2007.
13.Bramlett MD.When stepparents
adopt: Demographic, health, and
health care characteristics of adopted
children, stepchildren, and adopted
stepchildren.Adopt Q 13(34):248
67. 2010.
14.Committee onWays and Means, U.S.
House of Representatives. Chapter
11: Child welfare. In: Background
Material and Data on the Programs
within the Jurisdiction of the
Committee onWays and Means
(Green Book).Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
2009.
15.Committee onWays and Means, U.S.
House of Representatives. Chapter
11: Child welfare. In: Background
Material and Data on the Programs
within the Jurisdiction of the
Committee onWays and Means
(Green Book).Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
2012.Available from: http://
greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/
2012-green-book/chapter-11-child-
welfare.
Table 1. Sample sizes, population estimates, and percentage distribution by caregiver type living in the household: Children aged 017
years, 20112012
Caregiver type living in the household
Nonparental care
Two One
biological biological Nonparental Foster Grandparent(s) Grandparent(s) Nonfoster,
Item parents parent only care total care only and others
1
nongrandparent
Count
Unweighted sample size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63,776 17,752 3,617 461 1,287 1,234 635
Weighted population estimate
2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,502 16,311 2,290 336 578 867 510
Percent
All children aged 017 years
3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.1 22.1 3.1 0.5 0.8 1.2 0.7
Children in nonparental care
4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 14.7 25.2 37.9 22.3
Quantity zero.
1
Includes aunts, uncles, guardians, siblings, cousins, in-laws, other relatives, and nonrelatives.
2
Rounded to thousands.
3
Percentages do not sum to 100 because the othergroup is omitted; this group, with 11.7% of all children, includes those living in households that include nonbiological parents such as step or
adoptive parents.
4
Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding.
SOURCE: National Survey of Childrens Health, 20112012.
Table 2. Percentages and mean number of adverse family experiences by caregiver type: Children aged 017 years, 20112012
Caregiver type living in the household
Nonparental care
Two One
biological biological Nonparental Foster Grandparent(s) Grandparent(s) Nonfoster,
AFEs parents parent only care total care only and others
1
nongrandparent
Percent (standard error)
Often hard for household to afford basics. . . . . . . . . 20.0 (0.39) *38.9 (0.80) *33.0 (1.87) *32.9 (4.72) 22.9 (2.68) *37.9 (3.09) *36.1 (4.68)
Ever experienced racial discrimination. . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 (0.16) *5.7 (0.37) *5.5 (0.83) 4.6 (1.10) 3.4 (0.99) y5.3 (1.61) *8.6 (2.06)
Ever experienced death of caregiver. . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 (0.05) *6.6 (0.36) *18.1 (1.63) *13.2 (3.21) *20.0 (3.19) *18.1 (3.09) *19.1 (2.80)
Ever experienced separation or divorce. . . . . . . . . . 2.2 (0.15) *47.9 (0.82) *47.7 (1.97) *53.5 (5.09) *46.0 (3.58) *48.1 (3.25) *45.4 (4.48)
Ever witnessed caregiver violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 (0.14) *15.3 (0.63) *29.2 (1.83) *53.1 (5.15) *24.1 (3.35) *24.9 (2.72) *27.5 (3.84)
Ever witnessed neighborhood violence . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 (0.17) *16.2 (0.64) *24.8 (1.61) *43.2 (4.54) *21.2 (2.91) *20.1 (2.39) *26.3 (3.88)
Ever lived with mentally ill caregiver . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 (0.19) *13.6 (0.51) *24.4 (1.71) *43.3 (5.26) *19.3 (2.99) *20.7 (2.51) *25.4 (3.75)
Ever experienced caregiver incarceration. . . . . . . . . 1.9 (0.14) *13.3 (0.56) *33.5 (1.88) *51.1 (5.03) *28.0 (3.27) *29.3 (2.86) *36.2 (4.39)
Ever lived with anyone with alcohol or drug problem. . 4.0 (0.19) *18.9 (0.65) *42.2 (1.92) *64.7 (4.52) *41.4 (3.50) *34.6 (2.88) *42.2 (4.37)
Cumulative number ofAFEs (09)
0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.0 (0.43) *21.7 (0.70) *18.7 (1.59) *15.7 (3.77) *22.3 (3.13) *16.9 (2.23) *19.9 (4.17)
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 (0.40) *31.2 (0.75) 22.6 (1.75) *12.8 (2.61) 19.7 (2.46) *30.2 (3.38) 19.3 (3.64)
2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 (0.20) *21.0 (0.66) *16.8 (1.44) *13.5 (3.22) *20.9 (3.08) *15.0 (2.04) *17.7 (3.59)
3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 (0.14) *12.5 (0.57) *11.9 (1.09) *9.7 (2.18) *11.1 (1.76) *12.7 (1.97) *13.0 (2.53)
4 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 (0.09) *13.6 (0.56) *29.9 (1.75) *48.3 (4.92) *26.0 (3.29) *25.2 (2.59) *30.1 (3.81)
Mean (standard error)
Number ofAFEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 (0.01) 1.8 (0.03) *2.5 (0.09) *3.2 (0.22) *2.2 (0.14) *2.4 (0.14) *2.6 (0.21)
yIndicates unreliable estimate (relative standard error > 0.3).
*Estimate differs at 0.05 level from that of two biological parents.
Estimate differs at 0.05 level from that of one biological parent.
Estimate differs at 0.05 level from that of foster care.

Estimate differs at 0.05 level from that of grandparent(s) only.
Estimate differs at 0.05 level from that of grandparent(s) and others.
1
Includes aunts, uncles, guardians, siblings, cousins, in-laws, other relatives, and nonrelatives.
NOTES: Children living with step or adoptive parents were excluded.AFE is adverse family experience.
SOURCE: National Survey of Childrens Health, 20112012.
Technical Notes
Response rate and analysis
of nonresponse
The20112012NationalSurveyof
ChildrensHealth(NSCH)overallresponse
ratewas23.0%.Thelowresponseratewas
largelyduetotheinclusionofcellphone
interviews,whichwasnecessarytoprovide
goodcoverageofthepopulationof
children,butresultedinlowerresponse
ratescomparedwithpreviousiterationsof
thesurveythatonlyincludedlandline
numbersinthesample.Thelowerresponse
ratesforcellphoneinterviewslargely
resultedfromthehigherproportionof
telephonenumbersthatwerenotanswered
andthereforeprovidednoindicationof
whetherthenumberbelongedtoaneligible
household.Whenonlynoncooperation
amongeligiblehouseholdswasexamined,
morethanone-halfofeligibleparentsand
guardianswhowerecontactedtoparticipate
inthesurveydidso.
To reduce the potential for bias, the
sampling weights were adjusted for
nonresponse and further adjusted to
match external demographic control
totals.As summarized in the online
documentation (10) and detailed in the
methodology report (11), nonresponse
bias analyses were conducted using
several recommended approaches to
examine estimates before and after the
nonresponse weighting adjustment. Bias
was found to greatly decrease after the
weighting adjustment, and estimated
biases using the final weights were
smallin each case, the maximum
estimated bias was within the 95%
confidence interval for the survey
estimate, indicating that nonresponse
bias was consistently smaller than
potential sampling error. Bias estimates
were so small that, for most of the key
survey variables examined, changing the
method used to estimate bias changed
the estimated direction of the bias.
Definition of terms
Adverse family experiencesNSCH
included questions about the following
adverse family experiences: whether the
child had ever lived with a parent or
guardian who 1) got divorced or
separated after the child was born, 2) Grandparent-only careChildren
died, or 3) served time in jail or prison living in grandparent-only care had one
after the child was born; whether the or more grandparents but no other
child ever lived with anyone who 4) people living in the household. Because
was mentally ill or suicidal or severely it was unknown whether a childs
depressed for more than a couple of sibling was another child being cared
weeks or 5) had a problem with alcohol for by grandparents or an adult who was
or drugs; whether the child 6) ever providing care for the child, children
heard or saw any parents, guardians, or living with grandparents plus siblings
other adults in the household slap, hit, were grouped with grandparents and
kick, punch, or beat each other up, 7) others.
was the victim of violence or witnessed Grandparent(s) and others
any violence in the neighborhood, or 8) Children living with grandparent(s) and
was ever treated or judged unfairly others had one or more grandparents
because of his or her race or ethnic plus one or more of the following
group; and 9) how often it had been relations living in the household: aunts,
very hard for the childs caregiver to get uncles, guardians, siblings, cousins,
by on the familys income (e.g., it was in-laws, other relatives, or nonrelatives.
hard to cover the basics like food or Nonfoster nongrandparent
housing).This measure of financial Children in nonfoster nongrandparent
deprivation was considered an adverse care were those in nonparental care who
experience if the response was very did not meet the criteria for foster care
oftenor somewhat oftenrather than and had no grandparents living in the
rarelyor never.With one household.Their caregivers included
exception, these adverse family aunts, uncles, guardians, siblings,
experiences could have occurred at any cousins, in-laws, other relatives, or
time in the childs life, and the caregiver nonrelatives.
who may have been incarcerated,
mentally ill, or violent (for example)
may have been the childs parent,
current nonparental caregiver, or another
caregiver the child had previously lived
with.The exception was the measure of
financial deprivation, which asked about
the current caregivers family rather
than all the families that the child may
have lived with in his or her lifetime.
Number of parents in household
Children were categorized as living with
both biological parents, living with one
biological parent, or living with no
biological parents. Children living with
step or adoptive parents were excluded.
Foster careChildren in foster care
were either a) those with a reported
foster mother and/or foster father living
in the household, or b) those with no
biological, step, adoptive, or foster
parents living in the household but
whose caregiver reported that the child
was currently in foster care. Because the
NSCH sample represents
noninstitutionalized children only, the
foster care sample includes only
children in household foster care; foster
children in group homes or institutions
were not represented.
U.S. DEPARTMENTOF
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
3311Toledo Road, Room 5419
Hyattsville, MD 20782
FIRSTCLASSMAIL
POSTAGE&FEESPAID
CDC/NCHS
PERMITNO.G-284
OFFICIALBUSINESS
PENALTYFOR PRIVATE USE, $300
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 74 n May 7, 2014
Suggested citation
Bramlett MD, Radel LF.Adverse family
experiences among children in nonparental
care, 20112012. National health statistics
reports; no 74. Hyattsville, MD: National
Center for Health Statistics. 2014.
Copyright information
All material appearing in this report is in the
public domain and may be reproduced or
copied without permission; citation as to
source, however, is appreciated.
Charles J. Rothwell, M.S., M.B.A., Director
Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D., Associate Director
for Science
Division of Health Interview Statistics
Jane F. Gentleman, Ph.D., Director
For e-mail updates on NCHS publication releases, subscribe online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/govdelivery.htm.
For questions or general information about NCHS:Tel: 1800CDCINFO (18002324636) TTY: 18882326348
Internet: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs Online request form: http://www.cdc.gov/cdc-info/requestform.html
DHHS Publication No. 20141250 CS246433

EXHIBIT 25
Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (November 2003): 876893 876
WENDY D. MANNING AND KATHLEEN A. LAMB
Bowling Green State University
Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married,

and Single-Parent Families
Cohabitation is a family form that increasingly
includes children. We use the National Longitu-
dinal Study of Adolescent Health to assess the
well-being of adolescents in cohabiting parent
stepfamilies (N 13,231). Teens living with co-
habiting stepparents often fare worse than teens
living with two biological married parents. Ado-
lescents living in cohabiting stepfamilies experi-
ence greater disadvantage than teens living in
married stepfamilies. Most of these differences,
however, are explained by socioeconomic circum-
stances. Teenagers living with single unmarried
mothers are similar to teens living with cohabiting
stepparents; exceptions include greater delin-
quency and lower grade point averages experi-
enced by teens living with cohabiting stepparents.
Yet mothers marital history explains these differ-
ences. Our results contribute to our understanding
of cohabitation and debates about the importance
of marriage for children.
An extensive literature exists that examines the
importance of family structure (dened by marital
status) for child well-being. Marital status acts as
an indicator of the potential number of caretakers
and may imply certain characteristics or qualities
of the childs family life. This emphasis on marital
Department of Sociology and Center for Family and De-
mographic Research, Bowling Green State University,
Bowling Green, OH 43403 (wmannin@bgnet.bgsu.edu).
Key Words: adolescence, child well-being, cohabitation,
family structure, marriage, stepfamilies.
status was perhaps more appropriate when rela-
tively few children lived in cohabiting unions. Re-
cent estimates indicate that two fths of children
are expected to spend some time in a cohabiting
parent family (Bumpass & Lu, 2000), and 41% of
cohabiting unions have children present (Fields &
Casper, 2000). Despite this shift in childrens ex-
perience in cohabitation, research on the impli-
cations of cohabitation for childrens lives is rel-
atively sparse.
In this paper we examine the well-being of ad-
olescents in cohabiting stepparent families. We use
the term cohabiting stepfamily to indicate living
with one biological parent and the parents partner
(cohabiting stepfamily). We address three key ques-
tions in this paper. First, do teenagers in cohabiting
stepparent families have similar academic and be-
havioral outcomes as teenagers living with two
married biological parents? We begin with this
question because over half of the children in the
United States live with two married biological par-
ents (Fields, 2001), and most research on family
structure contrasts how children in specic family
types fare compared with children living with mar-
ried, two-biological-parent families. Second, do
children residing with cohabiting stepparents fare
better or worse than children living with single
mothers? We focus on children living with unmar-
ried mothers and determine how their cohabitation
status inuences child well-being. Third, do ado-
lescents in cohabiting stepfather families fare as
well as adolescents living in married stepfather
families? We test whether children living with step-
877 Adolescent Well-Being
fathers fare better when their mother is married,
rather than cohabiting. For each question, we eval-
uate whether the effects of parental cohabitation are
explained by socioeconomic circumstances, parent-
ing, and family instability.
This paper builds on prior research and moves
beyond previous work in several key ways. First,
by employing a large data source (National Lon-
gitudinal Study of Adolescent Health), our anal-
yses are based on a relatively large number of
adolescents in cohabiting stepfather families. Sec-
ond, the rich nature of the data allows us to in-
clude potentially important factors that represent
family processes and may help account for some
observed effects of family structure. Third, we are
not limited to a single indicator of well-being and
focus on multiple measures of well-being that are
appropriate for teenagers. Finally, to better under-
stand the implications of cohabitation on child
well-being, we focus on family-type comparisons
based on similar household structure (stepfather
presence; cohabiting stepfather vs. married step-
father) or mothers marital status (unmarried
mothers; cohabiting mother vs. single mother).
BACKGROUND
Cohabitation As a Family Structure
Children in the United States are increasingly like-
ly to spend some of their lives residing in a co-
habiting parent family. Indeed, two fths of co-
habiting households include children (Fields &
Casper, 2000). In 1999, 6% of children were liv-
ing with a cohabiting parent (Acs & Nelson,
2001). Bumpass and Lu (2000) estimate that two
fths of children in the United States are expected
to experience a cohabiting parent family at some
point during their childhood, and children born
during the early 1990s will spend 9% of their lives
living with parents who are in cohabiting unions.
Adolescents in cohabiting parent families typ-
ically are living with their mother and her cohab-
iting partner. Based on the 1996 Survey of Income
and Program Participation, half (54%) of the chil-
dren in cohabiting parent families lived with one
biological parent (Fields, 2001). Given the insta-
bility of cohabiting unions for children, older chil-
dren in cohabiting parent families primarily live
with their mother and her partner who is not their
biological parent (Manning, Smock, & Majumdar,
in press). Brown (2002) reports that almost all
children over the age of 12 in cohabiting parent
families are living with only one biological parent.
Thus, cohabitation for adolescents (unlike for
young children) represents a family that is struc-
turally similar to a stepfamily.
Cohabitation and Family Life
Children in cohabiting parent families experience
family life that differs from those raised with mar-
ried or single parents. Children raised in cohabit-
ing couple families may experience different de-
velopmental outcomes, in part because of the
family environment or context in which children
are raised. We discuss three potential contextual
mechanisms through which family structure, and
specically cohabiting parent families, may inu-
ence child well-being: economic circumstances,
instability, and parenting.
Economic status. Children raised in families with
higher socioeconomic status experience more pos-
itive cognitive and social developmental indica-
tors of well-being (e.g., Carlson & Corcoran,
2001; Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; McLanahan
& Sandefur, 1994). Indicators of both family in-
come and mothers education exert positive effects
on child development, but income rather than
mothers education seems to have a stronger inu-
ence on child outcomes (Duncan & Brooks-
Gunn). It appears that income typically does not
explain the effects of family structure on child
well-being, but for some outcomes, it does reduce
the effect of family structure (Carlson & Corco-
ran; Duncan & Brooks-Gunn; Hill, Yeung, &
Duncan, 2001; McLanahan & Sandefur). On av-
erage, children raised in cohabiting parent families
experience economic situations that are better than
those of children in single-parent families (e.g.,
greater parental education and family earnings),
but more stressful economic situations than chil-
dren in married couple families (e.g., greater pov-
erty and food insecurity; Acs & Nelson, 2002;
Manning & Lichter, 1996).
Family stability. Family stability is positively re-
lated to child and young adult behavior (Hao &
Xie, 2001; Hill et al., 2001; Wu & Martinson,
1993). At times family stability has a stronger in-
uence on child outcomes than family structure.
It is argued that the stress of family change hin-
ders normal developmental transitions among
children (Hao & Xie; Hill et al.; Wu & Martin-
son). Family stability may be particularly impor-
tant in assessments of the effect of cohabitation
because children born to cohabiting parents ex-
878 Journal of Marriage and Family
perience higher levels of instability than children
born to married parents (Manning et al., in press).
Parenting. Parental monitoring is important for
keeping childrens behavior on task and ensuring
that children meet their individual responsibilities.
Empirical evidence supports the notion that pa-
rental monitoring has positive effects on children.
For example, McLanahan (1997) reports lack of
supervision by parents is associated with poor
school performance among children in single and
stepparent families. Another core feature of par-
enting is parental support, which is positively re-
lated to desirable outcomes for children and ado-
lescents (e.g., Baumrind, 1991). For instance,
interacting with children in positive ways has been
shown to raise grade point averages and decrease
externalizing behaviors (e.g., OConnor, Hether-
ington, & Clingempeel, 1997). Parent-child rela-
tionships that cross household boundaries also
inuence childrens development. Evidence sug-
gests that closeness to nonresident fathers is pos-
itively associated with child well-being (Amato &
Gilbreth, 1999; White & Gilbreth, 2001).
Parenting in cohabiting unions may have be-
come easier as cohabitation moves toward social
acceptance, but cohabiting unions with children
present still do not benet from legal and social
recognition (e.g., Durst, 1997; Mahoney, 2002).
Thus the responsibilities of cohabiting partners to
children are not specied, creating sources of par-
enting ambiguity in terms of obligations and rights
of cohabiting partners to their partners children.
Research that distinguishes parenting behaviors of
cohabitors from married couples or single parents
supports the notion that slightly more negative
parenting practices occur among cohabiting par-
ents (Brown, 2002; Dunifon & Kowaleski-Jones,
2000; Hofferth & Anderson, 2003; Thomson,
McLanahan, & Curtin, 1992). Yet parenting in-
dicators do not explain the effect of parental co-
habitation on child well-being (Dunifon & Ko-
waleski-Jones; Thomson, Hanson, & McLanahan,
1994; White & Gilbreth, 2001).
Cohabitation and Child Outcomes
To date, a limited but growing number of studies
examine the social well-being of children living
in cohabiting parent families (e.g., Brown, 2001;
DeLeire & Kalil, 2002; Dunifon & Kowaleski-
Jones, 2002; Hao & Xie, 2001; Nelson, Clark, &
Acs, 2001; Thomson et al., 1994). Often these re-
searchers contrast the well-being of children in co-
habiting parent families with children living with
two biological married parents. The focus of most
of these studies is not specically on cohabitation
but more broadly on how family structure inu-
ences child well-being. The results of these studies
indicate that children in cohabiting parent families
fare worse than their counterparts in married, two-
biological-parent families.
A limitation of this approach is that it con-
founds the effects of marriage and living with two
biological parents. Research on family structure
recognizes the importance of adultsbiological
ties to children and argues that children in two-
biological-parent families fare better than children
living with a stepparent (see Coleman, Ganong, &
Fine, 2000). Following this logic, the biological
relationship of cohabiting partners should be con-
sidered in the analysis of child well-being. Many
of the children who are living in cohabiting parent
families, particularly older children, are not living
with their biological father, making the traditional
married stepparent family a more appropriate
comparison group. To better understand the inu-
ence of cohabitation, we argue that comparisons
should be made across families who share either
the same biological relationships to parents (two
biological parents or stepfamilies) or parental
marital status (married or unmarried), and differ
in terms of the presence or absence of a cohabiting
partner (Manning, 2002).
The ndings from empirical work suggest that
teenagers and children in cohabiting parent step-
families sometimes fare worse in terms of behav-
ior problems and academic performance than chil-
dren in married stepparent families (Brown, 2001;
Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1996;
Morrison, 2000; White & Gilbreth, 2001). Other
research suggests that adolescents and children in
cohabiting stepparent families share similar levels
of behavior problems and academic achievement
as children in married stepparent families (Brown;
Morrison, 1998, 2000). The ndings seem to de-
pend on the gender and age of the child as well
as the specic dependent or outcome variable
(e.g., math scores vs. verbal scores or internalizing
vs. externalizing behavior).
Only a few studies contrast the well-being of
children in unmarried mother families who have
a cohabiting parent with those who do not. Anal-
ysis of the 1999 National Survey of American
Families (NSAF) suggests teenagers living in sin-
gle-mother and cohabiting stepparent families
share similar levels of behavior problems (Acs &
Nelson, 2002). Work using longitudinal data and
multivariate, xed effects models nds that teen-
agers living with cohabiting mothers and unmar-
ried mothers share similar levels of behavior prob-
lems (Morrison, 1998).
Two shortcomings of prior work are limited
samples and a narrow range of covariates. First, a
few studies are restricted only to children of di-
vorce (Buchanan et al., 1996; Morrison, 1998,
2000). The implications of cohabitation may differ
among children who have lived with married bi-
ological parents compared with children who have
never lived with their biological father. In addi-
tion, other data sources (such as the National Sur-
vey of Families and Households [NSFH]) have
small numbers of children in cohabiting, two-bi-
ological-parent and cohabiting stepparent families,
and sample sizes become even smaller when two
waves of data are used (e.g., Hao & Xie, 2001;
White & Gilbreth, 2001). Finally, data sources
such as the National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth (NLSY) include less than optimal measures
of parental cohabitation. Parental cohabitation is
measured annually, so research using these data is
biased toward longer term cohabiting unions
(more than 1 year; Dunifon & Kowaleski-Jones,
2002; Morrison, 2000). Thus, analyses using the
NLSY may be underestimating the negative ef-
fects of cohabitation because only longer term
unions are included in the data.
A second shortcoming is that some research
includes only a narrow set of independent vari-
ables. Thus, prior studies cannot explore potential
explanations about why children in cohabiting
parent families fare differently than children in
other family types, disentangling the effects of
family structure from other factors. First, a few
studies include only socioeconomic indicators,
such as gender, parental education, and poverty
(Hanson, McLanahan, & Thomson, 1997; Nelson
et al., 2001). Second, other research does not in-
clude measures of family instability or indicators
of relationship quality (Acs & Nelson, 2002;
Thomson et al., 1994). The NSAF does not in-
clude questions about duration of the parentsre-
lationship or relational history (Acs & Nelson;
Brown, 2001; Nelson et al., 2001). Other studies
that include measures of family stability do not
incorporate measures of the resident parentsre-
lationship quality (DeLeire & Kalil, 2002; Duni-
fon & Kowaleski-Jones, 2002; Hao & Xie, 2001).
Third, many studies do not include measures of
parenting strategies when evaluating the effects of
parental cohabitation on well-being (exceptions
include Brown, 2001, and Dunifon & Kowaleski-
Jones). Also, nonresident biological fathers are of-
ten ignored. Rarely have relationships with non-
resident fathers been considered in assessments of
how children living with cohabiting parents fare,
despite the fact that this relationship may be ad-
vantageous to the childs well-being (White &
Gilbreth, 2001).
CURRENT INVESTIGATION
Three broad questions are addressed in this paper.
First, the literature shows that children are gen-
erally better off when they live with two biolog-
ical, married parents (e.g., Brown, 2002; Mc-
Lanahan & Sandefur, 1994). In addition, in 1996
over 50% of the children in the United States were
living in married, two-biological-parent families
(Fields, 2001). Therefore, a basic starting point is
to demonstrate whether teenagers living with co-
habiting stepparent families fare the same or
worse than children living with two married, bi-
ological parents.
Given the vast literature that supports the rel-
ative strength of the married, two-biological-par-
ent family, of greater interest in this analysis will
be other family structure comparisons. Our second
question is whether cohabitation provides any ad-
vantage for children living with unmarried moth-
ers. Based on both social control and economic
deprivation perspectives, children in single-parent
families may fare worse than children in cohabi-
tation because they lack the benets of income
and parenting that a cohabiting partner may pro-
vide. As a result, we anticipate that children in
cohabiting-parent families will fare better than
children in single-mother families. A competing
hypothesis is that children experience some dis-
advantages by living with a mothers unmarried
partner who may not be a fully integrated family
member and may compete for their mothers time
and attention. Family roles may not be as clearly
established in cohabiting stepfamilies, perhaps
creating confusion over parenting responsibilities
and weak child-stepparent relationships. This hy-
pothesis is consistent with the role ambiguity per-
spective used to understand stepfamilies. In this
case, adolescents in cohabiting stepfamilies would
fare worse than adolescents in single-mother fam-
ilies. Finally, we may nd no effect of cohabita-
tion as the benets and costs of a cohabiting par-
ent outweigh one another. The bulk of research on
stepfamilies indicates that children in stepfamilies
and single-mother families share similar devel-
opmental outcomes (Coleman et al., 2000). Thus
we may nd that adolescents who live in cohab-
iting stepfamilies fare as well as children who re-
side with a single mother.
Third, do children experience any advantage
by living in a married (or traditional) rather than
in a cohabiting stepparent family? We determine
whether children in married stepparent families
fare as well as children in cohabiting stepparent
families. Marriage provides the socioeconomic
benets and stability that cohabitation does not
offer. Moreover, family roles may be clearly de-
ned and child-stepparent relationships more for-
malized in married than in cohabiting stepparent
families. We expect children in married stepfam-
ilies to have better developmental outcomes than
children in cohabiting stepfamilies. Once we ac-
count for the parents relationship with the child,
family stability, and socioeconomic characteris-
tics, however, these differences according to mar-
ital status may no longer exist. These ndings may
suggest that marriage itself does not create the ad-
vantage experienced by children in married step-
parent families. If differences persist, then such
ndings would indicate that some feature of co-
habitation itself (i.e., role ambiguity) may have
negative consequences for children in this type of
family structure.
Previous work provides some initial evidence
about the effects of cohabitation on child well-
being. In this project we build on previous studies
in four key ways. First, many of the previous stud-
ies do not distinguish between adolescents and
younger children. Our focus on adolescents limits
our conclusions to one stage of childhood, but at
the same time allows us to detail the effects of
family structure for a critical period of develop-
ment. We examine outcomes that are most salient
for adolescents.
Second, most adolescents in cohabiting parent
families are living with only one biological parent
(Brown, 2001). Thus, answers to questions about
the effects of cohabitation require being specic
about the family type contrasts. The traditional ap-
proach is to compare the well-being of all children
in cohabiting families with those in married, two-
biological-parent families. Yet, contrasting the
well-being of adolescents in married and cohab-
iting stepfamilies is more appropriate because
these families share the same basic structure (bi-
ological mother and her cohabiting partner).
Third, we include a range of indicators of well-
being. For example, we do not rely on a single
measure to indicate academic achievement. We in-
clude measures of Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Tests, grades in school, and college expectations.
As any one measure may suffer some shortcom-
ings, taken together we have indicators of well-
being that tap several dimensions of adolescent
behavior and academic well-being.
Fourth, we are able to include key variables
that may explain some of the effects of family
structure on child outcomes. We include measures
of parenting characteristics (closeness to mother
and nonresident father, as well as monitoring); so-
cioeconomic status (mothers education and fam-
ily income); and family stability (number of moth-
ers marriages and duration of relationship). Most
prior work has accounted for one or more of these
measures, but no study has accounted for all of
these factors simultaneously.
In addition to our measures of socioeconomic
status, family stability, and parenting, we control
for a number of sociodemographic and child char-
acteristics, including race and ethnicity, mothers
age, childs age and sex, number of children in the
household, and importance of religion to the child.
Although residing in a cohabiting or single-parent
family is increasingly common for all children, it
is a more common feature of the life experiences
of Black and Hispanic children (Bumpass & Lu,
2000). We also control for mothers age; older
mothers may be more skilled at parenting, which
in turn may result in increased attentiveness to chil-
drens needs. The number of ones siblings is re-
lated negatively to academic achievement (e.g.,
Carlson & Corcoran, 2001), presumably because
more children in the household means parents pos-
sess fewer instrumental and emotional resources to
invest in each child individually. In terms of the
characteristics of the adolescent, boys tend to ex-
perience more behavior problems than girls, and
girls tend to have higher academic achievement
than boys (Carlson & Corcoran). We control for
childs age, as older children may experience fewer
behavior problems as a function of maturity. We
also control for the importance of religion to the
adolescent, as involvement with an institution that
encourages adherence to particular moral standards
may act as an agent of social control to discourage
deviant behavior in young people. Families who
encourage religious attendance may also more
closely monitor the actions of their children.
METHOD
Data
We draw on the rst wave of the National Lon-
gitudinal Adolescent Study of Adolescent Health
(Add Health). The Add Health is based on inter-
views with students in grades 7 through 12 and
their parents in 1995. These data are based on a
sample of 80 high schools and 52 middle schools
from the United States. We use the contractual
data that include in-home interviews administered
to 18,924 students with a response rate of 78.2%
(Udry, 1998). These sample schools were selected
with unequal probability of selection. Once design
effects are taken into account, these data are na-
tionally representative of adolescents in the Unit-
ed States (see Bearman, Jones, & Udry, 1997). We
use procedures in a software package, STATA, to
ensure our results are nationally representative
with unbiased estimates (Chantala & Tabor, 1999).
In this paper we use the rst wave of the Add
Health data. This cross-sectional analysis provides
a basic starting point for understanding whether
parental cohabitation is associated with indicators
of child well-being. Researchers often emphasize
how changes in family structure inuence child
outcomes without understanding whether and how
specic family structures are associated with child
outcomes. Furthermore, xed effects models do
not allow for the analysis of how core, xed, so-
ciodemographic variables such as race or gender
inuence adolescent outcomes.
The Add Health is appropriate because it con-
tains a large number of adolescents living in co-
habiting parent families, includes key measures of
consequential adolescent outcomes, and has rich
measures of family processes that may explain
some of the observed differences in family struc-
ture. Other data sources, such as the National Sur-
vey of American Families and Current Population
Survey, provide information only about the cur-
rent family situation and no details about family
stability. Yet the Add Health data do not include
details about family structure histories.
Our analytic sample depends on the question
that we address. Dividing the sample is necessary
because not all of the predictors used for analyses
of married, two-biological-parent families can be
applied to the unmarried and stepparent families
(e.g., number of mothers prior marriages and
nonresident father closeness). We begin by con-
trasting the well-being of children in cohabiting
stepparent families to those living in married, two-
biological-parent families, including all possible
family types. Our analytic sample consists of
13,231 adolescents. Our next analysis is limited
to teens living in stepfamilies and single-mother
families. We make two sets of specic family
comparisons. First, we examine the well-being of
adolescents living with unmarried mothers (sin-
gle-mother vs. cohabiting-mother families) so we
can estimate the effect of cohabitation among un-
married mothers. Second, we focus on teenagers
living with stepfathers (married stepfather families
vs. cohabiting stepfather families) so we can de-
termine the inuence of formal marital status
among children living with stepfathers. Our anal-
ysis of teens living with single mothers and step-
fathers is based on 5,504 respondents.
Dependent Variables
We include a range of indicators of well-being.
The indicators of behavior problems are ever hav-
ing been expelled or suspended from school, ex-
periencing trouble in school, and self-reported de-
linquency scores. The suspension or expulsion
measure is a dichotomous measure simply indi-
cating whether the respondent ever received an
out of school suspension from school or an ex-
pulsion from school. This is coded such that 1
yes and 0 no. Unlike the other outcomes, ex-
pulsion or suspension may occur prior to the for-
mation of the current family, but provides a rough
indicator of problem behavior. The second mea-
sure, problems in school, assesses the respondents
difculty in the school context. The four items
comprising the scale indicate the degree, since the
start of the school year, the respondent has had
problems getting along with teachers, paying at-
tention in school, getting homework done, and
getting along with other students. (All items are
coded such that 0 never, 1 just a few times,
2 about once a week, 3 almost every day,
and 4 every day.) The responses are summed so
the scores may range from 0 to 16. This measure
has a Cronbach reliability of .69. The delin-
quency scale is composed of 15 items asking the
frequency that respondents engaged in a series of
delinquent acts over the past 12 months, including
painting grafti or signs on someone elses prop-
erty or in a public place; deliberately damaging
property; lying to parents or guardian about whom
respondent had been with; taking something from
a store without paying for it; getting into a serious
physical ght; hurting someone badly enough to
need medical care; running away from home;
driving a car without the owners permission;
stealing something worth more than $50; going
into a house or building to steal something; using
or threatening to use a weapon to get something
from someone; selling marijuana or other drugs;
stealing something worth less than $50; taking
part in a ght where a group of friends was
against another group; or being loud, unruly, or
rowdy in a public place. Responses (scored such
that 0 never, 1 one or two times, 3 three
or four times, 3 ve or more times) were
summed such that the scores ranged from 0 to 45.
After the items were summed, cases were omitted
from analysis when less than 75% (11 items) of
the items had valid responses. Cases where 75%
or more of the items had valid data were given
the mean of the scale on any items with missing
data. This strategy allows us to retain respondents
in our sample and base delinquency scores on a
minimum of 11 items. The delinquency measure
has a high Cronbach reliability of .85.
Measures of cognitive development or academ-
ic achievement and expectations are student-re-
ported grade point average, Peabody Picture Vo-
cabulary Test, and college expectations. Only one
measure may not be an adequate indicator of ac-
ademic achievement. Low grade point average is
a dichotomous measure indicating whether, of
four subject areas in school (English, mathemat-
ics, history or social studies, and science), the re-
spondent received two or more grades of D or
lower. Respondents receiving two or more Ds or
Fs were coded as 1, and respondents receiving
one or no Ds or Fs were coded as 0. We use this
measure of poor academic performance because
grading systems vary considerably across schools,
and student grades depend on the types of classes
students attend (e.g., advanced placement courses
vs. a general curriculum). The second indicator is
an abbreviated version of the Peabody Picture Vo-
cabulary Test. We use the age-standardized scores
with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of
15. This is considered a measure of verbal cog-
nitive ability or development. The third indicator
measures expectations for college. Respondents
were asked how much they want to go to college
(responses ranging from 1 low to 5 high).
The mean response on this question was high with
a value of 4.
Independent Variables
Family structure. The key independent variable is
family structure. Cohabitation family status is es-
tablished by the adolescent response in the house-
hold roster question and by the parents response
to relationship questions. If either the adolescent
or the parent reports that the parent has a cohab-
iting partner, then the family is coded as a cohab-
iting parent family. We nd very few adolescents
live in two-biological-parent cohabiting families.
This is consistent with ndings from other data
(Brown, 2002). Thus, we limit our analyses of co-
habitation to adolescents living with their biolog-
ical mother and her cohabiting partner (cohabiting
stepfather families). Our family structure catego-
ries include two married biological parents, single
mother, married stepfather, and cohabiting step-
father. Table 1 shows the distribution of the in-
dependent variables according to each family
type. Among adolescents living in stepfamilies,
one third live with cohabiting parents and two
thirds live with married parents. Among adoles-
cents living with unmarried mothers, 13% are liv-
ing with their mother and her cohabiting partner.
The unmarried mothers may be never married, di-
vorced, or widowed. These ndings mirror those
reported in the NSAF and NSFH (Brown, 2002;
Bumpass, 1994).
The remaining independent variables are divid-
ed into three categories: sociodemographic, par-
enting or socialization variables, and family sta-
bility. The distribution for each of the independent
variables is provided in Table 1.
Sociodemographic. Race and ethnicity respon-
dents is based on their own response and coded
into four categories: Black, White, Latino, and
Other. The othercategory includes groups that
are too small to distinguish in analyses. In both
stepparent and unmarried mother families, the ma-
jority of the adolescents are White, whereas 15%
are Black and 12% Latino. The family income
measure is logged and the family income values
are higher among teens in married stepparent fam-
ilies than in the other family types. A shortcoming
of the Add Health data is that a considerable share
(23%) of the sample has missing data on income.
To avoid deleting all of these cases, respondents
with missing income are coded to the mean value
of income and a dummy variable is included in
the model that indicates which respondents were
missing on income. Mothers age is coded as a
continuous variable, and the mean value is 32.
Mothers education is coded on an ordinal scale
(1 eighth grade or less; 2 more than eighth
grade, but did not graduate from high school; 3
went to a business, trade, or vocational school
in place of high school; 4 received a GED; 5
high school graduate; 6 went to college but
did not graduate; 7 graduated from a college
or university; 8 had professional training be-
yond college). On average, single mothers have a
high school education, and mothers in married
TABLE 1. DISTRIBUTION OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES, BY FAMILY STRUCTURE (N 13,231)
Married
Two Biological
Parents
Single
Mother
Married
Stepfather
Cohabiting
Stepfather
Sociodemographic
Race
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
.75
(.02)
.07
(.01)
.11
(.02)
.07
(.01)
.49
(.04)
.33
(.04)
.13
(.02)
.05
(.01)
.73
(.02)
.11
(.02)
.11
(.02)
.06
(.01)
.56
(.04)
.19
(.03)
.19
(.03)
.07
(.01)
Log family income
Missing income (1 yes)
Mothers age
Mothers education
Childs age
Childs sex (1 male)
3.75
(.03)
.12
(.01)
41.2
(.17)
5.49
(.09)
15.28
(.12)
.52
(.01)
3.01
(.04)
.21
(.01)
39.15
(.22)
5.04
(.10)
15.35
(.14)
.47
(.01)
3.63
(.03)
.08
(.01)
38.19
(.23)
5.43
(.09)
15.33
(.13)
.51
(.02)
3.19
(.05)
.15
(.03)
37.53
(.28)
4.89
(.13)
15.20
(.17)
.54
(.03)
Importance of religion to child
Number of children in household
3.34
(.02)
1.24
(.03)
3.33
(.02)
1.28
(.06)
3.31
(.03)
1.45
(.05)
3.21
(.04)
1.41
(.09)
Family Stability
Number of mothers marriages
Duration of relationship
1.01
(.25)
15.20
(.20)
1.45
(.03)
2.12
(.03)
6.67
(.23)
2.16
(.06)
4.44
(.27)
Parenting
Monitoring by parents
Closeness to mother
Closeness to nonresident father
Missing closeness to nonresident
father (1 yes)
1.93
(.06)
4.56
(.02)
1.70
(.07)
4.58
(.02)
3.06
(.03)
.25
(.01)
1.97
(.08)
4.63
(.02)
3.13
(.05)
.26
(.02)
1.82
(.10)
4.49
(.05)
3.11
(.07)
.27
(.03)
N 7,727 3,593 1,352 559
Note: From the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health.
stepfamilies have the highest levels of education.
Religiosity is measured by responses to questions
about the importance of religion in the life of the
adolescent. The responses range from 1 to 4, with
1 indicating not at all important and 4 indicating
very important. The mean response is 3.3, indi-
cating religion is considered fairly important. The
mean age of the child is 15 and the ages range
from 11 to 21. The sample is evenly split between
boys and girls. On average, about one other child
lives in the household.
Family stability. Indicators of family stability in-
clude mothers relationship history and duration
of current relationship. The number of mothers
prior marriage-like relationships is included as a
control variable. These relationships are asked
about in reference to the 18-year period prior to
Wave I, or from 19771995, so these refer to
changes in mothers relationships during the
course of the childs lifetime. Single mothers have
been in, on average, only one marriage-like rela-
tionship, and cohabiting and married mothers in
this sample have been in, on average, two rela-
tionships. The following indicator of stability is
applied only to the stepfamily analysis. Stability
of the stepfamilies is measured in terms of the
duration of the parental relationship. The mean
duration of the cohabiting stepfamilies is 4.4
years, and the mean duration of the married step-
families is 6.7 years. This is consistent with nd-
ings from the NSFH (Hao & Xie, 2001).
Parenting. The parenting measures focus on con-
trol and support. Parental control is based on a
seven-item scale with high values indicating high
control. The questions are coded dichotomously
(0 yes and 1 no) and then summed. Adoles-
cent respondents are asked whether parents let
them make their own decisions about the time
they must be home on weekend nights, the people
they hang around with, what they wear, how much
TV they watch, which TV programs they watch,
what time they go to bed on week nights, and
what they eat. The reliability of the scale is .64.
The mean level of control is 1.83, indicating a
fairly low level of parental supervision.
Closeness to resident mother is an individual
item, asking teens how close they feel to their
mothers, coded 1 not at all, 2 very little, 3
somewhat, 4 quite a bit, 5 very much. The
average closeness to mothers ranges between
quite a bit to very much. Unfortunately, the data
do not include questions about closeness to co-
habiting stepfathers. For those respondents who
report having a nonresident biological father, the
same question is included as a predictor. The av-
erage value is somewhat close. We also include a
dummy variable measuring whether responses
were missing on closeness to nonresident father.
This strategy allows us to retain the variable in
our analyses; approximately one quarter of the
sample is missing on the indicator of closeness to
nonresident father.
Design
We correct for design effects and the unequal
probability of selection using STATA (Chantala &
Tabor, 1999). The analytic method depends on the
nature of the dependent variables. Logistic regres-
sion is used for analyses of dichotomous depen-
dent variables, whether the adolescent was ex-
pelled or suspended from school and whether the
teen received low grades. Ordinary least square
regressions are estimated for all remaining out-
comes.
Our analytic strategy is to estimate a series of
models for each outcome. We rst estimate a zero-
order or bivariate model that includes only the
family structure variable. The second model we
present adds the remaining factors, including so-
cioeconomic, parenting, and family stability mea-
sures. We also enter variables separately to assess
how they contribute to the t of the models, but
because of space constraints, we do not present
the results in the tables.
RESULTS
Distribution of Adolescent Outcomes
Table 2 presents the mean and median values of
the dependent variables according to each family
type. This provides information about the basic
levels of the well-being indicators and shows the
range of values for the measures of well-being.
Most teenagers, regardless of family type, were
not expelled or suspended from school. Two fths
of the adolescents in single-mother and cohabiting
stepfather families were expelled or suspended,
and three tenths of teens living in married step-
father families experienced school suspension or
expulsion. Delinquency levels range from 0 to 45,
so those reported are quite low, and the mean val-
ues are highest for teens living in cohabiting step-
father families. In terms of school problems, the
values fall within a narrow range from 3.95 to
4.79, suggesting that the majority of teenagers
have just a few troubles in school. The measure
of academic achievement shows that the vast ma-
jority of teens in each family type have not re-
ceived Ds or Fs in two or more subjects. The Pea-
body Picture Vocabulary Test is an indicator of
cognitive development, and the scores range from
98 to 104, with adolescents in married, two-bio-
logical-parent families scoring best. Finally, most
teens possess high expectations for attending col-
lege, and there appears to be only slight variation
according to family type.
Cohabiting Stepparent and Married,
Two-Biological-Parent Families
Our rst aim is to contrast the well-being of chil-
dren in cohabiting stepfamilies to children living
in married, two-biological-parent families (refer-
ence category in Table 3). The inclusion of the
entire sample for these analyses prevents us from
using the couple-level indicators (duration, rela-
tionship quality); number of mothers prior mar-
TABLE 2. MEANS (STANDARD ERRORS) OF OUTCOME VARIABLES (N 13,231)
Dependent Variables
Married
Two Biological
Parents
Unmarried
Single Mother
Step
Married
Step
Cohabiting
Suspension/expulsion
M
Median
.18 (.01)
0
.39 (.02)
0
.30 (.02)
0
.41 (.30)
0
Delinquency
M
Median
3.76 (.10)
3
4.67 (.15)
3
4.29 (.18)
3
5.44 (.33)
3
School problems
M
Median
3.95 (.06)
3
4.52 (.09)
4
4.60 (.11)
4
4.79 (.19)
4
Low grade point average
M
Median
.09 (.01)
0
.15 (.01)
0
.14 (.01)
0
.19 (.02)
0
PPVT
M
Median
103.87 (.56)
104
98 (.78)
97
102 (.62)
101
98 (1.02)
98
College expectations
M
Median
4.50 (.03)
5
4.37 (.03)
5
4.42 (.04)
5
4.28 (.07)
5
Note: From the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health. Means are weighted using Wave I grand sample
weight. PPVT Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.
riages; and relationship with nonresident fathers
in the models. We highlight the ndings related to
the well-being of teenagers living in cohabiting
stepparent families. Notably, adolescents living in
married, two-biological-parent families generally
fare better than teenagers living in any other fam-
ily type.
The rst three columns show that teens who
reside in cohabiting stepfather families experience
122% (exponential value of 0.80) higher odds of
being expelled from school, greater levels of de-
linquency, and more school problems than teen-
agers residing with two married, biological par-
ents. The next three columns indicate that
adolescents living with cohabiting stepfathers are
more likely to have a low grade point average or
experience 90% (exponential value of 0.64) great-
er odds of low grades and score worse on the
vocabulary test. Teenagers living with cohabiting
stepfathers have similar expectations of going to
college as teenagers living with two married, bi-
ological parents. At the bivariate level, college ex-
pectations are lower among teens living with co-
habiting stepfathers than teens living with two
biological married parents. The effects of the oth-
er covariates vary across adolescent outcomes. We
nd that higher levels of family income and moth-
ers education are typically related to higher levels
of child well-being. Girls appear to fare better
than boys. Younger children more often have
higher levels of delinquency, school problems,
low GPA, and lack college expectations. Religi-
osity often is associated with higher levels of child
well-being. Teenagers who are closer to their
mothers have fewer behavioral and academic
problems.
Cohabiting Stepparent, Married Stepparent, and
Single-Mother Families
The rst row of Table 4 shows the effect of living
with married rather than cohabiting stepparents on
adolescent problem behaviors. These sets of nd-
ings reect the importance of formal marital sta-
tus. The second row presents the effect of living
with a single mother rather than cohabiting step-
parents on teenage problem behaviors. These re-
sults indicate how motherscohabitation inuenc-
es teenage well-being among unmarried mothers.
The rst model shows the zero-order or bivariate
effects, and the second model presents the effects
of family structure, net of the other variables. We
present the family structure effects for each model
and then discuss the effects of the remaining co-
variates.
The rst column shows that at the bivariate
TABLE 3. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS ESTIMATES OF ADOLESCENT BEHAVIORAL AND ACADEMIC OUTCOMES
(N 13,231)
Suspend/Expel
a
Delinquency
School
Problems
Low
GPA
b
PPVT
College
Expectations
Family structure (Married, two biological)
Cohabiting stepfather
Married stepfather
Single mother
.80***
(.13)
.56***
(.08)
.62***
(.09)
1.32**
(.32)
.61**
(.21)
.95***
(.19)
.76***
(.17)
.69***
(.12)
.66***
(.09)
.64***
(.17)
.52***
(.12)
.38***
(.10)
2.36**
(.70)
.93
(.47)
.85*
(.40)
.10
(.06)
.05
(.04)
.04
(.03)
Sociodemographic characteristics
Race (White)
Black
Hispanic
.99***
(.11)
.17
(.13)
.22
(.18)
1.02
(.24)
.20
(.14)
.27
(.17)
0.005
(.12)
.19
(.14)
9.09***
(.68)
7.10***
(.74)
.10**
(.04)
.08
(.05)
Other
Log family income
Missing income (no)
.03
(.13)
.25***
(.06)
.01
(.07)
.72
(.26)
.03
(.11)
.35
(.20)
.003
(.17)
.01
(.05)
.0001
(.11)
.18
(.15)
.20***
(.05)
.24*
(.12)
3.42***
(.86)
2.16***
(.27)
1.59**
(.51)
.16**
(.05)
.10***
(.02)
.02
(.04)
Mothers age
Mothers education
.01*
(.005)
.14***
(.02)
.005
(.01)
.006
(.03)
0.002
(.006)
.03
(.02)
.01
(.01)
.13***
(.02)
.03
(.03)
1.44***
(.11)
.01**
(.002)
.07***
(.01)
Childs age
Childs sex (female)
.11***
(.03)
.97***
(.06)
.12**
(.04)
1.62***
(.11)
.04
(.03)
.81***
(.07)
.03
(.03)
.51***
(.08)
.30*
(.12)
1.36***
(.30)
.07***
(.01)
.17***
(.03)
Importance of
religion to child
Number of children in
household
.15***
(.04)
.04
(.03)
.75***
(.09)
.001
(.05)
.27***
(.06)
.02
(.03)
.25***
(.05)
0.002
(.03)
.29
(.24)
.79***
(.15)
.10***
(.02)
.01
(.01)
Parenting
Monitoring
Closeness to mother
.002
(.02)
.17***
(.04)
.11*
(.05)
1.29***
(.10)
.04
(.03)
.64***
(.05)
.01
(.03)
.19***
(.04)
1.14***
(.14)
.75***
(.20)
.03*
(.01)
.11***
(.02)
Intercept .45
(.58)
12.4**
(1.07)
7.80***
(.57)
1.36*
(.58)
91.79***
(2.38)
3.55***
(.21)
F-value
c
R
2 d
6585.5***
.13
25.7***
.09
26.7***
.06
4396.2***
.05
77.9***
.25
29.1***
.07
Note: Reference category for variables is presented in parentheses. Unstandardized coefcients are presented, and standard
errors are shown in parentheses. PPVT Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.
a
Logistic regression was used for suspended or expelled, 1 yes.
b
Logistic regression was employed for low grade point
average (1 low grades).
c
The log likelihood is shown for the models predicting suspension or expulsion and low grade
point average.
d
The R
2
is the pseudo R
2
for the models predicting suspension or expulsion and low grade point average.
*p .05. **p .01. ***p .001.
level, teenagers living in married stepparent fam-
ilies have signicantly lower odds of being sus-
pended or expelled from school than teens resid-
ing in cohabiting stepparent families. The second
model shows that this family structure effect can
be explained by the other covariates. No single
factor explains the effect of family structure: So-
ciodemographic variables in conjunction with the
parenting variables (closeness to mother and mon-
itoring) reduce the effect of marital status. Thus
in the multivariate model teens living in married
and cohabiting stepparent families share similar
odds of being suspended or expelled from school.
We shift the reference category to single mothers
and nd that children living in married stepfather
families have similar odds of being suspended or
TABLE 4. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS ESTIMATES OF ADOLESCENT BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES (N 5,504)
Suspension/Expulsion
a
Model 1 Model 2
Delinquency
Model 1 Model 2
School Problems
Model 1 Model 2
Family structure (Cohabiting stepfather)
Married stepfather
Single mother
.52***
(.14)
.11
(.12)
.21
(.15)
.06
(.14)
1.15**
(.36)
.76*
(.35)
.68*
(.35)
.06
(.37)
.19
(.22)
.27
(.19)
.10
(.20)
0.005
(.20)
Race (White)
Black
Hispanic
Other
.97***
(.12)
.11
(.17)
.15
(.18)
.23
(.25)
1.17**
(.39)
1.00*
(.47)
.30
(.18)
.33
(.21)
.16
(.30)
Log family income
Missing income (no)
.22***
(.06)
.15
(.11)
.05
(.15)
.31
(.27)
.07
(.07)
.01
(.14)
Mothers age
Mothers education
Childs age
Childs sex (female)
Importance of religion to
child
.01
(.01)
.16***
(.02)
.07*
(.03)
.96***
(.09)
.17**
(.05)
.01
(.02)
.04
(.05)
.21***
(.06)
2.01***
(.22)
.72***
(.15)
.02
(.01)
.05
(.03)
.09*
(.04)
.94***
(.12)
.25**
(.08)
Number of children in
household
.05
(.03)
0.001
(.08)
.04
(.05)
Family stability
Number of mothers
marriages
.16***
(.04)
.39**
(.15)
.15*
(.07)
Parenting
Monitoring .02
(.02)
.13
(.10)
.06
(.05)
Closeness to mother
Closeness to nonresident father
Missing closeness to
nonresident father (no)
.21***
(.05)
.06*
(.03)
.02
(.09)
1.18***
(.16)
.29***
(.08)
.16
(.24)
.55**
(.07)
.13**
(.06)
.06
(.12)
Intercept
F-value
b
R
2 c
.35**
3591.45
.01
.73
3225.41
.11
5.44***
4.84*
.00
13.97***
11.95***
.09
4.79**
2.03
.00
7.95***
7.73***
.06
errors are shown in parentheses.
a
Logistic regression was used for suspended or expelled, 1 yes.
b
The log likelihood is shown for the models predicting
suspension or expulsion.
c
The R
2
is the pseudo R
2
for the models predicting suspension or expulsion and low grade point
average.
*p .05. **p .01. ***p .001.
expelled as their counterparts living in single-
mother families (results not shown). The next row
indicates that adolescents living with single moth-
ers have similar odds of being expelled or sus-
pended from school as adolescents living with
their mother and her cohabiting partner. This is
true in both the bivariate and multivariate models.
In terms of delinquency, teens living in married
stepfather families have signicantly lower levels
than teens living in cohabiting stepfather families.
The results in the next column suggest that the
inclusion of the remaining covariates reduces but
does not fully explain the marital status effect.
The multivariate model indicates that teenagers
living in married rather than cohabiting stepparent
families have signicantly lower delinquency
scores. We also nd that teenagers living with
married stepfathers have lower levels of delin-
quency than teens living with single mothers (re-
sults not shown).
Delinquency is signicantly lower among ad-
olescents living with just their mother than those
living with their mother and her cohabiting part-
ner. Yet the next column includes all of the co-
variates and shows that these differences are no
longer statistically signicant. The effect of family
structure on delinquency is primarily explained by
the number of mothers marriages.
The last two columns in Table 4 present the
effects of the covariates on school problems. The
bivariate and multivariate model results show that
teenagers in cohabiting and married stepfather
families have similar levels of school problems.
Further analyses indicate that married stepfathers
and single mothers have similar school problems
(results not shown). The next row shows teenagers
living with single mothers and cohabiting partners
share similar levels of trouble in school.
The remaining covariates in Table 4 operate in
the expected direction and vary somewhat de-
pending on the particular outcome. Younger teen-
agers and boys consistently are more likely to ex-
perience problems. The indicator of importance of
religion is also negatively associated with problem
behaviors. The greater the number of mothers
marriages, the higher the incidence of problem be-
haviors. Closeness to mother as well as closeness
to nonresident father are associated with fewer
problem behaviors.
Further analyses of only teenagers living in
stepfamilies reveal that duration of the parental
relationship is usually not associated with adoles-
cent behavior problems (results not shown). We
also tested whether the effects of family type dif-
fer according to the duration of the parental rela-
tionship. Analyses of interaction effects indicate
that the effects of family type differ according to
duration for only one outcome, school problems
(results not shown). The effect of marital status
on school problems is greater early in the rela-
tionship and then diminishes at later union dura-
tions.
Table 5 shows the effects of cohabitation on
academic well-being, and the table format mirrors
Table 4. The rst column of Table 5 shows that
teenagers living in married stepfather families
have lower odds of earning low grades than teens
in cohabiting stepfather families. Yet the inclusion
of the remaining covariates (income in particular)
explains this difference. We also do not nd sta-
tistical differences between teens living in married
stepfamilies and single-mother families (results
not shown). The next row shows that adolescents
living with unmarried mothers who are cohabiting
have higher odds of having low grades than teens
living with single mothers. The inclusion of the
remaining covariates shifts the relationship be-
tween family structure and grades such that teens
in cohabiting stepparent and single-mother fami-
lies share similar odds of having low grades. The
family structure differences are explained by our
indicator of family stability, the number of moth-
ers marriages.
The next two columns present the effects of
family structure on verbal ability. At the bivariate
level, adolescents in married stepfather families
score higher on the vocabulary test than teens in
cohabiting stepfather families. The effect of co-
habitation is reduced with the inclusion of the ex-
planatory variables; however, the family effect is
marginally signicant (p .06). In contrast, teen-
agers living in married stepfather and single-
mother families share similar levels of verbal abil-
ity (results not shown). Adolescents living in
unmarried mother families without cohabiting
partners and with cohabiting partners have statis-
tically similar verbal ability scores, suggesting
that teensmothers cohabitation status is not re-
lated to cognitive development.
The last two columns focus on college expec-
tations. The bivariate results demonstrate that ad-
olescents living in married stepfather families pos-
sess higher college expectations than adolescents
living in cohabiting stepfamilies. The nal col-
umn, however, shows that these family structure
differences no longer persist when the remaining
covariates are included. The positive effect of
marriage on college expectations reduces to non-
signicance when income or mothers education
is included in the model. Similarly, teenagers liv-
ing with married stepfathers and single mothers
do not differ in terms of college expectations (re-
sults not shown). In both bivariate and multivari-
ate models, youth living in cohabiting stepfather
families and single-mother families share similar
expectations for college. Among children living
TABLE 5. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS ESTIMATES OF ADOLESCENT ACADEMIC OUTCOMES (N 5,504)
Low Grade Point
Average
a
Model 1 Model 2
Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test
Model 1 Model 2
College Expectations
Model 1 Model 2
Family structure (Cohabiting stepfather)
Married stepfather
Single mother
.38*
(.18)
.33*
(.16)
.11
(.19)
.20
(.18)
4.21***
(.99)
.36
(.98)
1.65
(.86)
1.29
(.80)
.13*
(.06)
.09
(.07)
.06
(.07)
.04
(.06)
Race (White)
Black
Hispanic
Other
Log family income
.03
(.15)
.20
(.18)
.03
(.23)
.20**
8.62***
(.77)
6.17***
(.98)
2.91*
(1.12)
1.97***
.11*
(.05)
.03
(.08)
.14*
(.07)
.09***
Missing income (no)
Mothers age
Mothers education
Childs age
(.06)
.37*
(.18)
.01
(.01)
.09**
(.03)
.04
(.03)
(.33)
2.39***
(.64)
.03
(.05)
1.51***
(.14)
.49**
(.16)
(.02)
.09
(.06)
0.004
(.003)
.05***
(.01)
.09***
(.01)
Childs sex (female)
Importance of religion
to child
Number of children
in household
.48***
(.11)
.16*
(.08)
.03
(.04)
1.64***
(.46)
.58
(.39)
1.00***
(.19)
.20***
(.04)
.11***
(.03)
.01
(.02)
Family stability
Number of mothers
marriages
.13**
(.05)
.37
(.31)
.03
(.02)
Parenting
Monitoring
Closeness to mother
Closeness to nonresident
father
Missing closeness to
nonresident father (no)
.04
(.03)
.22**
(.07)
.09*
(.04)
.12
(.12)
1.29***
(.20)
.96***
(.30)
.08
(.23)
1.80***
(.49)
.02
(.02)
.08***
(.02)
.04*
(.02)
.10
(.05)
Intercept
F-value
b
R
2 c
1.43***
1778.52
.08
1.75*
2245.05
.04
97.74***
.11
.01
95.39***
45.68***
.26
4.28**
2.03
.001
4.20***
12.54***
.07
errors are shown in parentheses.
a
Logistic regression was employed for low grade point average (1 low grades).
b
The log likelihood is shown for the
models predicting low grade point average.
c
The R
2
is the pseudo R
2
for the models predicting suspension or expulsion and
low grade point average.
*p .05. **p .01. ***p .001.
with unmarried mothers, the cohabiting parent
does not appear to improve or worsen adolescents
school aspirations.
In terms of the remaining covariates, we nd
minority youth more often have lower academic
outcomes than Whites. Mothers education, family
income, and religiosity are associated with higher
academic achievement. Boys have lower college
expectations and grades than girls. Closeness to
mothers and nonresident fathers is related to high-
er college expectations and grades. Additional
analyses of just teenagers in stepfamilies show
that the quality of parental relationships and du-
ration of parental relationship are not associated
with most adolescent academic outcomes. One ex-
ception is that duration of stepparents relationship
is positively tied to adolescent college expecta-
tions.
DISCUSSION
Recent debates have emerged about the advantage
of marriage for adults and children (e.g., Waite &
Gallagher, 2000). Adolescents in married, two-bi-
ological-parent families generally fare better than
children in any of the family types examined here,
including single-mother, cohabiting stepfather, and
married stepfather families. The advantage of
marriage appears to exist primarily when the child
is the biological offspring of both parents. Our
ndings are consistent with previous work, which
demonstrates children in cohabiting stepparent
families fare worse than children living with two
married, biological parents (e.g., Acs & Nelson,
2002; Brown, 2001; DeLeire & Kalil, 2002; Hao
& Xie, 2001).
Researchers argue that we need to expand our
traditional understanding of stepfamily life to in-
clude cohabiting stepfamilies (Stewart, 2001). The
marital status of men in stepfamilies appears to
inuence adolescent well-being. Among adoles-
cents living in stepfamilies, those living with mar-
ried rather than cohabiting mothers are sometimes
advantaged, although this is not consistent across
all outcomes. At the bivariate level, teenagers liv-
ing with married stepfamilies experience more
positive behavioral and academic outcomes (ex-
cept school problems), than teens living in cohab-
iting stepfamilies. Yet, at the multivariate level,
many of the observed family structure differences
can be explained by the covariates in our models.
Differences in delinquency attributable to cohab-
itation and marital status, however, cannot be ex-
plained by the factors included in our model. Ad-
ditional data about the relationship between
cohabiting and married stepfathersrelationships
to their wives and partnerschildren may help to
explain this marriage advantage. We lack mea-
surement of role ambiguity, which may serve to
distinguish parenting roles in cohabiting and mar-
ried stepfamilies. Married stepfathers may have a
more clearly dened obligation to their stepchil-
dren than cohabiting stepfathers (Hofferth & An-
derson, 2003). The act of remarriage may carry
with it a more pronounced expectation of stepfa-
ther involvement (e.g., spending time with step-
children and contributing nancially to their up-
bringing) that has positive consequences for child
well-being.
The results from this paper suggest that teen-
agers living with unmarried mothers do not seem
to benet from the presence of their mothers co-
habiting partner. We argued at the outset that it
may be important to distinguish between unmar-
ried mothers who are cohabiting and those living
alone. In terms of adolescent outcomes, we do not
appear to gain much by distinguishing between
cohabiting stepfather and single-mother families.
We do nd differences at the bivariate level, how-
ever, in terms of delinquency and low grades in
school. Thus, as found in the stepfamily literature
(e.g., Coleman et al., 2000), mens presence alone
seems neither sufcient nor necessary to create
positive outcomes for children. Indeed, our results
show that stepfathers (married or cohabiting) pro-
vide limited benet when contrasted with single-
mother families. Our ndings suggest that neither
parental cohabitation nor marriage to a partner or
spouse who is not related to the child (stepfamily
formation) is associated with uniform advantage
in terms of behavioral or academic indicators to
teenagers living in single-mother families. These
results are consistent with research focusing on
behavior problems (Acs & Nelson, 2002; Morri-
son, 1998). Our ndings are not consistent with
Nelson et al. (2001) who reported negative effects
of parental cohabitation. One explanation may be
that we explain our negative effects of parental
cohabitation on delinquency and grade point av-
erage by mothers marriage history, a variable that
is not included in the data set used by Nelson et
al.
We attempt to capture the uidity and stability
of families. Our core measure of family stability,
the number of the mothers prior marriage-like re-
lationships (during the childs lifetime), is an im-
portant contributor to childrens well-being. Moth-
ers relationship history is related to many
adolescent outcomes. In fact, this measure ex-
plains differences in delinquency and low grade
point average among teenagers living with cohab-
iting stepfathers and single mothers. This is con-
sistent with researchers who emphasize the im-
portance of family stability rather than family
structure for predicting child well-being (Hao &
Xie, 2001; Hill et al., 2001; Wu & Martinson,
1993). We also evaluate whether family structure
effects differ according to duration of the rela-
tionship. In stepfamilies, duration of the current
relationship is only related to college expectations.
Perhaps the stability of the relationship reects the
stepfathers willingness to provide nancial assis-
tance for college. This is similar to ndings re-
ported by Hao and Xie (2001), that time spent in
the current union is not associated with child mis-
behavior. We nd that family structure effects do
not differ according to duration of the stepparents
relationship, except for school problems. This
suggests that the effect of cohabitation is typically
similar when stepfamilies rst form and during
later years.
We try to account for economic status (moth-
ers education and family income), and similar to
prior studies nd that economic circumstances are
associated with adolescent well-being (e.g., Dun-
can & Brooks-Gunn, 1997). These factors are par-
ticularly important for understanding differences
in the effect of cohabitation in stepfamilies. Most
of the bivariate differences based on parental mar-
ital or cohabitation status in stepfamilies are ex-
plained by socioeconomic factors (e.g., family in-
come, race or ethnicity, mothers education,
childs sex and age). Thus, the higher levels of
mothers education and family income observed
in married stepfather families explains some of the
differences in child outcomes in stepfather fami-
lies.
Our ndings also speak to how parenting and
the complexity of family inuence childrens
lives. Parental control is not uniformly associated
with better teenage outcomes, but this measure is
not capturing early adolescent parenting and fo-
cuses narrowly on limit setting. With regard to
parental support, we nd that closeness of teens
to their biological mothers and nonresident fathers
is positively related to many indicators of adoles-
cent well-being and is more often a signicant
predictor of adolescent outcomes than parental
monitoring. Hence, our ndings appear to be more
consistent with attachment than with social control
theories of child development. Our work suggests
that it is important to account not only for the
structure of families, but also for the nature of
relationships that exist within and across house-
holds. Another measure, which could be consid-
ered to be part of family life socialization, is re-
ligiosity, and we observe similar levels across
family types. We nd that the teens who were
more religious than other teens fared better in
terms of behavior and academic outcomes, but
this variable does not explain the effects of family
structure.
This paper suffers from several shortcomings.
First, we employ cross-sectional data, so our nd-
ings are suggestive because longitudinal analyses
are necessary to accurately evaluate how parental
cohabitation or marriage causes changes in an ad-
olescents well-being (see Hao & Xie, 2001). For
example, we may nd that mothers with children
who have greater behavior problems and poor
school performance are more likely to cohabit
than marry. Thus, there could be selection into
family types based on the adolescent behaviors. In
a similar vein, the causal nature of the covariates
is not clearly specied in our models. Our covar-
iates represent factors that may be related to entry
into specic types of families (e.g., education or
religiosity) as well as effects of family structure
(e.g., income). We are not able to account for se-
lection in our models, but we believe that we have
provided important baseline information about pa-
rental cohabitation and adolescent well-being.
Second, some potentially important variables are
omitted from our analyses. Measures that tap into
stepfamily processes, such as relationships with
cohabiting stepfathers or parenting problems in
stepparent families, are not available in the Add
Health. As discussed above, stepfathers who are
cohabiting may face quite different parenting cir-
cumstances than stepfathers who are married. An-
other factor that is associated with child well-be-
ing and found to be important among cohabiting
families is maternal depression (Brown, 2001).
Unfortunately, measures of maternal depression
are not included in the Add Health. Finally, our
measure of economic circumstances is far from
ideal. There is a high level of missing data on
family income in the Add Health. We hoped to
alleviate this limitation by accounting for mothers
education, but acknowledge it is not a substitute
for income.
The issue of cohabitation and child develop-
ment has become more important as cohabitation
has become an increasingly large part of chil-
drens family experiences (Bumpass & Lu, 2000;
Graefe & Lichter, 1999). The ndings from this
paper represent an initial step toward understand-
ing the implications of parental cohabitation on
adolescent well-being. Research that focuses on
younger children and examines the well-being of
children born into cohabiting parent families is
warranted. Future efforts must consider potential
selection issues from both the adults and childs
perspective as well as model the uid nature of
cohabiting unions.
NOTE
This research was supported in part by the Center for
Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green
State University, which has core funding from the Na-
tional Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment (R21 HD042831-01). This paper was presented at
the annual meeting of the American Sociological As-
sociation in Annaheim, California, August 2001. The
authors have beneted from comments provided by par-
ticipants at the Ohio State University Initiative in Pop-
ulation Research; the University of Chicago Alfred P.
Sloan Center on Parents, Children, and Work; the Ofce
of Population Research at Princeton University; and the
University of Texas Population Research Center. In ad-
dition, Susan Brown, Larry Bumpass, Steven Demuth,
Peggy Giordano, Monica Longmore, Laura Sanchez,
Pamela Smock, and Susan Stewart have provided valu-
able comments and suggestions. This research uses data
from Add Health, a program project designed by J.
Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan
Harris, and funded by grant P01-HD31921 from the Na-
tional Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment, with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies.
Special acknowledgment is due Ronald R. Rindfuss and
Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design.
Contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123
West Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524
(www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth/contract html) to obtain
the data.
REFERENCES
Acs, G., & Nelson, S. (2001). Honey, Im home. Chang-
es in living arrangements in the late 1990s (New Fed-
eralism National Survey of Americas Families B-
38). Washington DC: Urban Institute.
Acs, G., & Nelson, S. (2002). The kids alright? Chil-
drens well-being and the rise in cohabitation (New
Federalism National Survey of Americas Families B-
48). Washington DC: Urban Institute.
Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident fa-
thers and childrens well-being: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 557573.
Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent
development: In R. Lerner, A. C. Petersen, & J.
Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Encyclopedia of adolescence
(pp. 746759). New York: Garland.
Bearman, P., Jones, J., & Udry, R. (1997). The National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Chapel Hill,
NC: University of North Carolina.
Brown, S. (2001,March). Child well-being in cohabiting
unions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Population Association of America, Washington, DC.
Brown, S. (2002). Child well-being in cohabiting fam-
ilies. In A. Booth & A. Crouter (Eds.), Just living
together: Implications of cohabitation for children,
families and social policy (pp. 173188). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M.
(1996). Adolescents after divorce. Cambridge, MA:
Bumpass, L. (1994,December). The declining signi-
cance of marriage: Changing family life in the United
States. Paper presented at the Potsdam International
Conference, The Netherlands.
Bumpass, L., & Lu, H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation
and implications for childrens family contexts. Pop-
ulation Studies, 54, 2941.
Carlson, M., & Corcoran, M. (2001). Family structure
and childrens behavioral and cognitive outcomes.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 779792.
Chantala, K., & Tabor, J. (1999). Strategies to perform
a design-based analysis using the Add Health data.
Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, Uni-
versity of North Carolina.
Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Reinves-
tigating remarriage: Another decade of progress.
DeLeire, T., & Kalil, A. (2002). Good things come in
3s: Single-parent multigenerational family structure
and adolescent adjustment. Demography, 39, 393
342.
Duncan, G., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (Eds.). (1997). Conse-
quences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Dunifon, R., & Kowaleski-Jones, L. (2002). Whos in
the house? Race differences in cohabitation, single
parenthood and child development. Child Develop-
ment, 73, 12491264.
Durst, R. (1997). Ties that bind: Drafting enforceable
cohabitation agreements. New Jersey Law Journal,
147, S13S14.
Fields, J. (2001). Living arrangements of children. Cur-
rent Population Reports, 7074.
Fields, J., & Casper, L. (2000). Americas families and
living arrangements. Current Population Reports,
20537.
Graefe, D. R., & Lichter, D. T. (1999). Life course tran-
sitions of American children: Parental cohabitation,
marriage, and single parenthood. Demography, 36,
205217.
Hanson, T., McLanahan, S., & Thomson, E. (1997).
Economic resources, parental practices, and chil-
drens well-being. In G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn
(Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor (pp. 190
238). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hao, L., & Xie, G. (2001). The complexity and endo-
genity of family structure in explaining childrens
misbehavior. Social Science Research, 31, 128.
Hill, M., Yeung, W., & Duncan, G. (2001). Childhood
family structure and young adult behaviors. Journal
of Population Economics, 14, 271299.
Hofferth, S., & Anderson, K. (2003). Are all dads
equal? Biology versus marriage as a basis for paternal
investment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65,
213232.
Mahoney, M. (2002). The economic rights and respon-
sibilities of unmarried cohabitants. In A. Booth & A.
Crouter (Eds.), Just living together: Implications of
cohabitation on families, children, and social policy
(pp. 247254). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Manning, W. (2002). The implications of cohabitation
for childrens well-being. In A. Booth & A. Crouter
(Eds.), Just living together: Implications of cohabi-
tation on families, children, and social policy (pp.
121152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Manning, W., & Lichter, D. (1996). Parental cohabita-
tion and childrens economic well-being. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 58, 9981010.
Manning, W., Smock, P., & Majumdar, D. (2003). The
relative stability of cohabiting and marital unions for
children. Population Research and Policy Review.
McLanahan, S. (1997). Parent absence or poverty:
Which matters more? In G. Duncan & J. Brooks-
Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor (pp.
3548). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up
with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Morrison, D. R. (1998,March). Child well-being in step
families and cohabiting unions following divorce: A
dynamic appraisal. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Population Association of America,
Chicago, IL.
Morrison, D. R. (2000,March). The costs of economic
uncertainty: Child well-being in cohabitating and re-
married unions following parental divorce. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population
Association of America, Los Angeles, CA.
Nelson, S., Clark, R., & Acs, G. (2001). Beyond the
two-parent family: How teenagers fare in cohabiting
couple and blended families. (New Federalism Na-
tional Survey of Americas Families B-31). Washing-
ton, DC: Urban Institute.
OConnor, T. G., Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel,
W. G. (1997). Systems and bi-directional inuences
in families. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 14, 491504.
Stewart, S. (2001). Contemporary American steppar-
enthood: Integrating cohabiting and nonresident step-
parents. Population Research and Policy Review, 20,
345364.
Thomson, E., Hanson, T., & McLanahan, S. (1994).
Family structure and child well-being: Economic re-
sources vs. parental behavior. Social Forces, 73, 221
242.
Thomson, E., McLanahan, S., & Curtin, R. B. (1992).
Family structure, gender, and parental socialization.
Udry, J. R. (1998). The National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health (Add Health), Waves I & II, 1994
1996 [Data le]. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Popula-
tion Center, University of North Carolina.
Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for mar-
riage. New York: Doubleday.
White, L., & Gilbreth, J. (2001). When children have
two fathers: Effects of relationships with stepfathers
and noncustodial fathers on adolescent outcomes.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 155167.
Wu, L., & Martinson, B. (1993). Family structure and
the risk of a premarital birth. American Sociological
Review, 58, 210232.

EXHIBIT 26
...
COf>yright "f) 1994 by the' President "nd hUows o( I Ltrv.ml
Culkge
All right; reserv,cd
Printed in (he United St,tt..'"' ot ,'\n,,:';u
This book ie on :reid-free p:rf>cr, Jnd its binding
l11Jtcri,us h"ve been chosen [or strength Jnd dur,lbility.
Livr,1ry vf Dlltll
McLtn,than, S"rJ.
Crowing up \Vilh ;1 single p;lrcnt : what hUrlS, wh;tt helps /
S:rra McLJn:rhan, Gary SJnde[ur
p. em.
hlcludes bibliogrJphic:r1 references and index.
ISBN 0-674-36,j()7-4
1. Children o[ sl11gk pJrent..-United StJtes, 2. Single-pJrent
[Jmill-United St:rtes. I. S"ndefur, GJry D., 1951- II. TItle.
HQ777.4.M39 1994
3Ci6.i:\5'b-dc21(
94-1\.)995
CIP
For Sara, Jay, :md
Anna McLanahan,
Leah dnd Lynn Garfinkel,
Becky and Carol Sandefur
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
W
H
Y
W
E
C
A
R
E
A
B
O
U
T
S
I
N
G
L
E
P
A
R
E
N
T
H
O
O
D
I
n
t
h
e
s
u
m
m
e
r
o
f
1
9
9
2
,
t
h
e
V
i
c
e
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
U
n
i
t
e
d
S
t
a
t
e
s
,
D
a
n
Q
u
a
y
l
e
,
c
o
n
d
e
m
n
e
d
M
u
r
p
h
y
B
r
o
w
n
-
t
h
e
l
e
a
d
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
n
a
p
o
p
u
l
a
r
t
e
l
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
h
o
w
-
f
o
r
g
i
v
i
n
g
b
i
r
t
h
o
u
t
o
f
w
e
d
l
o
c
k
.
I
n
d
o
i
n
g
s
o
h
e
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
u
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
o
n
s
i
Y
l
g
l
e
m
o
t
h
-
e
r
s
a
n
d
r
e
o
p
e
n
e
d
a
n
o
l
d
d
e
b
a
t
e
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
s
o
f
f
a
m
i
l
y
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
f
o
r
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
a
n
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
a
w
h
o
l
e
.
T
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
w
a
s
i
n
t
e
n
s
e
a
n
d
s
h
a
r
p
l
y
d
i
v
i
d
e
d
.
S
o
m
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
r
g
u
e
d
t
h
a
t
s
i
n
g
l
e
m
o
t
h
e
r
h
o
o
d
h
a
d
n
o
k
n
o
w
n
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
s
e
-
q
u
e
n
c
e
s
f
o
r
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
.
O
t
h
e
r
s
c
l
a
i
m
e
d
i
t
w
a
s
t
h
e
m
a
j
o
r
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
c
h
i
l
d
p
o
v
e
r
t
y
,
d
e
l
i
n
q
u
e
n
c
y
,
a
n
d
h
i
g
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
.
A
n
d
s
t
i
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
s
a
r
g
u
e
d
t
h
a
t
e
v
e
n
i
f
s
i
n
g
l
e
m
o
t
h
e
r
h
o
o
d
w
e
r
e
h
a
r
m
f
u
l
i
n
s
o
m
e
w
a
y
,
w
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
s
a
y
s
o
f
o
r
f
e
a
r
o
f
s
t
i
g
m
a
t
i
z
i
n
g
s
i
n
g
l
e
m
o
t
h
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
.
i
W
e
d
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
w
i
t
h
a
l
l
t
h
r
e
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
F
i
r
s
t
,
w
e
r
e
j
e
c
t
t
h
e
c
l
a
i
m
t
h
a
t
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
r
a
i
s
e
d
b
y
o
n
l
y
o
n
e
p
a
r
e
n
t
d
o
j
u
s
t
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
r
a
i
s
e
d
b
y
b
o
t
h
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
.
W
e
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
s
t
u
d
y
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
e
n
y
e
a
r
s
,
a
n
d
i
n
o
u
r
o
p
i
n
i
o
n
t
h
e
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
i
s
q
u
i
t
e
c
l
e
a
r
:
C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
w
h
o
g
r
o
w
u
p
i
n
a
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
w
i
t
h
o
n
l
y
o
n
e
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
p
a
r
e
n
t
a
r
e
w
o
r
s
e
o
f
f
,
o
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
,
t
h
a
n
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
w
h
o
g
r
o
w
u
p
i
n
a
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
w
i
t
h
b
o
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
,
r
e
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
'
r
a
c
e
o
r
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
,
r
e
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
r
1
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
m
a
r
r
i
e
d
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
c
h
i
l
d
i
s
b
o
r
n
,
a
n
d
r
e
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
o
f
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
p
a
r
e
n
t
r
e
m
a
r
r
i
e
s
.
C
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
e
e
n
-
2
G
r
l
l
l
v
i
n
g
U
p
w
i
t
h
a
S
i
n
g
l
e
P
a
r
e
n
t
a
g
e
r
s
o
f
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
h
o
g
r
o
w
u
p
w
i
t
h
b
o
t
h
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
a
t
h
o
m
e
,
a
d
o
l
e
s
c
e
n
t
s
w
h
o
h
a
v
e
l
i
v
e
d
a
p
a
r
t
f
r
o
m
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
s
o
m
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
c
h
i
l
d
h
o
o
d
a
r
e
t
w
i
c
e
a
s
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
d
r
o
p
o
u
t
o
f
h
i
g
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
,
t
w
i
c
e
a
s
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
h
a
v
e
a
c
h
i
l
d
b
e
f
o
r
e
a
g
e
t
w
e
n
t
y
,
a
n
d
o
n
e
a
n
d
a
h
a
l
f
t
i
m
e
s
a
s
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
b
e
"
i
d
l
e
"
-
-
-
o
u
t
o
f
s
c
h
o
o
l
a
n
d
o
u
t
o
f
w
o
r
k
-
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
l
a
t
e
t
e
e
n
s
a
n
d
e
a
r
l
y
t
w
e
n
t
i
e
s
.
B
u
t
a
r
e
s
i
n
g
l
e
m
o
t
h
e
r
h
o
o
d
a
n
d
f
a
t
h
e
r
a
b
s
e
n
c
e
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
t
h
e
r
o
o
t
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
c
h
i
l
d
p
o
v
e
r
t
y
,
s
c
h
o
o
l
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
,
a
n
d
j
u
v
e
n
i
l
e
d
e
l
i
n
q
u
e
n
c
y
?
O
u
r
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
l
e
a
d
u
s
t
o
s
a
y
n
o
.
W
h
i
l
e
l
i
v
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
j
u
s
t
o
n
e
p
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
t
h
e
r
i
s
k
o
f
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
o
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
,
i
t
i
s
n
o
t
t
h
e
o
n
l
y
,
o
r
e
v
e
n
t
h
e
m
a
j
o
r
,
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
m
.
G
r
o
w
i
n
g
u
p
w
i
t
h
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
p
a
r
e
n
t
i
s
j
u
s
t
o
n
e
a
m
o
n
g
m
a
n
y
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
t
h
a
t
p
u
t
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
a
t
r
i
s
k
o
f
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
,
j
u
s
t
a
s
l
a
c
k
o
f
e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
I
S
o
n
l
y
o
n
e
a
m
o
n
g
m
a
n
y
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
t
h
a
t
p
u
t
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
t
r
i
s
k
f
o
r
h
e
a
r
t
d
i
s
e
a
s
e
.
M
a
n
y
p
e
o
p
l
e
w
h
o
d
o
n
'
t
e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
n
e
v
e
r
s
u
f
f
e
r
a
h
e
a
r
t
a
t
t
a
c
k
,
a
n
d
m
a
n
y
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
r
a
i
s
e
d
b
y
s
i
n
g
l
e
m
o
t
h
e
r
s
g
r
o
w
u
p
t
o
b
e
q
u
i
t
e
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
.
O
n
e
w
a
y
t
o
a
s
s
e
s
s
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
f
f
a
m
i
l
y
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
o
n
a
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
u
c
h
a
s
h
i
g
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
i
s
t
o
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
t
h
e
d
r
o
p
o
u
t
r
a
t
e
o
f
a
l
l
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
d
r
o
p
o
u
t
r
a
t
e
o
f
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
i
n
t
w
o
-
p
a
r
e
n
t
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
h
a
v
e
s
u
f
f
e
r
e
d
n
o
d
i
s
r
u
p
t
i
o
n
.
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
1
9
8
0
s
,
t
h
e
d
r
o
p
o
u
t
r
a
t
e
w
a
s
a
b
o
u
t
1
9
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
a
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
1
3
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
o
r
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
w
h
o
l
i
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
i
r
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
.
2
S
o
e
v
e
n
i
f
t
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
n
o
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
i
s
r
u
p
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
h
i
g
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
d
r
o
p
o
u
t
r
a
t
e
w
o
u
l
d
s
t
i
l
l
b
e
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
1
3
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
.
C
l
e
a
r
l
y
,
m
o
s
t
s
c
h
o
o
l
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
i
s
b
e
i
n
g
c
a
u
s
e
d
b
y
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
o
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
s
i
n
g
l
e
m
o
t
h
e
r
h
o
o
d
.
B
u
t
j
u
s
t
a
s
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
,
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
w
i
t
h
a
n
a
b
s
e
n
t
p
a
r
e
n
t
a
r
e
a
t
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
r
i
s
k
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
i
r
p
e
e
r
s
w
h
o
h
a
v
e
t
w
o
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
a
t
h
o
m
e
.
F
i
n
a
l
l
y
,
w
e
r
e
j
e
c
t
t
h
e
a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
p
e
o
p
l
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
t
a
l
k
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
s
o
f
s
i
n
g
l
e
m
o
t
h
e
r
h
o
o
d
f
o
r
f
e
a
r
o
f
s
t
i
g
-
m
a
t
i
z
i
n
g
s
i
n
g
l
e
m
o
t
h
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
.
W
h
i
l
e
w
e
a
p
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
e
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
l
i
e
s
b
e
h
i
n
d
t
h
i
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
,
w
e
d
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
b
o
t
t
o
m
l
i
n
e
.
I
n
d
e
e
d
,
w
e
b
e
l
i
e
v
e
t
h
a
t
n
o
t
t
a
l
k
i
n
g
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
s
e
p
r
o
b
-
l
e
m
s
d
o
e
s
m
o
r
e
h
a
r
m
t
h
a
n
g
o
o
d
.
N
e
a
r
l
y
a
t
h
i
r
d
o
f
i
n
f
a
n
t
s
b
o
r
n
t
o
d
a
y
a
r
e
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
o
f
u
n
m
a
r
r
i
e
d
m
o
t
h
e
r
s
.
O
f
t
h
e
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
b
o
r
n
t
o
m
a
r
r
i
e
d
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
,
a
b
o
u
t
4
S
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
r
e
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
t
h
e
i
r
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
'
d
i
v
o
r
c
e
b
e
f
o
r
e
r
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
a
g
e
e
i
g
h
t
e
e
n
.
3
I
n
o
t
h
e
r
w
o
r
d
s
,
w
e
l
l
o
v
e
r
h
a
l
f
o
f
t
h
e
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
b
o
r
n
i
n
1
9
9
2
w
i
l
l
s
p
e
n
d
a
l
l
o
r
s
o
m
e
o
f
f
,
V
h
y
w
e
C
a
r
e
3
t
h
e
i
r
c
h
i
l
d
h
o
o
d
a
p
a
r
t
f
r
o
m
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
.
I
f
w
e
w
a
n
t
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
t
o
h
e
l
p
t
h
e
s
e
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
,
a
n
d
i
f
w
e
w
a
n
t
t
o
p
e
r
s
u
a
d
e
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
t
h
a
t
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
t
r
y
t
o
h
e
l
p
,
w
e
m
u
s
t
b
e
g
i
n
b
y
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
a
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
u
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
'
s
y
o
u
t
h
i
s
a
t
r
i
s
k
.
W
h
i
l
e
t
a
l
k
i
n
g
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
d
o
w
n
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
i
n
g
l
e
m
o
t
h
e
r
h
o
o
d
m
a
y
m
a
k
e
s
o
m
e
a
d
u
l
t
s
(
a
n
d
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
)
f
e
e
l
w
o
r
s
e
o
f
f
i
n
t
h
e
s
h
o
r
t
r
u
n
,
i
t
m
a
y
m
a
k
e
e
v
e
r
y
o
n
e
b
e
t
t
e
r
o
f
f
i
n
t
h
e
l
o
n
g
r
u
n
.
A
t
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
,
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
n
e
e
d
t
o
b
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
e
d
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
c
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
o
f
a
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
t
o
l
i
v
e
a
p
a
r
t
.
(
N
o
o
n
e
w
o
u
l
d
a
r
g
u
e
t
h
a
t
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
o
f
e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
w
i
t
h
-
h
e
l
d
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
i
t
s
t
i
g
m
a
t
i
z
e
s
c
o
u
c
h
p
o
t
a
t
o
e
s
.
)
I
n
t
h
i
s
b
o
o
k
,
w
e
a
r
g
u
e
t
h
a
t
g
r
o
w
i
n
g
u
p
w
i
t
h
o
n
l
y
o
n
e
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
p
a
r
e
n
t
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
d
e
p
r
i
v
e
s
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
o
f
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
,
p
a
r
e
n
-
t
a
l
,
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
s
e
d
e
p
r
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
u
n
d
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
i
r
c
h
a
n
c
e
s
o
f
f
u
t
u
r
e
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
.
L
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
-
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
u
d
d
e
n
d
r
o
p
i
n
i
n
c
o
m
e
t
h
a
t
o
t
t
e
n
i
s
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
d
i
v
o
r
c
e
-
i
s
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
f
a
c
t
o
r
i
n
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
'
s
l
o
w
e
r
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
o
m
e
s
,
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
b
o
u
t
h
a
l
f
o
f
t
h
e
d
i
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
.
I
n
a
d
e
-
q
u
a
t
e
p
a
r
e
n
t
a
l
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
l
a
c
k
o
f
t
i
e
s
t
o
c
o
m
-
m
u
n
i
t
y
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
f
o
r
m
o
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
d
i
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
.
W
e
v
i
e
w
t
h
e
l
a
c
k
o
f
p
a
r
e
n
t
a
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
s
a
d
e
f
i
c
i
t
i
n
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
s
o
c
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
J
a
m
e
s
C
o
l
e
m
a
n
c
a
l
l
s
s
o
c
i
a
l
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
.
4
S
o
c
i
a
l
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
i
s
a
n
a
s
s
e
t
t
h
a
t
i
s
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
b
y
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
-
s
h
i
p
s
o
f
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
t
r
u
s
t
.
I
t
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
a
c
o
n
d
u
i
t
o
f
i
n
f
o
r
-
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
a
s
o
u
r
c
e
o
f
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
,
a
n
d
i
t
c
a
n
b
e
j
u
s
t
a
s
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
a
s
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
i
n
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
n
g
c
h
i
l
-
d
r
e
n
'
s
f
u
t
u
r
e
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
.
T
h
e
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
t
o
l
i
v
e
a
p
a
r
t
-
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
a
s
a
r
e
s
u
l
t
o
f
d
i
v
o
r
c
e
o
r
a
n
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
n
o
t
t
o
m
a
r
r
y
-
-
d
a
m
a
g
e
s
,
a
n
d
s
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
d
e
s
t
r
o
y
s
,
t
h
e
s
o
c
i
a
l
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
t
h
a
t
m
i
g
h
t
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
h
i
l
d
h
a
d
t
h
e
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
l
i
v
e
d
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
.
I
t
d
o
e
s
t
h
i
s
,
f
i
r
s
t
a
n
d
m
o
s
t
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
l
y
,
b
y
w
e
a
k
e
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
o
n
-
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
c
h
i
l
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
f
a
t
h
e
r
.
W
h
e
n
a
f
a
t
h
e
r
l
i
v
e
s
i
n
a
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
,
h
e
i
s
u
s
u
a
l
l
y
l
e
s
s
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
h
i
s
c
h
i
l
d
a
n
d
l
e
s
s
t
r
u
s
t
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
c
h
i
l
d
'
s
m
o
t
h
e
r
.
H
e
n
c
e
h
e
i
s
l
e
s
s
w
i
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
i
n
v
e
s
t
t
i
m
e
a
n
d
m
o
n
e
y
i
n
t
h
e
c
h
i
l
d
'
s
w
e
l
f
a
r
e
.
A
w
e
a
k
e
n
e
d
f
a
t
h
e
r
-
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
c
a
n
a
l
s
o
u
n
d
e
r
m
i
n
e
a
c
h
i
l
d
'
s
t
r
u
s
t
i
n
b
o
t
h
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
4
G
r
o
w
i
n
g
U
p
w
i
t
h
a
S
i
n
g
l
e
P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
h
i
s
u
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
,
m
a
k
i
n
g
h
i
m
m
o
r
e
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
t
o
m
a
n
a
g
e
.
A
n
d
f
m
a
l
l
y
,
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
i
s
r
u
p
t
i
o
n
m
a
y
r
e
d
u
c
e
a
c
h
i
l
d
'
s
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
s
o
c
i
a
l
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
t
h
e
f
a
m
i
l
y
b
y
w
e
a
k
e
n
i
n
g
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
a
d
u
l
t
s
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
j
t
y
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
h
i
l
d
h
a
d
t
h
e
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
f
a
t
h
e
r
r
e
m
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
t
a
c
t
.
T
h
i
s
c
a
n
h
a
p
p
e
n
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
f
a
t
h
e
r
m
o
v
e
s
o
u
t
o
f
t
o
w
n
,
b
r
e
a
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
l
i
n
k
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
c
h
i
l
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
f
a
t
h
e
r
s
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
o
f
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
a
n
d
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
o
r
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
m
o
t
h
e
r
a
n
d
c
h
i
l
d
m
o
v
e
t
o
a
n
e
w
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
o
r
c
i
t
y
,
b
r
e
a
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
h
i
l
d
'
s
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
n
o
t
J
u
s
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
f
a
t
h
e
r
b
u
r
w
i
t
h
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
,
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
,
a
n
d
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
.
W
e
b
a
s
e
o
u
r
c
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s
o
n
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
t
a
k
e
n
f
r
o
m
f
o
u
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
a
s
e
t
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
r
e
e
l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
a
n
d
a
f
o
u
r
t
h
s
u
r
v
e
y
w
i
t
h
r
e
t
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
a
o
n
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
'
s
l
i
v
i
n
g
a
r
r
a
n
g
e
.
:
-
m
e
n
t
s
g
r
o
w
i
n
g
u
p
.
(
E
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
d
a
t
a
s
e
t
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
a
j
o
r
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
,
i
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
d
e
t
a
i
l
i
n
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
.
)
W
e
e
x
a
m
i
n
e
a
w
i
d
e
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
c
h
i
l
d
o
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
h
i
g
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
g
r
a
d
e
s
a
n
d
g
r
a
d
u
-
a
t
i
o
n
,
c
o
l
l
e
g
e
a
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
i
o
n
,
e
a
r
l
y
c
h
i
l
d
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
r
r
i
a
g
e
,
a
n
d
e
a
r
l
y
l
a
b
o
r
f
o
r
c
e
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
.
W
h
i
l
e
t
h
i
s
s
e
t
o
f
o
u
t
-
c
o
m
e
s
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
c
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
w
e
l
l
-
b
e
i
n
g
,
w
e
b
e
l
i
e
v
e
i
t
i
s
a
g
o
o
d
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
o
f
a
c
h
i
l
d
'
s
c
h
a
n
c
e
s
o
f
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
i
n
a
d
u
l
t
-
h
o
o
d
,
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
a
s
b
e
i
n
g
a
b
l
e
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
o
n
e
s
e
l
f
a
t
a
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
o
f
l
i
v
i
n
g
a
b
o
v
e
t
h
e
p
o
v
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
a
n
d
b
e
i
n
g
a
b
l
e
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
s
t
e
a
d
y
.
i
n
c
o
m
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
y
e
a
r
a
n
d
f
r
o
m
o
n
e
y
e
a
r
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
.
W
h
i
l
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
a
r
e
n
o
t
t
h
e
o
n
l
y
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
o
f
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
,
i
n
a
m
a
r
k
e
t
-
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
e
c
o
n
o
m
y
s
u
c
h
a
s
o
u
r
s
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
f
u
n
d
a
m
e
n
t
a
l
.
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
s
o
m
e
d
e
g
r
e
e
o
f
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e
,
a
p
e
r
s
o
n
i
s
u
n
-
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
h
i
g
h
s
e
l
f
-
e
s
t
e
e
m
o
r
a
s
e
n
s
e
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
o
i
o
v
e
r
h
e
r
l
i
f
e
(
p
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
)
.
N
o
r
i
s
s
h
e
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
o
f
h
e
r
p
e
e
r
s
(
s
o
c
i
a
l
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
)
.
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
i
n
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
a
l
s
o
m
a
k
e
i
t
h
a
r
d
e
r
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
f
a
m
i
l
y
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
c
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
,
o
t
h
e
r
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
o
f
s
o
c
i
a
l
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
.
S
i
n
c
e
m
a
n
y
o
f
t
h
e
o
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
w
e
f
o
c
u
s
o
n
i
n
t
h
i
s
b
o
o
k
a
r
e
r
e
l
a
-
t
i
v
e
l
y
r
a
r
e
a
m
o
n
g
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
f
r
o
m
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
d
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
,
m
i
d
d
l
e
-
c
l
a
s
s
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
m
a
y
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
a
s
t
u
d
y
o
f
s
u
c
h
e
v
e
n
t
s
i
s
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
c
h
i
l
d
'
s
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
.
W
e
b
e
l
i
e
v
e
i
t
i
s
,
f
o
r
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
r
e
a
s
o
n
s
.
F
i
r
s
t
,
s
o
m
e
o
f
o
u
r
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
h
i
g
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
g
r
a
d
e
-
p
o
i
n
t
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
a
n
d
c
o
l
l
e
g
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
,
a
r
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
t
o
m
i
d
d
l
e
-
c
l
a
s
s
p
a
r
-
V
V
h
y
W
e
C
a
r
e
5
e
n
t
s
'
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
.
S
e
c
o
n
d
,
w
h
i
l
e
t
h
e
c
h
a
n
c
e
t
h
a
t
a
m
i
d
d
l
e
-
c
l
a
s
s
c
h
i
l
d
w
i
l
l
d
r
o
p
o
u
t
o
f
h
i
g
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
o
r
b
e
c
o
m
e
a
t
e
e
n
m
o
t
h
e
r
i
s
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
,
i
t
i
s
h
i
g
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
l
i
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
t
h
a
t
h
e
o
r
s
h
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
e
v
e
r
e
l
y
i
n
j
u
r
e
d
o
r
k
i
l
l
e
d
i
n
a
c
a
r
a
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
.
r
e
t
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
t
a
k
e
t
h
e
l
a
t
t
e
r
v
e
r
y
s
e
r
i
o
u
s
l
y
A
n
d
f
i
n
a
l
l
y
,
w
e
b
e
l
i
e
v
e
t
h
a
t
m
u
c
h
c
a
n
b
e
l
e
a
r
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
s
t
u
d
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
t
h
a
t
b
u
f
f
e
r
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
s
o
f
r
a
r
e
e
v
e
n
t
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
s
a
m
e
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
a
r
e
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
b
e
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
b
u
f
f
e
r
s
i
n
o
t
h
e
r
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
'
s
l
i
v
e
s
,
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
u
m
a
b
l
y
m
i
d
d
l
e
-
c
l
a
s
s
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
w
a
n
t
t
o
k
n
o
w
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
m
.
F
o
r
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,
o
u
r
s
t
u
d
y
s
h
o
w
s
t
h
a
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
l
o
s
s
a
n
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
m
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
m
a
y
b
e
j
u
s
t
a
s
d
a
m
a
g
i
n
g
f
o
r
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
a
s
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
a
n
d
l
i
v
i
n
g
i
n
a
p
o
o
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
T
h
i
s
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
s
t
h
a
t
,
i
n
t
h
e
e
v
e
n
t
o
f
a
d
i
v
o
r
c
e
,
m
i
d
d
l
e
-
c
l
a
s
s
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
m
a
k
e
a
n
e
f
f
o
r
t
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
a
s
t
a
b
l
e
i
n
c
o
m
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
r
c
h
i
l
d
a
n
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
i
m
e
s
t
h
e
c
h
i
l
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
o
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
T
h
e
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
d
o
t
h
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
l
o
w
e
r
t
h
e
r
i
s
k
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
i
r
t
e
e
n
a
g
e
d
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
m
i
g
h
t
b
e
c
o
m
e
p
r
e
g
n
a
n
t
o
r
d
r
o
p
o
u
t
o
f
h
i
g
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
(
u
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
e
v
e
n
t
s
i
n
d
i
v
o
r
c
e
d
m
i
d
d
l
e
-
c
l
a
s
s
f
a
n
l
i
l
i
e
5
)
b
u
t
t
o
l
o
v
v
c
r
t
h
e
r
i
s
k
t
h
a
t
h
e
r
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
a
c
o
l
l
e
g
e
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
d
e
c
l
i
n
e
.
I
n
m
o
s
t
o
f
o
u
r
a
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
,
o
u
r
f
a
m
i
l
y
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
m
e
i
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
w
o
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
:
(
1
)
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
o
r
n
o
t
a
c
h
i
l
d
w
a
s
l
i
v
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
b
o
t
h
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
a
t
a
g
e
s
i
x
t
e
e
n
;
a
n
d
,
i
f
n
o
t
,
(
2
)
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
c
u
s
-
t
o
d
i
a
l
p
a
r
e
n
t
w
a
s
m
a
r
r
i
e
d
o
r
n
o
t
.
W
e
t
r
e
a
t
a
l
l
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
t
w
o
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
a
l
i
k
e
,
e
v
e
n
t
h
o
u
g
h
w
e
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
t
h
a
t
s
o
m
e
p
a
r
-
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
p
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
l
y
"
a
b
s
e
n
t
"
d
e
s
p
i
t
e
l
i
v
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
h
o
u
s
e
-
h
o
l
d
a
s
t
h
e
i
r
c
h
i
l
d
,
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
s
o
m
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
o
r
d
i
v
o
r
c
e
d
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
e
c
l
o
s
e
t
o
t
h
e
i
i
"
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
a
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
y
2
.
r
e
l
i
v
i
n
g
i
n
2
d
i
i
f
e
r
e
t
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
.
C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
w
h
o
w
e
r
e
l
i
v
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
o
n
l
y
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
b
i
o
-
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
a
t
a
g
e
s
i
x
t
e
e
n
a
r
e
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
a
s
l
i
v
i
n
g
i
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
a
.
"
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
p
a
r
e
n
t
f
a
m
i
l
y
"
o
r
a
"
s
t
e
p
f
a
r
n
i
l
y
,
"
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
p
a
r
e
n
t
w
a
s
s
i
n
g
l
e
o
r
r
e
m
a
r
r
i
e
d
.
S
i
n
g
l
e
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
m
a
y
b
e
d
i
v
o
r
c
e
d
,
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
,
n
e
v
e
r
m
a
r
r
i
e
d
,
o
r
w
i
d
o
w
e
d
.
W
e
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
t
h
e
t
e
r
m
"
t
w
o
-
p
a
r
e
n
t
f
a
m
i
l
y
"
f
o
r
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
w
h
o
w
e
r
e
l
i
v
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
b
o
t
h
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
a
t
a
g
e
s
i
x
t
e
e
n
.
W
h
i
l
e
s
t
e
p
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
a
r
e
o
f
t
e
n
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
a
s
t
w
o
-
p
a
r
e
n
t
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
i
n
s
o
m
e
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
,
w
e
b
e
l
i
e
v
e
t
h
i
s
i
s
a
s
e
r
i
o
u
s
d
i
s
t
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
'
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
.
N
e
a
r
l
y
a
l
l
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
i
n
s
t
e
p
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
h
a
v
e
l
i
v
e
d
i
n
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
p
a
r
e
n
t
f
a
m
i
l
y
a
t
o
n
e

EXHIBIT 27

EXHIBIT 28

EXHIBIT 29

EXHIBIT 30
Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition
Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences
A Report from Family Scholars
WMM-Second-Ed.qxp 9/14/2005 12:11 PM Page 1
T
HIS STATEMENT comes from a team of family scholars chaired by
W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia, William
Doherty of the University of Minnesota, Norval Glenn of the
University of Texas, and Linda Waite of the University of Chicago. The
project is sponsored by the Institute for American Values. The Institute
is grateful to Maggie Gallagher for her research and editorial assistance
on the first edition, the National Fatherhood Initiative for its support of
the second edition, to Arthur E. Rasmussen for helping to initiate the
project, and to our financial contributors for their generous support.
On the cover: Woman Writing List That
Binds Two Hearts by Bonnie Timmons.
Bonnie Timmons/The Image Bank/
Getty Images.
Layout by Josephine Tramontano,
Institute for American Values.
2005, Institute for American Values. No
reproduction of the materials contained
herein is permitted without the written
permission of the Institute for American
Values.
First edition published 2002. Second edi-
tion 2005.
ISBN #978-1-931764-10-7
New York, NY 10023
Tel: (212) 246-3942
Fax: (212) 541-6665
Table of Contents
The Authors.............................................................................................
Introduction.............................................................................................
The Twenty-Six Conclusions: A Snapshot..............................................
The Twenty-Six Conclusions..................................................................
Family................................................................................................
Economics.........................................................................................
Physical Health and Longevity.........................................................
Mental Health and Emotional Well-Being........................................
Crime and Domestic Violence..........................................................
Conclusion...............................................................................................
Endnotes..................................................................................................
4
5
10
12
12
19
23
27
29
32
34
Page 4
The Authors
W. Bradford Wilcox, University of Virginia
William J. Doherty, University of Minnesota
Helen Fisher, Rutgers University
William A. Galston, University of Maryland
Norval D. Glenn, University of Texas at Austin
John Gottman, University of Washington (Emeritus)
Robert Lerman, American University
Annette Mahoney, Bowling Green State University
Barbara Markey, Creighton University
Howard J. Markman, University of Denver
Steven Nock, University of Virginia
David Popenoe, Rutgers University
Gloria G. Rodriguez, AVANCE, Inc.
Scott M. Stanley, University of Denver
Linda J. Waite, University of Chicago
Judith Wallerstein, University of California at Berkeley (Emerita)
Page 5
I
N ALL TOO MANY communities in the United States, especially poor
and minority ones, marriage is in retreat. The statistics tell part of the
story. In 1960, 5 percent of children were born outside of wedlock.
Today, 34 percent of children are born outside of wedlock. In 1960,
more than 67 percent of adults were married. Today, fewer than 56 per-
cent of adults are married. As a consequence, American children are
much less likely to spend their entire childhood in an intact, married
family than they were 50 years ago. Likewise, men and women are less
likely than they were 50 years ago to get married as a young adult and
stay married. The bottom line is this: The institution of marriage has less
of a hold over American men, women, and children than it did earlier
in the last century.
These trends are even more dramatic in minority and lower income
communities. In 2002, 68 percent of African American births and 44
percent of Latino births were out of wedlock, compared to 29 percent
of white births. Similarly, although only about 5 percent of college-
educated mothers have children out of wedlock, approximately 25
percent of mothers without a high school degree have children outside
marriage.
1
Most of the women in the latter group hail from low-income
families. African Americans and men and women without college
degrees are also significantly more likely to divorce than their Anglo
college-educated peers.
2
The changes that have swept over American families in the last two
generations have inspired a large body of social scientific research and
a growing number of marriage education programs aimed at better
preparing couples for marriage and better equipping couples with the
knowledge, values, and skills required for successful marriage in
todays world. This report, the second edition of Why Marriage
Matters, is an attempt to summarize the research into a succinct form
Why Marriage Matters
Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences
Introduction
Page 6
useful to Americans on all sides of ongoing family debates to report
what we know about the importance of marriage for our families and
for our society.
What does the social science tell us? In addition to reviewing research
on family topics covered in the first edition of the report, this report
highlights five new themes in marriage-related research.
Five New Themes
1. Even though marriage has lost ground in minority communities
in recent years, marriage has not lost its value in these com-
munities. This report shows that African Americans and Latinos
benefit from marriage in much the same way that Anglos benefit
from marriage. We also present evidence that marriage matters in
countries, such as Sweden, that have markedly different approaches
to public policy, social welfare, and religion than does the United
States. In other words, marriage is a multicultural institution.
2. An emerging line of research indicates that marriage benefits
poor Americans, and Americans from disadvantaged back-
grounds, even though these Americans are now less likely to
get and stay married. Among other findings, this report shows that
women from disadvantaged backgrounds who marry and stay mar-
ried are much less likely to suffer poverty or other material hardship
compared to their peers who do not marry.
3. Marriage seems to be particularly important in civilizing men,
turning their attention away from dangerous, antisocial, or
self-centered activities and towards the needs of a family.
Married men drink less, fight less, and are less likely to engage in
criminal activity than their single peers. Married husbands and
fathers are significantly more involved and affectionate with their
wives and children than men in cohabiting relationships (with and
without children). The norms, status rewards, and social support
offered to men by marriage all combine to help men walk down
the path to adult responsibility.
Page 7
4. Beyond its well-known contributions to adult health, marriage
influences the biological functioning of adults and children in
ways that can have important social consequences. For instance,
marriage appears to drive down testosterone in men, with clear
consequences for their propensity to aggression. Girls who grow up
in non-intact families especially girls who are exposed to unrelated
males in their homes are more likely to experience premature
sexual development and, consequently, are more likely to have a
teenage pregnancy. Thus, marriage, or the lack thereof, appears to
have important biosocial consequences for men, women, and children.
5. We find that the relationship quality of intimate partners is
related both to their marital status and, for married adults, to
the degree to which these partners are normatively committed
to marriage. So, claims that love, not marriage, are crucial to a
happy family life do not hold up. Marriage matters even or especially
when it comes to fostering high-quality intimate relationships.
In summarizing marriage-related findings, we acknowledge that social
science is better equipped to document whether certain social facts are
true than to say why they are true. We can assert more definitively that
marriage is associated with powerful social goods than that marriage is
the sole or main cause of these goods.
A Word about Selection Effects
Good research seeks to tease out selection effects, or the pre-existing
differences between individuals who marry, become unwed parents, or
divorce. Does divorce cause poverty, for example, or is it simply that
poor people are more likely to divorce? Good social science attempts to
distinguish between causal relationships and mere correlations in a variety
of ways. The studies cited here are for the most part based on large,
nationally representative samples that control for race, education,
income, and other confounding factors. In many, but not all cases, social
scientists have been able to use longitudinal data to track individuals as
they marry, divorce, or stay single, increasing our confidence that mar-
riage itself matters. Where the evidence is, in our view, overwhelming
Page 8
that marriage causes increases in well-being, we say so. Where the
causal pathways are not as well understood, we are more cautious.
We recognize that, absent random assignment to marriage, divorce, or
single parenting, social scientists must always acknowledge the possi-
bility that other factors are influencing outcomes. Reasonable scholars
may and do disagree on the existence and extent of such selection
effects and the extent to which marriage is causally related to the better
social outcomes reported here.
Nevertheless, scholarship is getting better in addressing selection effects.
For instance, in this report we summarize two divorce studies that follow
identical and non-identical adult twins in Australia to see to what extent
the effects of divorce on their children are genetic and to what extent
the effects of divorce on their children seem to be a consequence of
divorce itself. Methodological innovations like these, as well as complex
analyses using econometric models, are affording us greater confidence
that family structure exercises a causal influence for some outcomes.
Of course individual circumstances vary.
3
While divorce is associated
with increased risks of serious psychological and social problems for
children, for example, about 75 percent of children of divorce do not
suffer such problems (compared to approximately 90 percent of children
from intact families).
4
While marriage is a social good, not all marriages
are equal. Research does not generally support the idea that remarriage
is better for children than living with a single mother.
5
Unhappy
marriages do not have the same benefits as the average marriage.
6
Divorce or separation provides an important escape hatch for children
and adults in violent or high-conflict marriages. Families, communities,
and policy makers interested in distributing the benefits of marriage
more equally must do more than merely discourage legal divorce.
Despite its inherent limitations, good social science is a better guide to
social policy than uninformed opinion or prejudice. The public and
policy makers deserve to hear what research suggests about the conse-
quences of marriage and its absence for children and adults. This report
represents our best judgment of what the current social science evidence
reveals about the importance of marriage in our social system.
Page 9
Fundamental Conclusions
Here are our three fundamental conclusions:
1. Marriage is an important social good, associated with an impres-
sively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike.
2. Marriage is an important public good, associated with a range of
economic, health, educational, and safety benefits that help local,
state, and federal governments serve the common good.
3. The benefits of marriage extend to poor and minority com-
munities, despite the fact that marriage is particularly fragile in these
communities.
F
AMILY STRUCTURE and processes are of course only one factor
contributing to child and social well-being. Our discussion here is
not meant to minimize the importance of other social and eco-
nomic factors, such as poverty, child support, unemployment, teenage
childbearing, neighborhood safety, or the quality of education for both
parents and children. Marriage is not a panacea for all of our social ills.
For instance, when it comes to child well-being, research suggests that
family structure is a better predictor of childrens psychological and
social welfare, whereas poverty is a better predictor of childrens edu-
cational attainment.
7
But whether American society and, indeed, the world, succeeds or fails
in building a healthy marriage culture is clearly a matter of legitimate
public concern. In particular, marriage is an issue of paramount impor-
tance if we wish to help the most vulnerable members of our society:
the poor, minorities, and children.
Page 10
The Twenty-Six Conclusions: A Snapshot
Marriage increases the likelihood that fathers and mothers have
good relationships with their children.
Growing up outside an intact marriage increases the likelihood
that children will themselves divorce or become unwed parents.
Marriage, and a normative commitment to marriage, foster high-
quality relationships between adults, as well as between parents
and children.
Marriage has important biosocial consequences for adults and
children.
Family
Divorce and unmarried childbearing increase poverty for both
children and mothers.
Married couples seem to build more wealth on average than
singles or cohabiting couples.
Marriage reduces poverty and material hardship for disadvan-
taged women and their children.
Minorities benefit economically from marriage.
Married men earn more money than do single men with similar
education and job histories.
Parental divorce (or failure to marry) appears to increase chil-
drens risk of school failure.
Parental divorce reduces the likelihood that children will grad-
uate from college and achieve high-status jobs.
Economics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Page 11
Children who live with their own two married parents enjoy
better physical health, on average, than do children in other
family forms.
Parental marriage is associated with a sharply lower risk of
infant mortality.
Marriage is associated with reduced rates of alcohol and sub-
stance abuse for both adults and teens.
Married people, especially married men, have longer life expect-
ancies than do otherwise similar singles.
Marriage is associated with better health and lower rates of
injury, illness, and disability for both men and women.
Marriage seems to be associated with better health among
minorities and the poor.
Children whose parents divorce have higher rates of psycho-
logical distress and mental illness.
Divorce appears to increase significantly the risk of suicide.
Married mothers have lower rates of depression than do single
or cohabiting mothers.
Boys raised in single-parent families are more likely to engage
in delinquent and criminal behavior.
Marriage appears to reduce the risk that adults will be either
perpetrators or victims of crime.
Married women appear to have a lower risk of experiencing
domestic violence than do cohabiting or dating women.
A child who is not living with his or her own two married
parents is at greater risk for child abuse.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Page 12
Family
Marriage increases the likelihood that fathers and mothers
have good relationships with their children.
Mothers as well as fathers are affected by the absence of marriage.
Single mothers on average report more conflict with and less monitoring
of their children than do married mothers.
8
As adults, children from
intact marriages report being closer to their mothers on average than do
children of divorce.
9
In one nationally representative study, 30 percent
of young adults whose parents divorced reported poor relationships
with their mothers, compared to 16 percent of children whose parents
stayed married.
10
But childrens relationships with their fathers depend even more on
marriage than do childrens relationships with their mothers. Sixty-five
percent of young adults whose parents divorced had poor relationships
with their fathers (compared to 29 percent from nondivorced families).
11
On average, children whose parents divorce or never marry see their
fathers less frequently
12
and have less affectionate relationships with
their fathers
13
than do children whose parents get and stay married.
Studies of children of divorce suggest that losing contact with their
fathers in the wake of a divorce is one of the most painful consequences
of divorce.
14
Divorce appears to have an even greater negative effect on
relationships between fathers and their children than remaining in an
unhappy marriage.
15
Even cohabiting, biological fathers who live with
their children are not as involved and affectionate with their children as
are married, biological fathers who reside with their children.
16
As a group, cohabitors in the United States more closely resemble
singles than married people, though cohabitation is an exceptionally
heterogenous status, with some partners treating it as a prelude to
The Twenty-Six Conclusions
1.
2.
Page 13
marriage, others as an alternative to marriage, others as an opportunity
to test for marriage, and still others as a convenient dating relationship.
17
Adults who live together are more similar to singles than to married
couples in terms of physical health
18
and emotional well-being and
mental health,
19
as well as in assets and earnings.
20
Children with cohabiting parents have outcomes more similar to
children living with single (or remarried) parents than children from
intact marriages.
21
In other words, children living in cohabiting unions
do not fare as well as children living in intact, married families. For
instance, one recent study found that teenagers living in cohabiting
unions were significantly more likely to experience behavioral and
emotional difficulties than were teenagers in intact, married families,
even after controlling for a range of socioeconomic and parenting
factors.
22
A major problem associated with cohabitation for children is that
cohabiting unions are much less stable than married unions. One recent
study found that 50 percent of children born to a cohabiting couple see
their parents unions end by age five, compared to only 15 percent of
children born to a married couple.
23
This study also found that Latino
and African American children born into cohabiting unions were
particularly likely to see their parents break up.
24
Another problem is
that cohabiting parents are less likely to devote their financial resources
to childrearing. One study found that cohabiting parents devoted a larger
share of their income to alcohol and tobacco, and a smaller share of
their income to childrens education, than do married parents.
25
Selection effects account for a large portion of the difference between
married people and cohabitors. As a group, cohabitors (who are not
engaged) have lower incomes and less education.
26
Couples who live
together also, on average, report relationships of lower quality than do
married couples with cohabitors reporting more conflict, more
violence, and lower levels of satisfaction and commitment.
27
Even
biological parents who cohabit have poorer quality relationships and
are more likely to part than parents who marry.
28
Cohabitation differs
from marriage in part because Americans who choose merely to live
together are less committed to each other as partners and their future
Page 14
together.
29
Partly as a consequence, cohabiting couples are less likely
than married couples to pool their income.
30
Another challenge con-
fronting cohabiting couples is that partners often disagree about the
nature and future of their relationship for instance, one partner may
anticipate marriage and another partner may view the relationship as a
convenient form of dating.
31
Growing up outside an intact marriage increases the
likelihood that children will themselves divorce or become
unwed parents.
Children whose parents divorce or fail to marry are more likely to
become young unwed parents, to experience divorce themselves some-
day, to marry as teenagers, and to have unhappy marriages and/or
relationships.
32
Daughters raised outside of intact marriages are approx-
imately three times more likely to become young, unwed mothers than
are children whose parents married and stayed married.
33
Parental
divorce increases the odds that adult children will also divorce by at
least 50 percent, partly because children of divorce are more likely to
marry prematurely and partly because children of divorce often marry
other children of divorce, thereby making their marriage even more
precarious.
34
Divorce is apparently most likely to be transmitted across the genera-
tions when parents in relatively low-conflict marriages divorce.
35
Moreover, remarriage does not appear to help children. For instance,
girls in stepfamilies are slightly more likely to have a teenage pregnancy
compared to girls in single-parent families, and much more likely to
have a teenage pregnancy than girls in intact, married families.
36
Children who grow up in stepfamilies are also more likely to marry as
teenagers, compared to children who grow up in single-parent or intact,
married families.
37
Finally, new research also indicates that the effects of
divorce cross three generations. Grandchildren of couples who
divorced are significantly more likely to experience marital discord,
negative relationships with their parents, and low levels of educational
attainment, compared to grandchildren whose grandparents did not
divorce.
38
3.
Page 15
Marriage exists in virtually every known human society.
39
The shape of
human marriage varies considerably in different cultural contexts. But
at least since the beginning of recorded history, in all the flourishing
varieties of human cultures documented by anthropologists, marriage
has been a universal human institution. As a virtually universal human
idea, marriage is about regulating the reproduction of children, families,
and society. While marriage systems differ (and not every person or
class within a society marries), marriage across societies is a publicly
acknowledged and supported sexual union that creates kinship obliga-
tions and resource pooling between men, women, and the children that
their sexual union may produce.
Marriage, and a normative commitment to marriage,
foster high-quality relationships between adults, as well
as between parents and children.
Some say that love, not marriage, makes a family. They argue that family
structure per se does not matter. Instead, what matters is the quality of
family relationships.
40
Others argue that the marital ethic of lifelong
commitment needs to be diluted if we seek to promote high-quality
relationships. Instead, the new marital ethic should be conditional, such
that spouses should remain together only so long as they continue to
love one another.
41
These arguments, however, overlook what we know about the effects
of marriage, and a normative commitment to the institution of marriage,
on intimate relationships. By offering legal and normative support and
direction to a relationship, by providing an expectation of sexual fidelity
and lifelong commitment, and by furnishing adults a unique social status
as spouses, marriage typically fosters better romantic and parental
relationships than do alternatives to marriage.
42
For all these reasons, in
part, adults who are married enjoy happier, healthier, and less violent
relationships, compared to adults who are in dating or cohabiting
relationships.
43
Parents who are married enjoy more supportive and less
conflictual relationships with one another, compared to parents who are
4.
5.

EXHIBIT 31
Te Witherspoon Institute
Marriage and the Public Good:
Ten Principles
Princeton, New Jersey
August 2008
Te Witherspoon Institute is grateful to the John Templeton Foundation
and the Social Trends Institute for the nancial assistance that has made this research possible.
Te opinions expressed in this report are those of the signatories and do not necessarily reect the
views of the John Templeton Foundation or the Social Trends Institute.

Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles
www.princetonprinciples.org
2008 by Te Witherspoon Institute
Tis book is the sole property of Te Witherspoon Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any way.
It may be reproduced for circulation only in its entirety, without charge. All reproductions of this book must
contain the copyright notice (i.e., Copyright 2008 by Te Witherspoon Institute) and this Copyright/Reproduction
Limitations notice. Please notify the Witherspoon Institute of any intentions to circulate or reproduce
this book. Tis book may not be used without the permission of Te Witherspoon Institute for
resale or the enhancement of any other product sold.
Te Witherspoon Institute
16 Stockton Street
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
USA
www.winst.org
Contents
Executive Summary 1
I. Te Challenge to Marriage and Family Today 3
II. Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles 5
III. Evidence from the Social and Biological Sciences 9
IV. Analysis from Political and Moral Philosophy: Te Intrinsic Goods
of Marriage 20
V. American Exceptionalism and the Way Forward 23
Notes 26
Signatories 30
About the Witherspoon Institute 34
Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles is the result of scholarly discussions that began in December 2004 at a
meeting in Princeton, New Jersey, sponsored by the Witherspoon Institute. Tis conference brought together scholars
from economics, history, law, philosophy, psychiatry, and sociology to share with each other the ndings of their re-
search on why marriage, understood as the permanent union of husband and wife, is in the public interest. A consensus
developed among the participants in favor of sharing more widely the fruit of their collaboration.
Te Witherspoon Institute is an independent research center located in Princeton, New Jersey. It is not connected
to Princeton University, the Princeton Teological Seminary, Te Center for Teological Inquiry, or the Institute for
Advanced Study.
For more information, please contact the drafting committee of the Principles, at principles@winst.org.
1
Executive Summary
In recent years, marriage has weakened, with serious negative consequences for society as a whole. Four
developments are especially troubling: divorce, illegitimacy, cohabitation, and same-sex marriage.
Te purpose of this document is to make a substantial new contribution to the public debate over marriage.
Too often the rational case for marriage is not made at all or not made very well. As scholars, we are per-
suaded that the case for marriage can be made and won at the level of reason.
Marriage protects children, men and women, and the common good. Te health of marriage is particularly
important in a free society, which depends upon citizens to govern their private lives and rear their children
responsibly, so as to limit the scope, size, and power of the state. Te nations retreat from marriage has been
particularly consequential for our societys most vulnerable communities: minorities and the poor pay a
disproportionately heavy price when marriage declines in their communities. Marriage also oers men and
women as spouses a good they can have in no other way: a mutual and complete giving of the self. Tus,
marriage understood as the enduring union of husband and wife is both a good in itself and also advances the public
interest.
We arm the following ten principles that summarize the value of marriagea choice that most people
want to make, and that society should endorse and support.
Ten Principles on Marriage and the Public Good
1. Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husband and wife.
2. Marriage is a profound human good, elevating and perfecting our social and sexual nature.
3. Ordinarily, both men and women who marry are better o as a result.
4. Marriage protects and promotes the well-being of children.
5. Marriage sustains civil society and promotes the common good.
6. Marriage is a wealth-creating institution, increasing human and social capital.
7. When marriage weakens, the equality gap widens, as children suer from the disadvantages of
growing up in homes without committed mothers and fathers.
8. A functioning marriage culture serves to protect political liberty and foster limited government.
9. Te laws that govern marriage matter signicantly.
10. Civil marriage and religious marriage cannot be rigidly or completely divorced from one another.
2
Tis understanding of marriage is not narrowly religious, but the cross-cultural fruit of broad human expe-
rience and reection, and supported by considerable social science evidence. But a marriage culture cannot
ourish in a society whose primary institutionsuniversities, courts, legislatures, religionsnot only fail to
defend marriage but actually undermine it both conceptually and in practice.
Creating a marriage culture is not the job for government. Families, religious communities, and civic institu-
tions point the way. But law and public policy will either reinforce and support these goals, or undermine them. We
call upon our nations leaders, and our fellow citizens, to support public policies that strengthen marriage as
a social institution, including:
1. Protect the public understanding of marriage as the union of one man with one woman as husband
and wife.
2. Investigate divorce law reforms.
3. End marriage penalties for low-income Americans.
4. Protect and expand pro-child and pro-family provisions in our tax code.
5. Protect the interests of children from the fertility industry.
Families, religious communities, community organizations, and public policymakers must work together
toward a great goal: strengthening marriage so that each year more children are raised by their own mother
and father in loving, lasting marital unions. Te future of the American experiment depends upon it. And
our children deserve nothing less.
3
I. TALLENI. THE CHALLENGE TO MARRIAGE AND FAMILY TODAY

Marriageconsidered as a legally sanctioned union of one man and one womanplays a vital role in pre-
serving the common good and promoting the welfare of children. In virtually every known human society,
the institution of marriage provides order and meaning to adult sexual relationships and, more fundamen-
tally, furnishes the ideal context for the bearing and rearing of the young. Te health of marriage is particu-
larly important in a free society such as our own, which depends upon citizens to govern their private lives
and rear their children responsibly, so as to limit the scope, size, and power of the state. Marriage is also an
important source of social, human, and nancial capital for children, especially for children growing up in
poor, disadvantaged communities who do not have ready access to other sources of such capital. Tus, from
the point of view of spouses, children, society, and the polity, marriage advances the public interest.
But in the last forty years, marriage and family have come under increasing pressure from the modern state,
the modern economy, and modern culture. Family law in all fty states and most countries in the Western
world has facilitated unilateral divorce, so that marriages can be easily and eectively terminated at the
will of either party. Changing sexual mores have made illegitimacy and cohabitation a central feature of
our social landscape. Te products of Madison Avenue and Hollywood often appear indierent to, if not
hostile toward, the norms that sustain decent family life. New medical technology has made it easier for
single mothers and same-sex couples to have children not only outside of marriage, but even without sexual
intercourse. Taken together, marriage is losing its preeminent status as the social institution that directs and
organizes reproduction, childrearing, and adult life.
1

Te nations retreat from marriage has been particularly consequential for our societys most vulnerable
communities. Out-of-wedlock birth, divorce, and single motherhood are much more common among low-
er-income African Americans and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic Americans, in large part because they often
do not have as many material, social, and personal resources to resist the deinstitutionalization of marriage.
Te latest social scientic research on marriage indicates that minorities and the poor pay a disproportion-
ately heavy price when marriage declines in their communities, meaning that the breakdown of the family
only compounds the suering of those citizens who already suer the most.
2

Te response to this crisis by activist defenders of marriage, while often successful at the ballot box in the
United States, has had limited inuence on the culture, and in many cases those who deliberately seek to
redene the meaning of marriage or downplay its special signicance have argued more eectively. Too
often, the rational case for marriage is not made at all or not made very well. Appeals to tradition are rarely
decisive in themselves in the American context today, especially among those who believe that individuals
should choose their own values rather than heed the wisdom and ways of past generations. Religious ap-
peals, though important in the lives of many individuals and families, have limited reach in a society that
limits the role of religious institutions in public life. Appeals to peoples feelings or intuitions, however
strong, are easily dismissed as appeals to prejudice, unjustly valuing some lifestyles over others. And in a
4
society whose moral self-understanding has been formed by the struggle to overcome racial prejudice and
promote equal rights, such appeals not only fail to persuade but seem to indicate bad faith.
In this context, we think there is a pressing need for scholarly discussion of the ideal of marriage, defended
with reasons that are comprehensible in public debate and that draw upon the full range of social scientic
evidence and humanistic reection. At issue is not only the value of marriage itself, but the reasons why the
public has a deep interest in a socially supported normative understanding of marriage. Marriage is under
attack conceptually, in university communities and other intellectual centers of inuence. To defend marriage
will require confronting these attacks, assessing their arguments, and correcting them where necessary. We
are persuaded that the case for marriage can be made and won at the level of reason. Te principles outlined
below, and the evidence and arguments oered on their behalf are meant to make that case.
We are aware, of course, that the debate over the normative status of marriage in our society necessarily
acquires an emotional edge. No one is untouched by the issue in his or her personal life, and we can readily
agree with the critics of marriage that questions of sexual identity, gender equity, and personal happiness
are at stake. In arguing for the normative status of marriage, we do not suppose that all people ought to be
married or that marriage and family are the only source of good in peoples lives. Nor do we wish to deny
or downgrade societys obligation to care about the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents family
form.
Still, we think that, particularly as university teachers and on behalf of our students, we need to make this
statement, since marriage is above all a choice for the young: they need arguments to counterbalance the
dominant arguments now attacking marriage as unjust and undesirable, and they need to know what mar-
riage is in order to sustain their own marriages and raise their own children. Just as it did in earlier cultures,
the marital family provides the basis for a settled pattern of reproduction and education that a large, modern,
democratic society still surely needs. Our principles mean to summarize the value of married life and the
life of families that is built upon marriagea choice that most people want to make, and that society should
endorse and support.
5
II. MARRIAGE AND THE PUBLIC GOOD: TEN PRINCIPLES
1. Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husband and wife.
Marriage diers from other valued personal relationships in conveying a full union of husband and wife
including a sexual, emotional, nancial, legal, spiritual, and parental union. Marriage is not the ratication of
an existing relation; it is the beginning of a new relationship between a man and a woman, who pledge their
sexual delity to one another, promise loving mutual care and support, and form a family that welcomes and
nurtures the children that may spring from their union. Tis understanding of marriage has predominated
in Europe and America for most of the past two thousand years. It springs from the biological, psychologi-
cal, and social complementarity of the male and female sexes: Women typically bring to marriage important
gifts and perspectives that men typically do not bring, just as men bring their own special gifts and perspec-
tives that women typically cannot provide in the same way. Tis covenant of mutual dependence and obliga-
tion, solemnized by a legal oath, is strengthened by the pledge of permanence that husband and wife oer to
one anotheralways to remain, never to ee, even and especially in the most dicult times.
2. Marriage is a profound human good, elevating and perfecting our social and sexual nature.
Human beings are social animals, and the social institution of marriage is a profound human good. It is a
matrix of human relationships rooted in the spouses sexual complementarity and procreative possibilities,
and in childrens need for sustained parental nurturance and support. It creates clear ties of begetting and
belonging, ties of identity, kinship, and mutual interdependence and responsibility. Tese bonds of delity
serve a crucial public purpose, and so it is necessary and proper for the state to recognize and encourage
marriage in both law and public policy. Indeed, it is not surprising that marriage is publicly sanctioned and
promoted in virtually every known society and often solemnized by religious and cultural rituals. Modern
biological and social science only conrm the benets of marriage as a human good consistent with our
given nature as sexual and social beings.
3. Ordinarily, both men and women who marry are better o as a result.
Married men gain moral and personal discipline, a stable domestic life, and the opportunity to participate
in the upbringing of their children. Married women gain stability and protection, acknowledgment of the
paternity of their children, and shared responsibility and emotional support in the raising of their young.
Together, both spouses gain from a normative commitment to the institution of marriage itselfincluding
the benets that come from faithfully fullling ones chosen duties as mother or father, husband or wife.
Couples who share a moral commitment to marital permanency and delity tend to have better marriages.
Te marital ethic enjoining permanence, mutual delity, and care, as well as forbidding violence or sexual
abuse, arises out of the core imperative of our marriage tradition: that men and women who marry pledge
to love one another, in sickness and in health and for better or for worse, ordinarily until death do
us part.
6
4. Marriage protects and promotes the well-being of children.
Te family environment provided by marriage allows children to grow, mature, and ourish. It is a seedbed
of sociability and virtue for the young, who learn from both their parents and their siblings. Specically, the
married family satises childrens need to know their biological origins, connects them to both a mother
and a father, establishes a framework of love for nurturing them, oversees their education and personal
development, and anchors their identity as they learn to move about the larger world. Tese are not merely
desirable goods, but what we owe to children as vulnerable beings lled with potential. Whenever humanly pos-
sible, children have a natural human right to know their mother and father, and mothers and fathers have a
solemn obligation to love their children unconditionally.
5. Marriage sustains civil society and promotes the common good.
Civil society also benets from a stable marital order. Families are themselves small societies, and the web
of trust they establish across generations and between the spouses original families are a key constituent of
society as a whole. Te network of relatives and in-laws that marriage creates and sustains is a key ingredi-
ent of the social capital that facilitates many kinds of benecial civic associations and private groups. Te
virtues acquired within the familygenerosity, self-sacrice, trust, self-disciplineare crucial in every do-
main of social life. Children who grow up in broken families often fail to acquire these elemental habits of
character. When marital breakdown or the failure to form marriages becomes widespread, society is harmed
by a host of social pathologies, including increased poverty, mental illness, crime, illegal drug use, clinical
depression, and suicide.
6. Marriage is a wealth-creating institution, increasing human and social capital.
Te modern economy and modern democratic state depend upon families to produce the next genera-
tion of productive workers and taxpayers. Tis ongoing renewal of human capital is a crucial ingredient in
the national economy, one that is now in grave peril in those societies with rapidly aging populations and
below-replacement fertility rates. It is within families that young people develop stable patterns of work and
self-reliance at the direction of their parents, and this training in turn provides the basis for developing use-
ful skills and gaining a profession. More deeply, marriage realigns personal interests beyond the good of the
present self, and thus reduces the tendency of individuals and groups to make rash or imprudent decisions
that squander the inheritance of future generations. Families also provide networks of trust and capital that
serve as the foundation for countless entrepreneurial small-business enterprises (as well as some large cor-
porations), which are crucial to the vitality of the nations economy. In addition, devoted spouses and grown
children assist in caring for the sick and elderly, and maintain the solvency of pension and social-insurance
programs by providing unremunerated care for their loved ones, paying taxes, and producing the children
who will form future generations of tax-paying workers. Without ourishing families, in other words, the
long-term health of the modern economy would be imperiled.
7
7. When marriage weakens, the equality gap widens, as children suer from the disadvantages of grow-
ing up in homes without committed mothers and fathers.
Children whose parents fail to get and stay married are at an increased risk of poverty, dependency, sub-
stance abuse, educational failure, juvenile delinquency, early unwed pregnancy, and a host of other destruc-
tive behaviors. When whole families and neighborhoods become dominated by fatherless homes, these risks
increase even further. Te breakdown of marriage has hit the African-American community especially hard,
and thus threatens the cherished American ideal of equality of opportunity by depriving adults and especial-
ly children of the social capital they need in order to ourish. Precisely because we seek to eliminate social
disadvantages based upon race and class, we view the cultural, economic, and other barriers to strengthening
marriage in poor neighborhoodsespecially among those racial minorities with disproportionately high
rates of family breakdownas a serious problem to be solved with persistence, generosity, and ingenuity.
8. A functioning marriage culture serves to protect political liberty and foster limited government.
Strong, intact families stabilize the state and decrease the need for costly and intrusive bureaucratic social
agencies. Families provide for their vulnerable members, produce new citizens with virtues such as loyalty
and generosity, and engender concern for the common good. When families break down, crime and social
disorder soar; the state must expand to reassert social control with intrusive policing, a sprawling prison sys-
tem, coercive child-support enforcement, and court-directed family life.
3
Without stable families, personal
liberty is thus imperiled as the state tries to fulll through coercion those functions that families, at their
best, fulll through covenantal devotion.
9. Te laws that govern marriage matter signicantly.
Law and culture exhibit a dynamic relationship: Changes in one ultimately yield changes in the other,
and together law and culture structure the choices that individuals see as available, acceptable, and choice-
worthy. Given the clear benets of marriage, we believe that the state should not remain politically neutral,
either in procedure or outcome, between marriage and various alternative family structures. Some have
sought to redene civil marriage as a private contract between two individuals regardless of sex, others as a
binding union of any number of individuals, and still others as any kind of contractual arrangement for any
length of time that is agreeable to any number of consenting adult parties. But in doing so a state would nec-
essarily undermine the social norm which encourages marriage as historically understoodi.e., the sexually
faithful union, intended for life, between one man and one woman, open to the begetting and rearing of
children. Te public goods uniquely provided by marriage are recognizable by reasonable persons, regardless
of religious or secular worldview, and thus provide compelling reasons for reinforcing the existing marriage
norm in law and public policy.
8
10. Civil marriage and religious marriage cannot be rigidly or completely divorced from
one another.
Americans have always recognized the right of any person, religious or non-religious, to marry. While the
ceremonial form of religious and secular marriages often diers, the meaning of such marriages within
the social order has always been similar, which is why the state honors those marriages duly performed by
religious authorities. Moreover, current social science evidence on religion and marital success arms the
wisdom of the American tradition, which has always recognized and acknowledged the positive role that
religion plays in creating and sustaining marriage as a social institution.
4
Te majority of Americans marry
in religious institutions, and for many of these people a religious dimension suuses the whole of family
life and solemnizes the marriage vow. It is thus important to recognize the crucial role played by religious
institutions in lending critical support for a sustainable marriage culture, on which the whole society de-
pends. And it is important to preserve some shared idea of what marriage is that transcends the dierences
between religious and secular marriages and between marriages within our nations many diverse religious
traditions.
9
III. EVIDENCE FROM THE SOCIAL AND BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
In the last forty years, society has conducted a vast family experiment, and the outcomes are increasingly
coming to light via scientic investigations. While no single study is denitive, and there is room at the
edges for debate about particular consequences of marriage, the clear preponderance of the evidence shows
that intact, married families are superiorfor adults and especially for childrento alternative family ar-
rangements. A great deal of research now exists from the anthropological, sociological, psychological, and
economic sciences, demonstrating the empirical benets of marriage.
In virtually every known human society, the institution of marriage has served and continues to serve three
important public purposes. First, marriage is the institution through which societies seek to organize the
bearing and rearing of children; it is particularly important in ensuring that children have the love and sup-
port of their father. Second, marriage provides direction, order, and stability to adult sexual unions and to
their economic, social, and biological consequences. Tird, marriage civilizes men, furnishing them with a
sense of purpose, norms, and social status that orient their lives away from vice and toward virtue.
5
Marriage
achieves its myriad purposes through both social and biological means that are not easily replicated by the
various alternatives to marriage. When marriage is strong, children and adults both tend to ourish; when
marriage breaks down, every element of society suers.
Te Well-being of Children
Te evidence linking the health of marriage to the welfare of children is clear. During the last two decades,
a large body of social scientic research has emerged indicating that children do best when reared by their
mothers and fathers in a married, intact family. A recent report by Child Trends, a nonpartisan research
organization, summarized the new scholarly consensus on marriage this way: [R]esearch clearly demon-
strates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a
family headed by two biological parents in a low-conict marriage.
6
Other recent reviews of the literature
on marriage and the well-being of children, conducted by the Brookings Institution, the Woodrow Wilson
School of Public and International Aairs at Princeton University, the Center for Law and Social Policy,
and the Institute for American Values, have all come to similar conclusions.
7

Marriage matters for children in myriad ways. We focus here on the educational, psychological, sexual, and
behavioral consequences for children of family structure, beginning with education. Children reared in in-
tact, married homes are signicantly more likely to be involved in literacy activities (such as being read to by
adults or learning to recognize letters) as preschool children, and to score higher in reading comprehension
as fourth graders.
8
School-aged children are approximately 30 percent less likely to cut class, be tardy, or
miss school altogether.
9
Te cumulative eect of family structure on childrens educational performance is
most evident in high school graduation rates. Children reared in intact, married households are about twice
as likely to graduate from high school, compared to children reared in single-parent or step-families. One
study found that 37 percent of children born outside of marriage and 31 percent of children with divorced
10
parents dropped out of high school, compared to 13 percent of children from intact families headed by a
married mother and father.
10
Marriage also plays a central role in fostering the emotional health of children. Children from stable, mar-
ried families are signicantly less likely to suer from depression, anxiety, alcohol and drug abuse, and
thoughts of suicide compared to children from divorced homes.
11
One recent study of the entire population
of Swedish children found that Swedish boys and girls in two-parent homes were about 50 percent less
likely to suer from suicide attempts, alcohol and drug abuse, and serious psychiatric illnesses compared to
children reared in single-parent homes.
12
A survey of the American literature on child well-being found that
family structure was more consequential than poverty in predicting childrens psychological and behavioral
outcomes.
13
In general, children who are reared by their own married mothers and fathers are much more
likely to confront the world with a sense of hope, self-condence, and self-control than children raised
without an intact, married family.
Marriage is also important in connecting children to their biological fathers and grounding their familial
identities. Research by Yale psychiatrist Kyle Pruett suggests that children conceived by articial reproduc-
tive technologies (ART) and reared without fathers have an unmet hunger for an abiding paternal pres-
ence; his research parallels ndings from the literature on divorce and single-parenthood.
14
Pruetts work
also suggests that children conceived by ART without known fathers have deep and disturbing questions
about their biological and familial origins. Tese children do not know their fathers or their paternal kin,
and they dislike living in a kind of biological and paternal limbo.
15
By contrast, children who are reared by
their married biological parents are more likely to have a secure sense of their own biological origins and
familial identity.
Family structure, particularly the presence of a biological father, also plays a key role in inuencing the
sexual development, activity, and welfare of young girls. Teenage girls who grow up with a single mother or a
stepfather are signicantly more likely to experience early menstruation and sexual development, compared
to girls reared in homes headed by a married mother and father.
16
Partly as a consequence, girls reared in
single-parent or step-families are much more likely to experience a teenage pregnancy and to have a child
outside of wedlock than girls who are reared in an intact, married family.
17
One study found that only 5
percent of girls who grew up in an intact family got pregnant as teenagers, compared to 10 percent of girls
whose fathers left after they turned six, and 35 percent of girls whose fathers left when they were preschool-
ers.
18
Research also suggests that girls are signicantly more likely to be sexually abused if they are living
outside of an intact, married homein large part because girls have more contact with unrelated males if
their mothers are unmarried, cohabiting, or residing in a stepfamily.
19

Boys also benet in unique ways from being reared within stable, married families. Research consistently
nds that boys raised by their own fathers and mothers in an intact, married family are less likely to get in
trouble than boys raised in other family situations. Boys raised outside of an intact family are more likely to
have problems with aggression, attention decit disorder, delinquency, and school suspensions, compared
11
to boys raised in intact married families.
20
Some studies suggest that the negative behavioral consequences
of marital breakdown are even more signicant for boys than for girls. One study found that boys reared in
single-parent and step-families were more than twice as likely to end up in prison, compared to boys reared
in an intact family.
21
Clearly, stable marriage and paternal role models are crucial for keeping boys from self-
destructive and socially destructive behavior.
Virtually all of the studies cited here control for socioeconomic, demographic, and even genetic factors that
might otherwise distort the relationship between family structure and child well-being. So, for instance, the
link between family breakdown and crime is not an artifact of poverty among single parents.
22
Moreover, the
newest work on divorce follows adult twins and their children to separate out the unique eects of divorce
itself from the potential role that genetic (and socioeconomic) factors might play in inuencing childrens
outcomes. Tis research indicates that divorce has negative consequences for childrens psychological and
social welfare even after controlling for the genetic vulnerabilities of the parents who divorced.
23

Why, then, does the evidence link marriage to an impressive array of positive outcomes for children? Both
social and biological mechanisms seem to account for the value of an intact marriage in childrens lives.
From a sociological perspective, marriage allows families to benet from shared labor within the household,
income streams from two parents, and the economic resources of two sets of kin.
24
A married mom and
dad typically invest more time, aection, and oversight into parenting than does a single parent; as impor-
tantly, they tend to monitor and improve the parenting of one another, augmenting one anothers strengths,
balancing one anothers weaknesses, and reducing the risk that a child will be abused or neglected by an ex-
hausted or angry parent.
25
Te trust and commitment associated with marriage also give a man and a woman
a sense that they have a future together, as well as a future with their children. Tis horizon of commitment,
in turn, motivates them to invest practically, emotionally, and nancially at higher levels in their children
than cohabiting or single parents.
26

Marriage is particularly important in binding fathers to their children. For men, marriage and fatherhood
are a package deal. Because the fathers role is more discretionary in our society (and every known human
society) than the mothers role, it depends more on the normative expectations of and social supports pro-
vided to fathers by marriage. Marriage positions men to receive the regular encouragement, direction, and
advice of the mother of his children, and encourages them to pay attention to that input.
27
Not surprisingly,
cohabiting fathers are less practically and emotionally invested in their children than are married fathers.
28

Nonresidential fathers see their children much less often than do married, residential fathers, and their
involvement is not consistently related to positive outcomes for children.
29
By contrast, married fathers can
exercise an abiding, important, and positive inuence on their children, and are especially likely to do so in
a happy marriage.
30

Biology also matters. Studies suggest that men and women bring dierent strengths to the parenting en-
terprise, and that the biological relatedness of parents to their children has important consequences for the
young, especially girls. Although there is a good deal of overlap in the talents that mothers and fathers bring
12
to parenting, the evidence also suggests that there are crucial sex dierences in parenting. Mothers are more
sensitive to the cries, words, and gestures of infants, toddlers, and adolescents, and, partly as a consequence,
they are better at providing physical and emotional nurture to their children.
31
Tese special capacities of
mothers seem to have deep biological underpinnings: during pregnancy and breastfeeding women experi-
ence high levels of the hormone peptide oxytocin, which fosters aliative behaviors.
32

Fathers excel when it comes to providing discipline, ensuring safety, and challenging their children to em-
brace lifes opportunities and confront lifes diculties. Te greater physical size and strength of most fa-
thers, along with the pitch and inection of their voice and the directive character of their speaking, give
them an advantage when it comes to discipline, an advantage that is particularly evident with boys, who are
more likely to comply with their fathers than their mothers discipline.
33
Likewise, fathers are more likely
than mothers to encourage their children to tackle dicult tasks, endure hardship without yielding, and
seek out novel experiences.
34
Tese paternal strengths also have deep biological underpinnings: Fathers
typically have higher levels of testosteronea hormone associated with dominance and assertivenessthan
do mothers.
35
Although the link between nature, nurture, and sex-specic parenting talents is undoubtedly
complex, one cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence of sex dierences in parenting dierences that
marriage builds on to the advantage of children.
Te biological relationship between parents and children also matters to the young. Studies suggest that
biological parents invest more money and time in their ospring than do stepparents.
36
New research by
University of Arizona psychologist Bruce Ellis also suggests that the physical presence of a biological father
is important for the sexual development of girls. Specically, he thinks that one reason that girls who live
apart from their biological father develop sexually at an earlier age than girls who live with their biologi-
cal father is that they are more likely to be exposed to the pheromonesbiological chemicals that convey
sexual information between personsof unrelated males. He also nds that girls who are exposed to the
presence of a mothers boyfriend or a stepfather reach puberty at an earlier age than girls who are raised
by unpartnered single mothers.
37
Tere is clearly more research to be done in this area, but the data clearly
suggest that one reason marriage is so valuable is that it helps to bind a childs biological parents to the child
over the course of her life.
Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, sociologists at Princeton and Wisconsin, respectively, sum up the
reasons that marriage matters for children in this way: If we were asked to design a system for making sure
that childrens basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-
parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money
of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. Te
fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents
would identify with the child and be willing to sacrice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood
that either parent would abuse the child.
38
Over the past few decades, we have experimented with various
alternatives to marriage, and the evidence is now clear: Children raised in married, intact families generally
13
do better in every area of life than those raised in various alternative family structures. Tose who care about
the well-being of childrenas every citizen shouldshould care about the health of modern marriage.
Te Well-being of Adults
While the most important benets of marriage redound to children, marriage also has signicant benets
for the adult men and women who enter into it. Both married men and women benet nancially, emo-
tionally, physically, and socially from marriage. However, we must also note that there are often gender dif-
ferences in the benets of marriage, and that the benets of marriage for women are more sensitive to the
quality of marriage than are the benets of marriage for men.
Te nancial advantages of marriage are clear. Married men and women are more likely to accumulate
wealth and to own a home than unmarried adults, even compared to similarly situated cohabiting or single
adults.
39
Married men earn between 10 and 40 percent more money than single men with similar profes-
sional and educational backgrounds.
40
Married women generally do not experience a marriage premium
in their earnings, but this is because most women combine marriage with motherhood, which tends to
depress womens earnings.
41
Te material benets of marriage also extend to women from disadvantaged
backgrounds, who are much less likely to fall into poverty if they get and stay married.
42
In general, mar-
riage allows couples to pool resources and share labor within the household. Te commitment associated
with marriage provides couples with a long-term outlook that allows them to invest together in housing and
other long-term assets.
43
Te norms of adult maturity associated with marriage encourage adults to spend
and save in a more responsible fashion.
44

Marriage also promotes the physical and emotional health of men and women. Married adults have longer
lives, less illness, greater happiness, and lower levels of depression and substance abuse than cohabiting and
single adults. Spouses are more likely to encourage their partners to monitor their health and seek medical
help if they are experiencing an illness.
45
Te norms of adult maturity and delity associated with marriage
encourage men and women to avoid unhealthy or risky behaviors, from promiscuous sex to heavy alcohol
use.
46
Te increased wealth and economic stability that come from being married enable married men and
women to seek better medical care.
47
Te emotional support furnished by most marriages reduces stress, and
the stress hormones, that often cause ill health and mental illness.
48
Men are particularly apt to experience
marriage-related gains in their life expectancy and overall health. Women also gain, but their marriage-
related health benets depend more on the quality of their marriages: women in low-quality marriages are
more likely to experience health problems and psychological distress than single women, while good mar-
riages give women an important psychological and physical boost.
49

Marriage also plays a crucial role in civilizing men. Married men are less likely to commit a crime, to be
sexually promiscuous or unfaithful to a longtime partner, or to drink to excess.
50
Tey also attend church
more often, spend more time with kin (and less time with friends), and work longer hours.
51
One study,
14
for instance, showed that only 4 percent of married men had been unfaithful in the past year, compared to
16 percent of cohabiting men and 37 percent of men in an ongoing sexual relationship with a woman.
52

Longitudinal research by University of Virginia sociologist Steven Nock suggests that these eects are not
an artifact of selection but rather a direct consequence of marriage. Nock tracked men over time as they
transitioned from singlehood to marriage and found that mens behaviors actually changed in the wake of a
marriage: After tying the knot, men worked harder, attended fewer bars, increased their church attendance,
and spent more time with family members.
53
For many men, marriage is a rite of passage that introduces
them fully into an adult world of responsibility and self-control.
But why does marriage play such a crucial role in civilizing menin making them harder workers, more
faithful mates, and more peaceable citizens? Part of the answer is sociological. Te norms of trust, delity,
sacrice, and providership associated with marriage give men clear directions about how they should act
toward their wives and childrennorms that are not clearly applicable to non-marital relationships. A mar-
ried man also gains status in the eyes of his wife, her family, their friends, and the larger community when
they signal their intentions and their maturity by marrying.
54
Most men seek to maintain their social status
by abiding by societys norms; a society that honors marriage will produce men who honor their wives and
care for their children.
Biology also matters. Research on men, marriage, and testosterone nds that married menespecially mar-
ried men with childrenhave more modest levels of testosterone than do single men. (Cohabiting men also
have lower levels of testosterone than single men.) Long-term, stable, procreative relationships moderate
mens testosterone levels.
55
Judging by the literature on testosterone, this would in turn make men less in-
clined to aggressive, promiscuous, and otherwise risky behavior.
56
Of course, marriage also matters in unique ways for women. When it comes to physical safety, married
women are much less likely to be victims of violent crimes. For instance, a 1994 Justice Department report
found that single and divorced women were more than four times more likely to be the victims of a violent
crime, compared to married women.
57
Married women are also much less likely to be victimized by a partner
than women in a cohabiting or sexually intimate dating relationship. One study found that 13 percent of co-
habiting couples had arguments that got violent in the past year, compared to 4 percent of married couples.
58

Studies suggest that one reason women in non-marital relationships are more likely to be victimized is that
these relationships have higher rates of indelity, and indelity invites serious conict between partners.
59

For most women, therefore, marriage is a safe harbor.
It is not just marital status but the very ideal of marriage that matters. Married persons who value marriage
for its own sakewho oppose cohabitation, who think that marriage is for life, and who believe that it is
best for children to be reared by a father and a mother as husband and a wifeare signicantly more likely
to experience high-quality marriages, compared to married persons who are less committed to the institu-
tion of marriage.
60
Men and women with a normative commitment to the ideal of marriage are also more
likely to spend time with one another and to sacrice for their relationship.
61
Other research indicates that
15
such a commitment is particularly consequential for men: that is, mens devotion to their wife depends more
on their normative commitment to the marriage ideal than does womens devotion to their husbands.
62

Simply put, men and women who marry for life are more likely to experience a happy marriage than men
and women who marry so long as they both shall love.
What is clear is that marriage improves the lives of those men and women who accept its obligations, es-
pecially those who seek the economic, emotional, and health benets of modern life. Perhaps some modern
men do not believe they need to be domesticated or do not wish to be burdened with the duties of child-
rearing; and perhaps some modern women do not believe they need the security that a good marriage
uniquely oers or fear that family life will interfere with their careers. But the data suggest that such desires
can sometimes lead men and women astray, and that those who embrace marriage live happier lives than
those who seek a false freedom in bachelorhood, cohabitation, or divorce.
Te Public Consequences of Marital Breakdown
Te public consequences of the recent retreat from marriage are substantial. As the evidence shows, marital
breakdown reduces the collective welfare of our children, strains our justice system, weakens civil society,
and increases the size and scope of governmental power.
Te numbers are indeed staggering. Every year in the United States, more than one million children see
their parents divorce and 1.5 million children are born to unmarried mothers. Te collective consequences
of this family breakdown have been catastrophic, as demonstrated by myriad indicators of social well-being.
Take child poverty. One recent Brookings survey indicates that the increase in child poverty in the United
States since the 1970s is due almost entirely to declines in the percentage of children reared in married
families, primarily because children in single-parent homes are much less likely to receive much material
support from their fathers.
63

Or take adolescent well-being. Penn State sociologist Paul Amato estimated how adolescents would fare
if our society had the same percentage of two-parent biological families as it did in 1960. His research in-
dicates that this nations adolescents would have 1.2 million fewer school suspensions, 1 million fewer acts
of delinquency or violence, 746,587 fewer repeated grades, and 71,413 fewer suicides.
64
Similar estimates
could be done for the collective eect of family breakdown on teen pregnancy, depression, and high school
dropout rates. Te bottom line is this: children have paid a heavy price for adult failures to get and stay
married.
Public safety and our justice system have also been aected by the retreat from marriage. Even though
crime rates have fallen in recent years, the percentage of the population in jail has continued to rise: from .9
percent of the population in 1980 to 2.4 percent in 2003, which amounts to more than 2 million men and
women.
65
Public expenditures on criminal justicepolice, courts, and prisonsrose more than 350 percent
in the last 20 years, from $36 billion in 1982 to $167 billion in 2001.
66
Empirical research on family and
16
crime strongly suggests that crime is driven in part by the breakdown of marriage. George Akerlof, a Nobel
laureate in economics, argues that the crime increase in the 1970s and 1980s was linked to declines in the
marriage rate among young working-class and poor men.
67
Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson concludes
from his research on urban crime that murder and robbery rates are closely linked to family structure. In his
words: Family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor of variations in urban violence
across cities in the United States.
68
Te close empirical connection between family breakdown and crime
suggests that increased spending on crime-ghting, imprisonment, and criminal justice in the United States
over the last 40 years is largely the direct or indirect consequence of marital breakdown.
Public spending on social services also has risen dramatically since the 1960s, in large part because of in-
creases in divorce and illegitimacy. Estimates vary regarding the costs to the taxpayer of family breakdown,
but they clearly run into the many billions of dollars. One Brookings study found that the retreat from mar-
riage was associated with an increase of $229 billion in welfare expenditures from 1970 to 1996.
69
Another
study found that local, state, and federal governments spend $33 billion per year on the direct and indirect
costs of divorcefrom family court costs to child support enforcement to TANF and Medicaid.
70
Increases
in divorce also mean that family judges and child support enforcement agencies play a deeply intrusive role
in the lives of adults and children aected by divorce, setting the terms for custody, child visitation, and child
support for more than a million adults and children every year. Clearly, when the family fails to govern itself,
government steps in to pick up the pieces.
Te link between the size and scope of the state and the health of marriage as an institution is made even
more visible by looking at trends outside the United States. Countries with high rates of illegitimacy and
divorce, such as Sweden and Denmark, spend much more money on welfare expenditures, as a percentage
of their GDP, than countries with relatively low rates of illegitimacy and divorce, such as Spain and Japan.
71

Although there has been no denitive comparative research on state expenditures and family structure,
and despite that factors such as religion and political culture may confound this relationship, the correla-
tion between the two is suggestive. Of course, we also suspect that the relationship between state size and
family breakdown runs both ways. For instance, earlier research on Scandinavian countries by sociologists
David Popenoe and Alan Wolfe suggests that increases in state spending are associated with declines in
the strength of marriage and family.
72
Taken together, the retreat from marriage seems to go hand in hand
with more expensive and more intrusive government; family breakdown goes hand in hand with growing
hardship in disadvantaged communities, making the call for still more government intervention even more
irresistible. It is a pathological spiral, one that only a restoration of marriage can hope to reverse.
Four Treats to Marriage
Until forty years ago, marriage governed sex, procreation, and child-rearing for the vast majority of adults. In
recent years, marriages hold on these three domains of social life has weakened, with serious negative conse-
quences for society as a whole. Four developmentsthe sad eect of decoupling marriage, sex, procreation,
and child-bearingare especially troubling: divorce, illegitimacy, cohabitation, and same-sex marriage.
17
Divorce. From 1960 to 2000, the divorce rate more than doubled in the United States, from about 20 per-
cent to about 45 percent of all rst marriages. (Note: Te divorce rate has declined modestly since 1980.)
Te data suggests that approximately two-thirds of all divorces involving children break up low-conict
marriages where domestic violence or emotional abuse is not a factor in the divorce.
73
Unfortunately, these
children seem to bear the heaviest burden from the divorce of their parents.
74
Children from broken homes
are signicantly more likely to divorce as adults, to experience marital problems, to suer from mental ill-
ness and delinquency, to drop out of high school, to have poor relationships with one or both parents, and
to have diculty committing themselves to a relationship.
75
Furthermore, in most respects, remarriage is
no help to children of divorce. Children who grow up in stepfamilies experience about the same levels of
educational failure, teenage pregnancy, and criminal activity as children who remain in a single-parent fam-
ily after a divorce.
76

Divorce is also associated with poverty, depression, substance abuse, and poor health among adults.
77
More
broadly, widespread divorce poisons the larger culture of marriage, insofar as it sows distrust, insecurity, and
a low-commitment mentality among married and unmarried adults.
78
Couples who take a permissive view
of divorce are signicantly less likely to invest themselves in their marriages and less likely to be happily
married themselves.
79
For all these reasons, divorce threatens marriage, hurts children, and has had dire
consequences for the nation as a whole.
Illegitimacy (non-marital child-bearing). From 1960 to 2003, the percentage of children born out of wedlock
rose from 5 to 35 percent.
80
Although growing numbers of children born out of wedlock are born into co-
habiting unions42 percent according to one recent estimatemost children born outside of marriage will
spend the majority of their childhood in a single parent home, in part because the vast majority of cohabit-
ing unions, even ones involving children, end in dissolution.
81
Te biggest problem with illegitimacy is that
it typically denies children the opportunity to have two parents who are committed daily to their emotional
and material welfare.
82
As noted above, children raised in single-parent families without the benet of a
married mother and father are two to three times more likely to experience serious negative life outcomes
such as imprisonment, depression, teenage pregnancy, and high school failure, compared to children from
intact, married familieseven after controlling for socioeconomic factors that might distort the relationship
between family structure and child well-being.
83

Non-marital child-bearing also has negative consequences for men and women. Women who bear children
outside of marriage are signicantly more likely to experience poverty, to drop out of high school, and to
have diculty nding a good marriage partner, even when compared to women from similar socioeconomic
backgrounds.
84
Men who father children outside of marriage are signicantly more likely to experience
educational failure, earn less, and have diculty nding a good marriage partner, even after controlling for
socioeconomic factors.
85
Taken together, the rise of illegitimacy has been disastrous for children and adults,
men and women, individuals and society.
18
Cohabitation. Since the early 1970s, cohabitation has increased more than nine-fold in the United States,
from 523,000 couples in 1970 to ve million couples in 2004.
86
Recent estimates suggest that 40 percent of
children will spend some time growing up with one or both parents in a cohabiting union.
87
Te growth of
cohabitation in the United States is an unwelcome development. Adults in cohabiting unions face higher
rates of domestic violence, sexual indelity, and instability, compared to couples in marital unions.
88
Most
studies nd that cohabiting couples who go on to marry also face a higher risk of divorce, compared to
couples who marry without cohabiting (although the risk of divorce for couples who only cohabit after
an engagement does not appear to be higher than for married couples who did not cohabit).
89
Cohabiting
unions are typically weaker than marriages, and appear more likely to lead to poor relationship outcomes.
Cohabitation does not entail the same level of moral and legal commitment as marriage, couples often do
not agree about the status of their relationship, and cohabiting couples do not receive as much social support
from friends and family for their relationship as do married couples.
90

Cohabiting unions are particularly risky for children. Children reared by cohabiting couples are more likely
to engage in delinquent behavior, be suspended from school, and cheat in school, compared to children
reared by a married mother and father.
91
Children cohabiting with an unrelated adult male face dramati-
cally higher risks of sexual or physical abuse, compared to children in intact, married families. For instance,
one Missouri study found that preschool children living in households with unrelated adults (typically a
mothers boyfriend) were nearly 50 times more likely to be killed than were children living with both bio-
logical parents.
92
Children also suer from the instability associated with cohabiting unions. Even when
children are born into cohabiting households headed by both their biological parents, they are likely to see
one of their parents depart from the relationship. One recent study found that 50 percent of children born
to cohabiting couples see their parents break up by their fth year, compared to just 15 percent of children
born to a marital union.
93
For all these reasons, cohabiting unions are not a good alternative to marriage but
are a threat, and they surely do not provide a good environment for the rearing of children.
Same-Sex Marriage. Although the social scientic research on same-sex marriage is in its infancy, there are
a number of reasons to be concerned about the consequences of redening marriage to include same-sex
relationships. First, no one can denitively say at this point how children are aected by being reared by
same-sex couples. Te current research on children reared by them is inconclusive and underdeveloped
we do not yet have any large, long-term, longitudinal studies that can tell us much about how children are
aected by being raised in a same-sex household.
94
Yet the larger empirical literature on child well-being
suggests that the two sexes bring dierent talents to the parenting enterprise, and that children benet from
growing up with both biological parents. Tis strongly suggests that children reared by same-sex parents
will experience greater diculties with their identity, sexuality, attachments to kin, and marital prospects as
adults, among other things. But until more research is available, the jury is still out.
Yet there remain even deeper concerns about the institutional consequences of same-sex marriage for mar-
riage itself. Same-sex marriage would further undercut the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected
to marriage. It would undermine the idea that children need both a mother and a father, further weakening
19
the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget. Finally, same-sex marriage
would likely corrode marital norms of sexual delity, since gay marriage advocates and gay couples tend to
downplay the importance of sexual delity in their denition of marriage. Surveys of men entering same-
sex civil unions in Vermont indicate that 50 percent of them do not value sexual delity, and rates of sexual
promiscuity are high among gay men.
95
For instance, Judith Stacey, professor of sociology at New York
University and a leading advocate of gay marriage, hopes that same-sex marriage will promote a pluralist
expansion of the meaning, practice, and politics of family life in the United States where perhaps some
might dare to question the dyadic limitations of Western marriage and seek some of the benets of extended
family life through small group marriages. . . .
96
Our concerns are only reinforced by the legalization of same-sex marriage in Belgium, Canada, the Neth-
erlands, and Spainand its legalization in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Same-sex marriage has
taken hold in societies or regions with low rates of marriage and/or fertility.
97
For instance, Belgium, Cana-
da, Massachusetts, the Netherlands, and Spain all have fertility rates well below the replacement level of 2.1
children per woman.
98
Tese are societies in which child-centered marriage has ceased to be the organizing
principle of adult life. Seen in this light, same-sex marriage is both a consequence of and further stimulus
to the abolition of marriage as the preferred vehicle for ordering sex, procreation, and child-rearing in the
West. While there are surely many unknowns, what we do know suggests that embracing same-sex marriage
would further weaken marriage itself at the very moment when it needs to be most strengthened.
20
IV. ANALYSIS FROM POLITICAL AND MORAL PHILOSOPHY:
THE INTRINSIC GOODS OF MARRIAGE
Te empirical evidence in support of marriage is clear. When it comes to the myriad goods of modern social
lifeeconomic well-being, safety and security, personal happiness, ourishing community, limited govern-
mentmarriage is a boon to adults and especially children. But the rational defense of marriage need not be
based solely in data about its utility, and those who choose to marry are not usually motivated, rst and fore-
most, by any utilitarian calculus. Only when marriage is valued as good in itself, and not simply as a means
to other good ends, will children, adults, and societies reap its profound benets. Tis requires defenders
of marriageteachers, poets, religious leaders, parents and grandparents, role models of every kindto
describe and defend why marriage is a choice-worthy way of life in terms that resonate with lived human
experience. Some moral philosophers have engaged in extended reection on the nature of marriage as a
profound human good, seeking by precise analysis to better understand what most people accept as a matter
of commonsense. Not all signatories to this statement accept this natural law approach or perspective, but
we include it here since it represents a view that some thoughtful supporters of marriage nd compelling.
Marriage oers men and women as spouses a good they can have in no other way: a mutual and complete
giving of the self. Tis act of reciprocal self-giving is made solemn in a covenant of delity, a vow to stand
by one another as husband and wife amid lifes joys and sorrows, and to raise the children that may come
as the fruit of this personal, sexual, and familial union. Marriage binds two individuals together for life, and
binds them jointly to the next generation that will follow in their footsteps. Marriage elevates, orders, and
at times constrains our natural desires to the higher moral end of delity and care.
Te marriage vow by its nature includes permanence and exclusivity: A couple would lose the very good
of the union they seek if they saw their marriage as temporary, or as open to similar sharing with others.
What exactly would a temporary promise to love mean? Would it not reduce ones spouse to a source of
pleasure for oneself, to be desired and kept only so long as ones own desires are fullled? By weakening the
permanence of marriage, the contemporary culture of divorce undermines the act of self-giving that is the
foundation of marriage. Te marriage vow, seen as binding, is meant to secure some measure of certainty
in the face of lifes many unknownsthe certainty that this unknown future will be faced together until
death separates. At the same time, marriage looks beyond the married couple themselves to their potential
ospring, who secure the future from this generation to the next.
Marriage is thus by its nature sexual. It gives a unique unitive and procreative meaning to the sexual drive,
distinguishing marriage from other close bonds. Te emotional, spiritual, and psychological closeness of a
married couple is realized in the unique biological unity that occurs between a man and a woman united
as husband and wife in sexual intercourse. In marital sexual union, the love of husband and wife is given
concrete embodiment. Our bodies are not mere instruments. Our sexual selves are not mere genitalia. Male
and female are made to relate to and complete one another, to nd unity in complementarity and comple-
21
mentarity in sexual dierence. Te same sexual act that unites the spouses is also the act that creates new life.
Sharing of lives is, in sex, also a potential sharing of life. In procreation, marital love nds its highest realiza-
tion and expression. In the family, children nd the safety, security, and support they need to reach their full
potential, grounded in a public, prior commitment of mother and father to become one family together.
Tis deeper understanding of marriage is not narrowly religious. It is the articulation of certain universal
truths about human experience, an account of the potential elevation of human nature in marriage that all
human beings can rationally grasp. Many secular-minded couples desire these extraordinary things from
marriage: a permanent and exclusive bond of love that unites men and women to each other and to their
children.
But marriage cannot survive or ourish when the ideal of marriage is eviscerated. Radically dierent under-
standings of marriage, when given legal status, threaten to create a culture in which it is no longer possible
for men and women to understand the unique goods that marriage embodies: the delity between men and
women, united as potential mothers and fathers, bound to the children that the marital union might pro-
duce. Maintaining a culture that endorses the good of marriage is essential to ensuring that marriage serves
the common good. And in a free society such as our own, a strong marriage culture also fosters liberty by
encouraging adults to govern their own lives and rear their children responsibly.
As honest advocates of same-sex marriage have conceded, to abandon the conjugal conception of marriage
the idea of marriage as a union of sexually complementary spouseseliminates any ground of principle for
limiting the number of partners in a marriage to two. It would open the door to legalizing polygamy and
polyamory (group marriage), and produce a culture in which marriage loses its signicance and standing,
with disastrous results for children begotten and reared in a world of post-marital chaos.
Te law has a crucial place in sustaining this deeper understanding of marriage and its myriad human goods.
Te law is a teacher, instructing the young either that marriage is a reality in which people can choose to
participate but whose contours individuals cannot remake at will, or teaching the young that marriage is a
mere convention, so malleable that individuals, couples, or groups can choose to make of it whatever suits
their desires, interests, or subjective goals of the moment.
Even as we defend the good of marriage as a way of life for individual men and women, therefore, we can-
not ignore the culture and polity that sustain that way of life. Oxford University philosopher Joseph Raz, a
self-described liberal, is rightly critical of those forms of liberalism which suppose that law and government
can and should be neutral with respect to competing conceptions of moral goodness. As he put it:
Monogamy, assuming that it is the only valuable form of marriage, cannot be practiced by
an individual. It requires a culture which recognizes it, and which supports it through the
publics attitude and through its formal institutions.
99

22
Professor Razs point is that if monogamy is indeed a key element in a sound understanding of marriage,
this ideal needs to be preserved and promoted in law and in policy. Te marriage culture cannot ourish in
a society whose primary institutions, including universities, courts, legislatures, and religious institutions,
not only fail to defend marriage but actually undermine it both conceptually and in practice. Te young will
never learn what it means to get married and stay married, to live in delity to the spouse they choose and
the children they must care for, if the social world in which they come of age treats marriage as fungible or
insignicant.
23
V. AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM AND THE WAY FORWARD
When it comes to family life, the great paradox of our time is this: Every society (including our own) that
we think is generally best for human ourishingstable, democratic, developed, and freeis experiencing
a radical crisis around human generativity: enormous increases in family fragmentation and fatherlessness,
usually coupled with the collapse of fertility to levels which, if continued, spell demographic and social de-
cline. Suddenly, developed nations are nding themselves unable to accomplish the great, simple task that
every human society must do: bring young men and women together to marry and raise the next generation
together.
Te United States has in some ways been the leader in this retreat from marriage, but in other ways (espe-
cially in recent years) has shown signs of unusual, renewed vitality. We are the only Western nation we know
of with a marriage movement.
100
We are the only large, developed nation to experience a sustained rise in
fertility back to near-replacement levels.
Te great task for American exceptionalism in our generation is to sustain and energize this movement for
the renewal of marriage. We need to transmit a stronger, healthier, and more loving marriage culture to the
next generation, so that each year more children are raised by their own mother and father united by a loving
marriage, and so those children can grow up to have ourishing marriages themselves.
Creating such a marriage culture is not the job for government. Families, religious communities, and civic
institutions, along with intellectual, moral, religious, and artistic leaders, need to point the way. But law and
public policy will either reinforce and support these goals or undermine them. We call upon our nations leaders,
and our fellow citizens, to support public policies that strengthen marriage as a social institution. Tis nation
must re-establish the normative understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, intended
for life, welcoming and raising together those children who are the fruit of their self-giving love, children
who might aspire to marry and raise children of their own, renewing the lifecycle and extending the family
tree from generation to generation.
In particular, we single out ve areas for special attention:
1. Protect the public understanding of marriage as the union of one man with one woman as husband
and wife.
Te laws understanding of marriage is powerful. Judges should not attempt to redene marriage by im-
posing a new legal standard of what marriage means, or falsely declaring that our historic understanding
of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is rooted in animus or unreason. Nor should the law
send a false message to the next generation that marriage itself is irrelevant or secondary, by extending
marriage benets to couples or individuals who are not married.
24
a. Resist legislative attempts to create same-sex marriage; use legislative mechanisms to protect the
institution of marriage as a union of a male and a female as sexually complementary spouses. We urge
our elected ocials to support legislation that will properly dene and promote a true conception of
marriage. Likewise, we call on our elected representatives to vote against any bills that would deviate
from this understanding of marriage. (We do not object to two or more persons, whether related or
not, entering into legal contracts to own property together, share insurance, make medical decisions
for one another, and so on.)
b. End the court-created drive to create and impose same-sex marriage. We call on courts directly to
protect our understanding of marriage as the union of husband and wife. Radical judicial experiments
that coercively alter the meaning of marriage are bound to make creating and sustaining a marriage
culture more dicult, especially when such actions are manifestly against the will of the American
people.
c. Refuse to extend marital legal status to cohabiting couples. Powerful intellectual institutions in fam-
ily law, including the American Law Institute, have proposed that America follow the path of many
European nations and Canada in easing or erasing the legal distinction between marriage and cohabi-
tation. But we believe it is unjust as well as unwise to either (a) impose marital obligations on people
who have not consented to them or (b) extend marital benets to couples who are not married.
2. Investigate divorce law reforms.
Under Americas current divorce system, courts today provide less protection for the marriage contract
than they do for an ordinary business contract. Some of us support a return to a fault-based divorce
system, others of us do not. But all of us recognize that the current system is a failure in both practical
and moral terms, and deeply in need of reform. We call for renewed eorts to discover ways that law can
strengthen marriage and reduce unnecessarily high rates of divorce. We arm that protecting women
and children from domestic violence is a critically important goal. But because both children and adults
in non-marital unions are at vastly increased risk for both domestic violence and abuse, encouraging high
rates of family fragmentation is not a good strategy for protecting women from violent men, or children
from abusive homes.
Among the proposals we consider worthy of more consideration:
a. Extend waiting periods for unilateral no-fault divorce. Require couples in nonviolent marriages to
attend (religious, secular, or public) counseling designed to resolve their dierences and renew their
marital vows.
b. Permit the creation of prenuptial covenants that restrict divorce for couples who seek more exten-
sive marriage commitments than current law allows. (Te enforcement by secular courts of Orthodox
Jewish marriage contracts may provide a useful model).
c. Expand court-connected divorce education programs to include divorce interventions (such as
PAIRS or Retrouvaille) that help facilitate reconciliations as well as reducing acrimony and litigation.
d. Apply standards of fault to the distribution of property, where consistent with the best interests
of children. Spouses who are abusive or unfaithful should not share marital property equally with
innocent spouses.
25
e. Create pilot programs on marriage education and divorce interventions in high-risk communi-
ties, using both faith-based and secular programs; track program eectiveness to establish best prac-
tices that could be replicated elsewhere.
3. End marriage penalties for low-income Americans.
To address the growing racial and class divisions in marriage, federal and state governments ought to act
quickly to eliminate the marriage penalties embedded in means-tested welfare and tax policiessuch as the
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Medicaidthat aect couples with low and moderate incomes.
101
It
is unconscionable that government levies substantial nancial penalties on low-income parents who marry.
Other approaches to strengthening marriage for couples and communities at risk include public informa-
tion campaigns, marriage education programs, and jobs programs for low-income couples who wish to get
and stay married. Experimenting with such new initiatives allows scholars to determine which measures are
best suited to the task at hand.
102

4. Protect and expand pro-child and pro-family provisions in our tax code.
5. Protect the interests of children from the fertility industry.
Treating the making of babies as a business like any other is fundamentally inconsistent with the dignity
of human persons and the fundamental needs of children. Among the proposals we urge Americans to
consider, following in the footsteps of countries such as Italy and Sweden:
a. Ban the use of anonymous sperm and egg donation for all adults. Children have a right to know
their biological origins. Adults have no right to strip children of this knowledge to satisfy their own
desires for a family.
b. Consider restricting reproductive technologies to married couples.
c. Refuse to create legally fatherless children. Require men who are sperm donors (and/or clinics as
their surrogates) to retain legal and nancial responsibility for any children they create who lack a
legal father.
Te most important changes underwriting the current United States fertility industry are not technological;
rather they are social and legal. Both law and culture have stressed the interests of adults to the exclusion
of the needs and interests of children. Parents seeking children deserve our sympathy and support. But we
ought not, in doing so, deliberately create an entire class of children who are deprived of their natural human
right to know their own origins and their profound need for devoted mothers and fathers.
In sum, families, religious communities, community organizations, and public policymakers must work to-
gether toward a great goal: strengthening marriage so that each year more children are raised by their own
mother and father in loving, lasting marital unions. Te future of the American experiment depends upon
it. And our children deserve nothing less.
26
NOTES
1 Steven L. Nock. 2005. Marriage as a Public Issue. Te Future of Children15: 1332.
2 W. Bradford Wilcox et al. 2005. Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition: Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social
Sciences. New York: Institute for American Values. Lorraine Blackman, Obie Clayton, Norval Glenn, Linda
Malone-Colon, and Alex Roberts. 2005. Te Consequences of Marriage for African Americans: A Comprehensive
Literature Review. New York: Institute for American Values.
3 David Popenoe. 1988. Disturbing the Nest: Family Change and Decline in Modern Societies. Aldine de Gruyter.
Alan Wolfe. 1989. Whose Keeper? Social Science and Moral Obligation. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
4 http://www.law2.byu.edu/marriage_family/Charles%20Reid.pdf. W. Bradford Wilcox and Steven L. Nock.
2006. Whats Love Got to Do with It? Ideology, Equity, Gender, and Womens Marital Happiness. Social
Forces 84: 13211345. Vaughn R.A. Call and Tim B. Heaton. 1997. Religious Inuence on Marital Stability.
Journal for the Scientic Study of Religion 36: 382392.
5 W. Bradford Wilcox et al. 2005.
6 Kristin Anderson Moore, Susan M. Jekielek, and Carol Emig, 2002. Marriage from a Childs Perspective:
How Does Family Structure Aect Children, and What Can be Done about It? Research Brief, June 2002.
Washington, DC: Child Trends. p. 6.
7 For summaries from Brookings and Princeton, see Sara McLanahan, Elisabeth Donahue, and Ron Haskins.
2005. Introducing the Issue. Te Future of Children 15: 312. For the Center for Law and Social Policys
statement, see Mary Parke. 2003. Are Married Parents Really Better for Children? Washington, DC: Center for
Law and Social Policy. For the Institute for American Values statement, see Wilcox et al. 2005.
8 Elizabeth Marquardt. 2005a. Family Structure and Childrens Educational Outcomes. New York: Institute for
American Values.
9 Ibid.
10 Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur. 1994. Growing Up with a Single Parent. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
11 Wilcox et al. 2005. Elizabeth Marquardt. 2005b. Between Two Worlds: Te Inner Lives of Children of Divorce.
New York: Crown.
12 Gunilla Ringback Weitoft, Anders Hjern, Bengt Haglund, and Mans Rosen. 2003. Mortality, Severe
Morbidity, and Injury in Children Living with Single Parents in Sweden: A Population-Based Study. Te
Lancet 361: 289295.
13 Sara McLanahan. 1997. Parent Absence or Poverty: Which Matters More? In G. Duncan and J. Brooks-
Gunn, Consequences of Growing Up Poor. New York: Russell Sage.
14 Kyle Pruett. 2000. Fatherneed. New York: Broadway. P. 207. See also Marquardt. 2005b and David Popenoe.
1996. Life Without Father. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
15 Pruett. 2000. Pp. 204208.
16 Bruce Ellis. 2002. Timing of Pubertal Maturation in Girls: An Integrated Life History Approach. Psychology
Bulletin 130: 920958.
17 McLanahan and Sandefur. 1994. Bruce Ellis et al. 2003. Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk
for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy? Child Development 74: 801821.
18 Ellis et al. 2003.
19 Wilcox et al. 2005.
20 Marquardt. 2005a. Paul Amato. 2005. Te Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and
Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation. Te Future of Children 15: 7596.
21 Cynthia Harper and Sara McLanahan. 2004. Father Absence and Youth Incarceration. Journal of Research on
Adolescence 14: 369397.
22 Harper and McLanahan. 2004.
27
23 Brian DOnofrio et al. 2006. A Genetically Informed Study of the Processes Underlying the Association
between Parental Marital Instability and Ospring Adjustment. Developmental Psychology. Forthcoming.
Brian DOnofrio et al. 2005. A Genetically Informed Study of Marital Instability and Its Association With
Ospring Psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 114: 570586.
24 Wilcox et al. 2005. McLanahan and Sandefur. 1994.
25 Wilcox et al. 2005. Popenoe. 1996.
26 Sandra Hoerth and Kermyt Anderson. 2003. Are All Dads Equal? Biology Versus Marriage as a Basis for
Paternal Involvement. Journal of Marriage and Family 65: 213232. Wilcox et al. 2005.
27 Ross Parke. 1996. Fatherhood. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p.101.
28 Hoerth and Anderson. 2003.
29 Valarie King and Holly Heard. 1999. Nonresident Father Visitation, Parental Conict, and Mothers
Satisfaction: Whats Best for Child Well-Being? Journal of Marriage and the Family 61: 385396. Elaine
Sorenson and Chava Zibman. 2000. To What Extent Do Children Benet from Child Support? Washington, DC:
Te Urban Institute.
30 Paul Amato. 1998. More Tan Money? Mens Contributions to Teir Childrens Lives. In Alan Booth and
A.C. Crouter, (Eds.), Men in Families: When Do Tey Get Involved? What Dierence Does It Make? Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Belsky, J., Youngblade L., Rovine, M., & Volling, B. 1991. Patterns of Marital
Change and Parent-Child Interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family 53: 487498. Wilcox et al. 2005.
31 Eleanor Maccoby. 1998. Te Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together. Cambridge: Harvard University.
32 David Geary. 1998. Male, Female: Te Evolution of Human Sex Dierences. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. P. 104.
33 Wade Horn and Tom Sylvester. 2002. Father Facts. Gaithersburg, MD: National Fatherhood Initiative. P.
153. Popenoe. 1996. P. 145. Tomas G. Powers et al.1994. Compliance and Self-Assertion: Young Childrens
Responses to Mothers Versus Fathers. Developmental Psychology 30: 980989.
34 Pruett. 2000. Pp. 3031. Popenoe. 1996. Pp. 144145.
35 Geary. 1998. P. 142.
36 Anne Case et al. 2000. How Hungry is the Selsh Gene? Economic Journal 110: 781804. Wilcox et al. 2005.
37 Bruce Ellis. 2002. Of Fathers and Pheromones: Implications of Cohabitation for Daughters Pubertal Timing.
In A. Booth and A. Crouter (eds.) Just Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation on Families, Children, and
Social Policy. Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38 McLanahan and Sandefur. 1994. p. 38, (emphasis supplied).
41 Michelle J. Budig and Paula England. 2001. Te Wage Penalty for Motherhood. American Sociological Review
66: 204225.
43 Waite and Gallagher. 2000.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.
49 Wilcox et al. 2005. Daniel N. Hawkins and Alan Booth. 2005. Unhappily Ever After: Eects of Long-Term
Low-Quality Marriages on Well-Being. Social Forces 84: 451472.
50 George Akerlof et al. Nock. 1998. Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher. 2000. Te Case for Marriage. New York:
Doubleday.
51 Nock. 1998.
52 Waite and Gallagher. 2000.
28
53 Nock. 1998.
54 Nock. 1998.
56 James Dabbs. 2000. Heroes, Rogues, and Lovers: Testosterone and Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
57 Waite and Gallagher. 2000. p. 152.
58 Waite and Gallagher. P. 155.
59 Ibid.
60 Wilcox and Nock. 2006.
61 Ibid. Paul Amato and Stacy Rogers. 1999. Do Attitudes Toward Divorce Aect Marital Quality? Journal of
Family Issues 20: 6986.
62 Scott Stanley et al. 2004. Maybe I do: Interpersonal commitment and premarital or nonmarital cohabitation.
Journal of Family Issues 25: 496519. Wilcox et al. 2005.
63 Adam Tomas and Isabel Sawhill. 2005. For Love and Money? Te Impact of Family Structure on Family
Income. Te Future of Children 15: 5774.
64 Amato. 2005. p. 89.
65 Charles Murray. 2005. Te Hallmark of the Underclass. Wall Street Journal Sept. 29: A18.
66 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/exptyptab.htm
67 George A. Akerlof. 1998. Men Without Children. Te Economic Journal 108: 287309.
68 Robert J. Sampson. 1995. Unemployment and Imbalanced Sex Ratios: Race Specic Consequences for Family
Structure and Crime. In M.B. Tucker and C. Mitchell-Kernan (eds.). Te Decline in Marriage among African
Americans. New York: Russell Sage. P. 249.
69 Isabel V. Sawhill. 1999. Families at Risk. In H. Aaron and R. Reischauer, Setting National Priopities: the 2000
Election and Beyond. Washington: Brookings Institution.
70 David Schramm. 2003. Preliminary Estimates of the Economic Consequences of Divorce. Utah State University.
71 For family trends, see Timothy M. Smeeding, Daniel P. Moynihan, and Lee Rainwater. 2004. Te Challenge
of Family System Changes for Research and Policy. In D.P. Moynihan, T. M. Smeding, and L. Rainwater
(eds.), Te Future of the Family. New York: Russell Sage. For information on state spending around the globe,
see http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/.
72 Popenoe. 1988. Wolfe. 1989.
73 Paul Amato and Alan Booth. 1997. A Generation at Risk. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
74 Ibid.
75 Wilcox et al. 2005. Marquardt. 2005b. Between Two Worlds.
76 Wilcox et al. 2005. Sara McLanahan and Gary Qandefur. 1994. Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts,
What Helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
77 Ibid.
78 Norval Glenn. 1996. Values, Attitudes, and the State of American Marriages. In Promises to Keep, edited
by D. Popenoe, J. Elshtain, and D. Blankenhorn. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littleeld. Frank Furstenberg.
2001. Te Fading Dream: Prospects for Marriage in the Inner City. In Problem of the Century, edited by E.
Anderson and D. Massey. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
80 David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. 2005. Te State of Our Unions. New Brunswick, NJ: National
Marriage Project.
81 Timothy M. Smeeding, Daniel P. Moynihan, and Lee Rainwater. 2004. Te Challenge of Family System
Changes for Research and Policy. In Te Future of the Family, edited by D. Moynihan, T. Smeeding, and L.
Rainwater . New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Popenoe and Whitehead. 2005. Wilcox et al. 2005.
29
84 Daniel Lichter. Daniel T. Lichter, Deborah Roempke Graefe, and J. Brian Brown. 2003. Is Marriage a
Panacea? Union Formation Among Economically Disadvantaged Unwed Mothers, Social Problems 50: 6086.
Daniel T. Lichter, Christie D. Batson, and J. Brian Brown. 2004. Welfare Reform and Marriage Promotion:
Te Marital Expectations and Desires of Single and Cohabiting Mothers. Social Service Review 38: 225.
Lawrence L. Wu and Barbara Wolfe. 2001. Out of Wedlock: Causes and Consequences of Nonmarital Fertility. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
85 Steven L. Nock. 1998. Te Consequences of Premarital Fatherhood, American Sociological Review, 63:
250263.
86 Popenoe and Whitehead. 2005.
87 Larry Bumpass and Hsien-Hen Lu. 2000. Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Childrens Family
Contexts in the U.S., Population Studies 54: 2941.
89 David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. 2002. Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know
About Cohabitation Before Marriage: A Comprehensive Review of Recent Research. New Brunswick, NJ: National
Marriage Project.
90 Popenoe and Whitehead. 2002. Wilcox et al. 2005.
92 Patricia G. Schnitzer and Bernard G. Ewigman. 2005. Child Deaths Resulting from Inicted Injuries:
Household Risk Factors and Perpetrator Characteristics. Pediatrics 116: 687693.
93 Wendy Manning, Pamela Smock, Debarum Majumdar. 2004. Te Relative Stability of Cohabiting and
Marital Unions for Children. Population Research and Policy Review 23: 135159.
94 Steven Nock. 2001. Adavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Halpern et al. v. Canada.
Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Sociology Department. William Meezan and Jonathan Rauch. 2005.
Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and Americas Children. Future of Children 15: 97115.
95 Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon. 2003. Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year.
University of Vermont Department of Psychology. David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison. 1984. Te Male
Couple. Prentice Hall. Andrew Sullivan. 1995. Virtually Normal. New York: Knopf, rst edition.
96 Judith Stacey. 1998. Gay and Lesbian Families: Queer Like Us. In All Our Families: New Policies for a New
Century, edited by M.A. Mason, A. Skolnick, and S.D. Sugarman. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 117,
128129.
97 Council of Europe. 2004. Recent Demographic Developments in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe
Publishing. Daniel P. Moynihan, Timothy M. Smeeding, and Lee Rainwater. 2004. Te Future of the Family.
New York: Russell Sage Press.
98 Council of Europe. 2004. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050712/d050712a.htm. http://www.census.
gov/population/projections/MethTab1.xls.
99 Joseph Raz, Te Morality of Freedom (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) 162.
100 http://www.americanvalues.org/pdfs/marriagemovement.pdf
101 Adam Carasso and C. Eugene Steuerle. 2005. Te Hefty Penalty on Marriage Facing Many Households with
Children. Future of Children 15: 157175.
102 Sara McLanahan, Elisabeth Donahue, and Ron Haskins. 2005. Introducing the Issue. Te Future of Children
15: 312.
30
SIGNATORIES
[as of July 17, 2006]
Daniel Cere, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for the Study of Marriage,|
Law and Culture,
McGill University
Lloyd R. Cohen, PhD., J.D.
Professor of Law,
George Mason University School of Law
John Coverdale, J.D., Ph.D.
Professor of Law,
Seton Hall University School of Law
Frederick C. DeCoste, M.S.W., L.L.B., L.L.M.
Professor of Law,
University of Alberta Faculty of Law
Dwight Duncan, J.D.
Professor of Law,
Southern New England School of Law
David Eggebeen, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Human Development
and Sociology,
Penn State University
Jean Bethke Elshtain, Ph.D.
Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social
and Political Ethics, University of Chicago
Michael O. Emerson, Ph.D.
Allyn R. and Gladys M. Cline Professor of
Sociology and Founding Director of the Center
on Race, Religion, and Urban Life,
Rice University
M. Sophia Aguirre, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Economics,
Catholic University of America
Helen Alvare, J.D.
Associate Professor of Law,
Catholic University Columbus School of Law
Hadley Arkes, Ph.D.
Ney Professor of American Institutions
and Jurisprudence,
Amherst College
Herman Belz, Ph.D.
Professor of Constitutional History,
University of Maryland at College Park
Louis Bolce, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Political Science,
Baruch College
Gerard Bradley, J.D.
Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Patrick Brennan, M.A., J.D.
Professor of Law and John F. Scarpa Chair in
Catholic Legal Studies, Villanova University
School of Law
J. Budziszewski, Ph.D.
Professor of Government and Philosophy,
University of Texas at Austin
James W. Ceaser, Ph.D.
Professor of Politics, University of Virginia
31
Gene C. Fant, Jr., Ph.D.
Chair, Department of English, Union University
Tomas E. Flanagan, Ph.D.
Professor of Political Science,
University of Calgary
David F. Forte, Ph.D., JD.
Charles R. Emrick Jr.Calfee, Halter & Griswold
Endowed Professor of Law,
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law
Elizabeth Fox-Geneovese, Ph.D.
Elonore Raoul Professor of the Humanities and
Professor of History, Emory University
Alfred J. Freddoso, Ph.D.
John and Jean Oesterle Professor
of Tomistic Studies,
University of Notre Dame
Jorge L.A. Garcia, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy, Boston College
Robert P. George, J.D., D.Phil.
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence,
Princeton University
Mary Ann Glendon, J.D., L.L.M.
Learned Hand Professor of Law,
Harvard Law School
Alfonso Gomez-Lobo, Ph.D.
Ryan Family Professor of Metaphysics and
Moral Philosophy,
Georgetown University
Lino A. Graglia, L.L.B.
A. Dalton Cross Professor of Law,
Earl L. Grinols, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Economics, Hankamer
School of Business, Baylor University
Anne Hendershott, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology and Director
of Urban Studies,
University of San Diego
Joseph Horn, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology,
Robert Jenson, Ph.D.
Senior Scholar for Research, Emeritus, Center for
Teological Inquiry, Princeton, N.J., and Professor
of Teology Emeritus,
St. Olaf College
Byron Johnson, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology, Director, Center for
Religious Inquiry across the Disciplines,
Baylor University
Anthony M. Joseph, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of History
Eastern University
Leon R. Kass, M.D., Ph.D.
Addie Clark Harding Professor in the Committee
on Social Tought and the College,
University of Chicago
32
Robert C. Koons, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy,
Peter Augustine Lawler, Ph.D.
Dana Professor and Chair of the Government
Department and International Studies,
Berry College
Wilfred M. McClay, Ph.D.
SunTrust Chair of Excellence in Humanities
and Professor of History,
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Paul R. McHugh, M.D.
University Distinguished Service Professor
of Psychiatry,
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Ralph McInerny, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy and Michael P. Grace
Professor of Medieval Studies,
University of Notre Dame
Bruce M. Metzger, Ph.D.
George L. Collord Professor Emeritus of New
Testament Language and Literature,
Princeton Teological Seminary
Robert T. Miller, J.D., M.Phil.
Assistant Professor of Law,
Villanova University School of Law
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.
Senior Research Fellow in Economics,
Te Acton Institute for the Study of Religion
and Liberty
Russell K. Nieli, Ph.D.
Lecturer, Department of Politics,
Princeton University
Steven Nock, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology and Director of the
Marriage Matters Project, University of Virginia
David Novak, M.H.L., Ph.D.
J. Richard and Dorothy Shi Professor of
Jewish Studies,
University of Toronto
Marvin Olasky, Ph.D.
Professor of Journalism,
Michael Pakaluk, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Philosophy,
Clark University
Alexander R. Pruss, Ph.D.
Georgetown University
Jeremy Rabkin, Ph.D.
Professor of Government, Cornell University
Steven E. Rhoads, Ph.D.
Professor of Politics, University of Virginia
Daniel N. Robinson, Ph.D.
Philosophy Faculty, Oxford University
Distinguished Research Professor of Psychology,
Emeritus, Georgetown University
Michael A. Scaperlanda, J.D.
Professor of Law and Gene and Elaine Edwards
Family Chair in Law, Te University of
Oklahoma College of Law
33
Roger Scruton, Ph.D.
Research Professor, Institute for the
Psychological Sciences
Gregory Sisk, J.D.
Professor of Law,
University of St. Tomas School of Law,
Minnesota
Katherine Shaw Spaht, J.D.
Jules F. and Frances L. Landry Professor of Law,
Louisiana State University Law Center
Richard J. Sperry, M.D., Ph.D.
Matheson Endowed Chair, Health Policy
and Management,
University of Utah
Max L. Stackhouse, Ph.D.
Rimmer and Ruth de Vries Professor of
Reformed Teology and Public Life, Princeton
Teological Seminary
Richard Stith, J.D., Ph.D.
Professor of Law,
Valparaiso University School of Law
James R. Stoner, Jr., Ph.D.
Louisiana State University
Seana Sugrue, L.L.B., L.L.M., D.C.L.
Associate Professor of Political Science,
Ave Maria University
Christopher O. Tollefsen, Ph.D.
University of South Carolina
Michael Uhlmann, J.D., Ph.D.
Research Professor in Politics and Policy,
Claremont Graduate University
Paul C. Vitz, Ph.D.
Senior Scholar, Institute for the
Psychological Sciences
Professor Emeritus of Psychology,
New York University
Lynn D. Wardle, J.D.
Bruce C. Hafen Professor of Law,
Brigham Young University
Amy Wax, J.D., M.D.
Robert Mundheim Professor of Law,
University of Pennsylvania Law School
Robert Louis Wilken, Ph.D.
William R. Keenan, Jr. Professor of History,
University of Virginia
Richard G. Wilkins, J.D.
Robert W. Barker Professor of Law
Brigham Young University
James Q. Wilson, Ph.D.
Ronald Reagan Professor of Public Policy,
Pepperdine University
Christopher Wolfe, Ph.D.
Marquette University
Peter Wood, Ph.D.
Provost and Professor of Anthropology
and the Humanities,
Te Kings College
34
About THE WITHERSPOON INSTITUTE
Te Witherspoon Institute works to enhance public understanding of the political, moral, and philosophical
principles of free and democratic societies. It also promotes the application of these principles to contem-
porary problems.
Te Institute is named for John Witherspoon, a leading member of the Continental Congress, a signer of
the Declaration of Independence, the sixth president of Princeton University, and a mentor to James Madi-
son. As important as these and his other notable accomplishments are, however, it is Witherspoons com-
mitment to liberal education and his recognition of the dignity of human freedom, whether it be personal,
political, or religious, that inspire the Institutes name.
In furtherance of its educational mission, the Witherspoon Institute supports a variety of scholarly activi-
ties. It sponsors research and teaching by means of a fellowship program; it sponsors conferences, lectures,
and colloquia; and it encourages and assists scholarly collaboration among individuals sharing the Institutes
interest in the foundations of a free society. Te Witherspoon Institute also serves as a resource for the
media and other organizations seeking comment on matters of concern to the Institute and its associated
scholars.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Stephen Whelan, Esq., Chairman
Luis Tellez, President
Mark OBrien, Vice-President
Michael Fragoso, M.D., Treasurer
John Metzger, Esq., Secretary
Michael Crofton, Trustee
Deborah Garwood, Trustee
Roger Naill, Trustee
Edward Smith, Trustee
Mark Smith, Trustee
Herbert W. Vaughan, Trustee Emeritus
Eugene Zurlo, Trustee
For more information about the work of the Witherspoon Institute, please visit www.winst.org, or call (609)
688-8779.

EXHIBIT 32
RECONCILABLE
DIFFERENCES
What Social Sciences Show About the
Complementarity of the Sexes & Parenting
by W. BRADFO RD W ILCOX
I
N THE LAST FOUR DECADES, a feminist revolu-
tion has swept the globe. To be sure, this revo-
lution has brought many beneficial changes
to our world. Now, for instance, much of the
world allows and encourages women to bring their
talents into the public spheres of work and public
policy. But this revolution has also brought less
welcome developments to the global scene. What
might be described as the androgynous impulse-an
impulse that seeks ro deny any essential or biologi-
cally based differences between men and women-is
one of those developments.
ANDROGYNOUS I MPULSE
This impulse can be found, among other places, in
the public policies and social agendas of interna-
tional bodies associated with the United Nations.
The UN committee responsible for monitoring
compliance with the Convention on the El imination
of All Forms of Discriminat ion against Women
(CEDAW) is one example. This committee has called
on countries like Armenia and Belarus to end pub-
lic policies and practices that support distinctive
maternal roles for women, such as Mother's Day
and maternal leave policies. Instead, it and other
proponents of this type of feminist agenda would
like to see public policies that promote an androgy-
nous parenting ethic where fathers and mothers
devore equal amounts of time to parenting, and
parent with essentially the same style of parent-child
interaction.
32 TOUCHSTONE J NOVEMBER 2005
The primary problem wirh this androgynous
impulse is that it does not recognize the unique
talents that men and women bring to the most
fundamenral unit of society: th e family. A growing
body of social scientific evidence confirms what
common sense and many of t he world's religions
tell us: Men and women do indeed bring different
gifts to the parenting enterprise. Consequently, at
all levels of social life-the international, national,
and local- public policies, cultural norms, and social
roles should be organized to protect rather t han
prohibit the complementary parenting styles that
fathers and mothers bring to family Life.
But before embarking on an overview of this
literature, let me offer two caveats:
First, nor every mother or every father will pos-
sess all of the distinctive sex-specific gifts described
below. For instance, some fathers are nor endowed
with a firm temperament suited for discipline, and
some mothers are not endowed with a sensitive
temperament suited for nurturing. Nevertheless,
most fathers and mothers possess sex-speci fie talents
related to parenting, and societies should organize
parenting and work roles to take advantage of the
W. Bradford Wilcox is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the
University of Virginia and the author ofSoft Patriarchs, New
Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands
(Univmiry of Chicago Press, 2004 ). Earlier versions of"Reconcil-
able Differences" were g)ven at the Doha International Confer-
ence for the Family last fall and the World Family Poliry Forum
at Brigham Young Universiry this summer.
way in which these talents tend to be distributed in sex-
specific ways.
Second, although both sexes possess most of these
parenting talents, one sex nevertheless tends to excel in
each of them. For instance, mothers are generally better at
nurturing small children than are fathers, but fathers can
also nurture their children. Thus, societies should build
on these comparative
sex-specific advantages
to engage in nurturing behavior such as hugging, prais-
ing, or cuddLing.
4
The hormone peptide oxytocin, which
is released in women during pregnancy and breastfeeding,
makes mothers more interested in bonding with children
and engaging in nurturing behavior than fathers. In other
words, not only are women better at nurturing but they
also are more likely to enjoy expending time and energy
nurturing children.
Children know this.
by letting each sex take
the lead in n:he domains
Governments and international
Numerous studies in-
dicate that infants and
toddlers prefer thei r
mothers to their fathers
when they seek solace or
relief from hunger, fear,
sickness, or some other
distress.
5
In other words,
when children look fo1
comfort and consola-
where it excels.
T ALENTED
MoTHERS
Among the many distinc-
tive talents that mothers
bring to the parenting
enterprise, three stand
out: their capacity to
breastfeed, their ability
organizations need to come to
terms with the social scientific
evidence that indicates that
distinctly gendered approaches
to parenting are best for
children and families.
tion, no one compares
with mom.
to understand infants
and children, and their ability to offer nurture and com-
fort to their children.
Obviously, only mothers can breastfeed their chil-
dren. The medical literature on the advantages of breast-
feeding could not be clearer. Breast milk offers infants a
range of sugars, nutrients, and antibodies unavailable in
infant formula. It protects infants against at least eleven
serious maladies, from ear infections to sudden infant
death syndrome. Indeed, this research led the American
Academy of Pediatrics in 1997 to recommend that infants
be breastfed until at least one year of age. Here mothers
clearly have a very sex-specific advantage in parenting.
1
Mothers also excel in interpreting their children's
physical and linguistic cues. Mothers are more responsive
to the distinctive cries of infants. They are better able
than fathers, for instance, to distinguish between a cry
of hunger and a cry of pain from their baby, and better
than fathers at detecting the emotions of their children
by looking at their faces, postures, and gestures.
2
Another
study found that adolescents report that their mothers
know them better than their fathers do.
3
In sum, mothers are better able than fathers to read
their children's words, deeds, and appearance to deter-
mine their emotional and physical stare. This maternal
sensitivity to children helps explain why mothers are su-
perior when it comes to nurturing the young, especially
infants and toddlers. Because they excel in reading their
children, they are better able to provide their children with
what they need- from a snack to a hug- when they are in
some type of distress.
Perhaps more importantly, there is growing biologi-
cal evidence that mothers are primed by their hormones
Thus, it should not
surprise us ro find rhat,
as Stanford psychology professor Eleanor Maccoby has
observed in The Two Sexes: "In all known societies, wom-
en, whether they are working outside the home or not,
assume most of the day-to-day responsibility for child
care." Taken together, mothers' comparative advantage in
breastfeeding, understanding their children, and nurtur-
ing makes it functional for societies to organize the bulk
of childrearing around the mother.
T ALENTED FATHERS
Although the distinctive talents that mothers bring to
the childrearing enterprise are invaluable, especially for
infants and toddlers, fathers also bring an array of distinc-
tive talents to the parenting enterprise.
I am not going to focus on the advantages in physi-
cal size and competitive instinct that fathers have when
it comes to providing for and protecting their families.
6
Instead, I am going to focus on three advantages that
relate specifically to parenting: specifically, fathers excen
when it comes to discipline, play, and challenging their
children to embrace life's challenges.
Although mothers discipline their children more
often than do fathers simply because rhey spend more
time with them, fathers do have a comparative advantage
in this area. Typically, fathers engender more fear than
mothers in their children because their comparatively
greater physical strength and size, along with the pitch
and inflection of their voice, telegraph toughness to their
children. Fathers also are more assertive than mothers
in their dealings with their children, and are less likely
to bend family rules or principles for their children. In
NOVEMBER 2005 [ TOUCHSTONE 33
a word, fathers tend to be firmer and more compelling
disciplinarians than mot hers.
7
Consequently, fathers are more likely than moth-
ers to get their boys to respond appropriately to their
d isciplinary strategy, both because of their uniquely
firm approach to discipline and because boys seem
more likely to respond to discipline from someone of
the same sex.
8
For all t hese reasons, dad's discipline
plays a signal role in fostering an orderly climate in
the home.
Fathers also have an advantage when it comes to play.
Although mothers, once again, spend more time playing
with their children than do fathers, the type of play that
fathers engage in with their children is distinctive. Fathers
are much more likely to engage their infants, toddlers, and
older children in vigorous, physical, and exciting forms of
play and games.
9
Fathers are more likely than mothers to be found
throwing their toddlers in the air, wrestling with their
school-age boys, or kicking a soccer ball with their teenage
daughter. This vigorous style of play is popular among
infants and toddlers, who generally prefer to be picked up
by their father rather than their mother (if they are not in
distress).
10
As important, pater nal play promotes social skills,
intellectual development, and a sense of self-control.
Anacortes, Washington:
Pastoral Assistant for Music and Liturgy
Full time position. Our PA for Music and Lit-
urgy must be a skilled singer and choral con-
ductor with a broad knowledge of Sacred
music from Gregorian Chant to Renaissance
Polyphony to the best work of the 20th Cen-
tury and beyond. Duties: hiring, directing
and arranging music for small instrumental
ensembles, since brass and string quartets
are often used to enhance special liturgies.
Other duties: recruits, trains and schedules
Altar Servers, Lectors and Eucharistic Min-
isters. Finally, the PA for M&L assists with
some office work, therefore must possess a
reasonable degree of computer literacy and
administrative skills.
Contad information:
Rev. W. R. Harris
Email: dlcon@fldalgo.net
Mail: St. Mary Catholic Church,
4001 St. Mary's Drrive, Anacortes, WA 98221
3 4 T OUCHSTONE I NOVEMBER 2005
The playful side to fathers teaches their children how to
regulate their feelings and behavior as they interact with
others. Engaging in rough physical play with dad teaches
children how to deal with aggressive impulses and physi-
cal contact without losing control of their emotions. For
instance, one study found that father-child play taught
children to recognize others' emotions and to regulate
thei r own emotions.
11
As Emory psychologist john Snarey wrote, "children
who roughhouse with their fathers . .. usually quickly
learn that biting, kicking, and other forms of physical
violence are not acceptable."
12
In other words, the lessons
children learn playing with their fathers prepare them well
for t he game oflife.
CHALLENGING FATHERS
Finally, fathers play a central role in pushing their children
to face the challenges and opportunities that confront
them outside the home. Compared to mothers, fathers are
more likely co encourage their children co take up difficult
tasks, to seek out novel experiences, and to endure pain
and hardship without yielding. Fathers are more likely
t han mothers to encourage toddlers to engage in novel
activities, to interact with strangers, and to be indepen-
dent; and as children enter adolescence, fathers are more
likely to incroduce children to the worlds of work, sport,
and civi l society.
13
The bottom line is t hat fathets excel in teaching
their children the virtues of fortitude, temperance, and
prudence as t hey prepare for life outside their family. Not
surprisingly, there is considerable evidence that paternal
involvement is associated with higher rates of educational
and occupational attainment, self-confidence, and more
pro-social behavior for boys and girls.
14
Fathers' strengths in discipline, play, and challenging
behavior are related co their distinctive position in the
family. Because of the smaller role they play in procreation
and because they do not have the same hormonal priming
to engage in nurturing behavior as mothers do, fathers
are- to some degree- more distant from their children
and, more generally, from the daily emotional dynamics
of family life than a re mothers. Although this distance
can be a liability iffathers are neglectful of their parenting
responsibilities, it can be an asset iffathers take advantage
of this distance to engage their children in a distinctly
farherly way.
By this I mean that fathers, because of their distance
from their children, feel freer to be firm and challenging
with their children than do mothers. In general, this
distance also makes fathers more likely to focus on their
children's future and to t ake the difficult st eps-e.g.,
telling a son to srop fooling around in school and shape
up- that ensure that their children reach their potential
and internal ize a sense of self-control.
Rutgers sociologist David Popenoe summarizes the
complementary strengths of mothers and fathers well in
his Life Without Father:
The complementarity of male and female parenting
styles is striking and of enormous importance to a
child's overall development .... [F]athers express more
concern for the child's long-term development, while
mothers focus on the child's immediate well-being
(which, of course, in its own way has everything to do
with a child's long-term well-being.) . . . [T] he disci-
plinary approach of fathers tends to be "firm" while
that of mothers tends co be "responsive." While moth-
ers provide an imporrant flexibility and sympathy in
their discipline, fathers provide ultimate predictability
and consistency. Both dimensions are critical for an ef-
ficient, balanced, and humane childrearing regimeY
NECESSARY DIFFERENCES
Research on parenting styles and family structure indi-
cates that sex-differentiated parenting helps children
in important ways. A review of research on parenting in
Child Development found that children of parents who
engaged in sex-typical behavior where the mother was
more responsive/ nurturing and the father was more chal-
lenging/firm were more "competent" than children whose
parents did not engage in sex-typical behavior. Another
study of adolescents found that the best parenting ap-
proach was one in which parents were highly responsive
and highly d!emanding of their children.
16
The research on family structure is also very sugges-
tive. In general, children who grow up in an intact, mar-
ried family are about 50 percent less likely to experience
serious psychological, academic, or social problems as
children or young adults, compared to children who grow
up in single or stepfamilies.
17
The general tenor of this
research can be illustrated by briefly considering what we
know about how fatherlessness affects boys and girls.
For boys, the link between crime and fatherlessness is
very clear. As former US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
observed in The Moynihan Report. "A community that
allows a large number of young men (and women) to
grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never
acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, ...
that community asks for, and gets, chaos."
Boys learn self-control, as we have heard, from
playing with and being disciplined by a loving father.
As importantly, boys also learn to control their own ag-
gressive instincts when they see a man they respect and
love-their father-handling frustration, conflict, and
difficulty without resorting to violence. By contrast, boys
who do not regularly experience the love, discipline, and
modeling of a good father are more likely to engage in
what is called "compensatory masculinity," where they
reject and denigrate all that is feminine and instead seek
to prove their masculinity by engaging in domineering
and violent behavior.
18
Studies of crime indicate that one of the strongest
predictors of crime is fatherless families. Princeton Uni-
versity sociologist Sara McLanahan found in one study
that boys raised outside of an intact nuclear family were
more than twice as likely as other boys to end up in prison,
even controlling for a range of social and economic fac-
tors.19 Another review of the literature on delinquency and!
crime found that criminals come from broken homes at
a disproportionate rate: 70 percent of juveniles in state
reform schools, 72 percent of adolescent murderers, and
60 percent of rapists grew up in fatherless homes.
20
Studies of crime and family patterns at the neighbor-
hood level come to similar conclusions. As Harvard soci-
ologist Robert Sampson observes, "Family structure is one
of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor of varia-
tions of urban violence across cities in the United States."
21
CIVILIZED DAUGHTERS
Clearly, fathers play a central role in civilizing boys. They
also play an important role in civilizing girls, as the re-
search on sexual promiscuity and teenage childbearing
makes readily apparent.
Fathers who are affectionate and firm with their
daughters, who love and respect their wives, and who
simply stick around can play a crucial role in minimizing
the likelihood that their daughters will be sexually active
prior to marriage. The affection that fathers bestow on
their daughters makes tihose daughters less likely ro seek
attention from young men and ro get involved sexually
with members of the opposite sex. Fathers also protect
their daughters from premarital sexual activity by setting
clear disciplinary limits for their daughters, monitoring
their whereabouts, and by signaling to young men that
sexual activity will not be tolerated.
22
Finally, when they are in the home, research by
University of Arizona psychology professor Bruce Ellis
suggests that fathers send a biological signal through
their pheromones-special aromatic chemical compounds
released from men's and women's bodies-that slows
the sexual development of their daughters; this, in rurn,
makes daughters less interested in sexual activity and less
likely to be seen as sexual objects.
23
Consequenrly, girls who grow up in inracr families
are much less likely to experience puberty at an early age,
to be sexually active before marriage, and to get preg-
nant before ma.rriage.
24
Indeed, the longer fathers stick
around, the less likely girls are to be sexually active prior
to marriage. One study found that about 35 percent of
girls in t he United States whose fathers left before age 6
became pregnant as teenagers, that 10 percent of girls in
the United States whose fathers left them between the
NOVEMBER 2005 [ TOUCHSTONE 35
ages of 6 and 18 became pregnant as teenagers, and that
only 5 percent of girls whose fathers stayed with them
throughout childhood became pregnanc.
25
SEXED GIFTS
I could also present studies indicating that mothers play
a unigue role in fostering the welfare of children. But be-
cause fatherlessness is the bigger problem confronting the
world today, I think these studies on fathers are sufficient
to indicate the importance of promoting a parenting ethic
that embraces rather than rejects the distinct gifts that the
sexes bring to the parenting enterprise. Vive la difference.
Let me now conclude our review of the social sci-
entific li terature on sex and parenting by spelling out
what should be obvious to all. The best psychological,
sociological, and biological research to date now suggests
that- on average- men and women bring different gifts
to the parenting enterprise, that children benefit from
having parents with distinct parenting styles, and that
family breakdown poses a serious threat to children and
to the societies in which they live.
Conseguently, governments and international or-
ganizations such as the United Nations need to come to
terms with the accumulating social scientific evidence
that indicates that distinctly gendered approaches to par-
enting are best for children and families. They have to rec-
ognize that most societies will and should organize their
approach to parenting along gender-complementarian
lines, both because this is what comes naturally to most
men and women and because this is what is generally
best for children. This re.cognition should be matched by
public policies and social norms at the international and
national levels that support mothers and fathers who seek
to parent in sex-typical ways, without penalizing mothers
and fathers who depart from the typical patterns.
Of course, many influential feminist organizations
and other groups will resist such a strategy. They will
point to academic work that claims sex differences are just
a consequence of socialization patterns in societies that
are organized along sexist lines. But such resistance will
look increasingly futile in the face of growing scientific
evidence that men and women are generally different,
especially when it comes to the parenting enterprise.
Even Eleanor Maccoby, a distinguished feminist
psychologist who once championed the idea that sex
differences were caused only by socialization, is now ac-
knowledging the importance ofbiology in explaining sex
differences in parenting. In her latest book, The Two Sexes,
she concludes her study of men and women by admitting
that
it is probably nor tealistic to sec a fifty-fifty division of
labor between fathers and mothers in the day-to-day
care of children as the most desirable pattern toward
3 6 TOUCHSTONE I NOVEMBER 2005
which we should strive as a social goal. We should
consider the alternative view: that equity between the
sexes does not have to mean exact equality in the sense
of the two sexes having exactly the same life-styles and
exactly the same allocation oftime.
26
It is my sincere hope that this al ternative view-that
gender eguity does not reguire an androgynous parenting
ethic-will come to guide the public policies and social
norms that shape family life around the globe, for the
sake of the children_
NOTES
I. Steven E. Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books,
2004), p. 217; http:/ I
pediatJics;l00/6/ 1035.
2. Eleanor E. Maccoby, The TI/Jo Sexes (Harvard University Press, 1998),
p. 268; Ross D. Parke. Fatherhood (Harvard University Press, 1996),
p. 49; Rhoads, pp. 204 and 221.
3. Maccoby, p. 272.
4. Maccoby, p. 260; Rhoads, pp. 198- 199.
5. Parke, p. 122.
6. Jeffrey Rosenberg and WI. Bradford Wilcox, writing in the US Depart-
menr of Health and Human Services' "Chilld Abuse and Neglecc User
Manual Series," 2005.
7. Wade Horn and Tom Sylvester, Father Facts (National Fat herhood
Initiative, 2002), p. 153; David Popenoe, lifo \Vithot<t Father (Free Press,
1996), p. 145; Thomas G. Powers et al., "Compliance and Self-Asser-
don," in Developmental Prychology 30 ( 1994); Kyle Pruerr, Fathertwed
(Broadway Books, 2000), pp. 32- 33.
8. Powers, pp. 980-989.
9. Popenoe, pp. 143- 144.
10. Pruett, p. 28; Michael Lamb, "Infant-Father Attachmenrs and Their
Impact on Child Developmenr" in Hat1dbook of Father Involvement
(Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002).
II . Parke, p. 138.
12. John Snarey, quoted i:n Popenoe, p. 144.
13. Pruett, pp. 30- 31; Popenoe, pp. 144- 145.
14. J. Mosley and E. Thompson, "Fathering Behavior and Child Our-
comes" in Fatherhood (Sage).
15. Popenoe, pp. 145- 146.
16. Both studies Popenoe, p. 146.
17. Paul Amaro and Alan .Boorh, A Get1eration at Risk (Harvard University
Press, 1997); Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a
Single Parent (Harvard University Press, 1994).
18. Popenoe, pp. 154 and 157.
19. Cynthia Harper and Sara McLanahan, "Father Absence and Youth
Incarceration,'' forthcoming in journal of Research on Adolescence.
20. Eric Brenner, Fathers in Prison (National Cenrer on Fathers and Fami-
lies, 1999).
21. Robert Sampson, "Unemployment and Imbalanced Sex Ratios" in
Tbe Decline in Marriage AmongAfricatl Americans (Russell Sage Founda-
tion, 1995), p. 249. See also Catherine Cubbin et al., "Social Context
and Geographic Patterns of Homicide among U.S. Black and White
Males" in American Journal of Public Health 90 (2000); Michael R.
Gotrfredson and Travis Hirschi, A Geneml T11eory of Crime (Stanford
University Press, 1990).
22. Both studies Carol W. Metzler et al., "The Social Context for Risky
Sexual Behavior Among Adolescents," of Behavioral Medicine
17 ( 1994); Popenoe, pp. 158- 160.
23. Bruce Ellis et al., "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special
Risk for Early Sexual Accivity and Teenage Pregnancy?" in Child
Development 74; Bruce Ellis, "Of Fathers and Pheromones," in just
Living Together (Lawrence Erlbaum).
24. W. Bradford Wilcox, forthcoming.
25. Ellis et al.


EXHIBIT 33

EXHIBIT 34

EXHIBIT 35
Timing of Pubertal Maturation in Girls:
An Integrated Life History Approach
Bruce J. Ellis
University of Arizona
Life history theory provides a metatheoretical framework for the study of pubertal timing from an
evolutionary-developmental perspective. The current article reviews 5 middle-level theoriesenergetics
theory, stress-suppression theory, psychosocial acceleration theory, paternal investment theory, and child
development theoryeach of which applies the basic assumptions of life history theory to the question
of environmental influences on timing of puberty in girls. These theories converge in their conceptual-
ization of pubertal timing as responsive to ecological conditions but diverge in their conceptualization of
(a) the nature, extent, and direction of environmental influences and (b) the effects of pubertal timing on
other reproductive variables. Competing hypotheses derived from the 5 perspectives are evaluated. An
extension of W. T. Boyce and B. J. Elliss (in press) theory of stress reactivity is proposed to account for
both inhibiting and accelerating effects of psychosocial stress on timing of pubertal development. This
review highlights the multiplicity of (often unrecognized) perspectives guiding research, raises chal-
lenges to virtually all of these, and presents an alternative framework in an effort to move research
forward in this arena of multidisciplinary inquiry.
Pubertal maturation is a dynamic biological processpunctu-
ated by visible changes in stature, body composition, and second-
ary sexual characteristicsthat culminates in the transition from
the pre-reproductive to the reproductive phase of the human life
cycle. The timing of this transition is variable and has substantial
social and biological implications. An extensive body of research
in Western societies now indicates that early pubertal maturation
in girls is associated with a variety of negative health and psycho-
social outcomes. In particular, early-maturing girls are at greater
risk later in life for unhealthy weight gain (e.g., Adair & Gordon-
Larsen, 2001; Wellens et al., 1992), breast cancer (e.g., Kelsey,
Gammon, & John, 1993; Sellers et al., 1992), and a variety of other
cancers of the reproductive system (e.g., Marshall et al., 1998;
McPherson, Sellers, Potter, Bostick, & Folsom, 1996; Wu et al.,
1988); have higher rates of teenage pregnancy, spontaneous abor-
tion and stillbirths, and low-birth weight babies (reviewed below);
and tend to show more disturbances in body image, to report more
emotional problems such as depression and anxiety, and to engage
in more problem behaviors such as aggression and substance abuse
(e.g., Caspi & Moffitt, 1991; Dick, Rose, Viken, & Kaprio, 2000;
Ge, Conger, & Elder, 1996; Graber, Lewinsohn, Seeley, &
Brooks-Gunn, 1997). Given this sobering array of outcomes, it is
critical to understand the life experiences and pathways that place
girls at increased risk for early pubertal maturation.
Life history theory (Charnov, 1993; Roff, 1992; Stearns, 1992)
provides a metatheoretical framework for the study of timing of
pubertal maturation from an evolutionary-developmental perspec-
tive. It attempts to explain the timing of reproductive development
and events across the life span in terms of evolved strategies for
distributing metabolic resources between the competing demands
of growth, maintenance, and reproduction. Life history theory
constitutes a set of widely held basic assumptions that have shaped
how evolutionary scientists generate and test middle-level theories
of pubertal timing. In the current article, I review five middle-level
theoriesenergetics theory, stress-suppression theory, psychoso-
cial acceleration theory, paternal investment theory, and child
development theoryeach of which applies the basic assumptions
of life history theory to the question of environmental influences
on timing of pubertal maturation in girls. These middle-level
theories are consistent with and subsumed by life history theory
but in most cases have not been directly deduced from it (i.e., the
middle-level theories are mostly inductions rather than deductions
from the metatheory). Each middle-level theory reviewed in this
article provides a different translation of the higher-order princi-
ples of life history theory into specific hypotheses and predictions
that are tested in research. The current review demonstrates how
these theories compete to achieve the best operationalization of the
core logic of life history theory as it applies to variation in pubertal
timing (see Ketelaar & Ellis, 2000, for further discussion of
metatheoretical research programs).
The first section below discusses neurophysiological processes
underlying pubertal development, defines pubertal timing, and
reviews how it is measured. The second section discusses sources
of variation in pubertal timing and critically reviews behavior
genetic work in this area. Both genotypic and environmental
sources of variation in pubertal timing are important and in need of
explanation. The third section provides an overview of life history
theory and its application to pubertal timing. The fourth and fifth
sections review energetics theory (e.g., Ellison, 2001) and stress-
suppression theory (e.g., Cameron, 1997; MacDonald, 1999),
which posit that adverse physical or social conditions, whether
I am indebted to Ronald Dahl, for a series of conversations that influ-
enced the ideas upon which this article is based; to Jay Belsky, Judy
Cameron, Garth Fletcher, and Robert Quinlan, for comments on an earlier
version of this article; and to Rochelle Ellis, Myron Friesen, and Jacqui
Tither, for their research assistance.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bruce J.
Ellis, Division of Family Studies and Human Development, University of
Arizona, P.O. Box 210033, Tucson, AZ 85721-0033. E-mail:
bjellis@email.arizona.edu
Psychological Bulletin Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association
2004, Vol. 130, No. 6, 920958 0033-2909/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.920
920
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
experienced as chronically low energy availability or psychosocial
stress, cause animals in K-selected species to delay pubertal de-
velopment and reproduction until predictably better times. These
theories have proved useful in explaining the effects of physical
stress on pubertal timing but have had limited success in general-
izing to the psychosocial domain. Energetics theory and stress-
suppression theory are then contrasted with psychosocial acceler-
ation theory (e.g., Belsky, Steinberg, & Draper, 1991; Chisholm,
1999) and paternal investment theory (e.g., Draper & Harpending,
1982; B. J. Ellis, McFadyen-Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates,
1999) in the sixth and seventh sections. Psychosocial acceleration
theory posits that girls whose experiences in and around their
families of origin are characterized by relatively high levels of
socioemotional stress will develop in a manner that speeds rates of
pubertal maturation. Paternal investment theory parallels this logic
but posits a special role for fathers and other men in regulation of
girls sexual development. These theories have been reasonably
successful in accounting for psychosocial influences on pubertal
timing. Mechanistic explanations for the observed stresspuberty
relations are reviewed. An extension of Boyce and Elliss (in
press) theory of stress reactivity is proposed to account for both
inhibiting and accelerating effects of psychosocial stress on timing
of pubertal development.
Despite their predictive utility, psychosocial acceleration theory
and paternal investment theory have faced a number of criticisms.
In the final section I propose a revision of these theorieschild
development theorythat addresses most, but not all, of these
criticisms. This new framework suggests that psychosocial accel-
eration and paternal investment theories have reached too far in
conceptualizing pubertal timing as a link in the causal chain
connecting childhood experiences, not only to age at onset of sex
and reproduction, but also to qualitative differences in reproduc-
tive strategies such as pairbond stability and parental investment.
Child development theory reconceptualizes pubertal timing as the
endpoint of a developmental strategy that conditionally alters the
length of childhood in response to the composition and quality of
family environments (capitalizing on the benefits of high-quality
family environments and mitigating the costs of low-quality ones).
For both theoretical and empirical reasons, the focus of this
article is on girls rather than boys sexual development. First, at a
theoretical level, the life history approach to pubertal timing pivots
around the trade-off between allocation of resources to physical
growth versus production of offspring. Because this trade-off is
particularly relevant to females (given their direct somatic invest-
ment in production and nurturing of offspring), life history theory
has been applied more broadly and successfully to the question of
female rather than male pubertal timing. Second, at an empirical
level, there is a clear and easily assessed marker of female but not
male pubertal timing: age at menarche. Consequently, vastly more
research has been conducted on timing of pubertal development in
females than in males. A review of antecedents of male pubertal
timing is not feasible at this time, given the current state of theory
and data.
Pubertal Development and Its Measurement
Timing and tempo of pubertal development are regulated by the
functional maturation of the adrenal glands (adrenarche) and the
hypothalamicpituitarygonadal (HPG) axis (gonadarche). Adre-
narche and gonadarche, which are largely independent processes,
are responsible for increased secretion of sex steroids during the
peripubertal and pubertal periods. Adrenarche has been described
as the awakening of the adrenal glands, and it occurs at approxi-
mately 6 to 8 years of age in both boys and girls (Dorn &
Chrousos, 1997; Grumbach & Styne, 2003). Adrenarche represents
a distinct time in adrenal development when levels of the adrenal
androgen dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and its sulfate
(DHEAS) begin to rise (Dorn & Chrousos, 1997; Grumbach &
Styne, 2003). DHEA and DHEAS are produced by the zona
reticularis in the adrenal cortex. Between the ages of approxi-
mately 5 and 7 years, children experience a sharp drop in levels of
3-hydroxysteriod dehydrogenase (3HSD) in the inner reticularis
zone (Gell et al., 1998). Although specific control of adrenal
androgens is not fully understood, this 3HSD-deficiency contrib-
utes to the increased production of DHEA and DHEAS that occurs
during adrenarche (Gell et al., 1998). The development of pubic
hair, increased skeletal maturation, increased oil on the skin,
changes in external genitalia in males, and body odor are all
thought to represent physiological manifestations of increased
concentrations of adrenal androgens (Dorn & Chrousos, 1997;
McClintock & Herdt, 1996). Adrenarche is the starting point of an
upward trajectory in adrenal androgens that plateaus at about age
20; thus, adrenarche and gonadarche are temporally overlapping
processes.
Gonadarche occurs at approximately 9 or 10 years of age in girls
and soon thereafter in boys (Dorn, Hitt, & Rotenstein, 1999;
Grumbach & Styne, 2003), although actual ages vary widely
across and within populations, and there is substantial controversy
in the pediatric literature over age cut-offs for determining preco-
cious puberty (e.g., Midyett, Moore, & Jacobson, 2003). Gona-
darche begins with the reactivation of pulsatile secretion of
gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) after a period of relative
quiescence during childhood. GnRH is produced by neurons in the
hypothalamus and causes the anterior pituitary to synthesize and
secrete biologically potent gonadotropins: luteinizing hormone
(LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). At gonadarche, pul-
satile secretion of LH and FSH markedly increases, causing a
cascade of eventsovarian follicular development, increased pro-
duction of ovarian steroid hormones, development of secondary
sexual characteristics, peak height velocity, menarche, subcutane-
ous fat deposition, widening of the pelvis, and ultimately estab-
lishment of cyclic ovarian functionthat culminate in maturity of
the female reproductive system (see Cameron, 1990; Grumbach &
Styne, 2003; and Plant & Barker-Gibb, 2004, for overviews of the
neurophysiology of puberty).
Pubertal timing is an individual-differences variable that refers
to levels of physical and sexual development of adolescents com-
pared with their same-age peers. The large majority of studies
reviewed in this article used a single indicator of pubertal timing:
age at menarche. Menarche occurs late in the maturation of the
HPG axis (in the United States, the mean age at menarche is 12.9
years [SD 1.2] in Whites and 12.2 years [SD 1.2] in African
Americans; Herman-Giddens et al., 1997). Because many of the
physical and hormonal changes associated with adrenarche and
gonadarche occur prior to menarche, attainment of menarcheal
status indicates that a girl has achieved an advanced level of
pubertal development. Both adolescent girls and adult women are
generally willing and able to report accurately on their ages at
menarche, although inaccurate reports are sometimes obtained
from young adolescent girls, and retrospective reports may be
921
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
more reliable than those obtained during puberty (reviewed in
Graber, Petersen, & Brooks-Gunn, 1996; see also Dorn, Nottel-
mann, et al., 1999). Testretest reliability has been established in
several long-term prospective studies in which self-reported age at
menarche was first obtained in adolescence and then again 17 to 37
years later. Correlations across these two measurement periods
have been consistently high, ranging from .67 to .79 (Casey et al.,
1991; Damon, Damon, Reed, & Valadian, 1969; Livson & Mc-
Neill, 1962; Must et al., 2002).
In addition to age at menarche, age-adjusted development of
secondary sexual characteristics provides an index of pubertal
timing. Development of secondary sexual characteristics is influ-
enced by both adrenal and gonadal processes. Whereas adrenal
androgens cause the appearance of sexual hair (pubarche), the
effects of ovarian estrogens on dormant breast tissue causes breast
budding (thelarche). In Western populations, both pubarche and
thelarche typically occur around 10 to 11 years of age (Grumbach
& Styne, 2003), although about two thirds of girls experience
thelarche before pubarche (Biro et al., 2003). Given the different
neuroendocrine pathways through puberty, it is not surprising that
the timing of different pubertal indicators are only moderately
correlated (rs range from .49 to .67; Qamra, Mehta, & Deodhar,
1990). Nonetheless, these indicators are often composited to form
overall measures of pubertal development. The Pubertal Develop-
ment Scale (Petersen, Crockett, Richards, & Boxer, 1988), for
example, combines self-ratings of body hair development, growth
spurt, skin changes, breast development, and menarcheal status. To
assess pubertal timing, a small number of studies reviewed in the
current article used either age-adjusted pediatrician ratings of
Tanner stages (e.g., Galler, Ramsey, & Solimano, 1985; Qamra et
al., 1990) or age-adjusted scores on the Pubertal Development
Scale (B. J. Ellis & Garber, 2000; B. J. Ellis et al., 1999). Although
physician ratings are generally considered the gold standard for
assessment of secondary sexual characteristics and have been
found to have better predictive validity than self-ratings (Dorn,
Susman, & Ponirakis, 2003), correlations between Pubertal Devel-
opment Scale scores and ratings by health care professionals have
been moderate to high, ranging in value from .61 to .91 (Brooks-
Gunn, Warren, Rosso, & Gargiulo, 1987; Dorn, Susman, Nottel-
mann, Inoff-Germain, & Chrousos, 1990). In sum, like self-reports
of age at menarche, self-ratings of pubertal development have
demonstrated acceptable validity.
Sources of Variation in Pubertal Timing
Individual differences in the timing of pubertal development are
influenced by both genes and environment. Behavior genetic mod-
eling has been used to partition sources of variance in pubertal
timing into genetic and environmental components. Large behav-
ior genetic studies using twin designs in Australia, Great Britain,
Finland, Norway, and the United States have converged on the
conclusion that genotypic effects account for 50%80% of the
variation in menarcheal timing and that the remaining variance is
attributable to nonshared environmental effects and measurement
error (Golden, 1981; Kaprio et al., 1995; Rowe, 2002; S. A.
Treloar & Martin, 1990; van den Akker, Stein, Neale, & Murray,
1987).
1
Complementing these behavior genetic analyses are recent
molecular genetic investigations that have begun to identify allelic
variation associated with timing of development of secondary
sexual characteristics (Kadlubar et al., 2003) and age at menarche
(e.g., Comings, Muhleman, Johnson, & MacMurray, 2002;
Stavrou, Zois, Ioannidis, & Tsatsoulis, 2002), although specific
genetic determinants are still largely unknown. Some researchers
have interpreted the absence of shared environmental effects in
behavior genetic studies as evidence that the shared experiences of
siblings does not increase similarity in pubertal timing (see Bailey,
Kirk, Zhu, Dunne, & Martin, 2000; Comings et al., 2002; Rowe,
2000a, 2000b). Given the apparent absence of shared environmen-
tal effects, one might ask whether evolutionary models specifying
psychosocial influences on pubertal timing are necessarily wrong.
I contend that the answer to this question is no, for several
reasons. First, heritability is a population statistic that indexes the
degree to which individual differences in genes account for indi-
vidual differences in an observed trait in a given environmental
context. This definition must be kept in mind when using data from
modern postindustrial societies to evaluate evolutionary theories,
such as that of Belsky et al. (1991), concerning causes of individ-
ual differences in timing of puberty. From the perspective of
evolutionary biology, the physiological mechanisms that control
pubertal timing were designed by natural selection to take as input
the range of physical and social conditions that were recurrently
present in ancestral environments. Evolutionarily novel environ-
ments may provide inputs that are outside of this range, altering the
normal operation of these mechanisms. In discussing sources of
variation in pubertal timing, the authors of the Finnish Twin
Cohort Study acknowledged that there may have been substantial
environmental effects on timing of puberty a generation ago, but
not today: Finnish children born in the 1970s have lived their
whole lifetime in a prosperous welfare state, and we can expect
that in these cohorts environmental effects are minimized and
genetic effects are large (Kaprio et al., 1995, p. 740). Contem-
porary Western environments, in which some of the most relevant
sources of environmental variation are often squeezed out, provide
incomplete contexts for testing evolutionary models of pubertal
timing.
2
The absence of shared environmental effects in this con-
text does not imply that humans lack evolved psychobiological
mechanisms that detect and encode information from the environ-
ment as a basis for adaptively calibrating timing of pubertal
development.
1
It is important to note that only the U.S. (Rowe, 2000a) and Finnish
(Kaprio et al., 1995) studies assessed menarcheal age during adolescence.
In contrast to the heritability data on age at menarche, subsequent analyses
on Finnish twin cohorts yielded approximately equal heritability (.40) and
shared environmentality (.45) estimates for overall levels of pubertal de-
velopment in 12-year-old girls (as indexed by the Pubertal Development
Scale). By age 14, however, estimated heritability increased to .70 and
shared environmentality decreased to .02 (Dick, Rose, Pulkkinen, &
Kaprio, 2001).
2
Indeed, all correlations with pubertal timing in contemporary Western
societies are likely to be attenuated because of the reduction in variance in
pubertal timing caused by the secular trend toward earlier pubertal devel-
opment. Wellens, Malina, Beunen, and Lefevre (1990) provided data on
the secular trend in age at menarche in Flemish girls in the 20th century.
For girls born between 1915 and 1929, the average age of menarche was
14.41 years, and the average interval between the time when 10% and 90%
of girls attained menarche was 4.12 years. Those numbers dropped to 13.09
years and 2.91 years, respectively, for girls born between 1960 and 1971.
Hwang, Shin, Frongillo, Shin, and Jo (2003) reported similar data for South
Korean girls.
922
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
Second, both Kaprio et al. (1995) and S. A. Treloar and Martin
(1990) found that at least half of the genetic variance in age of
menarche was nonadditive (i.e., genetic variance that does not
cause parents and offspring to be more similar). Nonadditive
genetic variance (whether detected or undetected) inflates herita-
bility and deflates shared environmentality estimates in standard
twin designs because shared environments and nonadditive genes
have opposite effects on twin correlations (see Grayson, 1989).
Because nonadditivity tends to obscure any possible shared envi-
ronmental variance, J. M. Meyer, Eaves, Heath, and Martin (1991)
suggested that alternatives to traditional twin designs are needed to
detect effects of shared environment on menarcheal timing.
Third, alternative methods have produced clear evidence of
shared environmental influence on age of menarche. Farber (1981)
reported that monozygotic twins reared together were most similar
in menarcheal age (average difference 2.8 months), followed by
monozygotic twins reared apart (average difference 9.3
months), followed by dizygotic twins reared together (average
difference 12.0 months). That monozygotic twins reared apart
were most similar in menarcheal timing to dizygotic twins reared
together suggests that individual differences in age of menarche
are influenced by the degree to which girls share common envi-
ronments (as well as common genes). It should be noted, however,
that Farbers study was very small and thus may have produced
unreliable estimates. Further evidence of shared environmental
influence is provided by comparisons of motherdaughter dyads
with sistersister dyads, of which both members share about 50%
more of their genes in common than do two randomly selected
members of a population. From a genetic perspective, intrapair
correlations in age at menarche should be equivalent for mother
daughter and sistersister dyads. Sistersister correlations, how-
ever, are consistently higher than motherdaughter correlations
(reviewed in Malina, Ryan, & Bonci, 1994, Tables 3 and 4;
sistersister correlations: M .39, range .25 to .61; mother
daughter correlations: M .27, range .15 to .40), which
suggests that sharing the same home during ontogeny increases
similarity in menarcheal timing.
Fourth, the types of environmental influences posited by psy-
chosocial models of pubertal timing are likely to have a nonshared
component because their effects are not equivalent across siblings
in the same home. It is important to distinguish in this context
between objective and effective environments (Goldsmith, 1993;
Turkheimer & Waldron, 2000). Objective environments refer to
environmental events as they might be observed by a researcher, as
opposed to how they affect family members (Turkheimer &
Waldron, 2000, p. 79). Environmental variables that extend across
more than one sibling, such as socioeconomic status (SES) or
marital quality, are objectively shared, regardless of whether these
variables operate to make siblings more or less alike. Environmen-
tal variables that are unique to each sibling, such as birth order or
peer relationships, are objectively nonshared. By contrast, effec-
tive environments are defined by the outcomes they produce
(Turkheimer & Waldron, 2000, p. 79). Behavior genetic models
incorporate only effective environmental influences. Thus, to the
extent that objectively shared environmental variables have differ-
ent effects on different siblings, these effects are defined as non-
shared and allocated to the nonshared component of environmental
variance in behavior genetic models. Objectively shared experi-
ences may have nonshared effects because of genetic differences
between siblings (e.g., the strength of relations between childhood
abuse and the frequency of antisocial behavior in young adulthood
differs significantly depending on the form of a genotypic marker
of monoamine oxidase; Caspi et al., 2002; see also Caspi et al.,
2003). Objectively shared experiences may also be effectively
nonshared because of age differences between siblings (e.g., father
absence has different effects on daughters sexual behavior de-
pending on the daughters age when the father leaves the home;
B. J. Ellis et al., 2003). Finally, to the extent that objectively
nonshared environmental variables influence development, these
influences are also nonshared. For example, parentchild pro-
cesses vary substantially across siblings (e.g., Geary & Flinn,
2001; Sulloway, 1996) and thus contribute to the nonshared com-
ponent of variance in childrens developmental outcomes. In sum,
consistent with behavior genetic models, major environmental
influences posited by psychosocial models of timing of pubertal
development (e.g., Belsky et al., 1991; B. J. Ellis & Garber, 2000;
Surbey, 1990) are likely to have substantial nonshared effects on
siblings.
Fifth, heritability estimates are context specific and can change
dramatically when social or physical environments change (e.g.,
Dunne et al., 1997; Rowe, Jacobson, & Van den Oord, 1999;
Turkheimer, Haley, Waldron, DOnofrio, & Gottesman, 2003).
Comparison of correlations across multiple levels of kinship
pairscousins, half-siblings, full siblings, motherdaughter pairs,
identical twinsis a common method for estimating genetic in-
fluences on menarcheal age and typically yields heritabilities in the
range of .45 to .55 (Chern, Gatewood, & Anderson, 1980; Doughty
& Rodgers, 2000; Rowe, 2000a). These heritability estimates,
however, may be inflated by environmental continuity between
members of kinship pairs. Consider Chasiotis, Scheffer, Rest-
meier, and Kellers (1998) investigation of motherdaughter cor-
relations in age of menarche in comparable urban areas in East and
West Germany. This study spanned the time period of reunifica-
tion (which resulted in much greater social disruption and socio-
political change for East Germans than for West Germans). In the
East German sample, there was no significant correlation between
mothers and daughters in either resource availability (e.g., SES) in
childhood (r .04) or age at menarche (r .07). By contrast,
in the West German sample, there were substantial correlations
between mothers and daughters in both resource availability in
childhood (r .51) and age at menarche (r .60). Consistent with
these data, low motherdaughter correlations for age at menarche
(rs .20) were also recorded in a Czech Republic study in which
mothers and daughters differed in having grown up in rural versus
urban environments (Hajn & Komenda, 1985). These findings
provide fuel for critics of twin research, who have argued that the
range of environmental variation between members of twin pairs
(whether raised in the same home or adopted into comparable
ones; see Stoolmiller, 1999) consistently underestimates the range
of environmental variation in the larger society. As Segalowitz
(1999) suggested,
The thought experiment of separating twins at birth to widely different
settingsfor example, one to urban New York, the other to rural
Sahara; one to an affluent home in London, the other to a poor family
in the third worldillustrates how heritability is artificially raised by
restrictions of environmental variance. (p. 905)
Finally, as reviewed in this article, it has been well-documented
that the timing of pubertal maturation in girls is sensitive to a
variety of external factors, such as exercise, nutrition, and socio-
923
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
emotional stress. Indeed, the median menarcheal age varies across
human populations from about 12.0 years in some urban postin-
dustrial societies to 18.5 years in rural highland Papua New Guinea
or high altitude Nepali groups (Worthman, 1999). This enormous
variation underscores the evolved capacity of humans to adjust
timing of sexual maturation to local physical and social conditions.
In conclusion, although it is beyond dispute that genotypic
effects on timing of pubertal development are substantial, twin
designs do not allow one to confidently estimate levels of herita-
bility or environmentality in age at menarche. Evolutionary and
behavior genetic models converge on the importance of nonshared
environmental influences on pubertal timing. Nonetheless, consid-
erable caution must be exercised when evaluating evolutionary
models of pubertal timing solely on the basis of data from modern,
postindustrial societies with a restricted range of relevant environ-
mental variance. Finally, the theory and data reviewed above
suggest that genotypic effects on timing of pubertal development
are probabilistic and are best conceptualized as coding for a
reaction norm. That is, genotypes are capable of producing a
range of phenotypic expressions, and actual timing of puberty is an
emergent property of the genotype and the environment in which
it occurs. This reaction norm perspective (see especially Stearns &
Koella, 1986) potentially reconciles behavior genetic and psycho-
social models of variation in pubertal timing.
The Life History Approach to Timing of Pubertal
Development
The key units of analysis in life history theory (Charnov, 1993;
Roff, 1992; Stearns, 1992) are life history traits: the suite of
maturational and reproductive characteristics that define the life
course (e.g., age at weaning, age at sexual maturity, adult body
size, time to first reproduction, interbirth interval, litter size). Life
history theory attempts to explain variation in life history traits in
terms of evolved trade-offs in distribution of metabolic resources
to competing life functions: growth, maintenance, and reproduc-
tion. These trade-offs are inevitable because metabolic resources
are finite, and time and energy used for one purpose cannot be used
for another. For example, resources spent on growth and develop-
ment (e.g., later age at sexual maturity, larger adult body size,
increased social quality and competitiveness) cannot be spent on
current production of offspring; thus, the benefits of a prolonged
childhood are traded off against the costs of delayed reproduction.
Life history theory posits the existence of phenotypic mechanisms
that actually make these trade-offs by selecting between or mak-
ing decisions about alternative ways of distributing resources
(Chisholm, 1999). Natural selection favors mechanisms that, in
response to ecological conditions, trade off resources between
growth, maintenance, and reproduction in ways that recurrently
enhanced inclusive fitness during a species evolutionary history.
There are two fundamental trade-offs that are central to life
history theory: the trade-off between current and future reproduc-
tion and the trade-off between number and fitness of offspring. The
fitness costs and benefits associated with variations in timing of
reproductive development illustrate these trade-offs. These varia-
tions are indexed by such integral life history traits as timing of
sexual maturation and time to first reproduction.
All else being equal, natural selection favors earlier reproductive
development over later reproductive development for three rea-
sons. First, because the probability of mortality is always greater
than zero over any given time period, earlier onset of reproduction
is associated with lower probability of mortality prior to reproduc-
tion. Fitness benefits of early reproductive development should be
especially relevant under conditions in which life expectancies are
low or highly variable (Chisholm, 1999). Second, early reproduc-
tive development increases the total reproductive output of lin-
eages through shorter generation times. Third, because age at
menarche and age at menopause are largely uncorrelated in hu-
mans (e.g., Borgerhoff Mulder, 1989b; Peccei, 2000; Snieder,
MacGregor, & Spector, 1998; A. E. Treloar, 1974), earlier men-
archeal age results in longer reproductive life spans. These selec-
tion pressures favoring early reproductive development are op-
posed by competing selection pressures favoring later reproductive
development. Animals with longer periods of growth and devel-
opment attain larger adult body size, which generally translates
into lower adult mortality rates, greater energy production and
stores to devote to reproduction over the life course, and increased
success in intrasexual competition (Charnov, 1993; Hill & Kaplan,
1999).
Although these relations apply across species, they are also
relevant to understanding variation in expression of life history
traits within species (e.g., Hill & Kaplan, 1999; Stearns, 1992;
Stearns & Koella, 1986). For example, a fitness cost of early
reproductive development in humans is that it may divert resources
away from growth before skeletal maturation has been completed
and constrain metabolic resources available for production and
nurturing of offspring (see especially Allal, Sear, Prentice, &
Mace, 2004). Specifically, adolescent mothers ordinarily lack adult
pelvic capacity (Moerman, 1982); tend to be smaller and convert
less of their weight gain during pregnancy to fetal weight gain than
do adult mothers (Garn, Pesick, & Petzold, 1986); experience
higher rates of antenatal complications and mortality than do adult
mothers; and their offspring are at increased risk of stillbirths,
congenital abnormalities, prematurity, low birth weight, and retar-
dation (Black & DeBlassie, 1985; Furstenberg, Brooks-Gunn, &
Chase-Lansdale, 1989; Luster & Mittelstaedt, 1993).
3
Conversely, a benefit of longer reproductive development is that
older mothers have more time to acquire cognitive, survival, mate
selection, and parenting skills prior to becoming parents (Bogin,
1999; Lancaster, 1986; Surbey, 1998). This is evidenced by lower
rates of single motherhood, lower rates of divorce, higher educa-
tional and economic outcomes, and more competent parenting
among adult mothers than adolescent mothers (Black & DeBlassie,
1985; Furstenberg et al., 1989; Luster & Mittelstaedt, 1993). Most
relevant, the children of adult mothers tend to have better cogni-
3
Timing of reproductive maturation varies across different racial groups
in the United States. Because African Americans tend to experience earlier
pubertal development than Whites do (Herman-Giddens et al., 1997) and
are thus more gynecologically mature as teenagers, African American
teenage mothers may not experience the same adverse health outcomes as
do White teenage mothers. Geronimus, Korenman, and Hillemeier (1994)
found that White teenage mothers, on average, experienced the highest
levels of low birth weight babies and infant deaths, whereas African
American teenage mothers, 15- to 19-years-old, experienced lower rates of
these adverse outcomes than did African American mothers in their twen-
ties. Konner and Shostak (1986) suggested that the special medical risks of
adolescent childbearing are due more to improper prenatal nutrition and
postnatal care than to reproductive immaturity, especially if adolescent
mothers are at least 17 years old.
924
ELLIS
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
tive, behavioral, social developmental, and survival outcomes than
do the children of adolescent mothers (Black & DeBlassie, 1985;
Brooks-Gunn & Furstenberg, 1986; Konner & Shostak, 1986;
Overpeck, Brenner, Trumble, Trifiletti, & Berendes, 1998). The
greater competence and reproductive efficiency of older mothers
has been documented in a wide range of mammalian species
(Promislow & Harvey, 1990). In total, early reproductive devel-
opment tends to bias individuals toward short-term (current) re-
production and greater number of offspring, whereas later repro-
ductive development tends to bias individuals toward long-term
(future) reproduction and greater fitness of offspring.
Given the mix of fitness costs and benefits associated with
different timing of reproductive development in humans, selection
should not favor phenotypic mechanisms that systematically bias
intraspecific variation toward either current or future reproduction
or greater number or fitness of offspring. Rather, consistent with
the reaction norm perspective discussed above, selection can be
expected to favor adaptive developmental plasticity of mecha-
nisms (within genetic capacities and constraints) in response to
particular ecological conditions (Belsky et al., 1991; Boyce &
Ellis, in press; Chisholm, 1996; Ellison, 2001).
4
Indeed, many, if
not most, organisms are capable of altering their life histories in
response to their environment (H. S. Kaplan & Lancaster, 2003).
Thus, from a life history perspective, phenotypic mechanisms
should be engineered to monitor evolutionarily relevant features of
ones environment as a basis for contingently allocating resources
to survival, growth, development, and reproduction. These re-
sources should be allocated in nonrandom ways that, during a
species evolutionary history, recurrently optimized trade-offs be-
tween current and future reproduction and number and fitness of
offspring (see Chisholm, 1996, 1999).
A central question in life history theory is, When should indi-
viduals reach sexual maturity? That is, when should individuals
stop converting surplus energy into growth and begin converting it
into reproduction? And most critically, What are the relevant
developmental experiences and environmental cues that bias indi-
viduals toward relatively early versus late reproductive develop-
ment? Competing answers to this question have been proposed by
the different middle-level life history theories reviewed in this
article, as discussed below.
All of these middle-level theories (a) link variation in pubertal
timing to individual differences in experiences of stress and (b)
emphasize childhood exposure to recurrent, ongoing stressors.
Consistent with this theorizing, the term stress is used herein to
denote an ongoing condition that requires coping and that, over
time, undermines efficient functioning by draining internal (phys-
iological) or external resources; the term stressor is used, as it so
commonly is in investigations cited throughout this review, to
denote ongoing circumstances or events that cause stress. Accord-
ingly, as highlighted by the various middle-level theories, a broad
range of ongoing circumstances and events are referred to as
stressors (e.g., nutritional deprivation, intensive physical exercise,
poverty, low social rank, warfare, parental psychopathology, pa-
rental absence, residence in a stepfamily, marital discord, harsh
parental discipline, absence of familial warmth, stressful life
events). When stressors are primarily psychosocial, the resulting
condition is referred to as psychosocial stress or socioemotional
stress. Conversely, when stressors are primarily physical, the re-
sulting condition is referred to as physical stress or energetic
stress.
The Energetics Theory of Timing of Pubertal
Development
Drawing on life history theory, various evolutionary biologists
and psychologists (e.g., MacDonald, 1999; E. M. Miller, 1994;
Surbey, 1998) have argued that in K-selected species (those char-
acterized by high-investment/low-fertility reproductive strategies,
such as humans) there should be a negative correlation between
resource scarcity and speed of sexual maturation. These theorists
posit that members of the human species, under conditions of
chronically low energy availability, are primed to delay maturation
and reproductive viability until predictably better times (see also
Wasser & Barash, 1983). The core argument is that natural selec-
tion has favored physiological mechanisms that track variation in
resource availability and adjust physical development to match
that variation. Consistently good conditions in early and middle
childhood signal to the individual that accelerated development
and early reproduction are sustainable. Conversely, conditions of
resource scarcity cause the individual to reserve energy for main-
tenance and survival (rather than growth or reproduction). As
Ellison (2001) suggested,
The adjustment of growth trajectories to chronic ecological conditions
is an example of developmental plasticity that is itself assumed to be
adaptive. An individual growing up under conditions of chronically
low energy availability may be better off growing slowly and being
smaller as an adult. Slower growth will divert less energy from
maintenance functions. Smaller adult size will also result in lower
average metabolic rate and lower maintenance costs. (pp. 133134)
This theory, linking chronic resource availability to timing of
pubertal development, is henceforth referred to as energetics
theory.
Energetics theory yields the core hypothesis (Hypothesis 1) that
children who experience chronically poor nutritional environments
will grow slowly, experience late pubertal development, and
achieve relatively small adult size, whereas children who experi-
ence chronically rich nutritional environments will grow quickly,
experience early pubertal development (relative to their genetic
potential), and achieve relatively large adult size. Food availability
is critical because surplus metabolic energythe extent to which
energy production exceeds maintenance costscan be harvested
by animals and converted into growth and reproduction. The
greater the surplus, the greater the capacity for both growth and
reproduction. According to energetics theory, earlier maturing
girls have more surplus energy. Indeed, Ellison (1990) posited that
timing of pubertal maturation serves as a kind of bioassay of the
chronic qualities of the environment, particularly energy availabil-
ity, encountered during childhood. According to Ellison (1990,
1996, 2001), girls use this bioassay to establish a lifetime set point
for baseline levels of adult ovarian function and reproductive
effort, as evidenced by substantial integrity in ovarian function
across the reproductive life span. In total, girls who experience
earlier sexual development are in better physiological condition
4
Although selection can be expected to favor adaptive developmental
plasticity, this does not imply that all individuals are equally plastic. As
reviewed by Belsky (2004) and Boyce and Ellis (in press), some individ-
uals are more susceptible to rearing influences than others. This issue is
addressed in greater detail below (see Criticisms of Psychosocial Accel-
eration and Paternal Investment Theories).
925
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
and have more metabolic resources to devote to reproduction. A
second hypothesis (Hypothesis 2) derived from energetics theory,
therefore, is that girls who experience relatively early sexual
maturation have greater reproductive capacity than their later ma-
turing peers (see also Udry, 1979; Voland, 1998). That is, they
have greater biological capacity to produce viable offspring.
Evaluation of Energetics Theory: Hypothesis 1
SES. The hypothesis that greater energy availability will be
associated with earlier timing of puberty has been indirectly tested
in the great number of studies examining relations between SES
and pubertal timing. The large majority of these investigations
have used age at menarche as their index of pubertal timing, but
some have also assessed development of secondary sexual char-
acteristics. In societies in which there are substantial differences
between social classes in nutritional and health status, girls from
higher social classes experience earlier pubertal development than
do girls from lower social classes (e.g., Ghana: Adadevoh, Agble,
Hobbs, & Elkins, 1989; Sudan: Abioye-Kuteyi et al., 1997; Nige-
ria: Oduntan, Ayeni, & Kale, 1976; Mozambique: Padez, 2003;
Iran: Ayatollahi, Dowlatabadi, & Ayatollahi, 2002; Egypt: Attal-
lah, 1978; Israel: Belmaker, 1982; Morocco: Montero, Bernis,
Loukid, Hilali, & Baali, 1999; Bangladesh: Foster, Menken,
Chowdhury, & Trussell, 1986; Philippines: Adair, 2001; India:
Chakravartti & Renuka, 1970; China: Wang & Murphy, 2002;
Haiti: Allman, 1982; Brazil: Linhares, Round, & Jones, 1986;
Venezuela: Lopez Contreras, Tovar Escobar, Farid Coupal, Lan-
daeta Jimenez, & Mendez Castellano, 1981). These data are con-
sistent with the secular trend (beginning at least 170 years ago in
England) toward earlier onset of pubertal development, as well as
faster tempo of pubertal development (de Muinck Keizer-Schrama
& Mul, 2001; Worthman, 1999), in association with general im-
provements in health and nutrition accompanying modernization
(Tanner, 1990). Specifically, age of menarche in Europe dropped
from approximately 17 to 13 years of age between 1830 and 1960
(Eveleth & Tanner, 1990). The secular trend has been most intense
within lower SES groups (Abioye-Kuteyi et al., 1997; Brudevoll,
Liestol, & Walloe, 1979; Prado, 1984; Singh & Malhotra, 1988;
Veronesi & Gueresi, 1994), where living conditions have im-
proved most dramatically over time. Effects of SES on girls
pubertal timing are generally absent, however, in countries where
lower SES groups do not suffer from systematic malnutrition and
disease (e.g., Britain: Douglas & Simpson, 1964; Canada: Surbey,
1990; Denmark: Helm & Lidegaard, 1989; Germany: Merzenich,
Boeing, & Wahrendorf, 1993; Greece: Petridou et al., 1996; Italy:
Veronesi & Geuresi, 1994; New Zealand: Moffitt, Caspi, Belsky,
& Silva, 1992; Portugal: Padez, 2003; Spain: Sanchez-Andres,
1997; Sweden: Lindgren, 1976; United States: B. J. Ellis et al.,
1999; Wales: Roberts & Dann, 1975). Because many factors
covary with SEShealth care, hygiene, caloric intake, dietary
composition, energy expenditure, exposure to artificial lighting,
family functioning, frequency of divorce and remarriage, and so
onit is difficult to isolate the specific factors responsible for the
observed relations between SES and pubertal timing. Conse-
quently, the foregoing data are consistent with, but do not confirm,
the hypothesized causal relation between nutritional status and
timing of puberty.
Nutritional status. The hypothesis that greater food availabil-
ity and concomitant surplus metabolic energy accelerates pubertal
maturation has been tested in many studies. Rather than measuring
surplus metabolic energy directly, these investigations have as-
sessed energy intake and other indicators of nutritional status and
examined their relations with pubertal timing. This method is
imperfect for evaluating the current hypothesis, however, because
it does not control for physical activity, which at increasing levels
is associated with later puberty (e.g., Merzenich et al., 1993;
Petridou et al., 1996; Warren, 1983). Nonetheless, human and
animal research has produced a fairly coherent picture of the
relations between nutrition and pubertal timing.
Experimental studies of the effects of nutrition on the speed or
timing of pubertal development in animals have generally manip-
ulated energy intake, protein intake, or both. In a review of the
animal literature (based on rats, pigs, and cattle), Kirkwood, Cum-
ming, and Aherne (1987) concluded that undernutrition can cause
delays in pubertal development, but only under conditions of
severe dietary restriction. As reviewed below, the human literature
is largely consistent with this conclusion: Nutritional deprivation
causes delays in onset of puberty, but variations in the quality and
quantity of diets within adequately nourished populations have
little effect.
A number of long-term prospective studies in developing coun-
tries have assessed caloric intake and other indicators of nutritional
status in early or middle childhood and examined their subsequent
relations with pubertal timing. Adair (2001) conducted multiple
24-hr dietary recalls on a cohort of 966 premenarcheal 8-year-old
Filipino girls. Khan and colleagues (Khan, Schroeder, Martorell,
Haas, & Rivera, 1996; Khan, Schroeder, Martorell, & Rivera,
1995) conducted approximately ten 24-hr dietary recalls on a
sample of 250 Guatemalan girls whose home diet was repeatedly
assessed between the ages of 15 and 84 months. Qamra, Mehta,
and Deodhar (1990, 1991) conducted multiple 24-hr dietary recalls
on a sample of 791 Indian girls aged 5 to 16 years. Galler et al.
(1985) examined 216 Barbadian children, half of whom had his-
tories of moderate to severe protein-energy malnutrition in their
first year of life. Satyanarayana and Naidu (1979) studied a sample
of 739 rural Hyderabad girls, 27% of whom were classified as
suffering from severe chronic undernutrition during pre-school
life, based on height and weight measurements at age 5. Finally,
Frisch (1972) analyzed extensive childhood medical and nutri-
tional data, beginning from ages 45 years, on 30 undernourished
and 30 well-nourished girls from Alabama (see also Dreizen,
Spirakis, & Stone, 1967). All of these investigations included girls
with a broad range of dietary histories, ranging from sustained
nutritional deprivation to fully adequate nutrition. In each of these
studies, girls who were either malnourished or consumed fewer
calories during childhood than their well-nourished peers experi-
enced later puberty.
5
All of these research projects included timing
of menarche as a downstream dependent variable. The Barbadian
and Indian studies also included pediatricians ratings of the de-
5
Adair (2001) reported that higher total energy intake was not related to
age at menarche. However, this analysis controlled for both SES and body
mass index. If either SES or body mass index were left out of the equation,
then the diet variables significantly predicted age at menarche in the
expected direction (L. S. Adair, personal communication, September 17,
2003). Galler et al. (1985) also reported that the association between
nutritional history and timing of pubertal development was substantially
reduced by controlling for weight and height, suggesting that decreased
growth may mediate relations between nutritional deprivation and delayed
puberty (see also Moisan et al., 1990b).
926
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
velopment of secondary sexual characteristics. Taken together,
these investigations provide convincing evidence that nutritional
deprivation delays pubertal development.
The relations between nutritional status and pubertal timing has
led some researchers to search for underlying endocrine mecha-
nisms. A small number of studies have examined relations between
nutritional status and plasma gonadotropin levels in preadolescent
or adolescent girls. In an investigation of prepubertal Indian girls
aged 6 to 10 years, Sreedhar, Ghosh, and Chakravarty (1983)
found relatively low circulating levels of LH and FSH in individ-
uals with severe histories of protein-energy malnutrition. Simi-
larly, in a comparison between privileged Nairobi girls and rural
Kenyan girls who experienced moderate malnutrition during child-
hood, Kulin, Bwibo, Mutie, and Santner (1984) found reduced
levels of LH and FSH in the rural sample across the age range from
9 to 12 years. Finally, in a Dutch sample, de Ridder et al. (1991)
found that 12-year-old girls with high intakes of dietary grain fiber
had significantly lower plasma concentrations of LH and FSH.
These data suggest that delayed puberty in nutritionally deprived
girls may result from low circulating levels of pituitary
gonadotropins.
A number of longitudinal investigations in North American and
Western European countries have also examined relations between
nutritional status and subsequent timing of puberty. These studies
have assessed overall caloric intake as well as calorie-adjusted
levels of specific dietary nutrients (e.g., fat, protein, carbohydrates,
fiber). In these well-nourished populations, neither variations in
overall caloric intake nor calorie-adjusted consumption of specific
dietary nutrients consistently predicts timing of pubertal develop-
ment (Berkey, Gardner, Frazier, & Colditz, 2000; de Ridder et al.,
1991; Koo, Rohan, Jain, McLaughlin, & Corey, 2002; Koprowski,
Ross, Mack, Henderson, & Bernstein, 1999; Maclure, Travis,
Willett, & MacMahon, 1991; Merzenich et al., 1993; F. Meyer,
Moisan, Marcoux, & Bouchard, 1990; Moisan, Meyer, & Gingras,
1990a, 1990b). The one exception was a reliable association be-
tween diets high in calorie-adjusted dietary fiber or foods high in
fiber content (e.g., vegetarian diet) and later age at menarche (de
Ridder et al., 1991; Kissinger & Sanchez, 1987; Koo et al., 2002;
Soriguer et al., 1995). And in a remarkable international compar-
ison of 46 countries and communities, R. E. Hughes and Jones
(1985) found a very strong positive correlation (r .84) between
per capita intake of dietary fiber (g/1,000 kcal) and later age at
menarche. They suggested an evolutionary explanation for this
relation:
It is possible that the fibre-fertility link is in fact an evolutionary
adaptation and represents a protective mechanism to delay reproduc-
tion on non-optimal diets until the mother has attained an acceptable
stage of physical development. Young mothers, if still growing and
developing, could well compete with the foetus in certain critical areas
for essential nutrients such as protein. Diets that are low in protein are
frequently high in fibre; this is particularly true when the protein is of
a low-quality vegetable type. A high intake of dietary fibre would, in
such circumstances, delay the menarche and so reduce the possibility
of foetal-maternal competition for the inadequate amount of available
dietary protein. (R. E. Hughes & Jones, 1985, pp. 330331)
In sum, the data support Hypothesis 1: Children who experience
chronically poor nutritional environments, whether assessed indi-
rectly through SES or directly in dietary studies, tend to experience
relatively late pubertal development. A relevant intervening endo-
crine mechanism may be low levels of pituitary gonadotropins.
The necessary conditions for delayed puberty, however, appear to
be serious or sustained nutritional deprivation; the level of dietary
variation found in modern Western societies does not appear to
meet these conditions (with the exception of high-fiber diets).
Evaluation of Energetics Theory: Hypothesis 2
The second hypothesis derived from energetics theory is that
earlier maturing girls have greater reproductive capacity. To eval-
uate this reproductive capacity hypothesis, it is useful to decom-
pose reproductive capacity into more specific, measurable indica-
tors: ovarian function (e.g., growth and maturation of follicles,
production of ovarian steroid hormones); fecundity (the probabil-
ity of becoming pregnant when reproductively cycling and ex-
posed to sexual intercourse); fertility (number of offspring); lac-
tational capacity; rates of spontaneous abortions, stillbirths,
congenital abnormalities, prematurity, low birth weight, and retar-
dation in offspring; and health and well-being of children. Accord-
ing to the reproductive capacity hypothesis, earlier maturing girls
should have higher ovarian functioning, higher fecundity, higher
fertility, greater lactational capacity, better pregnancy outcomes
(i.e., lower rates of spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, congenital
abnormalities, prematurity, low birth weight, and retardation in
offspring), and greater fitness of offspring. As reviewed below,
there are reasonably well-developed literatures on the relations
between age of menarche and ovarian functioning, fetal wastage
(spontaneous abortions and stillbirths), fetal growth, and fecundity
and fertility.
Ovarian functioning. Ellison (1990, 1996) has proposed that
adult levels of ovarian hormonal functioningthe endocrine func-
tion of the ovaries in producing steroid hormonesare related to
the timing of childhood and adolescent growth and reproductive
maturation. Ellison (1990, 1996) specifically hypothesized that
earlier reproductive maturation is associated with a faster rise in
indices of ovarian function with age and higher levels of ovarian
steroid secretion in adulthood. As reviewed by Ellison (1996),
individual differences in ovarian hormonal functioning influence
variation in female fecundity through such intervening mecha-
nisms as follicular development, endometrial proliferation, pro-
duction of progesterone receptors, fertilizability of the oocyte,
success of implantation, and maintenance of ongoing pregnancies.
An 18-year longitudinal investigation by Apter and Vihko
(1983; Vihko & Apter, 1984; Apter, Reinila, & Vihko, 1989;
Apter, 1996), which began with 200 Finnish schoolgirls, 717
years of age, and followed a subsample of them into their twenties
and thirties, has provided the primary base of support for the
ovarian function hypothesis. Among the main research results are
three important findings. First, early in pubertal development prior
to menarche, those girls who would subsequently experience men-
arche before age 13 had earlier and greater increases in FSH and
estradiol concentrations than their peers who would experience
menarche at age 13 or later.
Second, early menarche was associated with early onset of
ovulatory menstrual cycles;
6
for example, the time from menarche
6
First menstrual cycles are often infertile (anovulatory), and the time
between first menstruation and attainment of fertile (ovulatory) menstrual
cycles varies across individuals.
927
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
until 50% of cycles were ovulatory was approximately 1.0 year if
menarche occurred before age 12, 3.0 years if menarche occurred
during age 12, and 4.5 years if menarcheal age was 13 or older.
This finding replicated work by MacMahon et al. (1982), who
studied the probability of ovulation in relation to age at menarche
in 15 to 19 year old girls in several countries. MacMahon et al.
found that girls whose menarche occurred at under 12, 12, 13, and
14 years of age had cycles that were 21%, 30%, 36%, and 44%
anovular, respectively.
Third, the higher levels of serum estradiol and lower sex hor-
mone binding globulin concentrations found in earlier maturing
girls, compared with their later maturing peers, remained at 2030
years of age (see also Kirchengast & Hartmann, 1994, who re-
ported similar results in a study of adult Austrian women). In sum,
these endocrine studies suggest that variation in menarcheal age is
associated with meaningful individual-differences timing of ovar-
ian maturation and in set points for regulation of the
hypothalamicpituitaryovarian axis in the prime reproductive
years. Ellison (1996) suggested that lower baseline levels of ovar-
ian steroids in individuals with later menarche could result from
either stably lower levels of pituitary gonadotropin stimulation or
stably higher sensitivity of the hypothalamicpituitary axes to the
negative feedback of ovarian steroids.
In addition to this endocrine research, a number of investigators
have examined relations between age at menarche and self-
reported menstrual cycle characteristics. According to the repro-
ductive capacity hypothesis, earlier age at menarche should be
associated with earlier onset of regular menstrual cycles. Only
Gardner (1983), in a longitudinal study of 54 American women,
has provided support for this hypothesis, reporting that later age of
menarche was associated with less regularity of menstrual func-
tioning at age 18 (r .31). Given the age of the sample,
however, the correlation could be an artifact of immaturity of the
hypothalamicpituitaryovarian axis in the later developing girls.
Another American longitudinal study found little difference in the
length or variance of menstrual cycles for women whose menarche
ranged from ages 10 to 14 but did find that women whose men-
arche occurred at ages 15 to 16 had relatively long and variable
cycles (Wallace, Sherman, Bean, Leeper, & Treloar, 1978). Sim-
ilarly, in a large retrospective investigation of a French cohort, the
percentage of individuals with an interval of 5 years or more
between age at menarche and age at onset of regular menses did
not differ for women whose menarche ranged from ages 11 to 15,
but it was almost twice as high for women whose menarche
occurred at age 17 or later (Clavel-Chapelon & the E3N-EPIC
Group, 2002). Finally, several retrospective American studies have
found no substantive relations between age at menarche and time
until regular cycling (Butler et al., 2000; Garland et al., 1998;
Rockhill, Moorman, & Newman, 1998). In sum, although positive
associations have been found between earlier age of menarche and
higher levels of ovarian hormonal functioning, this enhanced func-
tioning does not appear to translate into shorter latencies to regular
menstrual cycling.
Fetal wastage. A second prediction derived from the repro-
ductive capacity hypothesis is that earlier maturing females should
be more likely than later maturing females to have successful
pregnancies that culminate in live birth. In evaluating this predic-
tion, it is important to control for levels of biological maturity
because earlier maturing females may be at increased risk of
spontaneous abortion and stillbirth because they are more likely to
become pregnant as adolescents. An extensive literature exists on
the relation between age at menarche and fetal wastage. Several
different research methodologies have been used to test the pre-
diction that earlier maturing females have less fetal wastage. These
include case-control methodologies, prospective pregnancy-based
studies, and cross-sectional studies. Case-control methodologies
(al-Ansary, Oni, & Babay, 1995; Parazzini et al., 1991, 1997;
Prado, 1990) generally have compared patients admitted to a
hospital for spontaneous abortion with controls at the same hos-
pital having normal deliveries, controlling for chronological age.
Prospective pregnancy-based studies have followed samples of
women longitudinally until they became pregnant and the outcome
of their pregnancy was determined (i.e., spontaneous abortion,
stillbirth, or live birth; Mayaux, Spira, & Schwartz, 1983; Sandler,
Wilcox, & Horney, 1984). These investigations have either used
samples of adult (postadolescent) females (Mayaux et al., 1983) or
have controlled for age at conception in the analyses (Sandler et
al., 1984). In cross-sectional studies, large samples of women of
varying ages have provided retrospective information on age at
menarche and the outcome of specific pregnancies. Several of
these projects examined the effect of menarcheal age on risk of
spontaneous abortion in first pregnancy, controlling for age at first
pregnancy (Bracken, Bryce-Buchanan, Stilten, & Holford, 1985;
Casagrande, Pike, & Henderson, 1982; Martin, Brinton, & Hoover,
1983). Wyshak (1983) examined the relation between age at men-
arche and number of unsuccessful pregnancy outcomes, control-
ling for total number of pregnancies and age at first birth. Finally,
a number of other cross-sectional investigations tested for associ-
ations between menarcheal age and miscarriage rates without
controlling for biological maturity (Helm & Lidegaard, 1989;
Helm, Munster, & Schmidt, 1995; Liestol, 1980; Madrigal, 1991;
Varea, Bernis, & Elizondo, 1993), making their results difficult to
interpret. All of this research excluded cases in which pregnancies
were terminated by induced abortion.
Across the 16 empirical studies reported in 15 research articles
cited above, only al-Ansary et al.s (1995) research on Saudi
women provided support for the prediction that earlier maturing
women have more successful pregnancy outcomes. The other
investigations either directly contradicted the prediction by show-
ing that early age at menarche was associated with increased
(rather then decreased) risk of miscarriage (Casagrande et al.,
1982; Helm et al., 1995; Liestol, 1980; Madrigal, 1991; Martin et
al., 1983; Parazzini et al., 1991; Prado, 1990; Varea et al., 1993;
Wyshak, 1983) or found no relation between age at menarche and
pregnancy outcomes (Bracken et al., 1985; Helm & Lidegaard,
1989; Mayaux et al., 1983; Parazzini et al., 1997; Sandler et al.,
1984). Nonetheless, 2 of the inquiries showing no relations found
that early-maturing females were overrepresented in cases of re-
current spontaneous abortion (Bracken et al., 1985; Sandler et al.,
1984). Finally, several studies found curvilinear relations between
age at menarche and rates of miscarriage, with both early and late
menarcheal age associated with elevated risk (Martin et al., 1983;
Prado, 1990; Varea et al., 1993; Wyshak, 1983). In sum, a con-
siderable body of research using diverse methodologies clearly
rejects the prediction that early reproductive development in-
creases the odds of having successful pregnancies that culminate in
live birth.
Fetal growth. A third prediction of the reproductive capacity
hypothesis is that earlier maturing mothers should be more suc-
cessful than later maturing mothers in promoting fetal growth.
928
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
Specifically, earlier maturing females should be more likely to
have term deliveries and to produce offspring that achieve normal
birth weight (both of which are major predictors of infant health
and survival; see, e.g., de Courcy-Wheeler et al., 1995; McCor-
mick, 1985). Again, it is important in evaluating this prediction to
control for levels of biological maturity in the mother. There have
been several investigations of the relation between maternal age at
menarche and indices of fetal growth. Hennesey and Alberman
(1998), in their prospective research on first births among mem-
bers of the British Birth Cohort, found support for the prediction
that earlier maturation in mothers promotes greater fetal growth.
Specifically, early age of menarche ( 12 years) was associated
with greater birth weight adjusted for gestational age (i.e., faster
growth in utero). This effect remained after controlling for such
confounding variables as mothers age at birth, height, weight for
height, and smoking during pregnancy. The study may not have
accurately gauged the relation between menarcheal age and fetal
growth, however, because it excluded preterm deliveries, which
have been found to occur disproportionately among early-maturing
mothers (Berkowitz, 1981; Li & Zhou, 1990; Scholl, Miller,
Salmon, Vasilenko, & Johnston, 1987). Nonetheless, some re-
search has provided evidence that is not inconsistent with the
prediction. Both DaVanzo, Habicht, and Butz (1984) and Strobino,
Ensminger, Kim, and Nanda (1995) found that very late menarche
was associated with low birth weight. In both studies, however, no
relation was found between maternal age at menarche and birth
weight of offspring across the early-to-normal range of menarcheal
timing (918 years in DaVanzo et al.s, 1984, study of Malaysian
mothers; 915 years in Strobino et al.s, 1995, study of young
American mothers).
Similarly, in a population-based Chinese birth cohort, Xu et al.
(1997) found that ages at menarche over the median ( 15 years)
were associated with small-for-gestational-age births, but only
among thin mothers (body mass index 21). Because thin girls
tend to experience relatively late menarche (e.g., Kaplowitz, Slora,
Wasserman, Pedlow, & Herman-Giddens, 2001), it seems likely
that the relation between menarche and fetal growth was driven by
a small percentage of mothers who, consistent with DaVanzo et al.
(1984) and Strobino et al. (1995), had both very late ages at
menarche and produced low birth weight offspring. Both Strobino
et al. and Xu et al. controlled for mothers age at birth in the
analyses.
Other published research on the relation between maternal age
at menarche and fetal growth directly contradicts the prediction
that early maturation is associated with more fetal growth. Both
Berkowitz (1981) and Li and Zhou (1990) conducted hospital-
based case-control studies in which mothers delivering preterm
infants were compared with mothers delivering term infants. Both
investigations found that the mothers delivering preterm infants
had significantly earlier age at menarche, although neither inves-
tigation controlled for maternal age at birth. Scholl et al. (1987,
1989) examined the effects of age at menarche on preterm deliv-
ery, low birth weight, and small-for-gestational-age births in two
cohorts of adolescent mothers. Both studies found that earlier age
at menarche was associated with intrauterine growth retardation.
Scholl et al. (1989) is especially informative in this context be-
cause they studied a narrow chronological age band, 1718 years,
and thus earlier maturing mothers would have had greater gyne-
cological age (i.e., longer intervals between menarche and first
birth). Despite being more biologically mature, the adolescent
mothers with younger menarcheal ages were more likely to deliver
growth-retarded infants (Scholl et al., 1989). Finally, in research
on nearly 5,000 births at a hospital in Austria, Kirchengast and
Hartmann (2000) found that earlier maturing mothers tended to
give birth to lighter and smaller babies. The inquiry was limited to
term births, included only adult mothers (ages 1943), and ad-
justed for maternal age.
In sum, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions about the
relations between age at menarche and fetal growth because of
methodological limitations of many investigations and because of
contradictory results. Nonetheless, there is very little support for
the prediction that earlier maturing mothers will be more success-
ful than later maturing mothers in promoting fetal growth.
The growing body of evidence linking early age of menarche to
either fetal wastage or fetal growth retardation has led some
researchers to attempt to explain these links at a mechanistic level.
As discussed above, early maturers tend to have higher circulating
levels of estrogen through adulthood than do late maturers. These
increased endogenous estrogen levels may increase uterine cramp-
ing and bleeding and induce tonic uterine contractions, which
could both predispose early maturers to spontaneous abortions and
reduce uterine blood flow, resulting in fetal growth retardation and
decreased newborn size (Kirchengast & Hartmann, 2000; Scholl et
al., 1989).
Fecundity and fertility. A central assumption of the reproduc-
tive capacity hypothesis is that earlier maturing females have
healthier and more efficient reproductive systems. A derivative
prediction is that earlier maturing females should be more fecund
than later maturing females. This prediction can be tested only in
natural fertility (noncontracepting) populations or in noncontra-
cepting groups within populations. As an index of fecundity in
natural fertility populations, several researchers have measured the
protogenesic intervalthe time elapsed between marriage and first
birthand then examined the association between this interval and
age at menarche. Two studies of the protogenesic interval, one
among Sudanese women (Otor & Pandey, 1998) and the other
among Malaysian women not using contraception (Udry & Cli-
quet, 1982), have provided measured support for the reproductive
capacity hypothesis. In both investigations, early-maturing females
(age at menarche 11 in the Malay sample and 12 in the
Sudanese sample) had shorter intervals than did later maturing
females (age at menarche 15 or above). Neither of these studies,
however, reported differences in protogenesic intervals between
early maturing and normatively maturing girls.
Other published research on the protogenesic interval directly
contradicts the prediction that earlier pubertal maturation will be
associated with greater fecundity. In their investigation of Moroc-
can women, Varea et al. (1993) found no relations between the
protogenesic interval and either age at menarche or age at marriage
and concluded that fecundability and menarcheal timing were
independent. Other studies conducted in rural Bangladesh (Foster
et al., 1986; Riley, 1994), among the Ladiya of India (Adak,
Gharami, Singhai, & Jain, 2001), among the Gond of India
(Sharma & Chowdhury, 1995), among the Kipsigis of Kenya
(Borgerhoff Mulder, 1989b), and in a largely noncontracepting
population in Romania (Cristescu, 1975) have documented shorter
protogenesic intervals among women with later ages at menarche.
Although in each of these investigations women who matured
earlier also tended to marry earlier than did their later maturing
peers, this difference was at least partially recovered by the shorter
929
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
protogenesic intervals (i.e., catch-up fecundity) among the later
maturing women. It is possible, however, that this catch-up fecun-
dity could have been caused by either longer menarche-to-
marriage intervals (resulting in greater gynecological age at mar-
riage) or greater chronological age (i.e., greater biological
maturity) among later maturing women. Only the Bangladesh
research specifically addressed these alternative explanations: No
relations were found between age at marriage and menarche-to-
marriage intervals (Riley, 1994, Figure 4). When age of marriage
was controlled for, age at menarche was still associated with
shorter protogenesic intervals (Riley, 1994).
In addition to protogenesic intervals, a reliable negative indica-
tor of fecundity is infertility problems: either difficulty becoming
pregnant or complete infertility. Relations between pubertal timing
and infertility can be usefully studied in contracepting populations
because women who are trying to become pregnant do not use
contraception. Komura, Miyake, Chen, Tanizawa, and Yoshikawa
(1992) found no relation between variation in menarcheal timing
across the age range of 11 to 17 years and rates of infertility among
married Japanese women (all of whom had fertile husbands and
had tried to become pregnant). However, rates of infertility in-
creased significantly among women who attained menarche at age
18 or later. Two studies of American women, by contrast, found
that very early menarche ( 11 years of age) was associated with
difficulties in becoming pregnant (Wyshak, 1983) or no live births
(Sandler et al., 1984). Sandler et al. also found that late menarche
( 15 years of age) increased risk for no live births. Finally, in a
large random sample of Dutch women, Helm et al. (1995) found
that age of menarche was unrelated to whether women ever be-
came pregnant, ever gave birth, or had difficulties becoming
pregnant when desiring to have a child. In sum, most research
examining relations between age at menarche and infertility has
found that women who experienced pubertal maturation either
early or late have more infertility problems than do women whose
pubertal maturation occurred within the normative range.
A final method of assessing fecundity is reproductive success.
Studies of the relations between timing of pubertal maturation and
reproductive success can be legitimately conducted only in natural
fertility populations. Because greater number of offspring tends to
be associated with higher child mortality rates (Cristescu, 1975;
Crognier, 1998; Kunstadter et al., 1992; Strassmann & Gillespie,
2002; Syamala, 2001), the relevant dependent variable in such
investigations should be number of surviving offspring, rather than
number of live births. Accordingly, research on the links between
menarche and fitness needs to assess completed family size in
postmenopausal women in traditional societies. This presents for-
midable measurement problems because retrospective questioning
of female elders about age at menarche in nonliterate populations
is vulnerable to profound bias and memory lapse (Borgerhoff
Mulder, 1989b). One study circumvented this problem by estimat-
ing age of menarche in a small sample of postmenopausal Kipsigis
women (N 33) through reference to clitoridectomy ceremonies
that could be easily dated (Borgerhoff Mulder, 1989b). A mean-
ingful negative correlation was found between estimated menar-
cheal age and number of currently surviving children (r .53,
p .001), although the relation was not linear. As suggested by
the scatterplot shown in Figure 3 of Borgerhoff Mulder (1989b),
there was no relation between variation in menarcheal timing
across the age range of 12 to 16 years and completed family size.
However, women who attained menarche at age 17 or later had
notably fewer surviving children. Borgerhoff Mulder (1989a) also
reported the correlation between age of menarche and number of
live births per year of marriage in a sample of premenopausal
Kipsigis women (N 80; r .22, p .05). As suggested by the
scatterplot in Figure 4 of Borgerhoff Mulder (1989a), there was
again no relation between variation in menarcheal timing across
the age range of 12 to 16 years and number of live births per year;
but the data did suggest a small decrease in live births among
women who attained menarche at age 17 or later.
In sum, there is no evidence in any of the research reviewed
above that women who experience early menarche are more fe-
cund than women who experience menarche in the normative
range for their population. Although several studies found that
women whose pubertal development occurred in the early-to-
normative range were more fecund than women who experienced
delayed puberty, a number of other investigations found that later
maturing women had shorter protogenesic intervals. Finally, some
work suggests that early-maturing women are at elevated risk for
infertility. Taken together, these data present a severe challenge to
the reproductive capacity hypothesis (Hypothesis 2): There ap-
pears to be no reproductive advantage to maturing early over
maturing on time (i.e., maturing at a rate that is average for the
population).
Summary and Conclusion
Energetics theory suggests that energy availability during child-
hood influences timing of pubertal maturation, that in fact pubertal
timing operates as a bioassay of chronic childhood conditions, and
that females use this bioassay to establish lifetime set points for
reproductive functioning. Extant data support the first part of this
theory (Hypothesis 1) but not the second part (Hypothesis 2).
Although girls who experience chronically rich nutritional envi-
ronments tend to grow more quickly and experience earlier puber-
tal development than do girls in chronically poor nutritional envi-
ronments, and although there is evidence that earlier age at
menarche is associated with higher levels of ovarian hormonal
functioning, there is no consistent evidence that earlier pubertal
maturation translates into higher reproductive functioning. Com-
pared with girls whose age at menarche is in the average range for
their population, early-maturing girls do not have shorter latencies
between menarche and regular menstrual cycling, are not more
successful at maintaining pregnancies that culminate in live birth,
are not more successful at promoting fetal growth, and are not
more fecund or reproductively successful.
The effects of nutrition and SES on pubertal timing provide
strong support for a basic assumption of energetics theory: that
natural selection has favored physiological mechanisms that track
variation in resource availability and adjust timing of physical
development to match that variation. Nonetheless, there could be a
simpler absence-of-impairment explanation for the data. The
absence-of-impairment hypothesis posits that, given sufficiency of
resources and absence of biological insults, organisms will achieve
their full developmental potential (e.g., fast growth, large body
size; Worthman, 1999). The completeness of the absence of im-
pairment hypothesis has been strongly challenged by Worthman
(1999), however, who presented several lines of evidence demon-
strating that absence of impairment does not influence pubertal
timing in a simple linear or unidirectional manner. For example,
poor children adopted from developing countries into affluent
930
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
Western families experience significantly earlier puberty than do
children from either their countries of origin or their host countries,
despite histories of infection and malnutrition prior to adoption
(reviewed in Mul, Oostdijk, & Drop, 2002). Moreover, Indian and
Bangladeshi girls adopted into Swedish families experience earlier
menarche if they are adopted at later ages (mean age at menarche
is 11.1 years and for girls adopted at 3 years of age and 11.9
years for girls adopted at 3 years of age; Proos, Hofvander, &
Tuvemo, 1991), even though the older adoptees experienced more
sustained deprivation prior to adoption. Consistent with the adap-
tationist framework positing physiological mechanisms that track
energy availability, Worthman (1999) stated that the life history
model would predict that girls experiencing persistent deprivation
would react to a dramatic improvement in environmental quality
by hastening reproduction in order to exploit a narrow window of
resource availability (p. 141).
As suggested in the preceding discussion of life history theory,
timing of pubertal maturation (whether early or late) represents a
trade-off in distribution of metabolic resources toward different
potential reproductive strategies. Earlier reproductive development
tends to bias individuals toward short-term (current) reproduction
and greater number of offspring, whereas later reproductive de-
velopment tends to bias individuals toward long-term (future)
reproduction and greater fitness of offspring. Although earlier
pubertal development in girls predicts earlier age at first sexual
experience and reproduction (reviewed below, see Psychosocial
Models of Pubertal Timing: IV. Child Development Theory), girls
whose pubertal development is in the normative range for their
population are no less fertile or fecund than their earlier maturing
peers. Most important, earlier developing girls may be sacrificing
offspring quality, as suggested by the literatures on fetal wastage
and fetal growth. The other side of the coin is that later developing
girls have more time to build physical and social capital prior to
maturity (see especially below, Psychosocial Models of Pubertal
Timing: IV. Child Development Theory). In sum, early pubertal
development is not a reliable indicator of high reproductive ca-
pacity. Rather, consistent with life history theory, it can be con-
ceptualized as an important component of a reproductive strategy
that is biased toward current reproduction and offspring number.
Psychosocial Models of Pubertal Timing: I. Stress-
Suppression Theory
The energetics theory of pubertal timing, positing that resource
scarcity delays pubertal development, has been applied more
broadly to encompass psychosocial stressors. According to this
expanded version of the theory, adverse physical or social condi-
tions, whether experienced as chronically low energy availability
or psychosocial stress, should cause animals in K-selected species
to delay pubertal development and reproduction until predictably
better times (MacDonald, 1999; E. M. Miller, 1994). This theory,
linking both physical and social stressors to timing of pubertal
development, is henceforth referred to as stress-suppression
theory.
Stress-suppression theory has been supported by neurophysio-
logical research linking stress to suppression of the HPG axis.
Environmental events signaling threats to survival or well-being
produce a set of complex, highly orchestrated responses within the
neural circuitry of the brain and peripheral neuroendocrine path-
ways regulating metabolic, immunologic, and other physiological
functions. As comprehensively detailed in the writings of neuro-
scientists such as Chrousos (1998), Meaney (2001), and McEwen
(1998), the neural substrates for the organisms stress response
comprise two anatomically distinct but functionally integrated
circuits: the corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) and locus
coeruleus-norepinephrine (LC-NE) systems and their peripheral
effectors, the pituitaryadrenal axis and the limbs of the autonomic
nervous system. The coactivation of the these two systems, along
with their linkages to limbic structures, such as the amygdala and
anterior cingulate, as well as the mesolimbic dopaminergic system
and the medial prefrontal cortex, produce the coordinated biobe-
havioral changes associated with the stress response in mammalian
species. When activation of these stress-response systems is of
sufficient duration and magnitude, the functioning of the HPG axis
can be suppressed at several levels, including decreased GnRH
pulsatility, disrupted GnRH surge secretion, decrease in pituitary
responsiveness to GnRH, and alteration of stimulatory effects of
gonadotropins on sex steroid production (Cameron, 1997; Dobson,
Ghuman, Prabhakar, & Smith, 2003; Johnson, Kamilaris, Chrou-
sos, & Gold, 1992; Rivier & Rivest, 1991; cf. Ferin, 1999, who
reviewed primate research indicating a paradoxical increase in
gonadotropin in response to stressors during the mid-to-late fol-
licular phase of the menstrual cycle). Linkages between the stress-
response systems and the HPG axis thus provide a clearly articu-
lated mechanism through which psychosocial stress could delay
pubertal development. In humans, these linkages are supported by
a substantial body of research indicating that energetic stressand
some research suggesting that psychosocial stresscan induce
reproductive dysfunction in women (e.g., Ellison, 2001; Ferin,
1999; Marcus, Loucks, & Berga, 2001; Nappi & Facchinetti,
2003).
Human and nonhuman primate research investigating the stress-
suppression hypothesis, however, has examined the effects of
stress on ovarian functioning in mature females. No published
experimental work has manipulated psychosocial stress in imma-
ture female primates and then followed those animals prospec-
tively to determine downstream effects on timing of pubertal
development. To my knowledge, relevant experimental research in
large mammals has been conducted only on pigs. This applied
agricultural research has assessed the impact of management stres-
sors (i.e., mixing with unfamiliar conspecifics, relocation to new
pens, truck transport) on attainment of puberty in gilts. Contrary to
the stress-suppression hypothesis, management stressors, either on
their own or in combination with boar contact, generally stimulate
earlier pubertal development in gilts (see P. E. Hughes, Philip, &
Siswadi, 1997, and references therein). Gilts raised in total con-
finement systems, however, tend to experience delayed puberty
(Thompson & Savage, 1978).
Potential effects of psychosocial stress on pubertal timing have
also been indirectly investigated in nonhuman primates. A number
of researchers have studied primate social groupings, measured the
social rank of different group members, and then correlated social
rank with timing of pubertal development. The underlying assump-
tion is that low social rank is emotionally and physiologically
stressful, and thus low social rank should delay pubertal matura-
tion and impair ovarian hormonal functioning (e.g., Blanchard,
McKittrick, & Blanchard, 2001; Cameron, 1997). This theorizing
has been supported by a number of primate studies showing a
negative correlation between female social rank and age at pu-
berty. As reviewed by French (1997), in a variety of Callitrichid
931
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
primates, including cotton-top tamarins, saddleback tamarins, red-
bellied tamarins, and common marmosets, puberty is delayed or
does not occur in subordinate daughters that remain in their natal
groups. Further, in an investigation of outdoor-housed rhesus
monkeys, higher ranking females experienced earlier age at first
ovulation than did lower ranking females, even though lower
ranking females spent significantly more time feeding (Schwartz,
Wilson, Walker, & Collins, 1985). Finally, in research on free-
ranging savanna baboons, Bercovitch and Strum (1993) found that
the daughters of high-ranking females had earlier onset of repro-
ductive maturation than did the daughters of low-ranking females,
but only when resource availability was taken into account.
These observed relations between social rank and pubertal tim-
ing have sometimes been interpreted as supporting a causal role for
stress, both social and nutritional, in suppressing reproductive
development (e.g., Cameron, 1997; Dunbar, 1988; Hacklander,
Mostl, & Arnold, 2003; Schwartz et al., 1985). This interpretation
has been strongly challenged by Creel (2001), however, in his
review of the literature on the relations between social dominance
and glucocorticoid (GC) levels. One of the primary mammalian
responses to environmental stressors is enhanced activation of the
hypothalamicpituitaryadrenal (HPA) axis, causing an increase in
levels of plasma GCs. Agonistic encounters can cause large and
persistent increases in GC levels in both winners and losers, but
especially in losers (Creel, 2001). Although agonistic encounters
play a role in establishment of dominance hierarchies, it is gener-
ally thought that social dominance relations evolve to avoid the
costs of escalated conflicts under conditions in which winning and
losing can be reliably predicted (Enquist & Leimar, 1990). Once a
stable dominance hierarchy has been established, there is no a
priori reason to expect that lower social rank will be associated
with higher basal GC levels. Creel found that relations between
basal GC levels and social rank were highly variable across spe-
cies, with dominant animals displaying elevated basal GC levels as
often as subordinates. Further, in species that lived in permanent
social groups, it was uncommon for subordinates to experience
chronically elevated GCs. Creel suggested that research is needed
to identify the non-GC-mediated mechanisms through which so-
cial rank affects sexual development and behavior. One possibility,
pheromonal regulation of pubertal timing, is discussed below (see
Psychosocial Models of Pubertal Timing: III. Paternal Investment
Theory).
The mechanisms question remains controversial. Cameron
(1997) has argued that at least part of the social rank effect on
reproductive endocrine function results from social interactions
that put subordinate animals in more stressful situations. Although
Cameron (1997) acknowledged that subordinates do not always
show endocrine markers of stress (such as increased basal GC
levels), they may still display greater adrenocortical reactivity than
more dominant animals (e.g., J. R. Kaplan, Adams, Koritnik, Rose,
& Manuck, 1986). Cameron (1997) also reviewed primate evi-
dence indicating that behavioral intimidation by dominant animals
plays an important role in reproductive suppression of subordi-
nates. This evidence is largely based on captive populations,
however, which differ from wild populations in ways that are
directly relevant to experiences of stress (e.g., capture and han-
dling stress, placement of unfamiliar individuals in small enclo-
sures, limited ability of subordinates to avoid dominants or move
away from the group). It is important to note that endocrine
research on wild populations suggests that it may be as stressful to
be dominant as it is to be subordinate (Creel, 2001). In any case,
the relations between dominance status and stress are complex and
modified by a number of social conditions (e.g., Bercovitch &
Ziegler, 2002; Boyce, ONeill-Wagner, Price, Haines, & Suomi,
1998).
Controlled human research, of course, does not exist. But some
relevant information has been obtained by analyzing timing of
pubertal development under conditions of war. A number of stud-
ies have been conducted in relation to World War II. These
investigations examined median ages at menarche in given regions
before, during, and after the war. In Europe, the Soviet Union, and
Japan, the secular trend toward earlier pubertal development was
already well under way by the time the Second World War began.
In Belgium (Wellens et al., 1990), Finland (Kantero & Widholm,
1971), France (Olivier & Devigne, 1983), Germany (Tanner,
1962), Japan (Hoel, Wakabayashi, & Pike, 1983), the Netherlands
(van Noord & Kaaks, 1991), and Russia (Bielicki, 1986), this trend
was reversed during the period of World War II. There can be little
doubt that adverse conditions associated with the war delayed
pubertal development. This research does not enable determination
of the specific conditions that caused this delay, however. There
were many confounding stressorsfood rationing, changes in
dietary composition, increased physical activity, suffering from
cold, prevalence of disease, physical injury, as well as psycholog-
ical traumaany of which could have plausibly contributed to the
temporary reversal in the secular trend.
A more recent investigation of menarcheal timing during the
recent war in Yugoslavia has attempted to deconfound some of
these factors. Prebeg and Bralic (2000; see also Tahirovic, 1998)
studied changes in mean age at menarche of girls in the Croatian
town of Sibenik from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. Sibenik was
exposed to hard war conditions in 19911995. Although no mea-
surements were taken of caloric intake (or of energy expenditure),
Prebeg and Bralic claimed that there were not notable food short-
ages during the war and that rates of infectious disease did not
increase. Nonetheless, mean menarcheal age increased signifi-
cantly from 12.87 years in 1985 (N 1,270) to 13.13 years in
1996 (N 1,680). Among girls whose homes were damaged
during the war (n 278), mean menarcheal age was 13.53 years.
And among the group of girls who lost a family member (n 76),
menarche occurred at an average age of 13.76 years. Prebeg and
Bralic (2000) concluded that the reversal of menarcheal age in
Sibenik girls is probably related to the prolonged psychological
stress associated with war (p. 507). These data are consistent with
clinical observations of delayed puberty in children who have
suffered severe socioemotional stress (i.e., psychosocial dwarfism;
reviewed in Hopwood et al., 1990). Nonetheless, most human
research on the effects of familial environments on pubertal timing
suggests that family adversity is associated with earlier, rather than
later, pubertal development (see Psychosocial Models of Pubertal
Timing: II. Psychosocial Acceleration Theory below).
In sum, although connections between the stress-response sys-
tems and the HPG axis provide a plausible mechanism through
which psychosocial stress could delay pubertal development, there
is only limited evidence that psychosocial stress actually does
delay puberty. The primate data on social rank and pubertal timing
provide only weak support at best for the stress-suppression hy-
pothesis. The data on changes in pubertal timing during periods of
war are interesting but confounded, though the Yugoslav data (as
well as the data on psychosocial dwarfism) suggest that extreme
932
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
psychosocial stress can delay puberty. Most critical, as reviewed
below, the hypothesis that psychosocial stress delays human pu-
bertal development runs counter to the results of most longitudinal
research on this topic. In total, the current empirical literature does
not support expanding energetics theory into a more general stress-
suppression theory of pubertal timing that encompasses psycho-
social stressors. Admittedly, relevant research is scant, often indi-
rect, and mostly nonexperimental. The point is not that these
limited investigations disconfirm the hypothesis that psychosocial
stress inhibits pubertal development but rather that little research
has supported it. Nonetheless, the possibility that moderate psy-
chosocial stress accelerates pubertal development whereas extreme
psychosocial stress delays it is explored further in the next section.
Psychosocial Models of Pubertal Timing: II. Psychosocial
Acceleration Theory
As discussed above, life history theory comprises a broad set of
theoretical principles which can be used to derive a number of
more specific theoretical models. In some cases, these derivative
models provide competing perspectives on a common question. In
contrast to the stress-suppression theory presented above, an alter-
native set of life history models focuses on the role of familial and
ecological stressors in provoking early onset of pubertal develop-
ment and reproduction (Belsky et al., 1991; Chisholm, 1993, 1996,
1999; Wilson & Daly, 1997).
Belsky et al. (1991) were the first to propose a life history model
of the role of psychosocial stressors in accelerating timing of
puberty in girls. Indeed, they regarded the proposition of a linkage
between psychosocial experiences early in life and pubertal timing
as a unique and uncanny prediction distinguishing their evolution-
ary theory of socialization from more traditional theories of so-
cialization as well as from mainstream thinking about determinants
of pubertal timing. Belsky et al. (1991) posited that
a principal evolutionary function of early experiencethe first 57
years of lifeis to induce in the child an understanding of the
availability and predictability of resources (broadly defined) in the
environment, of the trustworthiness of others, and of the enduringness
of close interpersonal relationships, all of which will affect how the
developing person apportions reproductive effort. (p. 650)
Drawing on the concept of sensitive-period learning of reproduc-
tive strategies, Belsky et al. (1991) theorized that humans have
evolved to be sensitive to specific features of their early childhood
environments and that exposure to different environments biases
children toward the development of different reproductive strate-
gies. Children whose experiences in and around their families of
origin are characterized by relatively high levels of stress (e.g.,
scarcity or instability of resources, father absence, negative and
coercive family relationships, lack of positive and supportive fam-
ily relationships) are hypothesized to develop in a manner that
speeds rates of pubertal maturation, accelerates sexual activity, and
orients the individual toward relatively unstable pairbonds and
lower levels of parental investment. In contrast, children whose
experiences in and around their families are characterized by
relatively high levels of support and stability are hypothesized to
develop in the opposite manner (Belsky et al., 1991).
In essence, Belsky et al. (1991) proposed that the context of
early rearing sets the persons reproductive strategy in a way that
was likely to have functioned adaptively in that context in the
environments in which humans evolved. Over the course of hu-
mans natural selective history, ancestral females growing up in
adverse family environments may have reliably increased their
reproductive success by accelerating physical maturation and be-
ginning sexual activity and reproduction at a relatively early age,
without the expectation that paternal investment in child rearing
would be forthcoming and without the precondition of a close,
enduring romantic relationship (Belsky et al., 1991). A shortened
reproductive timetable in this context may have increased the
probability of having at least some offspring that survive and
reproduce. As Chisholm (1996) suggested, When young mam-
mals encounter conditions that are not favorable for survivali.e.,
the conditions of environmental risk and uncertainty indexed by
emotional stress during developmentit will generally be adap-
tive for them to reproduce early (p. 21).
Although the stress-suppression theory posits that stress and
uncertainty should result in later pubertal development and lower
fertility, Chisholm (1996, 1999) proposed that this should be the
case only when parents have the capacity to shape conditions in
ways that significantly enhance the health, competitiveness, and
eventual reproductive success of their offspring. When parents
lack this capacity, allocation of resources should be biased toward
reproducing early and often. One element of this accelerated
reproductive strategy is to shorten the time before sexual maturity
(i.e., accelerate pubertal development). As Chisholm (1999) has
stated,
From the perspective of life history theory (and contrary to a great
deal of common sense) when parents resources are limited it is not
necessarily adaptive or rational for them to have fewer offspring so as
to be able to invest more in each one. In other words, even when
mortality rates are not high the optimal strategy for parents who lack
the material or social resources (e.g., power, prestige) to make a
difference in their childrens reproductive value (e.g., health, educa-
tion, employment or marriage prospects, competence as parents. . .)
may well be to increase fertility (to maximize current reproduction)
while reducing investment in each child (which tends to decrease
future reproduction). . . . The non-intuitive message here (as
Monique Borgerhoff Mulder [1992:350] described this apparent par-
adox) is that when the flow of resources is chronically low or unpre-
dictablewhich is when we might otherwise expect parents to be
most solicitous of their offspringit may in fact be (or have been)
evolutionarily adaptive for parents to hedge their bets against lin-
eage extinction by reducing parental investment and allocating their
limited resources not to parenting effort (or even, beyond some
threshold, to their own health and longevity), but to offspring produc-
tion instead. (pp. 5758)
In sum, low-quality parental investment may signal an environ-
ment in which variations in parental care and resources are not
closely linked to variation in reproductive success. Under these
conditions the developing child should accelerate reproductive
maturation. This theory, linking psychosocial stress to earlier
puberty, is henceforth referred to as psychosocial acceleration
theory.
Empirical Investigations of the Relations Between
Psychosocial Stress and Timing of Pubertal Maturation in
Girls
As reviewed by Blanchard et al. (2001) and Pacak and Palkovits
(2001), there are stressor-specific neuroendocrine pathways and
933
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
circuits within the central nervous system, and different types of
stressful events have qualitatively different effects on both phys-
iology and behavior. For example, in research on rats, socioemo-
tional stressors (e.g., repeated social defeat) and physical stressors
(e.g., electric footshock) have been found to produce opposites
effects on systolic blood pressure and mean arterial blood pressure
(Adams, Lins, & Blizard, 1987). Following B. J. Ellis and Garber
(2000), I distinguish between three general types of environmental
stressors that have been found to covary with girls pubertal
timing: physical stressors (e.g., malnutrition, physical exercise
stress), socioemotional stressors (e.g., harsh and neglecting family
relationships, absence of parental warmth and support), and father
absence. This distinction is important because it decomposes a
multiplicity of experiences which Belsky et al. (1991) and Chis-
holm (1999) did not explicitly treat as distinctive in their devel-
opmental consequences when theorizing about early experience
and reproductive strategies (including pubertal timing).
Physical stressors. There is general agreement in the literature
that physical stressors tend to delay pubertal timing. The relation
between low caloric intake and delayed pubertal timing was re-
viewed above (see The Energetics Theory of Timing of Pubertal
Development). There is also substantial evidence that physical
exercise stress, such as intensive running or dancing, delays pu-
bertal maturation (e.g., Brooks-Gunn & Warren, 1988; Georgo-
poulos et al., 1999; Lounana, Bantsimba, Silou, Packa-
Tchissambou, & Medelli, 2002; cf. Malina, 1998, who argued that
sports-specific selective factors may channel late-maturing girls
into many forms of athletics).
Studies of physical stress are conceptually distinct from studies
of socioemotional stress, given that individuals in a physically rich
environments can still have substantial exposure to socioemotional
stressors and vice versa. Hulanicka and colleagues (Hulanicka,
1999; Hulanicka, Gronkiewicz, & Koniarek, 2001) have specifi-
cally compared the effects of physical and socioemotional stres-
sors on timing of pubertal development in Polish school girls.
Consistent with energetics theory, the Polish data show a strong
main effect of poverty on pubertal timing: Poorer girls mature
later. At the same time, however, girls growing up in dysfunctional
families in which they were exposed to prolonged distress (e.g.,
father absence, parental alcohol abuse, prolonged illness of a
parent) had significantly earlier ages at menarche than did girls
who lived in families that were free of strong traumatic events
despite the lower SES and nutritional status of girls from dysfunc-
tional families (Hulanicka, 1999; Hulanicka et al., 2001). These
data suggest that physical and socioemotional stressors may have
independent, and perhaps countervailing, effects on timing of
pubertal development. In light of such evidence, it is not surprising
that the alternative theories under consideration in this article have
been advanced.
Socioemotional stressors. There is considerable controversy
regarding the role of socioemotional stressors and father absence
in regulation of pubertal timing. Extant research on this topic has
assessed overall quality of family relationships during childhood
as well as the fathers role in the family (e.g., father absence, father
involvement) more specifically. The possibility that fathers play a
special role in regulation of daughters pubertal timing is reviewed
in the next section (Psychosocial Models of Pubertal Timing: III.
Paternal Investment Theory).
When evaluating the possible impact of family relationships on
pubertal timing, it is important to note that causation may be
bidirectional (see especially Steinberg, 1988). Both adrenarche and
gonadarche result in changes in sex steroids that may influence
family relationships. As stated above, in girls, adrenarche occurs
from 6 to 9 years of age and gonadarche occurs at approximately
9 or 10 years of age. Although adrenal androgens are weaker than
gonadal steroids and are thus thought to have less influence on
behavior (Dorn, Hitt, & Rotenstein, 1999), a pilot project compar-
ing individuals who experienced premature adrenarche with con-
trols who experienced on-time adrenarche suggests that premature
adrenarche is associated with poor behavioral adjustment (Dorn,
Hitt, & Rotenstein, 1999). To date, however, no empirical research
has examined relations between normal variation in adrenal an-
drogens prior to maturation of the HPG axis and either behavioral
adjustment or family relationships. By contrast, many studies have
implicated changes in gonadal steroid hormones at puberty as
causal influences on mood and behavior in adolescence (reviewed
in Dorn & Chrousos, 1997).
The potential influence of adrenarche and gonadarche on family
dynamics presents special methodological difficulties for research-
ers attempting to investigate the effects of family relationships on
timing of pubertal development. Several strategies can be used,
however, to control for or rule out puberty effects. One method is
to assess quality of family relationships prior to onset of puberty,
at least before age 9 and ideally before age 6. Another method is
to use indices of family environment that are not likely to be
influenced by the childs pubertal development (e.g., parental
psychopathology). A third method is to assess pubertal develop-
ment at two time points and then assess the relation between
family environment at Time 1 and pubertal development at Time
2, controlling for pubertal development at Time 1. As reviewed
below, various studies have used each of these methodologies.
Another methodological issue concerns the dimensional concep-
tualization of family environments. Recent research suggests that
family relationships have fairly independent positive and negative
dimensions (e.g., B. J. Ellis & Malamuth, 2000; Hetherington &
Clingempeel, 1992; Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 1997) and that each of
these dimensions often accounts for unique variance in child
outcomes (e.g., Belsky, Hsieh, & Crnic, 1998; B. J. Ellis et al.,
1999; Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992). Indeed, B. J. Ellis et al.
(1999) and W. B. Miller and Pasta (2000) recommended analyzing
the positiveharmonious and negativecoercive dimensions of
family relationships separately when testing for effects on pubertal
timing. The current review adheres to this recommendation.
Familial warmth and positivity. A number of prospective lon-
gitudinal studies conducted in the United States have examined
relations between familial warmth and positivity and subsequent
timing of pubertal development in daughters. In a sample of 173
girls and their families, B. J. Ellis et al. (1999) assessed positivity
in family relationships on the basis of both behavioral observations
in the home and interviews with the mothers. Daughters were 5
years old at the time of these assessments and would not yet have
experienced any hormonal changes of puberty. Levels of pubertal
development were assessed 7 years later on the basis of daughters
self-report on the Pubertal Development Scale. B. J. Ellis et al.
(1999) found that greater warmth and positivity in early family
relationships, whether gauged through interviews, r(N 157)
.31, or home observations, r(n 40) .45, predicted lower
levels of age-adjusted pubertal maturation in adolescence. Similar
results were obtained by Graber, Brooks-Gunn, and Warren (1995)
in their longitudinal research on 75 initially premenarcheal girls.
934
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
These girls were between the ages of 10 and 14 at Time 1, when
they completed measures of parental approval and warmth. Phy-
sician ratings of Tanner stages for breast development were also
collected at this time. Girls were then followed prospectively to
determine subsequent age at menarche. After controlling for age,
maternal age at menarche, and pubertal maturation (breast devel-
opment) at Time 1, greater parental approval and warmth predicted
later age at menarche, (N 75) .22, suggesting that parent
child closeness may decelerate pubertal maturation.
Finally, in a study of 78 girls and their families, Steinberg
(1988) assessed levels of pubertal development at two time points
during adolescence and then examined effects of parentchild
relationships at Time 1 on pubertal development at Time 2, con-
trolling for pubertal development at Time 1.
7
Consistent with
Graber et al. (1995), motherdaughter closeness and cohesion had
a decelerating effect on daughters pubertal development: daughter
report, (N 59) .18; mother report, (N 59) .20.
Contrary to these findings, however, Steinberg found that fre-
quency of arguments, both motherdaughter, (N 59) .17,
and fatherdaughter, (N 47) .23, also decelerated pubertal
development. In total, Steinbergs data suggest that it may not be
parentchild closeness per se but frequency of parentchild inter-
actionswhether positive or negativethat slows pubertal devel-
opment.
8
B. J. Ellis et al. (1999, Table 5) also reported data
consistent with this viewpoint, wherein the frequency of both
positive and negative fatherdaughter interactions predicted later
pubertal development in daughters.
Several other researchers have also examined relations between
family warmth and positivity and pubertal timing in daughters, but
they have either collected family relationship and pubertal timing
data concurrently in adolescence (Rowe, 2000a) or retrospectively
in adulthood (Jorm, Christensen, Rodgers, Jacomb, & Easteal,
2004; Kim & Smith, 1998a, 1998b; Kim, Smith, & Palermiti,
1997; W. B. Miller & Pasta, 2000; Romans, Martin, Gendall, &
Herbison, 2003). These methods do not allow plausible inferences
to be made regarding the direction of causation. Nonetheless, most
of these studies have reported significant associations between
greater family warmth and positivity and later pubertal develop-
ment (Kim & Smith, 1998a; Kim et al., 1997; W. B. Miller &
Pasta, 2000; Romans et al., 2003; Rowe, 2000a).
Familial conflict and coercion. A small number of prospective
longitudinal studies have also examined relations between familial
conflict and coercion and subsequent timing of pubertal develop-
ment in daughters. In an investigation of a birth cohort of New
Zealand girls and their families, Moffitt et al. (1992) found that
mothers reports of conflictual family interactions, obtained when
daughters were age 7, forecast earlier age at menarche, as reported
by the daughters at age 15, r(N 379) .13.
9
B. J. Ellis et al.
(1999), however, failed to replicate this finding: No significant
relations were found between either observation-based or
interview-based measures of family conflict and coercion, ob-
tained at age 5, and subsequent timing of puberty. Furthermore, as
described above, Steinberg (1988) found that both mother
daughter and fatherdaughter conflict decelerated, rather than
accelerated, daughters pubertal development. Finally, in research
that followed 87 adolescent girls and their families, B. J. Ellis and
Garber (2000) found that a history of mood disorders in mothers
was associated with more advanced pubertal development by
daughters in the seventh grade, r(N 87) .30 (adjusted for age).
B. J. Ellis and Garber were able to date the onset of psychopa-
thology in the mothers and rule out the possibility that early
pubertal timing in daughters was causing maternal mood disorders.
They made the important observation that the effect of maternal
psychopathology on daughters pubertal timing was mediated by
quality of family relationships. However, the indices of family
relationships (the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, the Family Relation-
ships Index, the Family Assessment Device) all combined familial
warmth and positivity and familial coercion and conflict into
single measures; thus, it is not possible to determine whether low
levels of warmth and positivity, high levels of coercion and con-
flict, or a combination of the two accounted for the effects of
maternal psychopathology on timing of pubertal development. In
total, longitudinal research on the relations between family coer-
cion and conflict and timing of pubertal development in daughters
has produced inconsistent results.
Other researchers have also addressed this question, but have
either collected family coercionconflict and pubertal timing data
in adolescence without controlling for initial levels of pubertal
development (Mezzich et al., 1997; Wierson, Long, & Forehand,
1993) or retrospectively in adulthood (Jorm et al., 2004; Kim &
Smith, 1998a, 1998b; Kim et al., 1997; W. B. Miller & Pasta,
2000; Romans et al., 2003). Again, the direction of causation
cannot be plausibly determined. Nonetheless, with the exception of
W. B. Miller and Pasta (2000), all of these investigations found
significant associations between higher levels of family coercion
and conflict and earlier pubertal development.
Finally, some research has been conducted on the relation be-
tween a particular form of family coercionsexual abuseand
timing of puberty. Although this research is relevant to psycho-
social acceleration theory, it is especially pertinent to evaluating
pheromonal explanations of pubertal timing and is discussed be-
low in that context (see Psychosocial Models of Pubertal Timing:
III. Paternal Investment Theory).
Summary. Psychosocial acceleration theory posits that warm,
cohesive family environments slow down pubertal development,
whereas dangerous or conflictual family environments accelerate
it. Empirical research to date has provided reasonable, though
7
Assessment of pubertal development was based on ratings by trained
observers concerning facial characteristics, body proportion and shape,
and coordination. Although reliability across raters was good, the validity
of this method is unknown.
8
N. B. Ellis (1991), however, failed to replicate Steinbergs findings.
This failure may have been due to methodological weaknesses of the study.
N. B. Ellis did not assess frequency of parentchild interactions and used
only minimalistic measures of parentchild closeness with unknown
validity.
9
Commenting on this finding, Graber et al. (1995) suggested that, at age
7, some of the daughters in this study would have already begun the
hormonal changes of puberty, which could plausibly increase family con-
flict. This criticism is probably unjustified. Although some girls are likely
to have experienced adrenarche by age 7, they would not yet have expe-
rienced gonadarche. Moffitt et al.s (1992) dependent variablemen-
archeis part of the cascade of events triggered by gonadarche and
maturation of the HPG axis. Adrenarche and gonadarche are largely
uncorrelated; that is, girls who experience premature adrenarche do not
tend to experience earlier menarche than their peers who experience
on-time adrenarche (Apter & Vihko, 1985; Ibanez et al., 1992). Thus,
hormonal changes at age 7, though possibly influencing family conflict, are
unlikely to influence menarcheal timing.
935
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
incomplete, support for the theory. On the one hand, there is
converging evidence from a number of methodologically sound
studies that greater parentchild warmth and cohesion is associ-
ated with later pubertal development. This research also suggests
that greater frequency of parentchild interactions predicts later
puberty. On the other hand, the proposed accelerating effect of
parentchild conflict and coercion on pubertal development is yet
to be clearly established.
Although the size of the correlations between family environ-
ment and timing of puberty are generally small, these effects may
nonetheless have important ramifications. As discussed earlier, the
time from menarche until 50% of cycles are ovulatory is approx-
imately 1 year if menarche occurs before age 12 and 4.5 years if
menarcheal age is 13 or older. Thus, even small effects of family
environment on timing of puberty may have substantial effects on
timing of onset of reproductive status.
Possible Mechanisms
The research reviewed so far presents a paradox. On the one
hand, activation of the stress-response systems has been found to
suppress activity of the HPG axis in mature females. Indeed, there
is even evidence that psychosocial stress impairs ovarian function-
ing in women, as suggested by the literature on functional hypo-
thalamic amenorrhea (e.g., Marcus et al., 2001; Nappi & Facchi-
netti, 2003), though experimental data are lacking. On the other
hand, descriptive longitudinal research on humans, as well as
experimental research on pigs, suggests that psychosocial stress, at
least under some circumstances, can stimulate maturation of the
HPG axis in prepubertal females. This paradox raises very impor-
tant questions for future research: Why does psychosocial stress
appear to stimulate the reproductive axis in prepubertal girls when
most research suggests that stress suppresses the reproductive axis
in adults? Is there some difference in the way that psychosocial
stressors affect the brain before and after puberty?
Stress reactivity and pubertal development. A recent
evolutionary-developmental theory of the origins and functions of
stress reactivity, proposed by Boyce and Ellis (in press), may
provide the groundwork for resolving this paradox. Paralleling
psychosocial acceleration theory, Boyce and Elliss theory posits
that natural selection has favored mechanisms that detect and
internally encode information about levels of social resources and
support versus stress and adversity in early childhood environ-
ments as a basis for adaptively calibrating development. According
to the theory, an important function of childhood experience is to
entrain development of the stress-response systems, in terms of
activation thresholds and magnitudes of response, to match the
physical and social world of the child. The theory conceptualizes
stress reactivity as openness or permeability to environmental
influence, both positive and negative. From this perspective,
heightened reactivity within the stress-response systems not only
increases awareness of and readiness for danger but also enables
children to experience and incorporate more fully the beneficial,
protective features of their environments. Accordingly, Boyce and
Ellis have hypothesized that there is a curvilinear, U-shaped rela-
tion between early exposures to adversity and the development of
stress-reactive profiles, with high-reactivity phenotypes dispropor-
tionately emerging within both highly stressful and highly pro-
tected early social environments (see Figure 1).
B. J. Ellis, Essex, and Boyce (in press) reported data that are not
inconsistent with this hypothesis. Specifically, in two studies of
249 children and their families, B. J. Ellis et al. (in press) found
that supportive, stable childhood environments were consistently
associated with the emergence of high autonomic reactivity. In
addition, in one of the two studies, a relatively high proportion of
Figure 1. Hypothesized curvilinear relations of early psychosocial stress and adversity to biologic reactivity
and pubertal timing. Comparisons of subjects at Points A and B would result in a conclusion that early adversity
is associated with greater stress reactivity and later puberty. Comparisons at Points C and D, on the other hand,
would generate the inference that early adversity produces diminished reactivity and earlier puberty.
936
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
children in very stressful environments showed evidence of height-
ened sympathetic and adrenocortical reactivity. In both studies,
children from moderately stressful environments displayed the
lowest reactivity levels.
In light of this theory and data, consider the following extension
of Boyce and Elliss (in press) theory of stress reactivity, proposed
here, to explain observed relations between psychosocial stress in
childhood and pubertal timing: There is pronounced early plastic-
ity in the neurobiological mechanisms that underpin the develop-
ment of the CRH and LC-NE systems, and aspects of early
experience, particularly parentchild experiences, appear to play a
central role in the calibration of stress responses (Hofer, 1994;
Meaney, 2001). Growing up in highly protective environments
high levels of social support and stability, low levels of conflict
and adversityup-regulates (i.e., increases) reactivity of the
LC-NE system and its effector limbs in the autonomic nervous
system. Likewise, developmental exposures to acutely stressful
environments up-regulate reactivity of both the LC-NE and CRH
systems (e.g., de Bellis et al., 1999; Yehuda, 2002).
As reviewed by Dobson et al. (2003), stressors increase the
firing rate of noradrenaline-neuropeptide Y neurons in the regions
of the brain stem that control the LC-NE system. These neurons
project either indirectly through the medial preoptic area of the
hypothalamus or directly through the paraventricular nucleus of
the hypothalamus to release CRH and arginine vasopressin (AVP).
It is likely that stress stimulates CRH and AVP neurons through
other neurocircuits as well. Although the mechanisms that control
the GnRH pulse generator are not fully understood, GnRH neurons
synapse with CRH and AVP axons in the medial preoptic area
(Dobson et al., 2003). CRH and AVP are centrally involved in all
stress reactions, have inhibitory effects on secretion of gonadotro-
pins, and appear to be important intervening mechanisms through
which activation of the stress-response systems suppresses activity
of the HPG axis (Dobson et al., 2003; Ferin, 1999; see also above,
Psychosocial Models of Pubertal Timing: I. Stress-Suppression
Theory).
If both highly protective and acutely stressful childhood envi-
ronments cause up-regulation of stress-reactivity systems (Boyce
& Ellis, in press; B. J. Ellis et al., in press), and if this up-
regulation inhibits maturation of the HPG axis, then there should
be U-shaped curvilinear relations between levels of social re-
sources and support versus stress and adversity in early childhood
environments and not only stress reactivity but also timing of
puberty (see Figure 1). The right side of Figure 1 (Point B) depicts
expected reactivity levels and pubertal timing for individuals who
experience very high levels of psychosocial stress in early child-
hood. These individuals are hypothesized to develop heightened
reactivity profiles and, consequently, to experience relatively late
pubertal development. It is not expected, however, that reactivity
levels and pubertal timing will change in a linear fashion with
decreasing childhood stress. The left side of Figure 1 (Point C)
shows predicted reactivity levels and pubertal timing for individ-
uals whose early childhoods are characterized by intensive, stable
caregiving and family support. These individuals are also hypoth-
esized to develop exaggerated reactivity profiles and, conse-
quently, to experience relatively late puberty. Finally, the middle
of Figure 1 (Points A and D) reflects the anticipated, relatively
muted reactivity profiles and early pubertal development of indi-
viduals whose early childhood experiences are characterized by
moderately high levels of ongoing psychosocial stress and threat.
In most studies conducted in modern Western societies, such as
those reviewed in the preceding section, Empirical Investigations
of the Relations Between Psychosocial Stress and Timing of Pu-
bertal Maturation in Girls, early environments regarded as high in
stress and adversity would actually fit into this middle area (as
compared, for example, with the severe stress experienced in cases
of psychosocial dwarfism or by war victims in Yugoslavia).
Such an account would reconcile important contradictions, re-
viewed above, in the existing literature on psychosocial determi-
nants of pubertal timing in girls. Investigators comparing individ-
uals from Points A and B in Figure 1, for example, would
conclude, as have Hopwood et al. (1990) and Prebeg and Bralic
(2000), that psychosocial stress inhibits pubertal development. On
the other hand, studies comparing individuals from Points C and D
would find, as have those reviewed immediately above, that psy-
chosocial stress accelerates pubertal development. The current
theorizing, which posits two oppositionally distinctive ontogenies
for late pubertal timing, generating the proposed U-shaped curve,
explains both of these inhibiting and accelerating effects. These
distinctive ontogenies share the common underlying mechanism of
high reactivity of the stress-response systems.
The proposed U-shaped curvilinearity hypothesis potentially
reconciles the countervailing evolutionary arguments advanced by
psychosocial acceleration theory and stress-suppression theory.
Consistent with psychosocial acceleration theory, the model posits
that natural selection has favored phenotypic mechanisms that bias
allocation of resources toward relatively early sexual development
under conditions of moderately high psychosocial stress and un-
certainty. Under such conditions, it is generally adaptive to mature
and reproduce early. Conversely, consistent with stress-
suppression theory, the model posits that natural selection has
favored phenotypic mechanisms that bias allocation of resources
toward relatively late sexual development under conditions of very
high psychosocial stress. That is, under very bad conditions in
which current reproduction is unsustainable, it is generally adap-
tive to mature slowly and delay reproduction until predictably
better times.
GCs and pubertal development. Observed relations between
childhood stress and pubertal timing are likely to be subserved by
multiple mechanisms. CRH and AVP interact synergistically to
control secretion of adrenocorticotropin hormone from the anterior
pituitary, which in turn regulates secretion of GCs, principally
cortisol, from the adrenal cortex. Family adversity, disruptions in
early attachment relationships, and other traumatic childhood ex-
periences have been linked to abnormal cortisol profiles (e.g.,
elevated cortisol responses, elevated 24-hr urinary cortisol excre-
tion, increased density of lymphocyte GC receptors, a flattening in
the circadian pattern of cortisol secretion; reviewed in Boyce &
Ellis, in press). Though speculative, these altered cortisol profiles
may in turn affect the timing or tempo of adrenarche or
gonadarche.
One possibility is that activation of the HPA axis increases
secretion of adrenal androgens (i.e., accelerates adrenarche). Re-
search by Dorn and colleagues has shown that girls with premature
adrenarche have more than a twofold elevation of serum and
salivary cortisol levels relative to controls (Cizza et al., 2001;
Dorn, Hitt, & Rotenstein, 1999). Cizza et al. (2001) hypothesized
that girls with premature adrenarche are characterized by exagger-
ated reactivity of the HPA axis. This hypothesis is consistent with
research documenting high levels of behavioral and mental health
937
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
problems in children with premature adrenarche (Dorn, Hitt, &
Rotenstein, 1999).
The effects of GCs on gonadarche are poorly understood. Al-
though GCs are often presumed to suppress activity of the HPG
axis (e.g., Dorn & Chrousos, 1997), the suppressive effects of
CRH and AVP on the GnRH pulse generator are not mediated by
GCs and are readily observed in adrenalectomized primates (Ferin,
1999). Relations between GCs and activity of the HPG axis in
mature animals is an active and unresolved area of research. By
contrast, the influence of GCs on maturation of the HPG axis in
immature animals has yet to be studied. Again, the most relevant
experimental research has been conducted on pigs. As discussed
below (see Psychosocial Models of Pubertal Timing: III. Paternal
Investment Theory), prepubertal gilts tend to accelerate puberty in
response to contact with boars. Contrary to the stress-suppression
hypothesis, the efficacy of the boar effect appears to depend on
adrenocortical activity (reviewed in Booth & Signoret, 1992).
Specifically, plasma cortisol levels in prepubertal gilts have been
found to increase in response to contact with boars. This increased
cortisol in turn appears to increase basal LH secretion just before
the onset of puberty in gilts. Conversely, adrenalectomy or inhi-
bition of adrenocortical function by dexamethazone tends to delay
puberty in response to boar contact.
Little is known about the effects of GCs on development of the
HPG axis in humans. Nonetheless, correlational studies have
shown that concentrations of salivary cortisol (Keiss et al., 1995;
Netherton, Goodyer, Tamplin, & Herbert, 2004), serum cortisol
(Elmlinger, Kuhnel, & Ranke, 2002), and urinary free-cortisol
excretion (Legro, Lin, Demers, & Lloyd, 2003) all increase with
pubertal maturation, as indexed by Tanner stage. In any case, the
causal role of GCs in regulation of girls pubertal timing, and
particularly the hypothesis that cortisol mediates observed rela-
tions between quality of family environments and timing of pu-
bertal maturation, remains to be investigated. These investigations
will require solid theoretical and methodological grounding, given
the anomalous research literature linking childhood trauma to, not
only hypercortisolism, but hypocortisolism as well (reviewed in
Boyce & Ellis, in press).
Psychosocial Models of Pubertal Timing: III. Paternal
Investment Theory
The paternal investment theory of the timing of pubertal devel-
opment is a variant of psychosocial acceleration theory and is
based, fundamentally, on the theorizing of Draper and Harpending
(1982, 1988). These authors hypothesized that the developmental
pathways underlying variation in daughters reproductive strate-
gies are especially sensitive to the fathers role in the family and
mothers sexual attitudes and behavior in early childhood. Both
psychosocial acceleration theory and paternal investment theory
specify relevant developmental experiences and psychosocial cues
that bias individuals toward earlier versus later sexual develop-
ment. But in specifying those experiences and cues, psychosocial
acceleration theory focuses on a multiplicity of qualities and
features of the family ecology (including quality of father
daughter relationships and father absence) as they relate to the
childs overall experiences of stress versus support. By contrast,
paternal investment theory focuses specifically on the fathers role
in the family and the mothers sexual attitudes and behavior
toward men. In other words, paternal investment theory, as for-
mulated by me and my colleagues (B. J. Ellis & Garber, 2000; B. J.
Ellis et al., 1999, 2003), posits a unique and central role for quality
of paternal investment in regulation of daughters sexual develop-
ment, separate from the effects of other dimensions of psychoso-
cial stress and support in the childs environment. Paternal invest-
ment theory is not inconsistent with psychosocial acceleration
theory, given that the narrow set of predictions generated by
paternal investment theory are almost fully subsumed by the
broader set of predictions generated by psychosocial acceleration
theory. Rather, paternal investment theory narrows the focus of
psychosocial acceleration theory and moves it closer to its roots in
the theorizing of Draper and Harpending (1982).
Humans are the only great ape in which males engage in
provisioning or care of offspring. Human paternal investment,
therefore, is almost certainly a recent evolutionary development
(i.e., less than 5 million years). Indeed, mothers (and sometimes
their female kin) form the primary foundation of parental care in
all societies (Geary, 2000), and the contribution of fathers to the
family isand presumably always has beenwidely variable. In
his review of the evolution and proximate expression of human
paternal investment, Geary (2000) proposed (a) that over human
evolutionary history, fathers investment in families tended to
improve, but was not essential to, the survival and fitness of
children and (b) that selection consequently favored a range of
paternal strategies, with different men varying in the extent to
which they allocated resources to care and provisioning of chil-
dren. Because fitness is always relative, and because variation in
paternal investment influences variation in female fitness, selec-
tion can be expected to have favored psychological mechanisms in
women that are especially attuned to variation in the willingness
and ability of men to invest in families. Consistent with this logic
and drawing on the concept of sensitive-period learning of repro-
ductive strategies, paternal investment theory posits that girls
detect and internally encode information specifically about the
quality of paternal investment during approximately the first 5
years of life as a basis for calibrating the development of (a)
neurophysiologic systems involved in timing of pubertal matura-
tion and (b) related motivational systems, which make certain
types of sexual behavior more or less likely in adolescence.
Relevant cues to paternal investment are provided by both
fathers and mothers. Perhaps the most important cue is father
presence versus absence (i.e., the extent to which women rear their
children with or without consistent help from a man who is father
to the children). Other important cues may include frequency of
fatherdaughter interactions, levels of cohesion and conflict in
fatherdaughter relationships, quality and stability of the father
mother relationship, the mothers attitudes toward men, the moth-
ers sexual and repartnering behavior, and the daughters exposure
to her mothers boyfriends and stepfathers.
An underlying assumption of paternal investment theory is that
human paternal investment is facultatively expressed in accor-
dance with varying proximal conditions. As reviewed by Geary (in
press), paternal investment generally varies as a function of the
degree to which it enhances the fitness of offspring, the extent to
which it must be traded off against mating opportunities, and the
level of paternity uncertainty (see also Marlowe, 2000, 2003). For
example, across foraging societies in the Standard Cross-Cultural
Sample, societies with higher levels of paternal provisioning are
more monogamous (r .44, p .01, n 30; Marlowe, 2003).
This covariation between paternal investment and important re-
938
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
productive parameters implies that quality of paternal investment
conveys reproductively relevant information to children. Over
human evolution, quality of paternal investment afforded reliable
cues to the mating systems into which children were born and the
reproductive opportunities and constraints that they were likely to
encounter at adolescence and beyond.
Paternal investment theory posits that early experiences associ-
ated with low-quality paternal investment function to entrain the
development of reproductive strategies that, during human evolu-
tion, were statistically linked to increased reproductive success in
that social milieua milieu in which male parental investment is
relatively unreliable and/or not closely linked to variation in re-
productive success. Girls in this context are predicted to develop in
a manner that accelerates pubertal maturation and onset of sexual
activity and orients the individual toward relatively unstable pair-
bonds. As Belsky et al. (1991) suggested, in environments in
which paternal investment is not forthcoming,
a young woman who waits for the right man to help rear her children
may lose valuable reproductive opportunities at a time when her
health and physical capability are at their peak and when her mother
and senior female kin are young enough to be effective surrogates. (p.
653)
This theorizing has been supported by cross-cultural analyses
demonstrating that young women are more likely to have adoles-
cent pregnancies and become single mothers when they have
diminished prospects of obtaining paternal investment (Barber,
2001, 2003).
Conversely, early experiences associated with high-quality pa-
ternal investment are hypothesized to entrain development of
reproductive strategies that, during human evolution, were statis-
tically linked to increased reproductive success in that social
milieua milieu in which male parental investment is reliable and
forthcoming and in which variations in offspring quality are sen-
sitive to provision of paternal care and resources. Girls in this
context are predicted to develop in a manner that slows pubertal
maturation, delays onset of sexual activity and reproduction, and
increases reticence in forming sexual relationships. Under these
conditions, a longer pre-reproductive developmental period en-
ables daughters to practice and refine sociocompetitive competen-
cies (Geary & Flinn, 2001) and facilitates formation of relatively
long-term pairbonds with reliable and nurturant mates.
Paternal investment theory links timing of pubertal maturation
to variation in levels of intrasexual competition associated with
different mating systems. Monogamy tends to produce a shortage
of high-quality prospective husbands and thus increases female
female competition for mates, whereas polygyny tends to have the
opposite effect (see Hoier, 2003; Kanazawa, 2001). Among
women, therefore, successful long-term mating requires greater
accumulation of resources and competitive skills in more monog-
amous societies. Furthermore, father presence and high paternal
investment experienced by girls in the home function as microlevel
indicators of the degree of monogamy in society at the macrolevel
(Kanazawa, 2001; see also Marlowe, 2003). Kanazawa (2001)
defined monogamy broadly to include both low levels of divorce
and remarriage in legally monogamous societies and bias toward
monogamous marriage in legally polygynous societies; for these
reasons, a further prediction of paternal investment theory is that
higher levels of monogamy at the societal level will be associated
with later pubertal development.
It is important to note that paternal investment theory does not
equate father absence with stress, even though girls in father-
absent homes in Western societies tend to be economically disad-
vantaged. In cross-cultural perspective, father-absent societies are
characterized by aloof husbandwife relationships, little or incon-
sistent direct paternal investment in children, polygyny, relatively
high levels of childcare by female kin, and high levels of male
violence and intrasexual competition (Broude, 1990; Draper &
Harpending, 1988). Among huntergatherers, father-absent social
systems are generally found in rich, stable environments in which
women can often provide adequate parental care and resources
without the direct contribution of the father. By contrast, father-
present social systems are more likely to be found among hunter
gatherers in harsher or unstable environments in which biparental
care is important for offspring survival and reproductive success
(Draper & Harpending, 1988; Geary, 2000; Marlowe, 2003). If
father-absent social systems, on average, were statistically associ-
ated with resource-rich ecologies during human evolutionary his-
tory, then it is unlikely that our evolved psychological mechanisms
would be engineered to read father absence as an indicator of stress
or uncertainty. Consequently, a premise of paternal investment
theory is that variation in quality of paternal investment, on the one
hand, and more general variation in familial and ecological stres-
sors, on the other, constitute separate and largely independent
paths to timing of sexual development (B. J. Ellis & Garber, 2000;
B. J. Ellis et al., 1999, 2003). Quality of paternal investment
should provide unique information about future mating conditions,
separate from the information provided by familial and ecological
stressors more generally.
Because the effects of stress and father absence on sexual
development appear to be largely independent, these effects can
potentially either reinforce or counteract each other. For example,
Waynforth (2002) has studied the effects of father absence on the
reproductive strategies of both a huntergatherer group (the Ache
of Eastern Paraguay) and a subsistence-level horticulturalist pop-
ulation (the Maya of Belize). In both societies, paternal investment
is important to offspring quality and survival. Waynforth found
that men and women who were raised in father-absent home
environments tended to have later, rather than earlier, ages at first
reproduction. Consistent with stress-suppression theory, Wayn-
forth attributed this delayed reproduction to nutritional and social
stress and insufficient resources to secure a long-term mate. Con-
sistent with paternal investment theory (as well as more traditional
social learning theories of development), however, father-absent
Mayan men were less oriented than father-present Mayan men
toward maintaining long-term mating relationships and investing
in their children. (Equivalent data were not collected for Mayan
women or the Ache.) Thus, in environments where paternal in-
vestment is important, its absence may have paradoxical (i.e.,
bidirectional) effects on development of reproductive strategies.
As stated above, paternal investment theory conceptualizes step-
fathers and other unrelated men in the home as indicators of
low-quality paternal investment. Repeated repartnering by the
mother provides an especially strong cue to the child that paternal
investment is relatively unreliable and/or unimportant. Further-
more, the presence of stepfathers in the home dramatically in-
creases risk of child abuse and neglect (Daly & Wilson, 1988) and
generally degrades the quality of parental investment (e.g., Lan-
caster & Kaplan, 2000). Waynforth (2002) noted that the presence
of stepparents, stepsiblings, and half-siblings in the home all
939
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
reduce the fitness benefits of cooperating with other household
members. Thus, the genetic benefits of performing and receiving
nepotistic acts, such as sharing of resources and cooperating in
childcare, cannot be fully realized in blended families (see
Jankowiak & Diderich, 2000). As discussed earlier (see Psycho-
social Models of Pubertal Timing: II. Psychosocial Acceleration
Theory), pubertal development is characterized by distancing of
parentchild relationships and increased orientation of children
toward peers and mating relationships (see also Surbey, 1998).
From a life history perspective, it is to the childs advantage to
make the pubertal transition earlier in adverse home environments.
Thus, a further prediction of paternal investment theory is that the
effects of father absence on daughters sexual development will be
partially mediated by the presence of stepfathers and mothers
boyfriends in the home environment (B. J. Ellis & Garber, 2000).
Empirical Investigations of the Relations Between
Paternal Investment and Daughters Pubertal Timing
Father absence versus father presence. The large majority of
research on the relation between paternal investment and daugh-
ters pubertal timing has examined father absence effects. Father
absence has been operationalized as the absence of the biological
father from the home, usually prior to the onset of daughters
puberty. Several father absence studies have assessed pubertal
timing prospectively as it occurred in adolescence (Campbell &
Udry, 1995; B. J. Ellis & Garber, 2000; B. J. Ellis et al., 1999;
Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Moffitt et al., 1992; Rowe, 2000a;
Wierson et al., 1993). The most common dependent variable has
been age at menarche, but a few prospective investigations have
also assessed development of secondary sexual characteristics
(B. J. Ellis & Garber, 2000; B. J. Ellis et al., 1999; Rowe, 2000a).
Other father absence research has used adult samples and assessed
age at menarche retrospectively (Doughty & Rodgers, 2000;
Hoier, 2003; Jones, Leeton, McLeod, & Wood, 1972; Jorm et al.,
2004; Kiernan & Hobcraft, 1997; Quinlan, 2003; Romans et al.,
2003; Surbey, 1990). Finally, some studies have relied on conve-
nience samples (Hoier, 2003; Surbey, 1990; Wierson et al., 1993),
some have compared community-based psychopathology samples
with carefully selected controls (B. J. Ellis & Garber, 2000; Ro-
mans et al., 2003), and others have obtained broad, representative
community or national samples (e.g., Doughty & Rodgers, 2000;
B. J. Ellis et al., 1999; Jorm et al., 2004; Moffitt et al., 1992;
Quinlan, 2003). The research has been conducted in a variety of
Western countries, including Australia, Canada, Germany, New
Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Despite this
diversity of methods and samples, the results have been remark-
ably consistent: Girls from father-absent homes tend to experience
earlier pubertal development than girls from biologically intact
families.
The most direct test of the paternal investment hypothesis in-
volves comparing girls whose biological fathers were absent at or
before age 5 (early father absence) with girls who grew up in
biologically intact families (father presence). Jones et al. (1972,
Table 2) found that early father-absent girls were almost 3 times
more likely than father-present girls to have experienced menarche
before age 12 (37% vs. 13%, n 371; odds ratio 3.83).
Likewise, in my reanalysis of data reported in B. J. Ellis et al.
(1999), early father-absent girls were found to be almost twice as
likely as father-present girls to have completed pubertal develop-
ment by the seventh grade (45% vs. 24%, n 139; odds ratio
2.62).
10
Similarly, Quinlan (2003) reported that early father-absent
girls had almost twice the risk of experiencing early menarche than
did father-present girls (N 10,135; hazard ratio 1.80). Kiernan
and Hobcraft (1997), however, did not find a significant difference
in menarcheal age between girls whose parents divorced before
age 9 and girls from intact families.
Similar analyses have also been reported by Moffitt et al. (1992)
and Romans et al. (2003). These researchers, however, did not
demarcate early father-absent girls in their analyses and instead
operationalized biological father absence as having occurred either
by age 11 (Moffitt et al., 1992) or anytime during childhood
(Romans et al., 2003). This clustering of early father-absent and
late father-absent girls makes their results more difficult to inter-
pret in terms of paternal investment theory because it both pre-
cludes testing of the sensitive period hypothesis and leaves open
the possibility that girls pubertal timing influenced father absence
rather than the reverse. Nonetheless, both studies found that girls
from father-absent homes had more than twice the odds of expe-
riencing menarche before age 12 than did girls from father-present
homes (Moffitt et al., 1992 [N 416]: 27% vs. 15%, odds ratio
2.17; Romans et al., 2003 [N 475]: odds ratio 2.62).
A number of other researchers have examined differences be-
tween father-absent and father-present girls in mean age at men-
arche (Campbell & Udry, 1995; Doughty & Rodgers, 2000; Heth-
erington & Kelly, 2002; Hoier, 2003; Jorm et al., 2004; Rowe,
2000a; Surbey, 1990; Wierson et al., 1993). Only Campbell and
Udry (1995), however, specifically compared early father-absent
girls with father-present girls. Nonetheless, with the exception of
Rowe (2000a), all of these researchers found that father-absent
girls tended to experience earlier menarche than did father-present
girls (Campbell & Udry, 1995: 2 months earlier; Doughty &
Rodgers, 2000: 1.3 months earlier; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002: 4
months earlier in single-mother families, 9 months earlier in step-
father families; Hoier, 2003: 4 months earlier; Jorm et al., 2004:
2.9 months earlier; Surbey, 1990: 4 to 5 months earlier; Wierson et
al., 1993: 5 months earlier). The father-absent effect has not
emerged in African American samples, however (Campbell &
Udry, 1995; Rowe, 2000a).
11
Finally, three studies have examined relations between father
absencepresence and composite measures of pubertal timing (op-
erationalized as levels of pubertal maturation in adolescence, con-
trolling for age). Rowe (2000a) concurrently assessed family com-
position and pubertal status (breast and body curve development)
when girls were approximately 16 years old (SD 1.7). Father-
absent girls were found to be significantly more sexually devel-
oped than father-present girls (with an effect size of about two
10ths of a standard deviation), but only among Caucasians.
10
Girls were 12 to 13 years old at the seventh grade data collection.
Girls were categorized as having completed pubertal development (sta-
tus postpubertal) on the basis of their scores on the Pubertal Devel-
opment Scale. After adjusting for age and race, the odds ratio increased to
2.97.
11
One possible explanation for this null finding is that the extraordinary
secular trend among African Americans, who to my knowledge experience
earlier pubertal development than any other population (see Herman-
Giddens et al., 1997), has effectively squeezed the variance out of pubertal
timing and thus attenuated its relations with other variables.
940
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
Rowes (2000a) results must be interpreted with caution, however,
given the late assessment of father absence and the postpubertal
assessment of pubertal timing. In addition, B. J. Ellis et al. (1999)
assessed father absence status at age 5 and then correlated it with
levels of pubertal development in the seventh grade. Similarly,
B. J. Ellis and Garber (2000) assessed father absence status in the
sixth grade and correlated it with seventh grade pubertal develop-
ment. The dependent variable in both investigations was a com-
posite of breast development, body hair growth, and menarcheal
status, controlling for age. Father absence consistently predicted
greater pubertal development, B. J. Ellis & Garber, 2000: r(N
87) .30; B. J. Ellis et al., 1999: r(N 163) .17. In B. J. Ellis
et al. (1999), this correlation increased to .23 (n 134) when
African Americans were excluded from the analysis. In sum,
although the effect sizes are small, there is widely converging
evidence that father absence predicts earlier timing of sexual
development. More research is needed, however, to determine the
extent of this effect across different racial groups and in non-
Western populations.
Timing of father absence. Based on the concept of a sensitive
period for acquisition of reproductive strategies, a prediction of
paternal investment theory is that earlier onset of father absence
(particularly in the first 5 years of life) will be associated with
earlier pubertal development. Surbey (1990) examined years of
exposure to the biological father before age 10. The analysis
included the full sample, including father-present girls who would
have all received maximum scores. More years of exposure to the
biological father was associated with later age at menarche, r(N
1115) .13. Analogously, Moffitt et al. (1992) and B. J. Ellis and
Garber (2000) examined years of biological father absence prior to
puberty. Their analyses included only the subsets of girls who had
been exposed to father absence. More years of father absence was
associated with earlier age at menarche, Moffitt et al.: r(n
143) .12, and more pubertal development at seventh grade,
B. J. Ellis and Garber: r(n 47) .13. Further, Quinlan (2003;
N 10,135) compared hazard functions for early menarche for
girls who experienced parental separation at either 05 years of
age, 611 years of age, or 1217 years of age. Using father-present
girls as the reference group, the hazard ratio monotonically de-
creased, from 1.80 to 1.49 to 1.18, with later age at parental
separation. In sum, consistent with the theory, the available evi-
dence suggests that girls who experience father absence from an
earlier age tend to experience earlier pubertal development.
Father involvement in the family. Another prediction of pater-
nal investment theory is that close fatherdaughter relationships
(e.g., frequent fatherdaughter interactions, fatherdaughter cohe-
sion) and fathermother relationships in early childhood forecast
later pubertal timing in daughters. To test the fatherdaughter
prediction, B. J. Ellis et al. (1999) collected mother-reported data
on the amount of time that fathers spent taking care of their
daughters during the first 5 years of life and conducted home
observations of fatherdaughter and motherdaughter interactions
at age 5. Consistent with the theory, results showed, first, that more
time spent by fathers in childcare was associated with later puber-
tal timing in daughters; that is, less pubertal development by
daughters in the seventh grade, controlling for age, r(N 173)
.23. This relation held even in the subset of families in which the
fathers had been present in the home throughout their daughters
entire childhood, r(n 107) .24. Second, greater father
daughter affectionatepositivity during the home observations was
associated with later pubertal timing in daughters, r(n 41)
.43. (All of the fatherdaughter observations were conducted in
father-present homes.) Third, although both motherdaughter and
fatherdaughter affectionatepositivity were associated with later
pubertal timing in daughters, only fatherdaughter affectionate
positivity made a unique contribution to the prediction of daugh-
ters puberty (after controlling for the quality of motherdaughter
relationships), (n 40) .36. Fourth, when fatherdaughter
affectionatepositivity and fatherdaughter coercive control were
entered into the regression equation together, both variables
uniquely, significantly, and additively predicted later pubertal tim-
ing in daughters. Because the affectionatepositivity and coercive
control measures were both sensitive to frequency of father
daughter interactions, it may be that more fatherdaughter inter-
action or involvement per se, whether positive or negative, delays
pubertal maturation in daughters (as also suggested by Steinberg,
1988; see earlier discussion). In total, consistent with the theory,
these data suggest that amount of paternal care and father
daughter interactions beginning early in life are associated with
later pubertal development in daughters.
Several studies have also examined links between parents re-
lationship quality and daughters pubertal timing. B. J. Ellis et al.
(1999) assessed both levels of supportiveness and severity of
conflict in the parental dyad (on the basis of interviews with the
mothers) when daughters were 5 years of age. Only the support-
iveness variable significantly correlated with pubertal timing:
More supportive motherfather relationships forecast less pubertal
development by daughters in the seventh grade, controlling for
age, r(N 162) .25. Similar results were reported by B. J.
Ellis and Garber (2000), who found that better dyadic adjustment,
as reported by mothers when daughters were in the sixth grade,
predicted less age-adjusted pubertal development by daughters in
the seventh grade, r(N 74) .37. In addition, a number of
studies have examined relations between marital quality and age at
menarche in daughters, but these have either collected marital
quality and menarche data concurrently in adolescence (Wierson et
al., 1993) or retrospectively in adulthood (Kim & Smith, 1998a,
1998b; Kim et al., 1997; Romans et al., 2003). These methods do
not allow plausible inferences to be drawn regarding the direction
of causation. Nonetheless, most of these studies have reported
significant associations between higher marital quality (e.g., more
happy marital relations, less marital conflict) and later ages at
menarche (Kim & Smith, 1998b; Kim et al., 1997; Romans et al.,
2003). In sum, converging evidence from both prospective and
retrospective studies indicates that better quality relationships be-
tween mothers and their male partners correlates with later puber-
tal timing in daughters.
Stepfather presence. The evolutionary logic underlying poten-
tial relations between exposure to unrelated men and girls puber-
tal timing is not well developed (but see B. J. Ellis, 2002; B. J. Ellis
& Garber, 2000; Surbey, 1990). There are several ways of ap-
proaching this question. One is to conceptualize stepfathers and
other mating partners of the mother as indicators of parental
reproductive strategies; that is, as indicators that malefemale
relationships are unstable and paternal investment is unreliable and
unimportant. From this perspective, the important variable should
be number of different male partners in the home and the mothers
sexual behavior and attitudes toward men more generally. Accord-
ingly, the presence of a single, long-term stepfather could be a
protective factor against early maturation, whereas a succession of
941
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
different male partners would be expected to increment risk. Un-
fortunately, no one has studied the effects of mothers sexual and
repartnering behavior, as experienced by father-absent girls in
early and middle childhood, on timing of pubertal development.
Another approach is to conceptualize father figures (stepfa-
thers and other cohabitating partners of the mother) as indicators of
a degraded family environment. A simple prediction from this
perspective is that earlier exposure to father figures (i.e., longer
exposure to the degraded environment) should be associated with
earlier pubertal maturation. This prediction is almost certainly too
simplistic, however, because it does not take into account the
quality of the father figures investment in the family. A more
complex prediction is that the relation between duration of expo-
sure to father figures and timing of pubertal development in
daughters will be moderated by the quality of the father figures
investment in and relationships with family members. Along these
lines, B. J. Ellis and Garber (2000, Figure 3) found that girls in
families with father figures tended to experience early pubertal
development only when the relationship between the mother and
the father figure was quite stressful. B. J. Ellis and Garber also
reported a significant correlation between the age of the daughter
when the father figure came into her life and timing of pubertal
development, r(n 31) .37. Quinlan (2003), however, failed
to replicate this relation. Viewed in light of the current modera-
tional hypothesis, this failure is not surprising.
Finally, exposure to father figures may operate as a trigger
among prepubertal girls to accelerate pubertal development in the
presence of a genetically appropriate (i.e., unrelated) adult male.
This is a widespread phenomenon among mammalian species (see
Possible Mechanisms: The Male Effect) and has been given vari-
ous names such as the ram effect and the boar effect. For example,
over a 13-year period in a stable colony of hamadryas and hybrid
baboons at the Madrid zoo, the average age of menarche (first
signs of sexual swelling) was 173 weeks (Colmenares & Gomen-
dio, 1988). As is typical of captive primates, this age at menarche
was considerably lower than has been reported for baboons in the
wild (Sigg, Stolba, Abegglen, & Dasser, 1982). Nonetheless, with
the introduction of 3 unfamiliar and genetically unrelated adult
males into the colony, the average age of menarche dropped by a
full year, or 30%, to 121 weeks. Colmenares and Gomendio (1988)
reported that immature females responded within 23 months of
the novel males entry into the group and tended to synchronize
their first estrus.
A carefully designed study by Mekos, Hetherington, and
Clingempeel (1992) suggests that a similar effect may operate
among humans. The research consisted of 71 families with a
daughter between the ages of 9 and 13 at Time 1. Twenty-eight
girls lived in biologically intact families; 22 in divorced, single-
mother families; and 21 in remarried, stepfather families. Remar-
riage had occurred within 5 months of the beginning of the project.
Dummy variables were created that contrasted (a) girls in single-
mother families with all others (male absence) and (b) girls in
stepfather families with all others (stepfather presence). Pubertal
status was assessed both at Time 1 and Time 2 (2 years later) on
the basis of menarcheal status, breast development, and body hair.
After controlling for pubertal development at Time 1, stepfather
presence, but not male absence, predicted significantly greater
pubertal development at Time 2. Analogous to the findings with
hamadryas baboons, these data raise the possibility that prepuber-
tal girls respond to an unrelated adult male in the home by
increasing tempo of pubertal maturation.
In addition, various researchers have reported comparisons be-
tween girls living in biologically intact, single-mother, and step-
father families in average ages at menarche (Hetherington & Kelly,
2002; Hoier, 2003; Rowe, 2000a; Surbey, 1990). None of these
studies, however, either controlled for initial levels of pubertal
development or considered timing of stepfather exposure, duration
of stepfather exposure, number of different father figures, or
quality of the father figures investment in the family. It is not
surprising that these investigations have produced mixed results.
The potential effects of father figures on girls pubertal develop-
ment are complex, and theory and research are needed that em-
brace this complexity.
Are father effects distinct from stress? An assumption of psy-
chosocial acceleration theory is that it is not father absence per se
but a variety of other stressors associated with father absence
(e. g., divorce, poverty, conflictual family relationships) that pro-
voke early sexual maturation in daughters (Belsky et al., 1991, p.
658; Chisholm, 1999, p. 162). This raises an important question:
Are the effects of paternal investment on daughters sexual devel-
opment distinct from the effects of stress, including family rela-
tionship stress more generally? Surbey (1990) was the first to
address this question by collecting retrospective data both on years
of father presence and number of stressful life events in the first 10
years of life. These two measures were negatively correlated,
r(N 1127) .31. As predicted by psychosocial acceleration
theory, more stressful life events were associated with earlier age
at menarche, r(N 1104) .14. Nonetheless, the correlation
between years of father presence and age at menarchethough
slightly reduced, r(N 1115) .09remained statistically sig-
nificant after partialing out the life events measure.
Surbeys (1990) data are consistent with the notion of multiple
unique influences on pubertal timing, including independent ef-
fects of father presence. This conclusion has been supported by
subsequent prospective research showing that father absence and
stressful family relationships each uniquely and significantly pre-
dict earlier timing of puberty in daughters (B. J. Ellis & Garber,
2000; Moffitt et al., 1992). Finally, B. J. Ellis et al. (1999)
collected a variety of measures of familial and ecological stress
and paternal investment in early childhood and examined their
pattern of relations with pubertal timing. A more specific father-
effects model fits the data better than a more general stress model.
As B. J. Ellis et al. (1999) concluded, In total, the present data
suggest that the quality of fathers investment in the family is the
most important feature of the proximal family environment relative
to daughters pubertal timing (p. 398). Taken together, these
studies are consistent with the hypothesis that quality of paternal
investment constitutes a unique path to timing of pubertal devel-
opment in daughters.
Summary. Paternal investment theory provides the foundation
for a series of predictions about the role for fathers and other men
in regulation of girls pubertal timing. Although the theory began
with a focus on father absence versus presence, it has since been
elaborated to include multiple dimensions of paternal investment
(e.g., the dimensional quality of paternal involvement in father-
present homes, quality of fathermother relationships, the effects
of father figures) and specifically conceptualizes father effects as
distinct from the more general effects of familial and ecological
stressors. Paternal investment theory has now been tested in a
942
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
number of investigations and has received provisional empirical
support. In well-nourished populations, girls from father-absent
homes tend to experience earlier pubertal development than do
girls from father-present homes, and the earlier father absence
occurs, the greater the effect. There is also initial longitudinal
evidence that within father-present homes higher levels of paternal
caretaking and involvement are associated with later pubertal
development in daughters. In addition, converging results from
both prospective and retrospective studies indicate that better
quality relationships between mothers and their male partners
predict later pubertal timing in daughters. The possibility that
father figures accelerate girls pubertal timing is intriguing but in
need of further theoretical development and empirical testing.
Finally, there is consistent evidence that quality of paternal invest-
ment uniquely predicts timing of pubertal development in daugh-
ters independently of other aspects of the family ecology.
Possible Mechanisms: The Male Effect
Reproductive development in mammals is often regulated by
social cues. In a variety of speciesmice, rats, gerbils, lemmings,
musk shrews, prairie voles, prairie dogs, pigs, goats, red deer,
cows, marmosets, tamarins, baboonscontact with members of
ones natal group inhibits female pubertal development, whereas
exposure to unfamiliar adult males accelerates it (Amoah & Bry-
ant, 1984; Clark & Galef, 2002; Fisher, Meikle, & Johnstone,
1995; Hoogland, 1982; Sanders & Reinisch, 1990; Sigg et al.,
1982; Vandenbergh, 1983). Interactions with conspecifics presum-
ably influence pubertal timing through neural and chemosensory
mechanisms that affect the production and secretion of GnRH and
related gonadal processes. One class of external cues that acts both
to inhibit and stimulate maturation of the HPG axis is pheromones
(Bronson, 1989; Vandenbergh, 1983): airborne chemical signals
that are released by an individual into the environment and which
affect the physiology or behavior of other members of the same
species (Stern & McClintock, 1998, p. 177). Pheromones are
encoded through olfactory channels and can impact reproductive
endocrinology either alone or in combination with visual, auditory,
and tactile stimuli from conspecifics (Bronson, 1989; Solomon,
Vandenbergh, Wekesa, & Barghusen, 1996; Vandenbergh, 1983;
Widowski, Ziegler, Elowson, & Snowdon, 1990).
Social inhibition of pubertal development by adult females has
been widely reported in the literature. For example, in a number of
Callitrichid primates, only the dominant female becomes pregnant,
and subordinate females either do not experience onset of ovula-
tion or have impaired ovulatory function (Saltzman, Schultz-
Darken, & Abbott, 1997; Vandenbergh, 1983; Ziegler, Snowdon,
& Uno, 1990; see also above, Psychosocial Models of Pubertal
Timing: I. Stress-Suppression Theory). Although the focus of most
research in this area has been on the suppressive effects of the
breeding female or other female group members, an emerging
literature now suggests that the presence of any familiar members
of the natal group, male or female, including siblings, can retard
female pubertal development (Clark & Galef, 2002; Hoogland,
1982; Schadler, 1983; Widowski et al., 1990).
The accelerating effect of unfamiliar adult males on female
pubertal maturationthe male effecthas been extensively
studied. The nature of the male effect appears to be contingent on
several physical and social factors. First, immature male stimuli
are ineffective. Experimental research in which gilts were either
exposed to juvenile or adult boars (Kirkwood & Hughes, 1981)
and in which female mice were either exposed to juvenile or adult
male urine (Drickamer & Murphy, 1978) indicates that only ex-
posure to adult males and their pheromones accelerates female
puberty. This conclusion is consistent with human research show-
ing no differences in pubertal timing between girls who attend
same-sex versus mixed-sex schools (Douglas, 1966). Second, ac-
celeration of puberty following exposure to adult males is only
partly attributable to pheromones; chemical signals are most ef-
fective in combination with visual, auditory, and tactile cues
(Dellovade, Hunter, & Rissman, 1995; Solomon et al., 1996;
Vandenbergh, 1983; Widowski et al., 1990; Widowski, Porter,
Ziegler, & Snowdon, 1992). Direct physical contact appears to be
especially important. Third, not all adult males are of equal stim-
ulus value. In mice, acceleration of female puberty occurs only in
response to the urine of dominant males (Lombardi & Vanden-
bergh, 1977). In pigs, boars with high libido are more effective at
stimulating female puberty than are boars with low libido (P. E.
Hughes, 1994). Fourth, females at different stages of physical
development respond differently to exposure to adult males. In
gilts, prepubertal exposure to boars is most effective at stimulating
puberty, whereas boar exposure beginning at very young ages
tends to delay puberty (Izard, 1983). Similarly, only heifers above
a certain weight accelerate puberty in response to bull urine,
presumably because of immaturity in lighter heifers (Izard, 1983).
Prepubertal female mice also accelerate puberty in response to
adult male urine; however, this effect is enhanced by previous,
preweaning exposure to the urine of other adult males (Caretta,
Caretta, & Cavaggioni, 1995). Finally, there may be a synergism
between exposure to adult males and experiences of stress. In gilts,
a combination of frequent boar exposure and trailer-transport
stress was found to be more effective at stimulating puberty than
frequent boar contact alone (transport stress alone did not alter
pubertal timing; P. E. Hughes et al., 1997). Perhaps the initial
increase in gonadotropin that occurs in response to acute stress
(Rivier & Rivest, 1991) increases the females susceptibility to the
male effect.
What is the relevance to humans? There is now clear evidence
of regulation of womens reproductive functioning by pheromones
(Monti-Bloch, Jennings-White, & Berliner, 1998; Sanders &
Reinisch, 1990; Stern & McClintock, 1998). For example, con-
trolled experimental studies have shown that exposure to phero-
mones produced by mens axillary sweat glands reduces variability
in womens ovarian cycles (Cutler et al., 1986) and that exposure
to pheromones produced by other womens axillary sweat glands
alters the timing and length of ovarian cycles (Preti et al., 1986;
Stern & McClintock, 1998). These data raise the question: Are
there pheromones that accelerate or inhibit pubertal development
in human females?
Although no experimental research has directly investigated this
question, the possibilities are intriguing. Two lines of inquiry have
provided indirect support for the hypothesis that contact with
members of ones natal group inhibits girls pubertal development.
First, as reviewed above (see Psychosocial Models of Pubertal
Timing: II. Psychosocial Acceleration Theory and Psychosocial
Models of Pubertal Timing: III. Paternal Investment Theory),
cohesive family relationships and frequency of contact with bio-
logical parents are associated with later pubertal timing in daugh-
ters. Along these lines, Burger and Gochfeld (1985) have hypoth-
esized that menarche will occur later in girls whose mothers are at
943
PUBERTAL TIMING
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
home throughout the day than in girls whose mothers work outside
of the home.
12
Second, girls from larger families generally attain
menarche later than girls from smaller families (reviewed in Ma-
lina, Katzmarzyk, Bonci, Ryan, & Wellens, 1997, see especially
Table 6). Although this effect is routinely attributed to SES, later
menarche in large families has been documented in a number of
well-nourished populations in which SES and age at menarche are
uncorrelated (Malina et al., 1997). In total, consistent with the
animal literature, family crowding, cohesiveness, and physical
interaction may inhibit pubertal development.
The phenomenon of accelerated female pubertal development in
response to contact with unfamiliar adult males may also have
relevance to humans. Animal studies provide the basis for a set of
hypotheses. Girls should be most likely to accelerate pubertal
development when (a) an unrelated adult male moves into the
home at or around the age of gonadarche, (b) there is substantial
direct interaction and physical contact between the girl and the
adult male, (c) the males physiological traits embody high stim-
ulus value (perhaps high testosterone; Vandenbergh, 1983), and
(d) there is substantial stress in the family environment. The
proposed synergism between exposure to adult males and familial
stress is consistent with the work of B. J. Ellis and Garber (2000),
as described above (see Stepfather presence). Another relevant
issue, though unresolved in the animal literature, is whether re-
peated exposure to the same unrelated adult male or exposure to a
series of different unrelated adult males is more effective at stim-
ulating puberty.
It is likely that all four of the preceding conditions are often met
in the case of sexual abuse of stepdaughters. Four studies have
investigated relations between sexual abuse and timing of pubertal
development (Herman-Giddens, Sandler, & Friedman, 1988; Jorm
et al., 2004; Romans et al., 2003; Turner, Runtz, & Galambos,
1999), and in each investigation a history of sexual abuse was
associated with earlier puberty. Jorm et al. (2004) and Romans et
al. (2003) both used large, random community samples, which are
useful for establishing effect sizes. Jorm et al. found that girls who
were sexually abused in childhood (up to age 16) experienced
menarche an average of 6.4 months earlier than girls who were not
sexually abused. Romans et al. found that girls who were sexually
abused prior to menarche had odds 1.6 times higher of experienc-
ing menarche before age 12 than did girls who were not abused
(32% vs. 20%). Of the girls who were sexually abused (n 97),
girls whose abuse lasted for more than 1 year had odds 3.5 times
higher of experiencing menarche before age 12 than did girls
whose abuse lasted for less than 1 year (63% vs. 18%). The odds
ratio increased to 5.35 after adjusting for family structure and
parentchild relationships. It is important to note, however, that
none of these studies was able to establish that sexual abuse
occurred prior to puberty. Both Jorm et al. and Turner et al. (1999)
used measurement procedures that encompassed some postmenar-
cheal experiences of sexual abuse. Although Herman-Giddens et
al. (1988) and Romans et al. both assessed sexual abuse prior to
menarche, early pubertal changes would have already been under
way in many of the girls they studied.
In sum, the direction of causation remains an open question.
Herman-Giddens et al. (1988) speculated that early development
of secondary sexual characteristics may increase the probability of
a child becoming a victim of sexual abuse. In Romans et al. (2003),
most cases of sexual abuse occurred prior to menarche but during
the early stages of the pubertal transition. Consistent with the
animal literature reviewed above, it may be that prolonged intimate
contact between men and prepubertal or peripubertal girls, partic-
ularly contact lasting more than a year, accelerates maturation of
the HPG axis. The data of Mekos et al. (1992), as described above
(see Stepfather presence), are not inconsistent with this hypothesis.
Further research is needed.
Criticisms of Psychosocial Acceleration and Paternal
Investment Theories
Psychosocial acceleration and paternal investment theories have
been challenged in the literature on a number of grounds. The most
compelling empirical critique has been offered by behavior genet-
icists. Theoretical critiques have come from within the fields of
evolutionary psychology and biology.
The Behavior Genetic Critique
An important limitation of all of the human research on ante-
cedents of pubertal timing reviewed in this article is that it is not
genetically informative. The psychosocial models of pubertal tim-
ing presented herein rest on the concept of conditional reproduc-
tive strategies; that is, they emphasize environmentally triggered
processes that shunt individuals toward given reproductive strate-
gies. An alternative explanation, however, is that individual dif-
ferences in pubertal timing and associated characteristics represent
heritable reproductive strategies, which result from genetic differ-
ences. Consider the following two related possibilities.
First, as reviewed below (see Psychosocial Models of Pubertal
Timing: IV. Child Development Theory), girls who mature earlier
tend to exhibit earlier onset of sexual activity and earlier age of
first marriage and first birth. This covariation may occur because
early pubertal timing results in precocious sexual and reproductive
behavior or because pubertal, sexual, and reproductive timing are
genetically correlated traits (Rowe, 2002). Early reproduction in
turn is associated with increased probability of divorce and lower
quality paternal investment (e.g., Amato, 1996; Bennett, Bloom, &
Miller, 1995). Because mothers who are early maturers tend to
have daughters who are early maturers (see Sources of Variation in
Pubertal Timing), the correlation between family environments
and timing of pubertal maturation in girls may be spurious; that is,
it may simply be due to genetic transmission of pubertal timing
and associated characteristics (e.g., Belsky et al., 1991; Kim &
Smith, 1998a; Rowe, 2000a; Surbey, 1990).
The correlational methods used by researchers to examine rela-
tions between social environments and pubertal timing cannot rule
out this alternative explanation; indeed, Moffitt et al. (1992) em-
braced just this interpretation upon reporting linkages between
early experience and pubertal timing. However, many researchers
have incorporated control variables into their analyses to account,
at least in part, for possible genetic influences. These controls have
included childs initial level of pubertal development (N. B. Ellis,
1991; Graber et al., 1995; Steinberg, 1988), mothers age at
menarche (Campbell & Udry, 1995; Graber et al., 1995; Kim &
Smith, 1998a; Surbey, 1990), mothers sexual and reproductive
12
In testing this hypothesis, it would be important to control for father
daughter contact, given that maternal employment may be negatively
correlated with paternal involvement.
944
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
history (B. J. Ellis & Garber, 2000; Kim & Smith, 1998a; Quinlan,
2003), and daughters physical characteristics such as weight,
percentage of body fat, and biliac diameter (e.g., Campbell &
Udry, 1995; Graber et al., 1995; Moffitt et al., 1992). In most cases
the observed relations between family environment and pubertal
timing have not been meaningfully altered by inclusion of these
control variables. Nonetheless, genetically controlled research de-
signs that incorporate environmental measures are greatly needed,
as researchers cannot be certain by any means that the controls
implemented to date fully take into account biological inheritance.
Second, Comings et al. (2002) have proposed a more specific
version of the genetic transmission theory based on a variant of the
X-linked androgen receptor gene. According to Comings et al.,
fathers carry X-linked genes that are associated with aggression
and impulsivity, sexual promiscuity, and associated patterns of
marital conflict and dissolution. These genes are transmitted to
daughters, in whom they are associated with paternal absence,
earlier age at menarche, and precocious sexual activity. Comings
et al. found support for this theory in molecular genetic research
with two clinical samples (males hospitalized for substance abuse,
female outpatient volunteers for a weight control program). Jorm
et al. (2004), however, found no support for the theory in two
epidemiological molecular genetic studies using general popula-
tion samples. Further research is needed to reconcile these contra-
dictory results, as the current balance of evidence does not yet
permit evaluation of the X-linked genetic transmission theory.
Finally, Belsky (2000) has proposed that the environmental and
genetic transmission models could both be right but that each
applies only to a subset of the population. Specifically, covariation
between childhood experiences and timing of puberty may be
primarily genetic for some individuals but not for others. In an
extensive review of the literature, Belsky (2004) has documented
wide variation between children in the extent to which they are
affected by particular styles of parenting or other aspects of chil-
drearing (see also Boyce & Ellis, in press). Such variation appears
to have a substantial genetic basis (see Caspi et al., 2002, 2003).
Indeed, Caspi et al. (2002, 2003) have argued that the very reason
why molecular genetic studies, such as those reported above by
Comings et al. (2002) and Jorm et al. (2004), so often prove
inconsistent in their findings is because geneenvironment inter-
actions are likely to be widespread, and sampling from different
populations may well lead to different proportions of individuals
who are and are not susceptible to a particular environmental
experience. In sum, the psychosocial acceleration and paternal
investment theories of pubertal timing may apply only to those
subsets of the population who are genetically susceptible to rearing
influences.
An Evolutionary Theoretical Critique
The psychosocial acceleration and paternal investment theories
of pubertal timing have also been challenged on conceptual
grounds (Bailey et al., 2000; Rowe, 2000a, 2000b). This challenge
concerns the evolutionary logic underlying early experiential cal-
ibration of reproductive strategies. Bailey et al. (2000) suggested
that paternal investment theory necessitates several rather strong
assumptions about ancestral social environments:
First, in ancestral environments, frequent shifts must have occurred
between high and low paternal investment mating systems (respec-
tively, Dads and Cads [Wilson, 1994]). Such shifts would be
necessary for the evolution of such a complex, contingent adaptation.
Second, although frequent shifts must have occurred within popula-
tions over time, in general, fathers behavior must have been a reliable
indicator of paternal investment at daughters age of reproduction;
cross-generational changes in mating system would disrupt father
daughter signaling. Third, within ancestral breeding populations, men
would have needed to be rather homogenous in their sexual strategies
(nearly all Dads or all Cads). Otherwise, there would be little
benefit to a daughter drawing inferences about the likelihood of
paternal investment from her fathers behavior. (p. 538)
This critique has been further articulated by Kanazawa (2001):
Assume that 50% of men in a society comprises cads and the other
50% dads (Draper and Harpending, 1982, 1988). Further assume
that there is no inherited tendency for girls to mate with one kind or
the other; daughters of women who mated with cads are no more
likely to mate with cads than those of women who mated with dads.
. . . In this situation, if girls from father-absent homes experience early
puberty and adopt a more promiscuous reproductive strategy (mating
without long-term commitment), then their strategy will be just as
likely to be maladaptive as to be adaptive because they will be just as
likely to mate with a dad as with a cad. The same is true of girls from
father-present homes. If they delay their puberty and avoid sexual
promiscuity, their strategy will be just as likely to be maladaptive as
to be adaptive because they will be just as likely to mate with a cad
as with a dad. Under such circumstances, any evolved tendency to
take cues from the mating situations of their mothers, as is posited by
the model, will not be selected. (p. 330)
These critiques contend that it would be maladaptive for girls to
use childhood exposures to fathers and mothers reproductive
strategies as a basis for calibrating development of their own
reproductive strategies unless there is homogeneity within
populations.
Developmental plasticity is necessarily a constrained process.
Although it would seem advantageous for individuals to respond to
environmental changes quickly, appropriately, and with maximal
flexibility throughout their lives, high levels of responsiveness are
not always either possible or desirable. Instead, for many pheno-
typic characteristics, individuals have been selected to register
particular features of their childhood environments as a basis for
entraining relevant developmental pathways (e.g., Boyce & Ellis,
in press; Chisholm, 1999; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; West-
Eberhard, 2003). As discussed in Boyce and Ellis (in press), there
are several reasons to expect early entrainment. I reiterate only one
of those reasons here: Many complex adaptations are built during
development and cannot be easily rebuilt when environments
fluctuate. For example, age at menarche is influenced by pro-
grammed patterns of gonadotropin release that are established in
utero, when androgen concentrations imprint the fetal HPG axis,
and are subsequently modified by fat accumulation during child-
hood (Cooper, Kuh, Egger, Wadsworth, & Barker, 1996; Koziel &
Jankowska, 2002).
The core issue raised by the preceding critiques, however, is
whether fathers and mothers reproductive strategies provide chil-
dren with reliable information about the reproductive opportunities
and constraints that they are likely to encounter in adulthood. As
extensively reviewed by Chisholm (1999), the answer to this
question is almost certainly yes. Familial and ecological condi-
tions in childhood prepare individuals for the sociosexual niche
that they are likely to inhabit in adulthood (Belsky et al., 1991).
945
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
This preparation occurs internally through personality develop-
ment and externally through intergenerational transmission of so-
cial and economic resources. These transmissions affect the repro-
ductive opportunities and constraints in nonrandom ways, moving
children into greater alignment with their parents.
Kanazawa (2001) has studied empirically the nature of infor-
mation transmitted by parental reproductive strategies. His starting
assumption was that father presence versus absence and quality of
paternal investment experienced by girls in the home function as
microlevel indicators of the degree of monogamy versus polygyny
in the society at large. Kanazawa conducted cross-cultural analyses
in which he coded for either simultaneous polygyny (pervasive-
ness of polygyny in legally polygynous societies) or serial polyg-
yny (annual divorce rates in legally monogamous societies). These
indices were then correlated with mean age at menarche in each
society, after controlling for race, year of study, and population
measures of health and welfare (per capita GDP and female
literacy rates). Consistent with paternal investment theory, Ka-
nazawa found that menarche occurred earlier in societies charac-
terized by higher levels of simultaneous or serial polygyny. These
data are consistent with the proposition that female pubertal timing
is responsive to parental reproductive strategies and that these
strategies (contrary to Kanazawas, 2001, own criticism quoted
above) provide reliable cues to the macrolevel mating systems that
children mature into. Moreover, quality of parental resources and
investment prepare children more specifically for their likely po-
sition in those mating systems.
Psychosocial Models of Pubertal Timing: IV. Child
Development Theory
In the preceding section I argued, in line with Draper and
Harpending (1982), Belsky et al. (1991), Chisholm (1999), and
others, that childrens experiences in and around the family (and
particularly childhood exposures to parental reproductive strate-
gies) provide them with reliable information about the reproduc-
tive opportunities and constraints that they are likely to encounter
at adolescence and beyond. Although this information is almost
certainly reliable in a statistical sense, it is far from perfect. Many
factors introduce noise into the system: Weather cycles change,
periods of feast and famine occur, rapid social changes occur, wars
are won and lost, parents and children differ in their sociocom-
petitive competencies, and so forth. The criticism thus remains that
it may be a poor evolutionary choice to calibrate adolescent and
young adult reproductive strategies on the basis of childhood
experiences that are many years out of date (Rowe, 2000a, 2000b).
A possible resolution to this problem involves a reconceptual-
ization of the function of pubertal timing. Both psychosocial
acceleration theory and paternal investment theory conceptualize
timing of puberty as part of an integrated reproductive strategy that
(a) is responsive to social and ecological conditions in childhood
and (b) feeds forward to sociosexual and parental behavior in
adulthood. This feed-forward function probabilistically links ear-
lier pubertal timing not only to earlier onset of sexual activity and
reproduction but also to a more unrestricted sociosexual orienta-
tion characterized by relatively unstable pairbonds, greater number
of sexual partners, and less parental investment (Belsky et al.,
1991; Chisholm, 1999). Conversely, later pubertal timing is linked
probabilistically to later onset of sex and reproduction, a more
restricted sociosexual orientation, more pairbond stability, fewer
sexual partners, and greater investment in parenting.
By contrast, child development theory, as proposed here, con-
ceptualizes timing of puberty as part of an integrated developmen-
tal strategy that conditionally alters the length of childhood in
response to the composition and quality of family environments.
These alterations function to adaptively extend childhood (delay
puberty) in high-quality social developmental environments and to
shorten childhood (accelerate puberty) in adverse social develop-
mental environments. Child development theory converges with
psychosocial acceleration theory and paternal investment theory in
its conceptualization of (a) how childhood experiences affect pu-
bertal timing and (b) how pubertal timing affects timing of onset of
sexual activity and reproduction, but it diverges from these other
theories in its conceptualization of the relation between pubertal
timing and qualitative differences in mating and parenting strate-
gies. The key criterion in child development theory is the timing of
the pubertal transition from a pre-reproductive state to a reproduc-
tive state, that is, the timing of the change in allocation of re-
sources from physical growth to mating and parenting. The theory
links quality of family environments to timing of pubertal devel-
opment and onset of sexual activity and reproduction but does not
in turn link these reproductive timing variables to qualitative
differences in mating and parenting strategies (e.g., unrestricted vs.
restricted sociosexual orientation). According to child develop-
ment theory, an important function of childhood experience is to
adaptively coordinate the length of the pre-reproductive period
(pubertal timing) with the value of the childs social developmen-
tal environment.
Changes in the length of the pre-reproductive period translate
into changes in the timing of the transition to the reproductive
period (i.e., puberty). This transition has important implications for
social as well as physical development. Adolescence is character-
ized by a distancing of parentchild relationships and declining
parental investment, increased resistance to parental control and
information, increased orientation toward peer relationships, and
cognitive and emotional reorganization away from the behavioral
modes of childhood toward participation in adult social, sexual,
and economic activities (Bogin, 1999; Schlegel & Barry, 1991;
Steinberg, 1988; Surbey, 1998). Earlier pubertal development,
therefore, means an earlier transition away from reliance on pa-
rental investment and toward immersion in and dependence on
peer and sexual relationships; later pubertal development means
the opposite.
The human life history is characterized by lengthy infancy and
juvenile periods prior to sexual maturation. Many authors (e.g.,
Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2002; Bogin, 1999; Geary, 2002; H.
Kaplan, Hill, Lancaster, & Hurtado, 2000) have argued that this
prolonged childhood allows an extended period for brain develop-
ment; increased flexibility of learning; and the time to acquire
physical, behavioral, and cognitive competencies (e.g., large body
size, child care skills, hunting and food processing skills, socio-
emotional skills). This accrued reproductive potential presumably
translates into increased survival, productivity, and reproductive
success in adulthood. The implicit assumption is that the benefits
of large body size and accumulated skills and knowledge compen-
sate for the reproductive opportunities lost through prolonged
growth. The costs and benefits associated with earlier versus later
timing of reproductive maturation were described earlier (see The
Life History Approach to Timing of Pubertal Development). Child
946
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
development theory posits that the weighting of these costs and
benefits varies as a function of the quality of the childs social
developmental environment. Specifically, the costs of delayed
maturationincreased probability of mortality prior to reproduc-
tion, longer generation times, shorter reproductive life spansare
reduced in higher quality environments that facilitate greater de-
velopment of sociocompetitive competencies. Children should be
selected to capitalize on the benefits of high-quality parental
investment, and to reduce the costs of low-quality parental invest-
ment, by contingently altering the period of growth and develop-
ment prior to reproductive maturity.
Developmental mechanisms for adjusting timing of pubertal
maturation in response to experiences in and around the family
may have resulted from a long and recurrent evolutionary history
in which (a) different children confronted substantially different
rearing environments; (b) low-quality parental investment signaled
an environment in which parental care and resources were rela-
tively unreliable and/or not closely linked to variation in repro-
ductive success; (c) earlier pubertal transitions in this context were,
on average, associated with greater reproductive success; (d) high-
quality parental investment signaled a competitive environment in
which variations in offspring quality and success were sensitive to
provision of parental care and resources; and (e) later pubertal
transitions in this context were, on average, associated with greater
reproductive success.
Relations Between Pubertal Timing and Sexual and
Reproductive Behavior
As stated above, child development theory differs from psycho-
social acceleration theory and paternal investment theory in its
downstream predictions about mating and parenting strategies.
There are areas of agreement and disagreement. First, all of the
theories reviewed in this article converge on the prediction that
earlier pubertal timing will be associated with earlier onset of
sexual activity and reproduction. This uncontroversial prediction
has been tested in dozens of studies and, not surprisingly, has
received substantial support. Most investigations have found that
earlier timing of pubertal development is associated with earlier
ages at first dating, first kissing, and first genital petting (e.g.,
Flannery, Rowe, & Gulley, 1993; Lam, Shi, Ho, Stewart, & Fan,
2002; B. C. Miller, Norton, Fan, & Christopherson, 1998), earlier
ages at first sexual intercourse (e.g., Bingham, Miller, & Adams,
1990; B. C. Miller et al., 1997; Phinney, Jensen, Olsen, & Cun-
dick, 1990), and higher rates of adolescent pregnancy (e.g., Man-
love, 1997; Romans et al., 2003; Udry, 1979). There is also
extensive cross-cultural evidence, based on natural fertility popu-
lations, that earlier age at menarche is strongly associated with
earlier age at first birth (e.g., Ann, Othman, Butz, & DaVanzo,
1983; Borgerhoff Mulder, 1989a; Udry & Cliquet, 1982). Along
these lines, Rosenberg (1991) found a positive correlation between
age of menarche and age at first birth in Norway over the period
from 1830 to 1960, and the farther back in time, the stronger the
correlation.
Second, psychosocial acceleration and paternal investment the-
ory, but not child development theory, predict that variation in
pubertal timing will be associated with variation in sociosexual
orientation, pairbond stability, partner number, and orientation
toward parental investment. Relatively little is known about the
effects of pubertal timing on these dimensions of mating and
parenting. A search of the literature revealed only six relevant
investigations. Five of these studies explicitly analyzed the relation
between age at menarche and number of sexual partners (Helm &
Lidegaard, 1989; Hoier, 2003; Kim & Smith, 1998b; Kim et al.,
1997; Mikach & Bailey, 1999); none found a significant associa-
tion. Kim et al. (1997) reported that earlier age at menarche was
associated with greater age differences between young women and
their first sexual intercourse partner, but Kim and Smith (1998b)
failed to replicate this relation. Likewise, Kim and Smith (1998b)
reported that earlier age of menarche was associated with greater
number of boyfriends, but Kim et al. (1997) failed to replicate this
relation. Furthermore, Mezzich et al. (1997), analyzing a clinical
sample of teenage girls diagnosed with substance use disorders,
found that earlier age at menarche was associated with higher
levels of risky sexual behavior. This finding is difficult to interpret,
however, because the measure of risky sexual behavior composited
timing variables (e.g., occurrence of first pregnancy) with promis-
cuity variables (e.g., multiple sexual partners).
Hoier (2003) has conducted the most extensive investigation of
the relations between age at menarche and theoretically relevant
mating and parenting variables. Her study included 3 measures of
age at onset of sexual activity (age at first petting, age at first
romantic relationship, and age at first sexual intercourse) and 13
other measures of mating and parenting (lifetime number of sexual
partners, number of sexual partners per year, incidence of sexual
infidelity, inclination toward choosing partners of poor match,
sociosexual orientation, preference for a mate who displays indi-
cators of good parenting, preference for a mate who displays
indicators of good genes, attitudes toward sexual fidelity, ideali-
zation of romantic relationships, desired number of future sexual
partners over the next year, desired number of future sexual
partners over the next 10 years, desired number of future sexual
partners over the rest of ones life, and attitudes toward investment
in children). Consistent with the literature reviewed above, all 3 of
the age at onset variables had statistically significant associations
with age at menarche in the predicted direction. By contrast, only
1 of the 13 other indices was significantly associated with age at
menarche. Thus, in the same sample, earlier age at menarche was
associated with earlier onset of dating and sexual activity but was
not associated with other theoretically relevant facets of mating
and parenting.
In sum, although earlier timing of puberty clearly predicts
earlier onset of major forms of sexual experience and reproduction,
there is currently no empirical basis for the hypothesis that earlier
timing of puberty leads to a more unrestricted sociosexual orien-
tation, unstable pairbonds, greater number of sexual partners, or
lower parental investment. Admittedly, more research is needed,
given that the small number of studies reviewed above mostly
relied on retrospective data and convenience samples. My point is
not that these limited investigations falsify the hypothesis but
rather that no extant research has supported it. Instead, the evi-
dence to date concurs with the delimited focus of child develop-
ment theory on the timing of sexual and reproductive milestones
age at first sexual intercourse, age at first pregnancy, age at first
birthas the reproductive sequelae of pubertal timing. Contrary to
the psychosocial acceleration and paternal investment theories, the
data do not currently support expanding these timing variables to
include other qualitative aspects of mating and parenting strate-
gies, independent of age at onset.
947
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
It is important to note that child development theory does not
challenge the core idea, which is fundamental to attachment theory
and social learning theory as well as psychosocial acceleration
theory and paternal investment theory, that childhood experience
influences the development of qualitative dimensions of sexual
behavior and parental investment. Rather, child development the-
ory posits that timing of pubertal development is not an interven-
ing factor in these relations. That is, pubertal timing is not a
generative causal mechanism through which experiences in and
around the family influence sociosexual orientation, pairbond sta-
bility, partner number, parental investment strategies, and so forth.
Summary and Evaluation
Child development theory constitutes a revision of some of the
logic and predictions of psychosocial acceleration theory and
paternal investment theory. This revision potentially addresses
three anomalies in these earlier theories. First is the problem of
long-term inference. As Rowe (2000a, 2000b) has argued in his
critique of the psychosocial acceleration and paternal investment
theories, in an uncertain world where conditions can greatly im-
prove or worsen over time, it is a risky proposition for young
children to use parental behavior as a guide to the future some 10
to 15 years later when they will be of reproductive age. Child
development theory avoids the problem of long-term inference by
reconceptualizing the function of childhood experience in relation
to timing of sexual development. According to the theory, an
important function of childhood experience is to adaptively coor-
dinate the duration of childhood (pubertal timing) with the value of
the childs social developmental environment. Timing of sex and
reproduction are linked to timing of puberty only because one
follows the other (i.e., puberty marks the transition from the
pre-reproductive to the reproductive phase of the human life cy-
cle). The theory requires no long-term inferences about the future;
the female child is adjusting the timing or tempo of maturation to
capitalize on the benefits, or mitigate the costs, of extant qualities
of parental investment and other social resources in and around her
family of origin.
Second is the problem of shared environmental variance. As
discussed earlier (see Sources of Variation in Pubertal Timing),
behavior genetic research has converged on the conclusion that at
least half of the variance in age at menarche is genetic and that the
rest of the variance is attributable to nonshared environmental
effects and measurement error. Although I have criticized these
heritability estimates, argued that there are shared environmental
effects, and have suggested that the independent variables posited
by the current psychosocial models of pubertal timing should have
both shared and nonshared environmental effects, the relative
paucity of shared environmental variance remains an issue. Bailey
et al. (2000) contended that if father absence and other facets of
parental reproductive strategies provide reliable information to one
sibling about future mating conditions, then they should also
provide reliable information to other siblings; that is, there should
be shared environmental effects. However, even if it turns out that
shared environmental effects are weak, this does not challenge
child development theory because children are not assumed to be
inferring the macrolevel qualities of the mating system that they
will encounter at reproductive age. Rather, children are inferring
microlevel qualities of their own social developmental environ-
ments. Because family environments in fact constitute multiple
microenvironments inhabited by different siblings (Sulloway,
1996), child development theory is consistent with the predomi-
nance of nonshared environmental influences on pubertal timing.
Third, the absence of relations between pubertal timing and
qualitative aspects of mating and parenting strategies, independent
of age at onset of sexual and reproductive events, poses an anom-
aly for psychosocial acceleration theory and paternal investment
theory but not for child development theory.
Conclusion
What are the nature of environmental influences on timing of
pubertal maturation in girls? If that question had been asked 15
years ago, before the application of life history theory to human
sexual development, the answer would have been very different
from the one presented herein. The answer provided in a 1988
review, for example, included weight and body mass, intensity and
duration of exercise, nutrition, physical illness, number of children
in the family, and altitude (Brooks-Gunn, 1988). The notion that
social experiences influence something as biological and presum-
ably genetic as pubertal timing was not taken seriously, especially
among psychologically minded students of human development.
That changed with the publication of psychosocial acceleration
theory by Belsky et al. in 1991, which advanced uncanny predic-
tions about relations between family processes and pubertal tim-
ing. That theorizing stimulated the major body of research and
theory reviewed in this article. Life history theory provided the
frameworkmissing from previous developmental theoriesfor
conceptualizing psychosocial influences on timing of pubertal
development.
From a life history perspective, there is no single answer to the
question of when puberty should occur. Although genotypic ef-
fects on timing of pubertal development are substantial, these
effects are probabilistic and are best conceptualized as coding for
a reaction norm. Because different points along the spectrum of
pubertal timing are characterized by different fitness costs and
benefits and trade-offs between them, natural selection is unlikely
to favor genetically canalized developmental mechanisms that
systematically bias individuals toward either earlier or later puber-
tal maturation. Rather, selection can be expected to favor adaptive
developmental plasticity in response to particular ecological con-
ditions. The critical questions then become, When should individ-
uals reach sexual maturity? and What are the relevant develop-
mental experiences and environmental cues that bias individuals
(or at least that subset of individuals who are susceptible to
environmental influences) toward relatively early versus late pu-
bertal development?
There can be little doubt that energetics play a key role in
determining timing of pubertal maturation. Variation in the median
menarcheal age across human populations, which ranges from
about 12.0 years to 18.5 years, cannot possibly be explained
without reference to energy availability. Children who experience
chronically poor nutritional environments, whether assessed indi-
rectly according to SES or directly in dietary studies, tend to
experience relatively late pubertal development. An intervening
endocrine mechanism may be low levels of pituitary gonadotro-
pins. These data provide strong support for the theory that natural
selection has favored physiological mechanisms that track varia-
tion in resource availability and adjust physical development to
match that variation.
948
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
Energetics theory further conceptualizes pubertal timing as a
bioassay of chronic childhood conditions. Ellison (1990, 1996,
2001) posited that females use this bioassay to establish lifetime
set points for reproductive functioning. This leads to the hypoth-
esis that girls who experience relatively early sexual maturation
have greater reproductive capacity than their later maturing peers.
This hypothesis has not been supported. Although earlier age at
menarche has been found to predict higher levels of ovarian
hormonal functioning and earlier reproductive onset, early puberty
does not translate into higher reproductive functioning. Compared
with girls whose ages at menarche are in the average range for
their population, early-maturing girls do not have shorter latencies
between menarche and regular menstrual cycling, are not more
successful at maintaining pregnancies that culminate in live birth,
are not more successful at promoting fetal growth, and are not
more fecund or reproductively successful.
Life history theory conceptualizes timing of pubertal maturation
as a trade-off in distribution of metabolic resources toward differ-
ent strategies of reproduction. Early reproductive development
biases allocation of resources toward short-term (current) repro-
duction and greater number of offspring, whereas later reproduc-
tive development biases resources toward long-term (future) re-
production and greater fitness of offspring. Earlier pubertal
development in girls is associated with earlier age at first sexual
activity and reproduction on the one hand but perhaps lower
offspring quality on the other, as suggested by the literatures on
fetal wastage and fetal growth. In and of itself, timing of pubertal
development is not an indicator of reproductive capacity. Rather,
consistent with life history theory, timing of puberty is an indicator
of different trade-offs in reproductive strategies.
The basic logic of energetics theory has also been generalized to
the psychosocial domain. Theorists such as E. M. Miller (1994)
and MacDonald (1999) have hypothesized that adverse physical or
social conditions, whether experienced as chronically low energy
availability or psychosocial stress, should cause animals in
K-selected species to delay pubertal development and reproduction
until predictably better times. This stress-suppression theory has
been supported by neurophysiological research linking activation
of the stress-response systems to suppression of the HPG axis.
Primate studies investigating the stress-suppression hypothesis,
however, have examined only the effects of stress on ovarian
functioning in mature animals and have not examined its effects on
pubertal maturation in younger animals. Overall, the experimental
research linking psychosocial stress to delays in pubertal develop-
ment is scant and inconclusive. Nonetheless, human clinical data
on psychosocial dwarfism as well as demographic studies tracking
increases in age at menarche under war conditions are consistent
with stress-suppression theory and suggest that severe psycholog-
ical stress can inhibit pubertal development.
A key direction for future research involves untangling the
effects of physical and socioemotional stressors on timing of
puberty. Hulanickas (1999; Hulanicka et al., 2001) research on
Polish school girls is especially informative in this regard. Within
the same samples, poverty was found to forecast later pubertal
development, and family dysfunction predicted earlier develop-
ment. These data suggest that physical and socioemotional stres-
sors have independent (and perhaps countervailing) effects on
pubertal timing. Coall and Chisholm (2003) have proposed that the
effects of physical and socioemotional stressors on pubertal timing
are hierarchically ordered, whereby pubertal timing is contingent
firstly on health and nutrition and, when these are adequate,
secondly on socioemotional conditions.
Psychosocial acceleration theory and paternal investment theory
share the core assumption that humans have evolved to be sensi-
tive to specific features of their early childhood environments and
that exposure to different environments biases children toward
acquisition of different reproductive strategies. Psychosocial ac-
celeration theory posits that girls whose experiences in and around
their families of origin are characterized by relatively high levels
of interpersonal stress (e.g., negative and coercive family relation-
ships, lack of positive and supportive family relationships) develop
in a manner that speeds rates of pubertal maturation, accelerates
sexual activity, and orients the individual toward relatively unsta-
ble pairbonds and lower levels of parental investment. Paternal
investment theory predicts these same outcomes in response to
family adversity, but it proposes a special role for fathers and other
men in regulation of girls sexual development. Both theories have
received reasonable empirical support. Converging evidence from
a number of methodologically sound studies has indicated that (a)
girls from father-absent homes tend to experience earlier pubertal
development than do girls from father-present homes, and the
earlier father absence occurs, the greater the effect; (b) better
marital quality is associated with later pubertal development in
daughters; and (c) greater parentchild warmth and cohesion pre-
dicts later pubertal development. In addition, there is consistent
evidence that quality of fathers investment in the family uniquely
predicts timing of pubertal development in daughters indepen-
dently of other aspects of the family ecology. Not all tests of the
theory have been favorable, however. The hypothesis that parent
child conflict and coercion accelerate pubertal development has
received mixed support.
An extension of Boyce and Elliss (in press) evolutionary-
developmental theory of stress reactivity was proposed to account
for both inhibiting and accelerating effects of psychosocial stress
on timing of pubertal development. Boyce and Ellis posited that
both highly protective and acutely stressful childhood environ-
ments cause up-regulation of stress reactivity systems. If this
up-regulation inhibits maturation of the HPG axis, then there
should be U-shaped curvilinear relations between levels of support
and social resources versus stress and adversity in early childhood
environments and timing of puberty (see Figure 1). This account,
which concurs with neurophysiological research documenting sup-
pressive effects of stress on the reproductive axis, potentially
reconciles important contradictions in the literature by explaining
why late pubertal development disproportionately occurs in both
highly supportive and extremely stressful socioemotional
environments.
There are likely to be multiple pathways through which family
relationships or family composition affect pubertal timing. The
possible role of cortisol was discussed. Another possibility, con-
sistent with an extensive animal literature, is that contact with
members of ones natal group inhibits pubertal development in
girls, whereas exposure to unfamiliar men accelerates it. The
intervening mechanism is hypothesized to be pheromones, which
are encoded through olfactory channels and can impact reproduc-
tive endocrinology either alone or in combination with visual,
auditory, and tactile stimuli from conspecifics. Direct physical
contact appears to be especially important. The data on sexual
abuse and pubertal maturation are not inconsistent with this pro-
posed mechanism.
949
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
Psychosocial acceleration theory and paternal investment theory
have been criticized on several grounds. The most severe criticism
is methodological: Correlational research methods that are not
genetically informative have been used to test these theories. The
correlation between family environments and timing of pubertal
maturation in girls could be spurious; that is, it could be due simply
to genetic transmission of pubertal timing and associated charac-
teristics (i.e., selection effects). Although many studies have in-
corporated appropriate control variables to account for possible
genetic influences, correlational methods cannot rule out selection
effects. Experimental research designs are needed to test for the
causal influence of family environments on pubertal timing. This
could be accomplished by incorporating pubertal development
measures into the many randomized, longitudinally designed early
intervention trials that have been implemented to promote more
harmonious or stable family relationships. Other criticisms of
psychosocial acceleration theory and paternal investment theory
include the absence of shared environmental effects on pubertal
timing in behavior genetic studies, the questionable (but not nec-
essarily totally flawed) logic of basing adult reproductive strate-
gies on early childhood experiences, and the lack of associations
between pubertal timing and other aspects of reproductive strate-
gies specified by the theories.
A proposed revision of these theorieschild development the-
oryaddresses these latter three criticisms. Child development
theory conceptualizes timing of puberty as part of an integrated
developmental strategy that conditionally alters the length of child-
hood in response to the composition and quality of family envi-
ronments. These alterations function to adaptively extend child-
hood (delay puberty) in high-quality social developmental
environments and to shorten childhood (accelerate puberty) in
adverse social developmental environments. Child development
theory is consistent with the predominance of nonshared environ-
mental influences on pubertal timing, does not require children to
use parental behavior as a guide to the future some 10 to 15 years
later when they will be of reproductive age, and links timing of
puberty to timing of sex and reproduction but not to other quali-
tative aspects of reproductive strategies (e.g., orientation toward
long- vs. short-term mating or high- vs. low-investment parenting).
Much remains to be learned about the effects of family envi-
ronments on pubertal timing. Most critical is the need for geneti-
cally controlled research designs that incorporate environmental
measures. Neurophysiological studies that test for intervening
mechanisms are also greatly needed. Finally, more careful atten-
tion must be paid to the nature of psychosocial effects on pubertal
timing (e.g., sensitive period and other age effects, effects of
chronic vs. acute exposure to stressors, curvilinear relations, inter-
actions between socioemotional and physical stressors). Despite
these complexities, it is my hope that the current review leads to
new knowledge about the causes of pubertal timing in girls and
that this knowledge is ultimately helpful in predicting and control-
ling the pubertal transition.
References
Abioye-Kuteyi, E. A., Ojofeitimi, E. O., Aina, O. I., Kio, F., Aluko, Y., &
Mosuro, O. (1997). The influence of socioeconomic and nutritional
status on menarche in Nigerian school girls. Nutrition and Health, 11,
185195.
Adadevoh, S. W., Agble, T. K., Hobbs, C., & Elkins, T. E. (1989).
Menarcheal age in Ghanaian school girls. International Journal of
Gynecology and Obstetrics, 30, 6368.
Adair, L. S. (2001). Size at birth predicts age at menarche. Pediatrics, 107,
E59.
Adair, L. S., & Gordon-Larsen, P. (2001). Maturational timing and over-
weight prevalence in US adolescent girls. American Journal of Public
Health, 91, 642644.
Adak, D. K., Gharami, A. K., Singhai, T., & Jain, M. K. (2001). A study
on menarche and fertility among the Ladiya of Sagar district, Madhya
Pradesh. Journal of Human Ecology, 12, 279282.
Adams, N., Lins, M. D., & Blizard, D. A. (1987). Contrasting effects of
social stress and foot shock on acute cardiovascular response in salt-
sensitive rats. Behavioral and Neural Biology, 48, 368381.
al-Ansary, L. A., Oni, G., & Babay, Z. A. (1995). Risk factors for
spontaneous abortion among Saudi women. Journal of Community
Health, 20, 491500.
Allal, N., Sear, R., Prentice, A. M., & Mace, R. (2004). An evolutionary
model of stature, age at first birth and reproductive success in Gambian
women. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 271,
465470.
Allman, J. (1982). Age at menarche and fertility in Haiti. Human Orga-
nization, 41, 350355.
Amato, P. R. (1996). Explaining the intergenerational transmission of
divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 628640.
Amoah, E. A., & Bryant, M. J. (1984). A note on the effect of contact with
male goats on occurrence of puberty in female goat kids. Animal
Production, 38, 141144.
Ann, T. B., Othman, R., Butz, W. P., & DaVanzo, J. (1983). Age at
menarche in peninsular Malaysia: Time trends, ethnic differentials, and
association with ages at marriage and at first birth. Malaysian Journal of
Reproductive Health, 1, 91108.
Apter, D. (1996). Hormonal events during female puberty in relation to
breast cancer risk. European Journal of Cancer Prevention, 5, 476482.
Apter, D., Reinila, M., & Vihko, R. (1989). Some endocrine characteristics
of early menarche, a risk factor for breast cancer, are preserved into
adulthood. International Journal of Cancer, 44, 783787.
Apter, D., & Vihko, R. (1983). Early menarche, a risk factor for breast
cancer, indicates early onset of ovulatory cycles. Journal of Clinical
Endocrinology and Metabolism, 57, 8286.
Apter, D., & Vihko, R. (1985). Premenarcheal endocrine changes in
relation to age at menarche. Clinical Endocrinology, 22, 753760.
Attallah, N. L. (1978). Age at menarche of schoolgirls in Egypt. Annals of
Human Biology, 5, 185189.
Ayatollahi, S. M., Dowlatabadi, E., & Ayatollahi, S. A. (2002). Age at
menarche in Iran. Annals of Human Biology, 29, 355362.
Bailey, J. M., Kirk, K. M., Zhu, G., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000).
Do individual differences in sociosexuality represent genetic or envi-
ronmentally contingent strategies? Evidence from the Australian twin
registry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 537545.
Barber, N. (2001). On the relationship between marital opportunity and
teen pregnancy: The sex ratio question. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-
chology, 32, 259267.
Barber, N. (2003). Paternal investment prospects and cross-national dif-
ferences in single parenthood. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of
Comparative Social Science, 37, 163177.
Belmaker, E. (1982). Sexual maturation of Jerusalem schoolgirls and its
association with socio-economic factors and ethnic group. Annals of
Belsky, J. (2000). Conditional and alternative reproductive strategies:
Individual differences in susceptibility to rearing experiences. In J. L.
Rodgers, D. C. Rowe, & W. B. Miller (Eds.), Genetic influences on
human fertility and sexuality: Theoretical and empirical contributions
from the biological and behavioral sciences (pp. 127145). Boston:
Kluwer Academic.
Belsky, J. (2004). Differential susceptibility to rearing influence: An evo-
950
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
lutionary hypothesis and some evidence. In B. J. Ellis & D. F. Bjorklund
(Eds.), Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and child
development (pp. 139163). New York: Guilford Press.
Belsky, J., Hsieh, K.-H., & Crnic, K. (1998). Mothering, fathering, and
infant negativity as antecedents of boys externalizing problems and
inhibition at age 3 years: Differential susceptibility to rearing experi-
ence? Development and Psychopathology, 10, 301319.
Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience,
interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary
theory of socialization. Child Development, 62, 647670.
Bennett, N. G., Bloom, D. E., & Miller, C. K. (1995). The influence of
nonmarital childbearing on the formation of first marriages. Demogra-
phy, 32, 4762.
Bercovitch, F. B., & Strum, S. C. (1993). Dominance rank, resource
availability, and reproductive maturation in female savanna baboons.
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 33, 313318.
Bercovitch, F. B., & Ziegler, T. E. (2002). Current topics in primate
socioendocrinology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 4567.
Berkey, C. S., Gardner, J. D., Frazier, A. L., & Colditz, G. A. (2000).
Relation of childhood diet and body size to menarche and adolescent
growth in girls. American Journal of Epidemiology, 152, 446452.
Berkowitz, G. S. (1981). An epidemiologic study of preterm delivery.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 113, 8192.
Bielicki, T. (1986). Physical growth as a measure of the economic well-
being of populations: The twentieth century. In F. Falkner & J. M.
Tanner (Eds.), Human growth (2nd ed., pp. 283305). New York:
Plenum Press.
Bingham, C. R., Miller, B. C., & Adams, G. R. (1990). Correlates of age
at first sexual intercourse in a national sample of young women. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 5, 1833.
Biro, F. M., Lucky, A. W., Simbartl, L. A., Barton, B. A., Daniels, S. R.,
Striegel-Moore, R., et al. (2003). Pubertal maturation in girls and the
relationship to anthropometric changes: Pathways through puberty.
Journal of Pediatrics, 142, 643646.
Bjorklund, D. F., & Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). The origins of human nature:
Evolutionary developmental psychology. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Black, C., & DeBlassie, R. R. (1985). Adolescent pregnancy: Contributing
factors, consequences, treatment, and plausible solutions. Adolescence,
20, 281290.
Blanchard, R. J., McKittrick, C. R., & Blanchard, D. C. (2001). Animal
models of social stress: Effects on behavior and brain neurochemical
systems. Physiology and Behavior, 73, 261271.
Bogin, B. (1999). Patterns of human growth (2nd ed.). Cambridge, En-
gland: Cambridge University Press.
Booth, W. D., & Signoret, J. P. (1992). Olfaction and reproduction in
ungulates. Oxford Review of Reproductive Biology, 14, 263301.
Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1989a). Early maturing Kipsigis women have
higher reproductive success than late maturing women and cost more to
marry. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 24, 145153.
Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1989b). Menarche, menopause and reproduction
in the Kipsigis of Kenya. Journal of Biosocial Science, 21, 179192.
Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (in press). Biological sensitivity to context: I.
An evolutionary-developmental theory of the origins and functions of
stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology.
Boyce, W. T., ONeill-Wagner, P., Price, C. S., Haines, M., & Suomi, S. J.
(1998). Crowding stress and violent injuries among behaviorally inhib-
ited rhesus macaques. Health Psychology, 17, 285289.
Bracken, M. B., Bryce-Buchanan, C., Stilten, R., & Holford, T. (1985).
Menarcheal age and habitual miscarriage: Evidence for an association.
Annals of Human Biology, 12, 525531.
Bronson, F. H. (1989). Regulation by social cues. In F. H. Bronson (Ed.),
Mammalian reproductive biology (pp. 138163). Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Brooks-Gunn, J. (1988). Antecedents and consequences of variations in
girls maturational timing. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 9, 365
373.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1986). The children of adolescent
mothers: Physical, academic, and psychological outcomes. Developmen-
tal Review, 6, 224251.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Warren, M. P. (1988). Mother-daughter differences in
menarcheal age in adolescent girls attending national dance company
schools and non-dancers. Annals of Human Biology, 15, 3543.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Warren, M. P., Rosso, J., & Gargiulo, J. (1987). Validity
of self-report measures of girls pubertal status. Child Development, 58,
829841.
Broude, G. J. (1990). Protest masculinity: A further look at the causes and
the concept. Ethos, 18, 103122.
Brudevoll, J. E., Liestol, K., & Walloe, L. (1979). Menarcheal age in Oslo
during the last 140 years. Annals of Human Biology, 6, 407416.
Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (1985). A hypothesis on the role of pheromones
on age of menarche. Medical Hypotheses, 17, 3946.
Butler, L. M., Potischman, N. A., Newman, B., Millikan, R. C., Brogan, D.,
Gammon, M. D., et al. (2000). Menstrual risk factors and early-onset
breast cancer. Cancer Causes and Control, 11, 451458.
Cameron, J. L. (1990). Factors controlling the onset of puberty in primates.
In J. Bancroft & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Adolescence and puberty: Vol. 3.
The Kinsey Institute series (pp. 928). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Cameron, J. L. (1997). Stress and behaviorally induced reproductive dys-
function in primates. Seminars in Reproductive Endocrinology, 15,
3745.
Campbell, B. C., & Udry, J. R. (1995). Stress and age at menarche of
mothers and daughters. Journal of Biosocial Science, 27, 127134.
Caretta, C. M., Caretta, A., & Cavaggioni, A. (1995). Pheromonally
accelerated puberty is enhanced by previous experience of the same
stimulus. Physiology and Behavior, 57, 901903.
Casagrande, J. T., Pike, M. C., & Henderson, B. E. (1982). Re: Menar-
cheal age and spontaneous abortion: A causal connection. American
Journal of Epidemiology, 115, 481483.
Casey, V. A., Dwyer, J. T., Coleman, K. A., Krall, E. A., Gardner, J., &
Valadian, I. (1991). Accuracy of recall by middle-aged participants in a
longitudinal study of their body size and indices of maturation earlier in
life. Annals of Human Biology, 18, 155166.
Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., et al.
(2002, August 2). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated
children. Science, 297, 851854.
Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (1991). Individual differences are accentuated
during periods of social change: The sample case of girls at puberty.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 157168.
Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington,
H., et al. (2003, July 18). Influence of life stress on depression: Mod-
eration by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science, 301, 386389.
Chakravartti, R., & Renuka, Y. (1970). The trend of age at menarche in
India. Journal of Social Research, 13, 8294.
Charnov, E. L. (1993). Life history invariants. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Chasiotis, A., Scheffer, D., Restmeier, R., & Keller, H. (1998). Intergen-
erational context discontinuity affects the onset of puberty: A compar-
ison of parent-child dyads in West and East Germany. Human Nature, 9,
321339.
Chern, M. M., Gatewood, L. C., & Anderson, V. E. (1980). The inheritance
of menstrual traits. In A. J. Dan, E. A. Graham, & C. P. Beecher (Eds.),
The menstrual cycle: A synthesis of interdisciplinary research (pp.
123130). New York: Springer.
Chisholm, J. S. (1993). Death, hope, and sex: Life-history theory and the
development of reproductive strategies. Current Anthropology, 34,
124.
Chisholm, J. S. (1996). The evolutionary ecology of attachment organiza-
tion. Human Nature, 7, 138.
951
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
Chisholm, J. S. (1999). Death, hope, and sex: Steps to an evolutionary
ecology of mind and morality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chrousos, G. P. (1998). Stressors, stress, and neuroendocrine integration of
the adaptive response: The 1997 Hans Selye Memorial Lecture. In P.
Csermely (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Vol. 851.
Stress of life: From molecules to man (pp. 311335). New York: New
York Academy of Sciences.
Cizza, G., Dorn, L. D., Lotsikas, A., Sereika, S., Rotenstein, D., &
Chrousos, G. P. (2001). Circulating plasma leptin and IGF-1 levels in
girls with premature adrenarche: Potential implications of a preliminary
study. Hormone and Metabolic Research, 33, 138143.
Clark, M. M., & Galef, B. G., Jr. (2002). Socially induced delayed
reproduction in female Mongolian gerbils (Meriones unguiculatus): Is
there anything special about dominant females? Journal of Comparative
Psychology, 116, 363368.
Clavel-Chapelon, F., & the E3N-EPIC Group. (2002). Evolution of age at
menarche and at onset of regular cycling in a large cohort of French
women. Human Reproduction, 17, 228232.
Coall, D. A., & Chisholm, J. S. (2003). Evolutionary perspectives on
pregnancy: Maternal age at menarche and infant birth weight. Social
Science and Medicine, 57, 17711781.
Colmenares, F., & Gomendio, M. (1988). Changes in female reproductive
condition following male take-overs in a colony of hamadryas and
hybrid baboons. Folia Primatologica, 50, 157174.
Comings, D. E., Muhleman, D., Johnson, J. P., & MacMurray, J. P. (2002).
Parent-daughter transmission of the androgen receptor gene as an ex-
planation of the effect of father absence on age of menarche. Child
Development, 73, 10461051.
Cooper, C., Kuh, D., Egger, P., Wadsworth, M., & Barker, D. (1996).
Childhood growth and age at menarche. British Journal of Obstetrics
and Gynaecology, 103, 814817.
Creel, S. (2001). Social dominance and stress hormones. Trends in Ecology
and Evolution, 16, 491497.
Cristescu, M. (1975). Differential fertility depending on the age of puberty.
Journal of Human Evolution, 4, 521524.
Crognier, E. (1998). Is the reduction of birth intervals an efficient repro-
ductive strategy in traditional Morocco? Annals of Human Biology, 25,
479487.
Cutler, W. B., Preti, G., Krieger, A., Huggins, G. R., Garcia, C. R., &
Lawley, H. J. (1986). Human axillary secretions influence womens
menstrual cycles: The role of donor extract from men. Hormones and
Behavior, 20, 463473.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
Damon, A., Damon, S. T., Reed, R. B., & Valadian, I. (1969). Age at
menarche of mothers and daughters, with a note on accuracy of recall.
DaVanzo, J., Habicht, J. P., & Butz, W. P. (1984). Assessing socioeco-
nomic correlates of birthweight in peninsular Malaysia: Ethnic differ-
ences and changes over time. Social Science and Medicine, 18, 387
404.
de Bellis, M. D., Baum, A. S., Birmaher, B., Keshavan, M. S., Eccard,
C. H., Boring, A. M., et al. (1999). A. E. Bennett Research Award.
Developmental traumatology. Part I: Biological stress systems. Biolog-
ical Psychiatry, 45, 12591270.
de Courcy-Wheeler, R. H., Wolfe, C. D., Warburton, F., Goodman, J.,
Reynolds, F., & Gamsu, H. (1995). The association between small size
for gestational age and perinatal and neonatal death in a UK Regional
Health Authority. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 9, 431440.
Dellovade, T. L., Hunter, E., & Rissman, E. F. (1995). Interactions with
males promote rapid changes in gonadotropin-releasing hormone immu-
noreactive cells. Neuroendocrinology, 62, 385395.
de Muinck Keizer-Schrama, S. M. P. F., & Mul, D. (2001). Trends in
pubertal development in Europe. Human Reproduction Update, 7, 287
291.
de Ridder, C. M., Thijssen, J. H., Vant Veer, P., van Duuren, R., Bruning,
P. F., Zonderland, M. L., & Erich, W. B. (1991). Dietary habits, sexual
maturation, and plasma hormones in pubertal girls: A longitudinal study.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 54, 805813.
Dick, D. M., Rose, R. J., Pulkkinen, L., & Kaprio, J. (2001). Measuring
puberty and understanding its impact: A longitudinal study of adolescent
twins. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 385400.
Dick, D. M., Rose, R. J., Viken, R. J., & Kaprio, J. (2000). Pubertal timing
and substance use: Associations between and within families across late
adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 36, 180189.
Dobson, H., Ghuman, S., Prabhakar, S., & Smith, R. (2003). A conceptual
model of the influence of stress on female reproduction. Reproduction,
125, 151163.
Dorn, L. D., & Chrousos, G. P. (1997). The neurobiology of stress:
Understanding regulation of affect during female biological transitions.
Seminars in Reproductive Endocrinology, 15, 1935.
Dorn, L. D., Hitt, S. F., & Rotenstein, D. (1999). Biopsychological and
cognitive differences in children with premature vs. on-time adrenarche.
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153, 137146.
Dorn, L. D., Nottelmann, E. D., Susman, E. J., Inoff-Germain, G., Cutler,
G. B., Jr., & Chrousos, G. P. (1999). Variability in hormone concentra-
tions and self-reported menstrual histories in young adolescents: Men-
arche as an integral part of a developmental process. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 28, 283304.
Dorn, L. D., Susman, E. J., Nottelmann, E. D., Inoff-Germain, G., &
Chrousos, G. P. (1990). Perceptions of puberty: Adolescent, parent, and
health care personnel ratings of pubertal stage. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 26, 322329.
Dorn, L. D., Susman, E. J., & Ponirakis, A. (2003). Pubertal timing and
adolescent adjustment and behavior: Conclusions vary by rater. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 157167.
Doughty, D., & Rodgers, J. L. (2000). Behavior genetic modeling of
menarche in US females. In J. L. Rodgers, D. C. Rowe, & W. B. Miller
(Eds.), Genetic influences on human fertility and sexuality: Theoretical
and empirical contributions from the biological and behavioral sciences
(pp. 169181). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Douglas, J. W. B. (1966). The age of reaching puberty: Some associated
factors and some educational implications. In The scientific basis of
medicine annual reviews 1966 (pp. 91105). London: Athlone Press.
Douglas, J. W., & Simpson, H. R. (1964). Height in relation to puberty,
family size, and social class: A longitudinal study. Milbank Memorial
Fund Quarterly, 42, 2035.
Draper, P., & Harpending, H. (1982). Father absence and reproductive
strategy: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Anthropological Re-
search, 38, 255273.
Draper, P., & Harpending, H. (1988). A sociobiological perspective on the
development of human reproductive strategies. In K. B. MacDonald
(Ed.), Sociobiological perspectives on human development (pp. 340
372). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Dreizen, S., Spirakis, C. N., & Stone, R. E. (1967). A comparison of
skeletal growth and maturation in undernourished and well-nourished
girls before and after menarche. Journal of Pediatrics, 70, 256263.
Drickamer, L. C., & Murphy, R. X., Jr. (1978). Female mouse maturation:
Effects of excreted and bladder urine from juvenile and adult males.
Developmental Psychobiology, 11, 6372.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1988). Primate social systems. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Dunne, M. P., Martin, N. G., Statham, D. J., Slutske, W. S., Dinwiddie,
S. H., Bucholz, K. K., et al. (1997). Genetic and environmental contri-
butions to variance in age at first sexual intercourse. Psychological
Science, 8, 211216.
Ellis, B. J. (2002). Of fathers and pheromones: Implications of cohabitation
for daughters pubertal timing. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Just
living together: Implications of cohabitation on families, children, and
social policy. The Pennsylvania State University Family Studies Sym-
posia Series (pp. 161172). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
952
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
Ellis, B. J., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J.,
Pettit, G. S., & Woodward, L. (2003). Does father absence place daugh-
ters at special risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy? Child
Development, 74, 801821.
Ellis, B. J., Essex, M. J., & Boyce, W. T. (in press). Biological sensitivity
to context: II. Empirical explorations of an evolutionary-developmental
theory. Development and Psychopathology.
Ellis, B. J., & Garber, J. (2000). Psychosocial antecedents of variation in
girls pubertal timing: Maternal depression, stepfather presence, and
marital and family stress. Child Development, 71, 485501.
Ellis, B. J., & Malamuth, N. M. (2000). Love and anger in romantic
relationships: A discrete systems model. Journal of Personality, 68,
525556.
Ellis, B. J., McFadyen-Ketchum, S., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates,
J. E. (1999). Quality of early family relationships and individual differ-
ences in the timing of pubertal maturation in girls: A longitudinal test of
an evolutionary model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77, 387401.
Ellis, N. B. (1991). An extension of the Steinberg accelerating hypothesis.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 221235.
Ellison, P. T. (1990). Human ovarian function and reproductive ecology:
New hypotheses. American Anthropologist, 92, 933952.
Ellison, P. T. (1996). Developmental influences on adult ovarian hormonal
function. American Journal of Human Biology, 8, 725734.
Ellison, P. T. (2001). On fertile ground: A natural history of human
reproduction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Elmlinger, M. W., Kuhnel, W., & Ranke, M. B. (2002). Reference ranges
for serum concentrations of lutropin (LH), follitropin (FSH), estradiol
(E2), prolactin, progesterone, sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG),
dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS), cortisol and ferritin in neo-
nates, children and young adults. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory
Medicine, 40, 11511160.
Enquist, M., & Leimar, O. (1990). The evolution of fatal fighting. Animal
Behaviour, 39, 19.
Eveleth, P. B., & Tanner, J. M. (1990). World-wide variation in human
growth (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Farber, S. L. (1981). Identical twins reared apart: A reanalysis. New York:
Basic Books.
Ferin, M. (1999). Clinical review 105: Stress and the reproductive cycle.
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 84, 17681774.
Fisher, M. W., Meikle, L. M., & Johnstone, P. D. (1995). The influence of
the stag on pubertal development in the red deer hind. Animal Science,
60, 503508.
Flannery, D. J., Rowe, D. C., & Gulley, B. L. (1993). Impact of pubertal
status, timing, and age on adolescent sexual experience and delinquency.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 8, 2140.
Foster, A., Menken, J., Chowdhury, A., & Trussell, J. (1986). Female
reproductive development: A hazards model analysis. Social Biology,
33(34), 183198.
French, J. A. (1997). Proximate regulation of singular breeding in Cal-
litrichid primates. In N. G. Solomon & J. A. French (Eds.), Cooperative
breeding in mammals (pp. 3475). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Frisch, R. E. (1972). Weight at menarche: Similarity for well-nourished
and undernourished girls at differing ages, and evidence for historical
constancy. Pediatrics, 50, 445450.
Furstenberg, F. F., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Chase-Lansdale, L. (1989). Teen-
aged pregnancy and childbearing. American Psychologist, 44, 313320.
Galler, J. R., Ramsey, F., & Solimano, G. (1985). A follow-up study of the
effects of early malnutrition on subsequent development. I. Physical
growth and sexual maturation during adolescence. Pediatric Research,
19, 518523.
Gardner, J. (1983). Adolescent menstrual characteristics as predictors of
gynaecological health. Annals of Human Biology, 10, 3140.
Garland, M., Hunter, D. J., Colditz, G. A., Manson, J. E., Stampfer, M. J.,
Spiegelman, D., et al. (1998). Menstrual cycle characteristics and history
of ovulatory infertility in relation to breast cancer risk in a large cohort
of US women. American Journal of Epidemiology, 147, 636643.
Garn, S. M., Pesick, S. D., & Petzold, A. S. (1986). The biology of teenage
pregnancy. In J. B. Lancaster & B. A. Hamburg (Eds.), School-age
pregnancy and parenthood (pp. 7793). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Ge, X., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1996). Coming of age too early:
Pubertal influences on girls vulnerability to psychological distress.
Child Development, 67, 33863400.
Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human pater-
nal investment. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 5577.
Geary, D. C. (2002). Sexual selection and human life history. In R. V. Kail
(Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 30, pp. 41
101). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Geary, D. C. (in press). Evolution of paternal investment. In D. M. Buss
(Ed.), The evolutionary psychology handbook. New York: Wiley.
Geary, D. C., & Flinn, M. V. (2001). Evolution of human parental behavior
and the human family. Parenting: Science & Practice, 1, 561.
Gell, J. S., Carr, B. R., Sasano, H., Atkins, B., Margraf, L., Mason, J. I., &
Rainey, W. E. (1998). Adrenarche results from development of a 3beta-
hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-deficient adrenal reticularis. Journal of
Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 83, 36953701.
Georgopoulos, N., Markou, K., Theodoropoulou, A., Paraskevopoulou, P.,
Varaki, L., Kazantzi, Z., et al. (1999). Growth and pubertal development
in elite female rhythmic gymnasts. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology
and Metabolism, 84, 45254530.
Geronimus, A. T., Korenman, S., & Hillemeier, M. M. (1994). Does young
maternal age adversely affect child development? Evidence from cousin
comparisons. Population and Development Review, 20, 585609.
Golden, W. L. (1981). Reproductive histories in a Norwegian twin popu-
lation: Evaluation of the maternal effect in early spontaneous abortion.
Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologiae, 30, 91165.
Goldsmith, H. H. (1993). Nature-nurture issues in the behavioral genetic
context: Overcoming barriers to communication. In R. Plomin & G.
McClearn (Eds.), Nature, nurture, and psychology (pp. 325339). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Graber, J. A., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Warren, M. P. (1995). The antecedents
of menarcheal age: Heredity, family environment, and stressful life
events. Child Development, 66, 346359.
Graber, J. A., Lewinsohn, P. M., Seeley, J. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997).
Is psychopathology associated with the timing of pubertal development?
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36,
17681776.
Graber, J. A., Petersen, A. C., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1996). Pubertal pro-
cesses: Methods, measures, and models. In J. A. Graber & J. Brooks-
Gunn (Eds.), Transitions through adolescence: Interpersonal domains
and context (pp. 2353). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grayson, D. A. (1989). Twins reared together: Minimizing shared envi-
ronmental effects. Behavior Genetics, 19, 605608.
Grumbach, M. M., & Styne, D. M. (2003). Puberty: Ontogeny, neuroen-
docrinology, physiology and disorders. In P. R. Larsen, H. M. Kronen-
berg, S. M. Melmed, & K. S. Polonsky (Eds.), Williams textbook of
endocrinology (10th ed., pp. 11151286). Philadelphia: Saunders.
Hacklander, K., Mostl, E., & Arnold, W. (2003). Reproductive suppression
in female Alpine marmots, Marmota marmota. Animal Behaviour, 65,
11331140.
Hajn, V., & Komenda, S. (1985). Zur menarche-problematik der madchen
und ihrer mutter aus Olomouc. Anthropologie, 23, 519.
Helm, P., & Lidegaard, O. (1989). The relationship between menarche and
sexual, contraceptive, and reproductive life events. Scandinavian Jour-
nal of Primary Health Care, 8, 5963.
Helm, P., Munster, K., & Schmidt, L. (1995). Recalled menarche in
relation to infertility and adult weight and height. Acta Obstetricia et
Gynecologica Scandinavica, 74, 718722.
Hennessy, E., & Alberman, E. (1998). Intergenerational influences affect-
953
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
ing birth outcome. II. Preterm delivery and gestational age in the
children of the 1958 British birth cohort. Paediatric and Perinatal
Epidemiology, 12(Suppl. 1), 6175.
Herman-Giddens, M. E., Sandler, A. D., & Friedman, N. E. (1988). Sexual
precocity in girls. An association with sexual abuse? American Journal
of Diseases of Children, 142, 431433.
Herman-Giddens, M. E., Slora, E. J., Wasserman, R. C., Bourdony, C. J.,
Bhapkar, M. V., Koch, G. G., & Hasemeier, C. M. (1997). Secondary
sexual characteristics and menses in young girls seen in office practice:
A study from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network. Pedi-
atrics, 99, 505512.
Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1992). Coping with marital
transitions: A family systems perspective. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 57(23, Serial No. 227).
Hetherington, E. M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce
reconsidered. New York: Norton.
Hill, K., & Kaplan, H. (1999). Life history traits in humans: Theory and
empirical studies. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 397430.
Hoel, D. G., Wakabayashi, T., & Pike, M. C. (1983). Secular trends in the
distributions of the breast cancer risk factorsmenarche, first birth,
menopause, and weightin Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. American
Hofer, M. A. (1994). Early relationships as regulators of infant physiology
and behavior. Acta Paediatrica Supplementum, 397, 918.
Hoier, S. (2003). Father absence and age at menarche: A test of four
evolutionary models. Human Nature, 14, 209233.
Hoogland, J. L. (1982, March 26). Prairie dogs avoid extreme inbreeding.
Science, 215, 16391641.
Hopwood, N. J., Kelch, R. P., Hale, P. M., Mendes, T. M., Foster, C. M.,
& Beitins, I. Z. (1990). The onset of human puberty: Biological and
environmental factors. In J. Bancroft & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Adoles-
cence and puberty (pp. 2949). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hughes, P. E. (1994). The influence of boar libido on the efficacy of the
boar effect. Animal Reproduction Science, 35, 111118.
Hughes, P. E., Philip, G., & Siswadi, R. (1997). The effects of contact
frequency and transport on the efficacy of the boar effect. Animal
Reproduction Science, 46, 159165.
Hughes, R. E., & Jones, E. (1985). Intake of dietary fibre and the age of
menarche. Annals of Human Biology, 12, 325332.
Hulanicka, B. (1999). Acceleration of menarcheal age of girls from dys-
functional families. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 17,
119132.
Hulanicka, B., Gronkiewicz, L., & Koniarek, J. (2001). Effect of familial
distress on growth and maturation of girls: A longitudinal study. Amer-
ican Journal of Human Biology, 13, 771776.
Hwang, J. Y., Shin, C., Frongillo, E. A., Shin, K. R., & Jo, I. (2003).
Secular trends in age at menarche for South Korean women born
between 1920 and 1986: The Ansan study. Annals of Human Biology,
30, 434442.
Ibanez, L., Virdis, R., Potau, N., Zampolli, M., Ghizzoni, L., Albisu, M. A.,
et al. (1992). Natural history of premature pubarche: An auxological
study. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 74, 254257.
Izard, M. K. (1983). Pheromones and reproduction in domestic animals. In
J. G. Vandenbergh (Ed.), Pheromones and reproduction in mammals
(pp. 253285). New York: Academic Press.
Jankowiak, W., & Diderich, M. (2000). Sibling solidarity in a polygamous
community in the USA: Unpacking inclusive fitness. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 21, 125139.
Johnson, E. O., Kamilaris, T. C., Chrousos, G. P., & Gold, P. W. (1992).
Mechanisms of stress: A dynamic overview of hormonal and behavioral
homeostasis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 16, 115130.
Jones, B., Leeton, J., McLeod, I., & Wood, C. (1972). Factors influencing
the age of menarche in a lower socio-economic group in Melbourne.
Medical Journal of Australia, 2, 533535.
Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Rodgers, B., Jacomb, P. A., & Easteal, S.
(2004). Association of adverse childhood experiences, age of menarche
and adult reproductive behavior: Does the androgen receptor gene play
a role? American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric
Genetics, 125, 105111.
Kadlubar, F. F., Berkowitz, G. S., Delongchamp, R. R., Wang, C., Green,
B. L., Tang, G., et al. (2003). The CYP3A4*1B variant is related to the
onset of puberty, a known risk factor for the development of breast
cancer. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, 12, 327331.
Kanazawa, S. (2001). Why father absence might precipitate early men-
arche: The role of polygyny. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 329
334.
Kantero, R. L., & Widholm, O. (1971). The age of menarche in Finnish
girls in 1969. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, Supple-
ment, 14, 718.
Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J. B., & Hurtado, M. (2000). A theory of
human life history evolution: Diet, intelligence, and longevity. Evolu-
tionary Anthropology, 9, 156185.
Kaplan, H. S., & Lancaster, J. B. (2003). An evolutionary and ecological
analysis of human fertility, mating patterns, and parental investment. In
K. W. Wachter & R. A. Bulatao (Eds.), National Research Council
(2003) fertility behavior in biodemographic perspective (pp. 170223).
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Kaplan, J. R., Adams, M. R., Koritnik, D. R., Rose, J. C., & Manuck, S. B.
(1986). Adrenal responsiveness and social status in intact and ovariec-
tomized Macaca fascicularis. American Journal of Primatology, 11,
181193.
Kaplowitz, P. B., Slora, E. J., Wasserman, R. C., Pedlow, S. E., &
Herman-Giddens, P. A. (2001). Earlier onset of puberty in girls: Relation
to increased body mass index and race. Pediatrics, 108, 347353.
Kaprio, J., Rimpela, A., Winter, T., Viken, R. J., Rimpela, M., & Rose,
R. J. (1995). Common genetic influences on BMI and age at menarche.
Keiss, W., Meidert, A., Dressendorfer, K., Schriever, K., Kessler, U.,
Konig, A., et al. (1995). Salivary cortisol levels throughout childhood
and adolescence: Relation with age, pubertal stage, and weight. Pediat-
ric Research, 37, 502506.
Kelsey, J. L., Gammon, M. D., & John, E. M. (1993). Reproductive factors
and breast cancer. Epidemiologic Reviews, 15, 3647.
Ketelaar, T., & Ellis, B. J. (2000). Are evolutionary explanations unfalsi-
fiable? Evolutionary psychology and the Lakatosian philosophy of sci-
ence. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 121.
Khan, A. D., Schroeder, D. G., Martorell, R., Haas, J. D., & Rivera, J.
(1996). Early childhood determinants of age at menarche in rural Gua-
temala. American Journal of Human Biology, 8, 717723.
Khan, A. D., Schroeder, D. G., Martorell, R., & Rivera, J. A. (1995). Age
at menarche and nutritional supplementation. Journal of Nutrition,
125(Suppl.), 1090S1096S.
Kiernan, K. E., & Hobcraft, J. (1997). Parental divorce during childhood:
Age at first intercourse, partnership and parenthood. Population Studies,
51, 4155.
Kim, K., & Smith, P. K. (1998a). Childhood stress, behavioural symptoms
and mother-daughter pubertal development. Journal of Adolescence, 21,
231240.
Kim, K., & Smith, P. K. (1998b). Retrospective survey of parental marital
relations and child reproductive development. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 22, 729751.
Kim, K., Smith, P. K., & Palermiti, A. L. (1997). Conflict in childhood and
reproductive development. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 109
142.
Kirchengast, S., & Hartmann, B. (1994). The impact of the age of men-
arche on body build and sex hormone levels in healthy adult women
from Vienna, Austria. Anthropologie, 32, 205214.
Kirchengast, S., & Hartmann, B. (2000). Association between maternal age
at menarche and newborn size. Social Biology, 47, 114126.
Kirkwood, R. N., Cumming, D. C., & Aherne, F. X. (1987). Nutrition and
954
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
puberty in the female. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 46, 177
192.
Kirkwood, R. N., & Hughes, P. E. (1981). A note on the influence of boar
age on its ability to advance puberty in the gilt. Animal Production, 32,
211213.
Kissinger, D. G., & Sanchez, A. (1987). The association of dietary factors
with the age of menarche. Nutrition Research, 7, 471479.
Komura, H., Miyake, A., Chen, C. F., Tanizawa, O., & Yoshikawa, H.
(1992). Relationship of age at menarche and subsequent fertility. Euro-
pean Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 44,
201203.
Konner, M., & Shostak, M. (1986). Adolescent pregnancy and childbear-
ing: An anthropological perspective. In J. B. Lancaster & B. A. Hamburg
(Eds.), School-age pregnancy and parenthood (pp. 325345). New
York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Koo, M. M., Rohan, T. E., Jain, M., McLaughlin, J. R., & Corey, P. N.
(2002). A cohort study of dietary fibre intake and menarche. Public
Health Nutrition, 5, 353360.
Koprowski, C., Ross, R. K., Mack, W. J., Henderson, B. E., & Bernstein,
L. (1999). Diet, body size and menarche in a multiethnic cohort. British
Journal of Cancer, 79, 19071911.
Koziel, S., & Jankowska, E. A. (2002). Effect of low versus normal
birthweight on menarche in 14-year-old Polish girls. Journal of Paedi-
atrics and Child Health, 38, 268271.
Kulin, H. E., Bwibo, N., Mutie, D., & Santner, S. J. (1984). Gonadotropin
excretion during puberty in malnourished children. Journal of Pediat-
rics, 105, 325328.
Kunstadter, P., Kunstadter, S. L., Leepreecha, P., Podhisita, C., Laoyang,
M., Thao, C. S., et al. (1992). Causes and consequences of increase in
child survival rates: Ethnoepidemiology among the Hmong of Thailand.
Lam, T. H., Shi, H. J., Ho, L. M., Stewart, S. M., & Fan, S. (2002). Timing
of pubertal maturation and heterosexual behavior among Hong Kong
Chinese adolescents. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 359366.
Lancaster, J. B. (1986). Human adolescence and reproduction: An evolu-
tionary perspective. In J. B. Lancaster & B. A. Hamburg (Eds.), School-
age pregnancy and parenthood (pp. 1737). New York: Aldine De
Gruyter.
Lancaster, J. B., & Kaplan, H. S. (2000). Parenting other mens children:
Costs, benefits, and consequences. In L. Cronk, N. Chagnon, & W. Irons
(Eds.), Adaptation and human behavior: An anthropological perspective
(pp. 179201). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Legro, R. S., Lin, H. M., Demers, L. M., & Lloyd, T. (2003). Urinary free
cortisol increases in adolescent Caucasian females during perimenarche.
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 88, 215219.
Li, Y. J., & Zhou, Y. S. (1990). Study of factors associated with preterm
delivery. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi, 11, 229234.
Liestol, K. (1980). Menarcheal age and spontaneous abortion: A causal
connection? American Journal of Epidemiology, 111, 753758.
Lindgren, G. (1976). Height, weight and menarche in Swedish urban
school children in relation to socio-economic and regional factors.
Linhares, E. D., Round, J. M., & Jones, D. A. (1986). Growth, bone
maturation, and biochemical changes in Brazilian children from two
different socioeconomic groups. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
44, 552558.
Livson, N., & McNeill, D. (1962). The accuracy of recalled age of
menarche. Human Biology, 34, 218221.
Lombardi, J. R., & Vandenbergh, J. G. (1977, April 29). Pheromonally
induced sexual maturation in females: Regulation by the social environ-
ment of the male. Science, 196, 545546.
Lopez Contreras, M., Tovar Escobar, G., Farid Coupal, N., Landaeta
Jimenez, M., & Mendez Castellano, H. (1981). Comparative study of
height and age at menarche according to the socioeconomic level in
Venezuela. Archivos Latinamericanos de Nutricion, 31, 740757.
Lounana, J., Bantsimba, M., Silou, J., Packa-Tchissambou, B., & Medelli,
J. (2002). Effect of intensive and precocious sport activity on the age of
menarche in Congolese women population. Science and Sports, 17,
1725.
Luster, T., & Mittelstaedt, M. (1993). Adolescent mothers. In T. Luster &
L. Okagaki (Eds.), Parenting: An ecological perspective (pp. 6999).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacDonald, K. (1999). An evolutionary perspective on human fertility.
Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 21,
223246.
Maclure, M., Travis, L. B., Willett, W., & MacMahon, B. (1991). A
prospective cohort study of nutrient intake and age at menarche. Amer-
ican Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 54, 649656.
MacMahon, B., Trichopoulos, D., Brown, J., Andersen, A. P., Aoki, K.,
Cole, P., et al. (1982). Age at menarche, probability of ovulation and
breast cancer risk. International Journal of Cancer, 29, 1316.
Madrigal, L. (1991). Menarcheal age and spontaneous abortion: Further
evidence for a connection. American Journal of Human Biology, 3,
625628.
Malina, R. M. (1998). Physical activity, sport, social status and Darwinian
fitness. In S. S. Strickland & P. S. Shetty (Eds.), Human biology and
social inequality: 39th Symposium Volume of the Society for the Study of
Human Biology (pp. 165192). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Malina, R. M., Katzmarzyk, P. T., Bonci, C. M., Ryan, R. C., & Wellens,
R. E. (1997). Family size and age at menarche in athletes. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 29, 99106.
Malina, R. M., Ryan, R. C., & Bonci, C. M. (1994). Age at menarche in
athletes and their mothers and sisters. Annals of Human Biology, 21,
417422.
Manlove, J. (1997). Early motherhood in an intergenerational perspective:
The experiences of a British cohort. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 59, 263279.
Marcus, M. D., Loucks, T. L., & Berga, S. L. (2001). Psychological
Correlates of functional hypothalamic amenorrhea. Fertility and Steril-
ity, 76, 310316.
Marlowe, F. (2000). Paternal investment and the human mating system.
Behavioural Processes, 51, 4561.
Marlowe, F. W. (2003). The mating system of foragers in the Standard
Cross-Cultural Sample. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Com-
parative Social Science, 37, 282306.
Marshall, L. M., Spiegelman, D., Goldman, M. B., Manson, J. E., Colditz,
G. A., Barbieri, R. L., et al. (1998). A prospective study of reproductive
factors and oral contraceptive use in relation to the risk of uterine
leiomyomata. Fertility and Sterility, 70, 432439.
Martin, E. J., Brinton, L. A., & Hoover, R. (1983). Menarcheal age and
miscarriage. American Journal of Epidemiology, 117, 634636.
Mayaux, M. J., Spira, A., & Schwartz, D. (1983). Re: Menarcheal age and
spontaneous abortion: A casual connection? American Journal of Ep-
idemiology, 117, 377378.
McClintock, M. K., & Herdt, G. (1996). Rethinking puberty: The devel-
opment of sexual attraction. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-
ence, 5, 178183.
McCormick, M. C. (1985). The contribution of low birth weight to infant
mortality and childhood morbidity. New England Journal of Medicine,
312, 8290.
McEwen, B. S. (1998). Protective and damaging effects of stress media-
tors. New England Journal of Medicine, 338, 171179.
McPherson, C. P., Sellers, T. A., Potter, J. D., Bostick, R. M., & Folsom,
A. R. (1996). Reproductive factors and risk of endometrial cancer. The
Iowa Womens Health Study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 143,
11951202.
Meaney, M. J. (2001). Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmis-
sion of individual differences in stress reactivity across generations.
Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 11611192.
955
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
Mekos, D., Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (March, 1992).
Psychosocial influences on the rate and timing of pubertal development.
In L. Steinberg (Chair), Psychosocial antecedents of the timing of
puberty. Symposium conducted at the biennial meeting of the Society for
Research on Adolescence, Washington, DC.
Merzenich, H., Boeing, H., & Wahrendorf, J. (1993). Dietary fat and sports
activity as determinants for age at menarche. American Journal of
Epidemiology, 138, 217224.
Meyer, F., Moisan, J., Marcoux, D., & Bouchard, C. (1990). Dietary and
physical determinants of menarche. Epidemiology, 1, 377381.
Meyer, J. M., Eaves, L. J., Heath, A. C., & Martin, N. G. (1991).
Estimating genetic influences on the age-at-menarche: A survival anal-
ysis approach. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 39, 148154.
Mezzich, A. C., Tarter, R. E., Giancola, P. R., Lu, S., Kirisci, L., & Parks,
S. (1997). Substance use and risky sexual behavior in female adoles-
cents. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 44, 157166.
Midyett, L. K., Moore, W. V., & Jacobson, J. D. (2003). Are pubertal
changes in girls before age 8 benign? Pediatrics, 111, 4751.
Mikach, S. M., & Bailey, J. M. (1999). What distinguishes women with
unusually high numbers of sex partners? Evolution and Human Behav-
ior, 20, 141150.
Miller, B. C., Norton, M. C., Curtis, T., Hill, E. J., Schvaneveldt, P., &
Young, M. H. (1997). The timing of sexual intercourse among adoles-
cents: Family, peer, and other antecedents. Youth & Society, 29, 5483.
Miller, B. C., Norton, M. C., Fan, X., & Christopherson, C. R. (1998).
Pubertal development, parental communication, and sexual values in
relation to adolescent sexual behaviors. Journal of Early Adolescence,
18, 2752.
Miller, E. M. (1994). Optimal adjustment of mating effort to environmental
conditions: A critique of Chisholms application of life history theory,
with comments on race differences in male paternal investment strate-
gies. Mankind Quarterly, 34, 297316.
Miller, W. B., & Pasta, D. J. (2000). Early family environment, reproduc-
tive strategy, and contraceptive behavior: Testing a genetic hypothesis.
In J. L. Rodgers, D. C. Rowe, & W. B. Miller (Eds.), Genetic influences
on human fertility and sexuality (pp. 183230). Boston: Kluwer Aca-
demic.
Moerman, M. L. (1982). Growth of the birth canal in adolescent girls.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 143, 528532.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Belsky, J., & Silva, P. A. (1992). Childhood
experience and the onset of menarche: A test of a sociobiological model.
Child Development, 63, 4758.
Moisan, J., Meyer, F., & Gingras, S. (1990a). Diet and age at menarche.
Cancer Causes and Control, 1, 149154.
Moisan, J., Meyer, F., & Gingras, S. (1990b). A nested case-control study
of the correlates of early menarche. American Journal of Epidemiology,
132, 953961.
Montero, P., Bernis, C., Loukid, M., Hilali, K., & Baali, A. (1999).
Characteristics of menstrual cycles in Moroccan girls: Prevalence of
dysfunctions and associated behaviours. Annals of Human Biology, 26,
243249.
Monti-Bloch, L., Jennings-White, C., & Berliner, D. L. (1998). The human
vomeronasal system. A review. In C. Murphy (Ed.), Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences: Vol. 855. Olfaction and Taste XII: An
international symposium (pp. 373389). New York: New York Acad-
emy of Sciences.
Mul, D., Oostdijk, W., & Drop, S. L. S. (2002). Early puberty in adopted
children. Hormone Research, 57, 19.
Must, A., Phillips, S. M., Naumova, E. N., Blum, M., Harris, S., Dawson-
Hughes, B., & Rand, W. M. (2002). Recall of early menstrual history
and menarcheal body size: After 30 years, how well do women remem-
ber? American Journal of Epidemiology, 155, 672679.
Nappi, R. E., & Facchinetti, F. (2003). Psychoneuroendocrine correlates of
secondary amenorrhea. Archives of Womens Mental Health, 6, 8389.
Netherton, C., Goodyer, I., Tamplin, A., & Herbert, J. (2004). Salivary
cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone in relation to puberty and gender.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29, 125140.
Oduntan, S. O., Ayeni, O., & Kale, O. O. (1976). The age of menarche in
Nigerian girls. Annals of Human Biology, 3, 269274.
Olivier, G., & Devigne, G. (1983). Biology and social structure. Journal of
Biosocial Science, 15, 379389.
Otor, S. C., & Pandey, A. (1998). Puberty and the family formation process
in Sudan: Age-at-menarche differential fecundity hypothesis revisited.
Social Biology, 45, 246259.
Overpeck, M. D., Brenner, R. A., Trumble, A. C., Trifiletti, L. B., &
Berendes, H. W. (1998). Risk factors for infant homicide in the United
States. New England Journal of Medicine, 339, 12111216.
Pacak, K., & Palkovits, M. (2001). Stressor specificity of central neuroen-
docrine responses: Implications for stress-related disorders. Endocrine
Reviews, 22, 502548.
Padez, C. (2003). Social background and age at menarche in Portuguese
university students: A note on the secular changes in Portugal. American
Journal of Human Biology, 15, 415427.
Parazzini, F., Bocciolone, L., Fedele, L., Negri, E., La Vecchia, C., &
Acaia, B. (1991). Risk factors for spontaneous abortion. International
Parazzini, F., Chatenoud, L., Tozzi, L., Benzi, G., Dal Pino, D., & Fedele,
L. (1997). Determinants of risk of spontaneous abortions in the first
trimester of pregnancy. Epidemiology, 8, 681683.
Peccei, J. S. (2000). Genetic correlation between the ages of menarche and
menopause. Human Nature, 11, 4363.
Petersen, A. C., Crockett, L., Richards, M., & Boxer, A. (1988). A
self-report measure of pubertal status: Reliability, validity, and initial
norms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17, 117133.
Petridou, E., Syrigou, E., Toupadaki, N., Zavitsanos, X., Willett, W., &
Trichopoulos, D. (1996). Determinants of age at menarche as early life
predictors of breast cancer risk. International Journal of Cancer, 68,
193198.
Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Supportive parenting,
ecological context, and childrens adjustment: A seven-year longitudinal
study. Child Development, 68, 908923.
Phinney, V. G., Jensen, L. C., Olsen, J. A., & Cundick, B. (1990). The
relationship between early development and psychosexual behaviors in
adolescent females. Adolescence, 25, 321332.
Plant, T. M., & Barker-Gibb, M. L. (2004). Neurobiological mechanisms
of puberty in higher primates. Human Reproduction Update, 10, 6777.
Prado, C. (1984). Secular change in menarche in women in Madrid. Annals
of Human Biology, 11, 165166.
Prado, C. (1990). Report on the natural interruption of pregnancy related to
menarche in the population of Madrid. American Journal of Human
Biology, 2, 691694.
Prebeg, Z., & Bralic, I. (2000). Changes in menarcheal age in girls exposed
to war conditions. American Journal of Human Biology, 12, 503508.
Preti, G., Cutler, W. B., Garcia, C. R., Huggins, G. R., Lawley, H. J., &
Krieger, A. (1986). Human axillary secretions influence womens men-
strual cycles: The role of donor extract of females. Hormones and
Behavior, 20, 474482.
Promislow, D. E. L., & Harvey, P. H. (1990). Living fast and dying young:
A comparative analysis of life-history variation among mammals. Jour-
nal of Zoology, London, 220, 417437.
Proos, L. A., Hofvander, Y., & Tuvemo, T. (1991). Menarcheal age and
growth pattern of Indian girls adopted in Sweden. I. Menarcheal age.
Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica, 80, 852858.
Qamra, S. R., Mehta, S., & Deodhar, S. D. (1990). Physical growth in
school girls: Relationship to socio-economic status and dietary intake
II. Indian Pediatrics, 27, 10511065.
Qamra, S. R., Mehta, S., & Deodhar, S. D. (1991). A mixed-longitudinal
study on the pattern of pubertal growth: Relationship to socioeconomic
status and caloric-intakeIV. Indian Pediatrics, 28, 147156.
956
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
Quinlan, R. J. (2003). Father absence, parental care, and female reproduc-
tive development. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 376390.
Riley, A. P. (1994). Determinants of adolescent fertility and its conse-
quences for maternal health, with special reference to rural Bangladesh.
In K. L. Campbell & J. W. Wood (Eds.), Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences: Vol. 709. Human reproductive ecology: Interac-
tions of environment, fertility, and behavior (pp. 86100). New York:
New York Academy of Sciences.
Rivier, C., & Rivest, S. (1991). Effect of stress on the activity of the
hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis: Peripheral and central mecha-
nisms. Biology of Reproduction, 45, 523532.
Roberts, D. F., & Dann, T. C. (1975). A 12-year study of menarcheal age.
British Journal of Preventive and Social Medicine, 29, 3139.
Rockhill, B., Moorman, P. G., & Newman, B. (1998). Age at menarche,
time to regular cycling, and breast cancer (North Carolina, United
States). Cancer Causes and Control, 9, 447453.
Roff, D. (1992). The evolution of life histories: Theory and analysis. New
York: Chapman & Hall.
Romans, S. E., Martin, M., Gendall, K., & Herbison, G. P. (2003). Age of
menarche: The role of some psychosocial factors. Psychological Medi-
cine, 33, 933939.
Rosenberg, M. (1991). Menarcheal age for Norwegian women born 1830
1960. Annals of Human Biology, 18, 207219.
Rowe, D. C. (2000a). Environmental and genetic influences on pubertal
development: Evolutionary life history traits. In J. L. Rodgers, D. C.
Rowe, & W. B. Miller (Eds.), Genetic influences on human fertility and
sexuality: Theoretical and empirical contributions from the biological
and behavioral sciences (pp. 147168). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Rowe, D. C. (2000b). [Review of the book Death, hope and sex: Steps to
an evolutionary ecology of mind and morality]. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 21, 347364.
Rowe, D. C. (2002). On genetic variation in menarche and age at first
sexual intercourse: A critique of the BelskyDraper hypothesis. Evolu-
tion and Human Behavior, 23, 365372.
Rowe, D. C., Jacobson, K. C., & Van den Oord, E. J. C. G. (1999). Genetic
and environmental influences on vocabulary IQ: Parental education level
as moderator. Child Development, 70, 11511162.
Saltzman, W., Schultz-Darken, N. J., & Abbott, D. H. (1997). Familial
influences on ovulatory function in common marmosets (Callithrix
jacchus). American Journal of Primatology, 41, 159177.
Sanchez-Andres, A. (1997). Genetic and environmental factors affecting
menarcheal age in Spanish women. Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 55,
6978.
Sanders, S. A., & Reinisch, J. M. (1990). Biological and social influences
on the endocrinology of puberty: Some additional considerations. In J.
Bancroft & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Adolescence and puberty: Vol. 3. The
Kinsey Institute series (pp. 5062). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sandler, D. P., Wilcox, A. J., & Horney, L. F. (1984). Age at menarche and
subsequent reproductive events. American Journal of Epidemiology,
119, 765774.
Satyanarayana, K., & Naidu, A. N. (1979). Nutrition and menarche in rural
Hyderabad. Annals of Human Biology, 6, 163165.
Schadler, M. H. (1983). Male siblings inhibit reproductive activity in
female pine voles, Microtus pinetorum. Biology of Reproduction, 28,
11371139.
Schlegel, A., & Barry, H., III (1991). Adolescence: An anthropological
inquiry. New York: Free Press.
Scholl, T. O., Hediger, M. L., Vasilenko, P., III, Ances, I. G., Smith, W.,
& Salmon, R. W. (1989). Effects of early maturation on fetal growth.
Scholl, T., Miller, L., Salmon, R. W., Vasilenko, P., & Johnston, F. E.
(1987). Effects of age at menarche on preterm birth, low birth weight,
and small for gestational age [Abstract]. American Journal of Epidemi-
ology, 126, 746.
Schwartz, S. M., Wilson, M. E., Walker, M. L., & Collins, D. C. (1985).
Social and growth correlates of puberty onset in female rhesus monkeys.
Nutrition and Behavior, 2, 225232.
Segalowitz, S. J. (1999). Why twin studies really dont tell us much about
human heritability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 904905.
Sellers, T. A., Kushi, L. H., Potter, J. D., Kaye, S. A., Nelson, C. L.,
McGovern, P. G., & Folsom, A. R. (1992). Effect of family history,
body-fat distribution, and reproductive factors on the risk of postmeno-
pausal breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 326, 1323
1329.
Sharma, M. B., & Chowdhury, D. (1995). Menarche and fertility: A
correlation study among the Gond tribe of Maharashtra. Journal of
Human Ecology, 6, 209212.
Shonkoff, J., & Phillips, D. (2000). From neurons to neighbourhoods: The
science of early child development. Washington, DC: National Acade-
mies Press.
Sigg, H., Stolba, A., Abegglen, J. J., & Dasser, V. (1982). Life history of
hamadryas baboons: Physical development, infant mortality, reproduc-
tive parameters and family relationships. Primates, 23, 473487.
Singh, S. P., & Malhotra, P. (1988). Secular shift in menarcheal age of
Patiala (India) schoolgirls between 1974 and 1986. Annals of Human
Biology, 15, 7780.
Snieder, H., MacGregor, A. J., & Spector, T. D. (1998). Genes control the
cessation of a womans reproductive life: A twin study of hysterectomy
and age at menopause. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metab-
olism, 83, 18751880.
Solomon, N. G., Vandenbergh, J. G., Wekesa, K. S., & Barghusen, L.
(1996). Chemical cues are necessary but insufficient for reproductive
activation of female pine voles (Microtus pinetorum). Biology of Repro-
duction, 54, 10381045.
Soriguer, F. J., Gonzalez-Romero, S., Esteva, I., Garcia-Arnes, J. A.,
Tinahones, F., Ruiz de Adana, M. S., et al. (1995). Does the intake of
nuts and seeds alter the appearance of menarche? Acta Obstetricia
Gynecologica Scandinavica, 74, 455461.
Sreedhar, R., Ghosh, K. K., & Chakravarty, I. (1983). Effect of nutritional
status on the circulatory gonadotrophin levels in girls before puberty.
Human Nutrition: Clinical Nutrition, 37, 373379.
Stavrou, I., Zois, C., Ioannidis, J. P., & Tsatsoulis, A. (2002). Association
of polymorphisms of the oestrogen receptor alpha gene with the age of
menarche. Human Reproduction, 17, 11011105.
Stearns, S. (1992). The evolution of life histories. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Stearns, S., & Koella, J. C. (1986). The evolution of phenotypic plasticity
in life-history traits: Predictions of reaction norms for age and size at
maturity. Evolution, 40, 893913.
Steinberg, L. (1988). Reciprocal relation between parentchild distance
and pubertal maturation. Developmental Psychology, 24, 122128.
Stern, K., & McClintock, M. K. (1998, March 12). Regulation of ovulation
by human pheromones. Nature, 392, 177179.
Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Implications of the restricted range of family
environments for estimates of heritability and nonshared environment in
behavior-genetic adoption studies. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 392
409.
Strassmann, B. I., & Gillespie, B. (2002). Life-history theory, fertility and
reproductive success in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society Lon-
don, Series B, 269, 553562.
Strobino, D. M., Ensminger, M. E., Kim, Y. J., & Nanda, J. (1995).
Mechanisms for maternal age differences in birth weight. American
Sulloway, F. J. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and
creative lives. New York: Pantheon Books.
Surbey, M. K. (1990). Family composition, stress, and the timing of human
menarche. In T. E. Ziegler & F. B. Bercovitch (Eds.), Monographs in
primatology: Vol. 13. Socioendocrinology of primate reproduction (pp.
1132). New York: Wiley-Liss.
957
PUBERTAL TIMING
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
Surbey, M. K. (1998). Parent and offspring strategies in the transition at
adolescence. Human Nature, 9, 6794.
Syamala, T. S. (2001). Relationship between infant and child mortality and
fertility: An enquiry into Goan women. Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 68,
11111115.
Tahirovic, H. F. (1998). Menarchal age and the stress of war: An example
from Bosnia. European Journal of Pediatrics, 157, 978980.
Tanner, J. M. (1962). Growth and adolescence (2nd ed.). Oxford, England:
Blackwell Scientific.
Tanner, J. M. (1990). Fetus into man (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Thompson, L. H., & Savage, J. S. (1978). Age at puberty and ovulation rate
in gilts in confinement as influenced by exposure to a boar. Journal of
Animal Science, 47, 11411144.
Treloar, A. E. (1974). Menarche, menopause, and intervening fecundabil-
ity. Human Biology, 46, 89107.
Treloar, S. A., & Martin, N. G. (1990). Age at menarche as a fitness trait:
Nonadditive genetic variance detected in a large twin sample. American
Journal of Human Genetics, 47, 137148.
Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., DOnofrio, B., & Gottesman, I. I.
(2003). Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young chil-
dren. Psychological Science, 14, 623628.
Turkheimer, E., & Waldron, M. (2000). Nonshared environment: A theo-
retical, methodological, and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin,
126, 78108.
Turner, P. K., Runtz, M. G., & Galambos, N. L. (1999). Sexual abuse,
pubertal timing, and subjective age in adolescent girls: A research note.
Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 17, 111118.
Udry, J. R. (1979). Age at menarche, at first intercourse, and at first
pregnancy. Journal of Biosocial Science, 11, 433441.
Udry, J. R., & Cliquet, R. L. (1982). A cross-cultural examination of the
relationship between ages at menarche, marriage, and first birth. De-
mography, 19, 5363.
van den Akker, O. B. A., Stein, G. S., Neale, M. C., & Murray, R. M.
(1987). Genetic and environmental variation in menstrual cycle: Histo-
ries of two British twin samples. Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemello-
logiae (Roma), 36, 541548.
van Noord, P. A., & Kaaks, R. (1991). The effect of wartime conditions
and the 194445 Dutch famine on recalled menarcheal age in partic-
ipants of the DOM breast cancer screening project. Annals of Human
Biology, 18, 5770.
Vandenbergh, J. G. (1983). Pheromonal regulation of puberty. In J. G.
Vandenbergh (Ed.), Pheromones and reproduction in mammals (pp.
95112). New York: Academic Press.
Varea, C., Bernis, C., & Elizondo, S. (1993). Physiological maturation,
reproductive patterns, and female fecundity in a traditional Moroccan
population (Amizmiz, Marrakech). American Journal of Human Biol-
ogy, 5, 297304.
Veronesi, F. M., & Gueresi, P. (1994). Trend in menarcheal age and
socioeconomic influence in Bologna (northern Italy). Annals of Human
Biology, 21, 187196.
Vihko, R., & Apter, D. (1984). Endocrine characteristics of adolescent
menstrual cycles: Impact of early menarche. Journal of Steroid Bio-
chemistry, 20(1), 231236.
Voland, E. (1998). Evolutionary ecology of human reproduction. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 27, 347374.
Wallace, R. B., Sherman, B. M., Bean, J. A., Leeper, J. P., & Treloar, A. E.
(1978). Menstrual cycle patterns and breast cancer risk factors. Cancer
Research, 38(11, Pt. 2), 40214024.
Wang, D., & Murphy, M. (2002). Trends and differentials in menarcheal
age in China. Journal of Biosocial Science, 34, 349361.
Warren, M. P. (1983). Effects of undernutrition on reproductive function in
the human. Endocrine Reviews, 4, 363377.
Wasser, S. K., & Barash, D. P. (1983). Reproductive suppression among
female mammals: Implications for biomedicine and sexual selection
theory. Quarterly Review of Biology, 58, 513538.
Waynforth, D. (2002). Evolutionary theory and reproductive responses to
father absence: Implications of kin selection and the reproductive returns
to mating and parenting effort. In C. S. E. Tamis-LeMonda & N. E.
Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary per-
spectives (pp. 337357). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wellens, R., Malina, R. M., Beunen, G., & Lefevre, J. (1990). Age at
menarche in Flemish girls: Current status and secular change in the 20th
century. Annals of Human Biology, 17, 145152.
Wellens, R., Malina, R., Roche, A., Chumlea, W., Guo, S., & Siervogel, R.
(1992). Body size and fatness in young adults in relation to age at
menarche. American Journal of Human Biology, 4, 913924.
West-Eberhard, M. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. Ox-
ford, England: Oxford University Press.
Widowski, T. M., Porter, T. A., Ziegler, T. E., & Snowdon, C. T. (1992).
The stimulatory effect of males on the initiation but not the maintenance
of ovarian cycling in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). American
Journal of Primatology, 26, 97108.
Widowski, T. M., Ziegler, T. E., Elowson, A. M., & Snowdon, C. T.
(1990). The role of males in the stimulation of reproductive function in
female cotton-top tamarins, Saguinus o. oedipus. Animal Behaviour, 40,
731741.
Wierson, M., Long, P. J., & Forehand, R. L. (1993). Toward a new
understanding of early menarche: The role of environmental stress in
pubertal timing. Adolescence, 28, 913924.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1997). Life expectancy, economic inequality,
homicide, and reproductive timing in Chicago neighbourhoods. British
Medical Journal, 314, 12711274.
Worthman, C. M. (1999). Evolutionary perspectives on the onset of pu-
berty. In W. Trevethan, E. O. Smith, & J. J. McKenna (Eds.), Evolu-
tionary medicine (pp. 135163). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wu, M. L., Whittemore, A. S., Paffenbarger, R. S., Jr., Sarles, D. L.,
Kampert, J. B., Grosser, S., et al. (1988). Personal and environmental
characteristics related to epithelial ovarian cancer. I. Reproductive and
menstrual events and oral contraceptive use. American Journal of Epi-
demiology, 128, 12161227.
Wyshak, G. (1983). Age at menarche and unsuccessful pregnancy out-
come. Annals of Human Biology, 10, 6973.
Xu, B., Jarvelin, M. R., Xu, X., Wang, Z., Qin, H., & Rimpela, A. (1997).
Maternal menstrual history and small-for-gestational-age births in a
population-based Chinese birth cohort. Early Human Development, 49,
183192.
Yehuda, R. (2002). Post-traumatic stress disorder. New England Journal of
Medicine, 346, 108114.
Ziegler, T. E., Snowdon, C. T., & Uno, H. (1990). Social interactions and
determinants of ovulation in tamarins (Saguinus). In T. E. Ziegler & F.
Bercovitch (Eds.), Monographs in primatology: Vol. 13. The socioen-
docrinology of primate reproduction (pp. 113124). New York: Wiley-
Liss.
Received February 7, 2004
Revision received June 9, 2004
Accepted July 1, 2004
958
ELLIS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.

EXHIBIT 36
ACADEMIC
PRESS
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
SCI El N C IB@ I) I R IBCT
Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 63- 78
Journal of
Adolescence
www .elsevier .com/locate/jado
The role of father involvement in children's later mental health
Eirini Flo uri*, Ann Buchanan
Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Oxford, Barnett House, 32 Wellington Square,
Oxford OX! 2ER, UK
Received 7 December 2001; received in revised form 20 June 2002; accepted 22 July 2002
Abstract
Data on 8441 cohort members of the National Child Development Study were used to explore links
between father involvement at age 7 and emotional and behavioural problems at age 16, and between father
involvement at age 16 and psychological distress at age 33, controlling for mother involvement and known
confounds. Father involvement at age 7 protected against psychological maladjustment in adolescents from
non-intact families, and father involvement at age 16 protected against adult psychological distress in
women. There was no evidence suggesting that the impact of father involvement in adolescence on
children's later mental health in adult life varies with the level of mother involvement.
2002 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
Keywords: National child development study; Father involvement; Mother involvement; Mental health
1. Introduction
Life history research has demonstrated that as the child grows up there will be both factors
which will be associated with an increased risk of psychiatric disorder and factors which protect
the child against this risk (Caprara & Rutter, 1995). High self-esteem, for instance, good coping
skills, school achievement, involvement in extra-curriculum activities, and positive relationships
with parents, peers a nd adults (Compas, 1995; Merikangas & Angst, 1994; Petersen et al., 1993), a
high IQ (Fergusson & Lynskey, 1996), and school success a nd qualifications (Jenkins & Smith,
1990; Rutter, 1989) have all been shown to be inversely related lO emotional and behavioural
problems. By contrast, family adversities, confljcted family relationships and punitive child-
rearing practices (Richman, Stevenson, & Graham, 1982; Webster-Stratton, 1988, 1990;
*Corresponding author. Tel.: + 44- 1865-270351; fax: + 44- 1865-270324.
E-ma;/ address: eirini.flouri@socres.ox.ac. uk (E. Flo uri).
0140- 1971/02/$30.00 2002 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Pll: S 0 I 4 0- I 9 7 I ( 0 2) 0 0 I I 6- I
64 E. Flouri, A. Buchanan I Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 63- 78
Campbell, Pierce, March, & Ewing, 1991; McGee, Partridge, Williams, & Silva, 1991), parental
depression (Webster-Stratton, 1990), single parenting, family stress, poor family relationships
(McGee, Williams, & Silva, 1984), family ill mental health (Kovacs, 1997) and severe social and
economic disadvantage (Brown & Harris, 1978) have all been related to emotional and
behavioural problems even after controlling for genetic factors (Kovacs & Devlin, 1998; Silberg
et al. , 1996; Goodman & Stevenson, 1989).
Father involvement may be another factor associated with positive child outcomes but it has
received limited attention in recent psychological research (Cabrera, Tamis-LeManda, Bradley,
Hofferth, & Lamb, 2000). For many years research on children's development and well-being
focused on the dynamics between mothers and their children (Bowlby, 1982). Fathers were often
assumed to be on the periphery of children's lives and, so, of little direct importance to children's
development (Lamb, 1997). This lack of emphasis on the role of fathering in child development
and well-being is especially unfortunate given that there are several reasons why one should expect
fathers to be particularly significant in children's mental health outcomes. First, regarding the
direct effects of father involvement, a father's engagement with his child will likely exert influences
on child development in the same way that mother' s engagement does (Lamb, 1997), and paternal
accessibility might similarly offer the child a sense of emotional support (Cabrera et al., 2000).
Second, fathers' relationships with their children are distinct from mother-child relations with
fathers encouraging trheir children to be competitive and independent, and spending more time
than mothers in playful and physically stimulating interactions with their children (Lewis, 1986;
DeKlyen, Speltz, & Greenberg, 1998). Therefore, fathers may be particularly influential in the
development of certain aspects of child behaviour. Regarding the indirect effects of father
involvement, fathers' continuing financial support of their children can affect child outcomes by
influencing the economic structure of the household (Crockett, Eggebeen, & Hawkings, 1993;
Warin, Solomon, Lewis, & Langford, 1999). Finally, because marital problems disrupt fathering
more than mothering (Coiro & Emery, 1998), the positive child outcomes associated with father
involvement may be attributable to harmonious co-parental relations (Laucht et al., 2000).
Although much less research has been carried out on fathering than on mothering, some of the
findings are impressive. Barnett, Marshall, and Pleck, ( 1992), for instance, showed that sons who
reported a positive relationship with their mother or father had relatively low levels of
psychological distress. In fact, when measures of both the mother- child relationship and the
father-child relationship were entered simultaneously into a regression equation, only the father-
child relationship was significantly related to son's distress. More recently, Amato showed that
closeness to fathers during childhood was positively related to adult daughters' and sons'
educational and occupational mobility, psychological adjustment and well-being (Amato, 1994).
More recent research has shown that children with involved fathers tend to be more
psychologically well-adjusted, to do better at school, to engage in less antisocial ibehaviour and
to have more successful intimate relationships (Sanford et al., 1995; Gould, Shaffer, Fisher &
Garfinkel, 1997; Hwang & Lamb, 1997; Flouri & Buchanan, 2000, 2002). Father involvement and
nurturance are positively associated with children's intellectual development, social competence,
internal locus of control and the abi lity to empathize (e.g. Yongman, Kindlon, & Earls, 1995;
Fagan & Iglesias, 1999). Studies of father absence also consistently suggest that father absence is a
factor contributing to the lower well-being and academic attainment of children in mother-only
families. For instance, children in mother-only families have been found to score lower than other
E. Flouri, A. Buchanan I Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 63- 78 65
children on measures of academic achievement and cognitive ability (e.g. Mulkey, Crain, &
Harrington, 1992), to have a heightened risk of delinquency and deviant behaviour (Dornbusch
eta!. , 1985), to be more likely to give birth outside of marriage and to drop out of school (Amato,
1994). On the other hand, research also suggests that father absence has few consequences for
children once economic factors have been controlled (Crockett et a!., 1993; Tasker & Golombok,
1997). Other studies show, however, that even when economic factors are controlled, father
absence continues to be associated with an increased risk of child problems (Ama to, 1994).
Following up this line of research this study used data from the National Child Development
Study (NCDS) to show if, adjusting for mother involvement, father involvement protects against
both emotional and behavioural problems in adolescence and psychological distress in adult life.
In accordance with Bronfenbrenner' s (1979) ecological framework, factors within the broader
' ecology' (person, family, school) of the environment in which children are brought up which have
been found to be related to child mental health outcomes were also taken into account. The
control variables of the study were gender and socio-economic status. These variables were
controlled for because they are related to mental health outcomes (Buchanan, Ten Brinke, &
Flouri, 2000) and are likely to be related to father involvement (Amato, 1994; Flouri & Buchanan,
2002). In predicting mental health outcomes in adult life, especially, we also controlled for
contemporary factors, such as current socio-economic status and presence of children and
partner. Because the aim of this study was to explore the impact of father or father figure
involvement rather than father absence, those cohort members with no father figure were excluded
from the study sample. Family structure was assessed by the relationship of the father figure to the
child (the father figure is the child' s biological father or not). Because it has been suggested that
gender and family structure may moderate the relationship between father involvement and
children's mental health, this study also considered whether the association between father
involvement and later mental health is stronger for sons or daughters, and for children whose
father figure is their biological father or those whose father figure is not their natural father. In
addition, this study also examined if father involvement is more important to later mental health
when mother involvement is low rather than high (Amato, 1994). Finally, because there is
considerable evidence of continuity of psychological problems (Robins, 1991; Harrington, 1992;
Kovacs & Devlin, 1998; Buchanan et a!. , 2000), this study controlled for the effect of earlier
emotional and behavioral problems on later mental health outcomes.
2. Method
2.1. The NCDS
This study used dail:a from sweeps of NCDS. NCDS is a continuing longitudinal study of some
17,000 children born between 3 and 9 March 1958 in England, Scotland and Wales. To date six
follow-ups have been made. These were carried out in 1965 (when the cohort members were aged
7 years) , in 1969 (aged 11 years), in 1974 (aged 16 years), in 1981 (aged 23 years), in 1991 (aged 33
years), and in 2000 (aged 42 years). In addition, records of examination attainments at school-
leaving were obtained from schools and education authorities in 1978, when the cohort members
were aged 20.
Overall, the representative nature of the study has been generally maintained (Shepherd, 1993).
Refusals have been low. However, a major problem with NCDS is the possibility of bias in the
responding sample. Analysis of response bias has indica ted that there were particularly high losses
of participants in some more disadvantaged groups. It is possible that those who could not be
traced may be more disadvantaged than those who have been traced. Despite these limitations,
the NCDS is one of the best datasets available to investigate long-term effects of parental
background.
Because the aim of this study was to explore the role of father involvement in mental
health outcomes in adolescence (age 16) and adult life (age 33) om initial study sample was
those individuals (N = 8441) with complete mental health data at both age 16 and age 33. For
7563 of those 8441 cohort members there was information on the informant's relation to the
child at age 7. In particular, the informant was the mother or the mother figure for 97.9% of
the cases, 'other' for 1.5% of the cases, 'from records' for 35 cases (0.5%), and 'adoption study'
for 7 (0.1 %) cases. At age 16 there was information on the relationship of the informant to the
child for 8362 cases. Of those, the informant was the mother or mother figure for 90% of the
cases, the father or father figure for 5.9% cases, 'other' for 1.8% cases, and both parents for 2.3%
cases.
3. Measures
3.1. Mental health outcomes at ages 7, 16 and 33
Mental health outcomes in childhood and in adult life were assessed with the Rutter ' A' Health
and Behaviour Checklist and the Malaise Inventory, respectively (Rutter, Tizard, & Whitmore,
1970). The Rutter ' A' has been widely used to measure emotional well-being both in the United
Kingdom and elsewhere. In NCDS the full Rutter 'A' Health and Behaviour Checklist (31 items)
was completed by the parent or primary care giver at age 16, whereas at age 7 a shortened version
was used. Elliott and Richards (1991) used 14 questions about the child's behaviour answered by
the child's parent at age 7 to assess the child's behaviour. Sample items include: the child is
disobedient at home, fights with other children, and is irritable and quick to fly off the handle. For
both the Rutter 'A' at age 7 and 16 the parent was asked whether the description of the behaviour
applies to the child 'never', 'sometimes' or 'frequently'.
At age 33 cohort members in the study were asked to complete the Malaise Inventory. This test
is a 24-item list of symptoms from the Cornell Medical Index, developed by the Institute of
Psychiatry, and is a measure of psychological distress. The 24 Malaise symptoms are positive
responses to having backaches, becoming scared for no reason, being easily upset, beingji-ightened of
going out alone, suffering from upset stomach, etc. Although concerns have been expressed about
the uni-dimensional nature of the Malaise Inventory (Hirst & Bradshaw, 1983), more recent work
suggests that the Malaise Inventory is fairly robust (Grant, Nolan, & Ellis, 1990) with good
psychometric qualities (McGee, Williams, & Silva, 1986). Test scores ranged from 0 to 24 for the
14-item Rutter ' A' at age 7, from 0 to 39 for the 31-item Rutter ' A' at age 16, and from 0 to 22 for
the Malaise Inventory at age 33.
3.2. Father involvement and mother involvement at age 7
In NCDS there were four 3-point scales pertaining to father involvement and three 3-point
scales pertaining to mother involvement at age 7. The items on father involvement were ' outings
with father', 'father manages the child', 'father reads to child' (parental reports) and 'father is
interested in child's education' (teacher's report). The items on mother involvement were 'outings
with mother', 'mother reads to child' (parental reports), and 'mother is interested in child's
education' (teacher's report). A small percentage of mothers and fathers (3.3% and 1.8%,
respectively) were rated as 'over-concerned' about their child's education at age 7 and were
combined with those parents rated as 'very interested' (see Table l). Therefore, in line with
Lamb's (1986) framework for assessing father involvement, the study used developmentally
appropriate measures of accessibility a nd direct interaction. Accessibility can occur when the
father is actively interacting with the child, or when the father is not actively interacting with the
child, but is near enough to the child that he can become directly involved if needed. Direct
interaction involves the father interacting one-on-one with his child, such as playing, reading,
talking at dinner, or dressing the child. Direct interaction and accessibility are therefore not
mutually exclusive measures (Fagan & Iglesias, 1999).
Table I
Father and mother involvement items in NCDS (age 7) (N = 8441)
Items Father Mother
% of valid cases % of valid cases
I. Reads to child
Hardly ever 27 14.7
Occasionally 35.4 35. 1
Most weeks 37.6 50.2
Valid cases 7256 7458
2. Takes outings with the child
Hardly ever 5.4 1.3
Occasionally 23 12.4
Most weeks 71.7 86.3
3. Interested in child' s education
Little interest 21.4 13.7
Some interest 35.2 41.8
Very interested/over-concerned 43.5 44.5
4. Father manages the child
Left to mother 9.8 NJA
Mother does more 30.8 N/A
Equal to mother 59.5 NJA
Valid cases 7315 NJA
Because of the very small occurrence of low involvement responses in both mothers and fathers
(e.g. only 5.4% of the fathers and only 1.3% of the mothers were reported to never take outings
with the child), the low/ middle involvement responses were combined and two scales measuring
father involvement and mother involvement were computed from the sum of the four and the
three dichotomous items, respectively. Thus, the father involvement scale ranged from 0 to 4 and
the mother involvement scale from 0 to 3.
3.3. Father involvement and mother involvement at age 16
At age 16, there was only one item pertaining to father involvement and one item pertaining to
mother involvement. The items were, respectively, 'father is interested in child's education', and
' mother is interested in child' s education', both assessed by the child's teacher and coded as ' over-
concerned', ' very interested', 'some interest' , and 'little interest' . There were 5313 valid cases on
father involvement. Of those, 43.3% were 'very interested' , 34.9% showed 'some interest' , 18.8%
' little interest' and 3% were over-concerned. The mothers' results (N = 5889) were 44.8%, 36.8%,
16% and 2.4%, respectively. To compare father and mother involvement at age 7 with father and
mother involvement a t age 16, these two items at age 16 were coded as follows: Of the 5313 valid
cases, 2459 (46.3%) fathers were highly involved (the small number of 'over-concerned' fathers was
included in this group) and 2854 (53.7%) fathers were in the middle/ low involvement group. Of the
5889 mothers, 2778 (47.2%) were highly involved (again the small number of ' over-concerned'
mothers was included here), and 3111 (52.8%) were in the middle/ low involvement group.
3. 4. General ability at age 11
General ability was assessed with an 80-item general ability test, designed by the National
Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). The test had a Kuder- Richardson Formula 20
reliability of r = 0.94 (Pidgeon, 1966). The test scores ranged from 0 to 80.
3.5. Low academic motivation at age 16
Low academic motivation at age 16 was assessed with an 8-item scale (ranging from 8 to 40)
measuring academic motivation at age 16. The 5-point self-reports were anchored with ' not true at all'
and 'very true' and were as follows: ' I feel school is largely a waste of time', ' I am quiet in the
classroom and get on with my work',
1
'I think homework is a bore' , ' I find it difficult to keep my mind
on my work', 'I don't like school', 'I think there is no point in planing for the future- you should get
things as they come', and ' I am always willing to help the teacher' .' Cronbach' s alpha was 0.75.
3. 6. Educational attainment by age 20
Educational achievement was operationalized as in Maughan, Collishaw, and Pickles (1998).
When cohort members were aged 20 results in public examinations were collected from school and
educational authorities. The examination system in operation at the time included both the
1
Items inversely coded.
Table 2
The demographic characteristics of the 8441 participants
Variables n % Mean S.D.
Male gender 4122 48.8
Female gender 4319 51.2
Non-manual socio-economic group of parents at birth 6832 80.9
Manual (skilled or unskilled) socio-economic group of parents at birth 1139 13.5
Father figure is the natural father of the child at age 7 7117 84.3
Father figure is not the natural father of the child at age 7 268 3.2
Domestic tension, as reported by the Health Visitor, at age 7 336 4.0
No domestic tension, as reported by the Health Visitor, at age 7 6207 73.5
Parental ill mental health, as reported by the Health Visitor, at age 7 196 2.3
No parental ill mental health, as reported by the Health Visitor, at age 7 6730 79.7
Father involvement at age 7 (N = 4687) 2. 16 1.19
Mother involvement at age 7 (N = 6929) 1.82 0.90
Rutter 'A' Health and Behaviour Checklist ( 14 items) score at age 7 (N = 7046) 6.18 3.51
General a bility test score at age II (N = 7445) 44.70 15.43
Father figure is the natural father of the child at age 16 7401 87.7
Father figure is not the natural father of the child at age 16 472 5.6
High father involvement at age 16 2459 29.1
Medi um/ low father involvement at age 16 2854 33.8
High mother involvement at age 16 2778 36.9
Medi um/ low mother involvement at age 16 3111 32.9
Low academic motivation score, age 16 (N = 68 18) 19.15 5.98
Rutter 'A' Health and Behaviour Checklist (31 items) score at age 16 (N = 8441) 5.38 4.42
School-leaving qualifications by age 20 (N = 7491) 1.60 0.94
Non-manual socio-economic group at age 33 5419 64.2
Manual (skilled or unskilled) socio-economic group at age 33 2529 30.0
Is partnered at age 33 5830 69.1
Is not partnered at age 33 2331 27.6
Has children at age 33 5877 69.6
Has no children at age 33 2290 27.1
Malaise Inventory score at age 33 (N = 8441) 2.45 3.0 1
Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE) and the General Certificate of Education (GCE) for
England and Wales, and the Scottish Certificate of Education (SCE) for Scotland. Data were
collected on all examinations taken up to the time each cohort member left school. Passes in each
type and level of examination were combined to form a 4-item scale of the highest qualification
achieved which was as follows: (0) none, ( 1) < 0-level equivalent grades, (2) one or more 0-level
equivalent grades, and (3) one or more A-level equivalent grades. Table 2 shows the demographic
characteristics of our sample.
4. Results
Regarding family structure at age 7, there was information regarding fathers and father fi gures
for 7554 cohort members. For 94.2% of those children the father figure was their natural father,
for 1.2% their stepfather, for 0.1% their foster father, for 1.2% their adoptive father, for 0.7% a
grandfather, for 0. 1% 'other person', for 0.1% 'other situation', and for 2.2% (169 cases) there
was no father figure. At age 16, there was information regarding fathers and father figures for
8439 cohort members. For 87.7% of those children the father figure was their natural father, for
1.4% their adoptive father, for 2.6% their stepfather, for 0.1% their foster father, for 0.3% a
grandfather, for 0.3% an older brother, for 0.5% their mother's cohabitee, for 0.2% an uncle, for
0.1% a house father, for 0.1% ' other', and for 6.6% (558 cases) there was no father figure. At age
16 there was information relating to mother figures for all 8441 participants of the study, and at
age 7 for 7543 cohort members. The mother figure was the child's natural mother for 98% of the
cases at age 7, and for 95.4% cases at age 16.
Table 3 shows the regression (with listwise omission of cases with missing data) model
predicting emotional and behavioural problems at age 16. As can be seen in Table 3, compared to
their counterparts, girls and children from families with mental health problems had higher Rutter
' A' scores at age 16. Family structure and parental socio-economic status were not related to
child's later mental health. General ability test scores and academic motivation were negatively,
and emotional and behavioural problems at age 7 were positively related to emotional and
behavioural problems in adolescence. Neither mother involvement nor father involvement at age
7 were related to Rutter ' A' scores at age 16.
Table 4 shows a similar pattern. Again, father involvement and mother involvement at age 16
were not associated with psychological distress at age 33. As expected, adult psychological distress
was higher for women and was significantly predicted from emotional and behavioural problems
at age 16. Compared to their counterparts, the partnered at age 33 had lower and those with
children had higher Malaise scores. General ability and educational attainment were negatively
related to psychological distress in adult life but domestic tension in parental fami ly when the
cohort member was growing up and current manual socio-economic status were positively related
Table 3
Unstandardized regression coefficients (B), standard errors (SE) and test statistics (t) predicting emotional and
behavioural problems at age 16 from father involvement at age 7 (N = 2686)
Predictors
Constant
Female gender
Manual socio-economic group of parents, birth
Father figure is the biological father, age 7
Domestic tension, age 7
No parental ill mental health, age 7
Rutter 'A' score, age 7
Father involvement, age 7
Mother involvement, age 7
General abili ty, age II
Low academic motivation, age 16
R;di
F(dfl ,df2)
+p<O.IO; * *p<O.Ol; * * * p<O.OOI.
B
6 .. 804
0 .. 422
0 .. 070
-0 .. 101
0 . .213
-1 . .358
0..437
-0 .. 000
-0 .. 006
-0 .. 030
0.072
0 .. 185
62 .. 055***( 102,675)
SE
1.497
0.071
0.112
0.275
0.209
0.486
0.021
0.075
0.099
0.005
0.013
4.544***
5.940***
0.625
0.369
1.016
2.793**
20.928***
0.003
0.059
5.835** *
5.741***
Table 4
Unstandardized regression coefficients (B), standard errors (SE) and test statistics (t) predicting psychological distress at
age 33 from father involvement at age 16 (N = 2790)
Predictors
Constant
Female gender
General a bility, age II
Rutter ' A' score, age 16
School-leaving qualifications by age 20
Manual socio-economic group, age 33
Partnered, age 33
Has children, age 33
R;di
F(dfl ,df2)
+p<O. lO; * p<0.05; * *p<O.OI; * * * p<O.OOI.
B
2.98 1
0.399
0.353
0.106
-0.014
- 0.236
0. 109
-0.025
-0.019
-0.157
0.270
- 0.360
0.132
0.105
28. 180***{122,777)
SE
1.008
0.051
0.156
0.341
0.004
0.132
0.012
0.103
0.103
0.076
0.061
0.063
0.062
2.958**
7.897***
2.264*
0.311
3.250***
1.786 +
8.734***
0.243
0.187
2.078*
4.427** *
5.678***
2.142*
to psychological distress at age 33. Family structure in adolescence or parental ill mental health in
childhood were not related to adult psychological distress.
We also carried out a regression analysis to explore the role of father involvement at age 7 in
psychological distress at age 33. As can be seen in Table 5, the results are similar to the ones that
emerged from predict ing adult psychological distress from father and mother involvement at age
16. The only difference was that in this model domestic tension and parental status were not
related to psychological distress in adult life.
4. 1. Non-response bias analysis results
Additional analyses were undertaken to see if those missing biased the results in any way. These
analyses did not change the overall findings presented above, but they introduced some intriguing
questions. When index variables representing missing information on SES, family structure at age
7, domestic tension, and parental mental health, for instance, were introduced into the menta l
health at age 16 regression model alongside SES, family structure, domestic tension, and parenta l
mental health, it was found that those with valid data on parental SES at birth and those with
valid data on parental mental health at age 7 had more emotional and behavioural problems at
age 16 than those missing this information. Further, when index variables representing missing
information on current SES, family structure at age 16, domestic tension in the parental home,
parental mental healt h, a nd current pa rental status were entered into the psychological distress
model alongside current SES, family structure at age 16, domestic tension in the parental home,
parental mental health, and current parental status it was shown that those with valid data on
parenta l mental health at age 7 had higher psychological distress at age 33 than those with missing
data on parental mental health at age 7.
Table 5
Unstandardized regression coefficients (B), standard errors (SE) and test statistics (t) predicting psychological distress at
age 33 from father involvement at age 7 (N = 2951)
Predictors
Constant
Female gender
General a bility, age II
Rutter ' A' score, age 16
School-leaving qualifications by age 20
Manual socio-economic group, age 33
Partnered, age 33
Has children, age 33
R ~ d i
F(dfl ,df2)
+ p<O. IO; * p <0.05; * *p<O.Oi; * * * p<O.OOI.
4.2. Moderator effects
B
3.707
0.431
0.214
-0.054
-0.017
- 0.238
0.110
-0.026
-0.093
- 0.142
0.255
- 0.222
0.025
0.103
29.194***(122,938)
SE
0.955
0.050
0.143
0.319
0.004
0.182
0.012
0.053
0.070
0.073
0.060
0.062
0.061
3.880***
8.575***
1.495
0.168
3.938***
1.306
9.032***
0.497
1.332
1.960*
4.230***
3.575***
0.406
The next step in the analysis involved an examination of moderator variables. First, we created
two interaction terms by multiplying sex of offspring by father involvement and mother
involvement at age 7. These were entered in the regression equation along with the other variables.
Neither the association between mother involvement at age 7 and emotional and behavioural
problems at age 16 nor the one between father involvement at age 7 and emotional and
behavioural problems at age 16 was stronger for sons than for daughters (t = 0.300, df:2674l,
p > 0.05, and t = 0.875, df:2674, p > 0.05, respectively). To see if the impact of father involvement
at age 7 on mental hea lth outcomes at age 16 depends on the level of mother involvement at age 7,
we included an interaction term between father involvement and mother involvement in the
regression equation. The interaction term was insignificant, however (t = 0.138, df:2674, p > 0.05),
which suggests that the impact of father involvement does not vary with the degree of mother
involvement. Finally, we calculated interaction terms between family structure at age 7 and father
and mother involvement at age 7. The association between mother involvement at age 7 and
emotional and behavioural problems at age 16 failed marginally to be stronger for cohort
members whose father figure at age 7 was their biological father than for those whose father figure
was not (t = U ~ ~ df:2674, p<O.IO). However, the interaction between family structure and
father involvement was significant (t = 2.258, df:2674, p<0.05). Fig. 1 shows the interaction
between father involvement and family structure in childhood on psychological ma ladjustment in
adolescence. As can be seen in Fig. I early father involvement had more impact on decreasing
emotional and behavioural problems in adolescence when the father figure was not the child's
biological father than when he was (y = 7.717- 0.702x, and y = 6.240- 0.490x, respectively),
E. Flouri, A. Buchanan I Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 63- 78
10
CD
.....
Ql

-
Ill
Ill
E
Ql
:c
..
..
.. ..
..
..
e 6
c.
Ill
...
0
:;;
Ill
4
.I:l
'0
c:
Ill
iii
c:

2
- Father figure is the biological father at age 7
(y=6.240-0.490x)
w Father figure is not the biological father at
age 7 (y=7.717-0.702x)

1 2 3 4 5
Father involvement at age 7
73
Fig. I. Tlhe interaction between father involvement and family structure on emotional and behavioural problems
(Rutter ' A' scores) at age 16.
although the level of children' s problems remained higher with non-biological father figures. The
zero-order correlation between emotional and behavioural problems at age 16 and father
involvement at age 7 for intact and non-intact families also shows that father involvement is more
strongly related to less emotional and behavioural problems in non-intact families (r = -0.19,
p<0.05) t han in intact families (r = - 0.14, p<0.001).
We carried out similar analyses to check for interaction effects in predicting psychological
distress at age 33. First, we created two interaction terms by multiplying sex of offspring by father
involvement at age 16 and mother involvement at age 16. Both the association between mother
involvement at age I 6 and psychological distress at age 33 and the one between father involvement
at age 16 and psychological distress at age 33 were stronger for daughters than for sons (t = 2.884,
df:2776, p<O.Ol, and t = 2.308, df:2776, p<0.05, respectively). See Figs. 2 and 3 for a graphic
representation of these results. However, the association between father involvement at age 7 and
psychological distress at age 33 was not stronger for daughters than for sons (t = 1.901, df:2937,
p < 0. 1 0), although the association between mother involvement at age 7 and psychological
distress at age 33 was (t = 2.51 5, df:2937, p <0.05). We also calculated two interaction terms
between family structure at age 16 and father and mother involvement at age 16. Neither the
interaction between mother involvement at age 16, family structure at age 16 and psychological
distress in adult life, nor the one between father involvement at age 16, family structure at age 16
3.5
Mother involvement
<'l
3.0
"'
D Medium/low
<ll
Ol
"'
D High

Ul

8
2.5
Ul

2
c:
<ll
>
.f;
2.0
<ll
Ul
m
iii
::?;
c:
"'
<ll
::?;
1.5
1.0
Men Women
Fig. 2. The interaction between mother involvement at age 16 and gender on psychological dist ress at age 33.
3.5
Father involvement
D Medium/low
(")
<'l
3.0
<ll
Ol
"'
0High

Ul

0
(.)
Ul
2.5

0
c

E
2.0
<ll
Ul
m
iii
::?;
c:
"'
<ll
::?;
1.5
1.0
Men Women
Fig. 3. The interaction between father involvement at age 16 and gender on psychological distress at age 33.
and psychological distress in adult life was significant (t = 1. 374, df:2776, p > 0.05, and t = 1.850,
df:2776, p<O.l O, respectively). Similarly, neither the interaction between mother involvement at
age 7, family structure at age 7 and psychological distress in adult life, nor the one ibetween father
involvement at age 7, family structure at age 7 and psychological distress in adult life was
significant (t = 0.262, df:2937, p > 0.05, and t = 0.259, df:2937, p > 0.05, respectively). Finally, to
see if the impact of father involvement in adolescence on psychological distress in adult life
depends on the level of mother involvement we included an interaction term between father
involvement and mother involvement in the regression equation. The interaction term was
insignificant (t = 0.902, df:2776, p > 0.05), however, which suggests that the relationship between
father involvement atr age 16 and psychological distress at age 33 was not stronger when mother
involvement at age 16 was high than when mother involvement was low. However, the interaction
term between father involvement at age 7 and mother involvement at age 7 in psychologica l
distress at age 33 was significant (t = 2.386, df:2937, p < 0.05), which suggests that the relationship
between father involvement at age 7 and psychological distress at age 33 was stronger when
mother involvement at age 7 was low than when mother involvement was high.
5. Discussion
This study explored links between father figure involvement and later mental health outcomes.
Although early father figure involvement could not independently predict mental health outcomes
in adolescence and in adult life, it had a significantly protective role against psychological
maladjustment in adolescents from non-intact families, and against psychological distress in
women. There was no evidence suggest ing that the impact of father's involvement in adolescence
on mental health outcomes in adult life depends on the level of mother's involvement. The amount
of the variance in mental health outcomes at age 16 and 33 explained in our models is modest
(19% and 11%, respectively). But given all the factors in an individual's life that might contribute
to mental health outcomes later in life, it is not surprising that the variables we included in our
models played a modest role.
Caution is needed in interpreting these findings, however. Firstly, there remain the limitations
of any longitudinal study, in particular attrition, and the limitations of using data from the NCDS
which may be dated. Secondly, possible cohort effects should not be underestimated: our sample
was growing up in the 1960s, when fathers' involvement with their children was less active and
' intact' families with mothers outside of the labour force were more common than today. Thirdly,
in order to compare psychological assessments at two time periods only the cohort members who
had complete data on mental health at bot h age 16 and 33 were included in the analyses. Since we
know that the losses to the NCDS were greatest amongst the more disadvantaged children, it is
possible that this paper underestimates the long-term impact of disadvantage. Further, in order to
assess the impact of father involvement some cohort members with no fathers or father figures at
age 7 and 16 were excluded from the analyses even if they had complete mental health data.
Fourthly, for the majority of the cases the mother assessed both father and mother involvement at
age 7 (97.9%) and so, in essence, this study measured the effect of mother's perceived father and
mother involvement at age 7 on later mental health outcomes. Finally, the two father involvement
measures (at age 7 and 16) as well as the two psychological assessments are very different. Father
involvement at age 7 was a composite measure of being interested in the child's education, taking
outings with the child, reading to t he child, and having an active role in managing t he child. At
age 16 in NCDS the only item pertaining to father involvement was father's interest in child's
education. Regarding the mental health measures, the Rutter ' A' is a parent-report assessment,
while the Malaise Inventory is self-reported. Ideally, mental health problems should be assessed
from various sources .. In this study that was not possible. However, parental reports of the child's
mental health are generally very stable over time (Achenbach, 1995). On the other hand, it is
possible that the Malaise Inventory, which is more focused on emotional/depressive symptoms,
was rated up in women and down in men. Even so, however, it is still noteworthy that early father
involvement had an important protective role against psychological maladjustment and distress
later in life.
Acknowledgements
The study reported in this paper was supported by Grant No. R000223309 from the ESRC.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1995). Epidemiological applications of multiaxia l empirically based assessment and taxonomy. In F.
C. Verhulst, & H. M. Koot (Eds.), The epidemiology of child and adolescent psychopathology (pp. 22-41 ). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Amato, P. R. (1994). Father-child relations, mother-child relations, and offspri ng psychological well-being in early
adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 1031- 1042.
Barnett, R. C., Marshall, N. L. , & Pleck, J . H. ( 1992). Adult- son parent relationships and their associations with son's
psychological distress. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 505- 525.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 664-678.
Bronfenbrenner, U. ( 1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Brown, G. , & Harris, W. ( 1978). The origins of depression: A study of psychiatric disorder in women. London: Tavistock.
Buchanan, A., Ten Brinke, J ., & Flouri, E. (2000). Parental background, social. disadvantage, public ' care', and
psychological problems in adolescence and adulthood. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 39, 1415- 1423.
Cabrera, N. J., Tamis-LeMonda, S., Bradley, R. H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Fatherhood in the twenty-first
century. Child Development, 7I , 127- 136.
Campbell, S., Pierce, E. W. , March, C. L. , & Ewing, L. J. (1991). Noncompliant behavior, over-activity, and
family stress as predictors of negative maternal control with preschool children. Development and Psychopathology,
3, 175--190.
Caprara, G. Y., & Rutter, M. ( 1995). Individual development and social change. l n M. Rutter, & D. Smith (Eds.),
Psychosocial disorders in young people (pp. 35- 66). Chichester: Wiley.
Coiro, M. J., & Emery, R. E. (1998). Do marriage problems affect fathering more tb.an mothering? A quantitative and
qualitative review .. Clinical Child and Family Psychology RevielV, I , 23-40.
Compas, B. (1995). Promoting successful coping during adolescence. In M. Rutter (Ed.), Psychosocial disturbances in
young people: Challenges for prevention (pp. 247- 273). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crockett, L. J ., Eggebeen, D. J ., & Haw kings, A. J. (1993). Father's presence and young children's behavioral and
cognitive adjustment. Family Relations, 14, 355- 377.
DeKiyen, M. , Speltz, M. L. , & Greenberg, M. T. ( 1998). Fatheri ng and early onset conduct problems: Positive and
negative parenting, father- son attachment, and the marital context. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, I ,
3- 21.
Dornbusch, S., Carlsmith, J. M., Bush wall, S. J ., Ritter, P. L. , Leiderman, H. , Hastorf, A. H., & Gross, R. T. (1985).
Single parents, extended households, and the cont rol of adolescents. Child Development, 56, 326-341 .
Elliott, B. J. , & Richards, M.P. M. (1991) . Children and divorce: Educational performance and behaviour before and
after parental separation. International Journal of Law and the Family, 5, 258- 276.
Fagan, J., & Iglesias, A. ( 1999). Father involvement program effects on fathers, father figures, a nd t heir Head Start
children: A quasi-experimental study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14, 243-269.
Fergusson, D. M. , & Lynskey, M. T. ( 1996). Adolescent resiliency to family adversity. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 37, 281- 292.
Flouri, E. , & Buchanan, A. (2000). What predicts good relationships with parents in adolescence and partners in adult
life: Findings from the 1958 British birth cohort. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 186- 198.
Flouri, E. , & Buchanan, A. (2002). Life satisfaction in teenage boys: The moderati ng role of fat her involvement and
bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 126- 133.
Goodman, R., & Stevenson, J. (1989). A twin study of hyperactivi ty: I. An examination of hyperactivity scores and
categories derived from Rutter teacher and parent questionnaires. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30,
671- 709.
Gould, M. S., Shaffer, D., Fisher, P., & Garfinkel, R. (1997). Separation/divorce and child and adolescent completed
suicide. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 155- 162.
Grant, G., Nolan, M. , & Ellis, N. (1990). A reappraisal of the Malaise Inventory. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Epidemiology, 25, 170- 178.
Harrington, R. (1992). Annotation: The natural hi story and treatment of chi ld and adolescent affective disorders.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 1287- 1302.
Hirst, M. A., & Bradshaw, J . R. (1983). Evaluating the Malaise Inventory: A comparison of measures of stress. Journal
of Psychosomatic Research, 27, 193- 199.
Hwang, C. P., & Lamb, M. E. ( 1997). Father involvement in Sweden: A longitudinal study of its stabil ity and correlates.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 621- 632.
Jenkins, J . M ., & Smith, M. A. ( 1990). Factors protecting children living in di sharmonious homes: Maternal reports.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 60- 69.
Kovacs, M. (1997). Depressive disorders in childhood. Archives of General Psychiatry, 46, 776-782.
Kovacs, M., & Devlin, B. (1998). Internalizing disorders in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39,
147- 163.
Lamb, M. E. (1986). The changing role of fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The father's role: Applied perspectives
(pp. 3- 27). New York: Wiley.
Lamb, M. E. (1997). The role of the father in child development. New York: Wiley.
Laucht, M., Essser, G., Baving, L. , Gerhold, M., Hoesch, I. , l hle, W. , Steigleider, P., Stock, B., Stoehr, R. M.,
Weindrich, D., & Schmidt, M. H. (2000). Behavioral sequelae of perinatal insults a nd early family adversity at 8
years of age. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 1229- 1237.
Lewis, C. (1986). Becoming a father. Milton Keynes: Open Universi ty Press.
Maugha n, B., Collishaw, S., & Pickles, A. (1998). School achievement and adult qua lifications among adoptees: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 669- 685.
McGee, R. , Partridge, F., Williams, S., & Silva, P. A. (1991). A twelve-year follow-up of preschool hyperactive children.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 224-232.
McGee, R., Williams, S., & Silva, P. A. {1984). Behavioral and developmental characteristics of aggressive, hyper-
active a nd aggressive-hyperactive boys. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 23,
270- 279.
McGee, R. , Williams, S., & Silva, P. A. (1986). An evaluation of t he Malaise Inventory. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 30, 147-152.
Merikangas, K. R. , & Angst, J. (1994). The challenge of depressive disorders in adolescence. In M. Rutter (Ed.),
Psychosocial disturbances in young people: Challenges for prevention (pp. 131- 165). New York: Cam bridge University
Press.
Mulkey, L. M. , Crain, R. L. , & Harrington, A. J. C. (1992). One-parent households and achievement: Economic and
behavioral explanations of a small effect. Sociology & Education, 65, 48-{)5.
Petersen, A. C. , Compas, B., Brooks-Gunn, J ., Stemmler, M., Ey, S., & Grant, K. (1993). Depression in adolescence.
American Psychologist, 48, 155- 168.
Pidgeon, D. A. (1966). Tests used in 1954 and 1957 surveys. In J. W. B. Douglas (Ed.), The home and the school
(pp. 129- 132). London: Macgibbon & Kee.
Richman, N. , Stevenson, J ., & Graham, P. ( 1982). Preschool to school: A behavioural study. London: London Academic
Press.
Robins, L. N. (1991). Conduct disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32, 193- 212.
Rutter, M. (1989). l ntergenerational continuities and discontinuities in serious parenting difficulties. In D. Cicchetti, &
V. Car lson (Eds.), Child maltreatment (pp. 317- 348). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rutter, M. J., Tizard, J., & Whitmore, K. (1970). Education, health and behaviour. London: Longman.
Sanford, M., Szatmari, P., Spinner, M. , Munroe-Blum, H., Jamieson, E. , Walsh, C. , & Jones, D. ( 1995). Predicting the
one-year course of adolescent major depression. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 34, 1618- 1628.
Shepherd, P. (1993). Appendix 1: Analysis of response bias. [n E. Ferri (Ed.), Life at 33: The .fifth follow-up of Lhe
National Child Development Study. London: National Children's Bureau.
Silberg, J ., Rutter, M., Meyer, J., Maes, H., Hewitt, J. , Simonoff, E. , Pickles, A., Loeber, R., & Eaves, L. (1996).
Genetic and environmental influences on the covaration between hyperactivity and conduct disturbance in juvenile
twins. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 803- 816.
Tasker, F. L. , & Golombok, S. ( 1997). Growing up in a lesbian family: Effects on child development. New York:
Gui ldford Press.
Warin, J., Solomon, Y. , Lewis, C., & Langford, W. ( 1999). Fathers, work, and family life. London: Family Policy
Studies Centre.
Webster-Stratton, C. ( 1988). Mothers' and fathers' perceptions of child deviance: Roles of parent and child behaviors
and parent adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 909- 915.
Webster-Stratton, C. (1990). Long term follow-up of families with young conduct-problem children: From preschool to
grade school. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 1344-1349.
Yongman, M. W., Kindlon, D., & Earls, F. (1995). Father involvement and cognitive/behavioral outcomes ofpreterm
infants. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 58- 66.

EXHIBIT 37
Child
Development, May/June
2003,
Volume
74,
Number 3,
Pages
801-821
Does Father Absence Place
Daughters
at
Special
Risk for
Early
Sexual
Activity
and
Teenage Pregnancy?
Bruce
J. Ellis, John
E.
Bates,
Kenneth A.
Dodge,
David M.
Fergusson,
L.
John Horwood,
Gregory
S.
Pettit,
and Lianne Woodward
The
impact
of father absence on
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy
was
investigated
in
longitudinal
studies in the United States (N
=
242) and New Zealand (N
=
520),
in which
community samples
of
girls
were
followed
prospectively
from
early
in life (5
years)
to
approximately age
18. Greater
exposure
to father absence was
strongly
associated with elevated risk for
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy.
This elevated risk was
either not
explained
(in the U.S.
study)
or
only partly explained
(in the New Zealand
study) by
familial,
ecological,
and
personal disadvantages
associated with father absence. After
controlling
for
covariates,
there was
stronger
and more consistent evidence of effects of father absence on
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy
than on other behavioral or mental health
problems
or academic achievement. Effects of father absence are
discussed in terms of life-course
adversity, evolutionary psychology,
social
learning,
and behavior
genetic
models.
In modern Western
societies,
adolescent
girls
face a
biosocial dilemma. On the one
hand,
the
biological
capacity
to
reproduce ordinarily develops
in
early
adolescence;
on the other
hand,
girls
who realize this
capacity
before adulthood often
experience
a
variety
of
negative
life outcomes.
Specifically,
adolescent
childbearing
is associated with lower educational
and
occupational
attainment,
more mental and
physical
health
problems, inadequate
social
support
networks for
parenting,
and increased risk of abuse
and
neglect
for children born to teen mothers
(e.g.,
Furstenberg,
Brooks-Gunn,
&
Chase-Lansdale, 1989;
Konner &
Shostak, 1986;
Woodward &
Fergusson,
1999).
Despite
these
consequences,
the United States
and New Zealand have the first and second
highest
rates of
teenage pregnancy among
Western indus-
trialized countries.
Approximately
10% of
girls
in
the United States and 7% of
girls
in New Zealand
between the
ages
of 15 and 19
years
become
pregnant
each
year,
with around half of these
pregnancies culminating
in a live birth (Chees-
brough, Ingham,
&
Massey,
1999; Dickson,
Sporle,
Rimene,
&
Paul, 2000). Given these costs to
adolescents and their
children,
it is critical to
identify
life
experiences
and
pathways
that
place girls
at
increased risk for
early
sexual
activity
and adoles-
cent
pregnancy.
Many
studies have identified the absence of the
biological
father from the home as a
major
risk factor
for both
early
sexual
activity (e.g., Day,
1992;
Kiernan &
Hobcraft, 1997;
Newcomber &
Udry,
1987) and
teenage pregnancy (e.g.,
Geronimus &
Korenman, 1992;
Hogan
&
Kitagawa,
1985;
McLa-
nahan, 1999).
This
finding
is consistent with life-
course
adversity
models of
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy,
which
posit
that a life
history
of
familial and
ecological
stress
provokes
earlier onset
of sexual
activity
and
reproduction (e.g., Belsky,
Steinberg,
&
Draper,
1991;
Coley
&
Chase-Lansdale,
1998;
Fergusson
&
Woodward, 2000a; Robbins,
Kaplan,
&
Martin, 1985; Scaramella,
Conger,
Simons,
&
Whitbeck, 1998).
Life-course
adversity
models,
however,
do not attribute
any special
causal
sig-
nificance to father absence.
Instead,
these models
conceptualize
father absence as
just
one of
many
factors that can undermine the
quality
of
family
environments.
According
to life-course
adversity
models,
it is not father absence
per
se but various
Bruce
J. Ellis,
Department
of
Psychology, University
of Canter-
bury; John
E.
Bates,
Department
of
Psychology,
Indiana Uni-
versity;
Kenneth A.
Dodge,
Center for Child and
Family Policy,
Duke
University;
David M.
Fergusson
and L.
John Horwood,
Department
of
Psychological
Medicine, Christchurch School of
Medicine;
Gregory
S. Pettit,
Department
of Human
Development
and
Family
Studies,
Auburn
University;
Lianne Woodward,
Department
of Education,
University
of
Canterbury.
In the United
States,
this work was
supported by
National
Institute of Mental Health
grants
MH28018 and MH42498 and
National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development grant
HD30572. In New Zealand, this work was
supported by
the
Health Research Council, National Child Health Research
Foundation, the
Canterbury
Medical Research
Foundation,
and
the New Zealand
Lottery
Grants Board. We thank
Jay Belsky,
Ronald
Dahl, and Satoshi Kanazawa for comments on earlier
drafts of this article.
Correspondence concerning
this article should be addressed to
Bruce
Ellis,
Department
of
Psychology, University
of
Canterbury,
Private
Bag
4800, Christchurch, New Zealand. Electronic mail
may
be sent to:
bruce.ellis@canterbury.ac.nz.
?
2003
by
the
Society
for Research in Child
Development,
Inc.
All
rights
reserved. 0009-3920/2003/7403-0010
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:29:39 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
802 Ellis et al.
other
stressors associated with father absence
(e.g.,
divorce,
poverty,
conflictual
family relationships,
erosion of
parental monitoring
and
control) that
foster
early
sexual
activity
and
pregnancy
in
daughters
(see
Belsky
et
al., 1991,
p.
658; Chisholm,
1999,
p.
162; McLanahan, 1999,
p.
119;
Robbins et
al.,
1985,
p.
568;
Silverstein &
Auerbach, 1999,
p.
403).
In addition to the effects of life-course
adversity,
underlying personality
traits
may
account for the
relation between father absence and
early
sexual
outcomes in
daughters. Specifically,
certain
person-
ality
traits that
predispose girls
toward
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy may covary
with
father absence. Differences between children in
externalizing
behavior
problems-those
behaviors
considered to be
aggressive, disruptive,
or
opposi-
tional-derive in
part
from individual differences in
temperamental
characteristics such as
negative
emotionality
and resistance to control
(Bates, Pettit,
Dodge,
&
Ridge,
1998;
Rothbart &
Bates, 1998).
Children who
display externalizing
behavioral
pro-
blems
early
in life are at elevated risk for a
variety
of
negative psychosocial
outcomes in
adolescence,
including early
sexual
activity
and
teenage preg-
nancy (e.g.,
Bardone, Moffitt,
Caspi,
Dickson,
&
Silva, 1996; Quinton, Pickles,
Maughan,
&
Rutter,
1993;
Woodward &
Fergusson,
1999). Moreover,
individuals who have a
history
of
externalizing
disorders are not
only
at increased risk of
becoming
single parents
or absent
parents (e.g., Emery,
Waldron, Kitzmann,
&
Aaron, 1999;
Sampson
&
Laub, 1990) but also
may
transmit a
genetic disposi-
tion toward
externalizing
behavioral
problems
and
associated
personality
characteristics to their chil-
dren (Rhee &
Waldman, 2002;
personality
character-
istics associated with both sexual risk
taking
and
other forms of
delinquent
behavior in adolescence
are discussed in
Kotchick, Shaffer, Forehand,
&
Miller, 2001). Thus,
girls
from father-absent homes
may
be at elevated risk for
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy
because of
higher genetic loading
for
externalizing
behavior
problems.
In contrast to the life-course
adversity
and
personality
trait models, evolutionary
models
sug-
gest
that
early
onset of father absence
places
daughters
at
special
risk for
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy. Specifically, evolutionary
psychologists
have
hypothesized
that the
develop-
mental
pathways underlying
variation in
daughters'
reproductive strategies
are
especially
sensitive to the
father's role in the
family
and the mothers' sexual
attitudes and behavior in
early
childhood
(Draper
&
Harpending, 1982, 1988; see also Ellis, McFadyen-
Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1999). Consistent
with
Hetherington's
(1972) work on the effects of
early
father absence on
personality development
in
adolescent
daughters,
the
evolutionary
model
sug-
gests
that
girls
detect and
internally
encode informa-
tion about
parental reproductive strategies during
approximately
the first 5
years
of life as a basis for
calibrating
the
development
of motivational
sys-
tems,
which make certain
types
of sexual behavior
more or less
likely
in adolescence. The model thus
posits
a direct effect of
quality
of
early paternal
investment
(e.g.,
father
presence
vs.
absence,
quality
of
paternal
care
giving,
father-mother
relationships)
on
early
onset of sexual and
reproductive
behavior.
In
light
of these theoretical
considerations,
the
current research examined the
following
set of
questions:
Goals
of
the Current Research
1. Is earlier onset of
biological
father absence
associated with
increasing
risk of
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy
in
daughters?
Despite
voluminous research on father absence,
very
few studies have examined the relation between
timing
of onset of father absence and
daughters'
sexual outcomes. In a small observational
study,
Hetherington
(1972) found that adolescent
girls
from
early
father-absent homes (divorced before
age
5)
tended to initiate more contact
with,
and seek more
attention
from,
adult males than did
girls
from late
father-absent homes (divorced after
age
5). In a
large
retrospective survey,
however,
McLanahan (1999) did
not find
statistically significant
relations between
timing
of onset of father absence and rates of
teenage
childbearing
in
daughters.
The current research is the
first to measure
prospectively
the
timing
of onset of
father absence
throughout early
and middle child-
hood and then test for its effects on
early
sexual
activity
and
pregnancy
in adolescence.
2. Does earlier onset of
biological
father absence
uniquely
increase risk for
early
sexual
activity
and
adolescent
pregnancy
in
daughters, independent
of
both
early externalizing
behavior
problems
and
familial and
ecological
stressors that
covary
with
father absence? That
is,
does more
exposure
to father
absence
place daughters
at
special
risk for
early
sexual
outcomes-regardless
of whether
girls
are
rich or
poor,
Black or White, cooperative
or defiant
in
kindergarten,
born to
teenage
or adult mothers,
grow up
in violent or safe
neighborhoods, experi-
ence
many
or few stressful life events, have warm-
supportive
or
harsh-rejecting parents,
are
exposed
to
functional or
dysfunctional marriages,
are
closely
or
loosely
monitored
by parents,
and so forth?
A number of studies have found that father
absence
uniquely predicts early
sexual
activity
Father Absence 803
(Day,
1992; Devine,
Long,
&
Forehand, 1993;
Miller
et
al., 1997;
Upchurch,
Aneshensel, Sucoff,
&
Levy-
Storms, 1999) and adolescent
pregnancy
or child-
bearing (Hogan
&
Kitigawa,
1985;
Robbins et
al.,
1985),
after
controlling
for such
confounding
vari-
ables as
race,
socioeconomic status
(SES),
neighbor-
hood
danger,
and
parental monitoring
and control.
All of these
studies, however,
began
when
daughters
were
already
in
early
to late adolescence and thus
were unable to assess familial and
ecological
stressors before
daughters'
risk for involvement in
sexual
activity.
The current research is the first to
assess
prospectively
life-course
adversity through-
out
early
and middle
childhood,
and control for its
effects when
testing
for the relation between
timing
of father absence and rates of
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy.
3. Does earlier onset of
biological
father
absence
discriminantly
increase risk for
early
onset
of sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy-but
not for adolescent behavioral and mental health
problems
more
generally-independent
of
early
externalizing problems
and life-course
adversity?
In other
words,
is
greater exposure
to father
absence a
general
risk factor for the
develop-
ment of
psychopathology,
or is it
specific
to sexual
development?
To our
knowledge, only
Newcomer and
Udry
(1987) have
explicitly
addressed this
question.
In a
short-term
longitudinal study
of White
adolescents,
Newcomer and
Udry
found that the effect of father
absence on a
composite
measure of
age-graded
minor
delinquencies (e.g., smoking, drinking
alco-
hol,
cheating
on a test) was
and about
equal
in
magnitude
to the effect of father
absence on onset of first sexual intercourse in
girls.
Newcomber and
Udry,
however,
did not control for
potentially confounding
third variables
(e.g.,
race,
SES,
mother's
age
at first birth) that could account
for the correlation between father absence and
delinquency.
The current research examined the
unique
effects of
timing
of father absence on a
variety
of
psychosocial
and educational outcomes,
after
controlling
for the effects of child conduct
problems
and familial and
ecological
stressors
during
childhood.
This set of
questions
was
investigated
in two
independent longitudinal
studies in the United
States and New Zealand. In the U.S.
study,
a
community sample
of
girls
was followed
prospec-
tively
from the summer before
kindergarten through
to the 12th
grade.
In the New Zealand
study,
a birth
cohort of
girls
was followed
prospectively
from
infancy through
to
age
18.
Method: United States
Participants
and Overview
The United States data were collected as
part
of
the
ongoing
Child
Development Project,
a multisite
longitudinal study
of socialization factors in chil-
dren's and adolescents'
adjustment
(see
Dodge,
Bates,
&
Pettit, 1990; Pettit, Bates,
&
Dodge,
1997).
Participating
families were
initially
recruited from
three
geographical
areas (Nashville
and
Knoxville,
Tennessee,
and
Bloomington,
Indiana).
At the time
of
kindergarten preregistration
in the summers of
1987 (Cohort 1)
and 1988 (Cohort 2),
parents
of
matriculating
children were solicited at random (in
person
at the child's school or
by
mail) to become
involved in the
study.
About 75%
agreed.
A total of
585 families
agreed
to
participate
in the
study.
Of
these 585
families,
281 of the children were
girls.
The
analyses reported
in this article are based on this
female
subsample,
which was
demographically
diverse and
representative
of the
geographic regions
(81% White,
17% African American,
2%
other;
28%
lived with a
single
mother at the
beginning
of the
study).
The
Hollingshead
(1975) Four-Factor Index
of Social Status was
computed
from
demographic
information
provided by
the
parents
of the
girls.
The
mean
family
score on the index at the
beginning
of
the
study
was 38.85
(SD=14.0), indicating
a
predominantly
middle-class
sample.
Data on
girls'
early externalizing
behavioral
problems
and on
familial and
ecological
stressors were collected in
Years 1
through
9 of the
study (ages
5-13). Data on
adolescent sexual
activity, pregnancy, internalizing
and
externalizing
behavioral
problems,
academic
performance,
and violence were collected in Years 10
through
13 of the
study (ages
14-17).
At the
completion
of the
study
in Year
13,
the
average age
of the
girls
was 17.3
years
(SD
=
.34).
Of the
original
281
girls,
242
(86%)
participated
in the Years 10
through
13 data collections. This subset was
gen-
erally representative
of the
original sample
(16%
African American;
25% from
single-mother
homes;
mean SES = 39.45). Other
analyses
have shown that
attrition has not
significantly
biased the
sample
on
either initial child
adjustment
or
family
socialization
variables (see Pettit et al., 1997; Pettit, Bates, Dodge,
& Meece, 1999). Nonetheless, there was a
slight
but
statistically nonsignificant
trend for the 242
girls
in
the current
analyses
to
underrepresent girls
from
socially disadvantaged backgrounds
(low SES, Afri-
can American, single-mother
homes).
Following recruitment, mothers were interviewed
at home in the summer before
daughters' entry
into
804 Ellis et al.
kindergarten
(see
Dodge,
Pettit,
&
Bates, 1994),
when
most children were 5
years
of
age.
The
90-min
audiorecorded interview included both
open-ended
and structured
questions
about each of two eras in
the
child's
life (a
period
from 12 months of
age up
to
12 months
ago,
and the
past
12
months). Questions
concerned the
child's
development
and child-care
history, family
stressors,
parental
behavior,
exposure
to
socializing
factors,
and current
functioning.
Reliability
was assessed
through independent
rat-
ings
of 41
randomly
selected families made
by
a
second coder who sat in with the interviewer.
Additional home interviews with the mothers were
conducted in Years 7 and 9 of the
study
(when
daughters
were
approximately ages
11 and 13).
Questions
concerned
family changes
and
adjust-
ment,
child's involvement in after-school care
settings, parenting practices,
and
neighborhood
characteristics over the
past year.
In
addition,
mothers
annually completed
child
behavior-problem questionnaires
and
provided
fam-
ily demographic
data.
Behavior-problem question-
naires were also
completed by daughters
in Years 11
through
13 of the
study (approximate ages
15-17).
Daughters
answered
questions
about sexual behav-
ior and
pregnancy
at this time. Also at this
time,
research staff
requested permission
to view the
participants'
academic records.
Timing of
Onset
of
Father Absence
To determine
timing
of onset of father
absence,
household
composition
data were collected
during
Years 1
through
9 of the
study (ages
5-13). Because
Hetherington
(1972) and
Draper
and
Harpending
(1982)
suggest
that the first 5
years
of life constitute a
sensitive
period
for the effects of father absence on
daughters'
sexual
development, early
onset
of father
absence was defined in this
study
as absence of the
"birth father" (either the
biological
father or an
adoptive
father
present
from birth) from the home at
or before
age
5. This cutoff was also chosen to allow
comparison
with
past studies, which have com-
monly
defined
early
father absence as
occurring
in
the first 5
years (e.g.,
Bereczkei &
Csanaky, 1996;
Blain & Barkow, 1988; Hetherington, 1972). Girls
were thus classified as
early
father absent if
they
were either born into
single-mother
families or born
into intact
two-parent
families but
subsequently
experienced
birth father absence at or before
age
5.
Late onset
of father
absence was defined as birth father
presence
in the home
through age
5 but
subsequent
absence of the birth father from the home
beginning
sometime
during ages
6
through
13. We chose
age
13
as the cutoff for late father absence to
complete
measurement of father absence before the onset of
first
pregnancy
in
daughters.
Father
presence
was
defined as birth father
presence
in the home
through
age
13. Classification of
girls
into the
father-present
or father-absent
groups
was based
solely
on birth
father status and did not take
stepfathers
into
account (33% =
early
father
absent,
12% = late father
absent,
55%
=
father
present).
Adolescent Sexual Outcomes
Early
sexual
activity.
In Year 12
(age
16),
girls
were
asked whether
they
had ever had sexual intercourse.
Girls who
responded
"no" were coded as 0 for
early
sexual
activity
(60%);
girls
who
responded "yes"
were coded as
1
for
early
sexual
activity
(40%). The
age
16 cutoff has been
commonly
used in
past
studies to demarcate
early
onset of sexual
activity
(e.g., Fergusson
&
Woodward, 2000b;
Kiernan &
Hobcraft, 1997; Paul,
Fitzjohn,
Herbison,
&
Dickson,
2000).
Adolescent
pregnancy.
In Years 10
through
13
(ages
14-17),
girls
were asked
annually
whether
they
had
become
pregnant
in the last
year.
Girls who
reported
no
pregnancies
over this
period
were coded as 0 for
adolescent
pregnancy
(85%);
girls
who
reported
at
least one
pregnancy
over this
period
were coded as 1
for adolescent
pregnancy
(15%).
Covariate Factors
To assess the extent to which associations between
timing
of father absence and adolescent sexual
outcomes could be
explained by
the effects of
early
and familial and
ecological
stressors,
the
following
10 variables were included
as covariates in the
analysis.
The measures of
familial and
ecological
stress were chosen as
covariates on the basis of
past
research
indicating
(a) covariation with father absence and (b)
predic-
tion to
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
preg-
nancy
(see reviews
by
Kotchick et
al., 2001; Miller,
Benson, & Galbraith, 2001). The covariates were
measured
repeatedly
and
prospectively
from the
beginning
of each
study through age
13.
Externalizing
behavior
problems (early childhood).
During
Years 1 and 2 of the
study (ages 5-6),
mothers
completed
the Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL; Achenbach, 1991). The 33-item
externalizing
problems score, which has been
reported
to have
excellent
psychometric properties (Achenbach,
1991), was used to index
daughters' early
externaliz-
ing problems.
A
composite externalizing
behavioral
Father Absence 805
problems
score was
computed by averaging
over
Years 1 and 2
(A
=
.81,
M =
10.63,
SD =
6.47).
Mother's
age
at
first
birth. Mothers
reported
how
old
they
were when
they
first
gave
birth to a child
(M
=
23.23,
SD =
4.82).
Race. Race was coded as a
dummy
variable:
0 = Caucasian
(83%),
1 = non-Caucasian
(17%). Of
the 42 non-Caucasian
participants,
38 were African
American.
SES. SES was
computed
on the basis of mothers'
and fathers'
occupation
and
years
of education
(Hollingshead,
1975;
full
description
in
Dodge
et
al., 1994). Because the
rank-ordering
of SES between
families was
highly
stable over
time,
a
composite
childhood SES score was
SES scores from Year 1
(age
5) and Year 9
(age
13;
a
=
.84,
M =
38.11,
SD
= 12.78).
Family life
stress
(early
childhood).
Family
life stress
was assessed
during
the Year
1
interview on the
basis of
questions concerning changes
and
adjust-
ments in the home and their
perceived impact
on the child
during
each era (see
Dodge
et
al.,
1994). Interviewers
completed ratings
of the extent
of
stressful,
challenging
events faced
by
the
child and
family
(1
=
minimum
challenge,
5 = severe
frequent challenges).
The
rating
from the two eras
were
averaged
to
yield
a score for
family
life
stressors
(ac= .64,
proportion agreement
between
independent
raters of the same
protocol
=
.79,
M =
3.04,
SD =
.94).
Dyadic adjustment (early
childhood).
During
the
Year 1
interview,
mothers were asked to recall each
era and answer
questions concerning
the kinds of
family
strife and violence the child was
exposed
to
(see Ellis et
al., 1999). Interviewers then
completed
ratings
of the
severity
of conflict within the
parental
dyad (1
=
rarely
even
shout;
5 =
physical fights,
more
than
once). The
rating
from the two eras were
averaged
to
yield
an overall score (c = .74,
inter-
rater
agreement
=
.80,
M
=
2.19,
SD
=
1.03). Mothers
were also asked
questions concerning
levels of
help
and emotional
support
from their
partners during
each era (see Ellis et
completed ratings
of level of
supportiveness
in the
parental dyad,
and the
ratings
from the two eras
were
averaged
to
yield
an overall score (a
=
.88,
inter-rater
agreement
=
.86, M =
2.37, SD =
.57).
A
composite
measure of
dyadic adjustment
was
computed by standardizing
and then
averaging
the
measures of
"severity
of conflict within the
parental
dyad" (reverse-scored) and
"supportiveness
in the
parental dyad" (a across the two measures =
.55).
Harshness
of discipline (early childhood).
During
the
Year 1
interview, mothers were asked about their use
of
discipline practices
and whether the child had
ever been harmed
by
an adult
during
each era (see
Dodge
et
completed
ratings
of the
degree
of restrictive
discipline
received
by
the child
(1
=nonrestrictive,
mostly prosocial
guidance;
5 = severe, strict,
often physical)
and whether
the
target
child had been
severely
harmed
(1
=
defi-
nitely
not,
5 = authorities involved). These four
ratings
(two
ratings
for each of two life eras) were
averaged
to derive the
early
childhood harshness of
discipline
score (c
=
.81,
inter-rater
agreement
=
.78,
M =
2.05,
SD =
.67).
Harshness
of discipline (preadolescence).
Harshness
of
discipline
was also assessed
during
the Years 7
and 9 interviews.
Using
a
4-point
scale (1 =
never,
4
=frequently),
mothers rated how often
they
used
each of six harsh
disciplinary
tactics
(e.g.,
scold,
slap
or hit with
hand,
use
belt/paddle).
A
composite
harshness of
discipline
measure was
computed by
averaging
the Year 7
(a
=
.67) and Year 9 (x
=
.67)
measures (c across the two measures =
.77,
M =
2.06,
SD = .42).
Parental
monitoring (preadolescence).
Parental mon-
itoring
was assessed
during
the Years 7 and 9 home
interviews with the mothers.
Although
the two
measures had
slightly
different
content,
both em-
ployed 5-point frequency
scales and focused on
parents'
awareness of their children's activities and
companions.
A
composite
measure of
parental
monitoring
was
computed by standardizing
and
then
averaging
the Year 7
(c
=
.73, M=4.65,
SD
= .34;
see Pettit et
al., 1999) and Year 9 (c
=
.67,
M =
4.32,
SD =
.45;
see
Pettit, Laird,
Dodge,
Bates,
&
Criss, 2001) measures (c across the two mea-
sures =
.66).
Neighborhood danger (preadolescence). Neighbor-
hood
danger
was assessed
during
the Years 7
and 9 home interviews with the mother.
During
the Year 7
interview,
mothers
responded
to a set
of six items
(adapted
from the Self-Care Checklist;
see Posner &
Vandell, 1994)
describing
their
general appraisal
of
neighborhood
and
family safety.
Items were rated on a
6-point
scale
(very safe
to
very
unsafe)
and
averaged
to form an overall
neighbor-
hood
safety
score
(a=.90, M=2.01, SD=.86).
In addition, immediately following
the Year 7
and Year 9 interviews, the interviewer
completed
a
4-point rating
of overall
neighborhood safety
(very safe
to
very unsafe;
Ms= 1.82 and 1.71,
SDs = .85 and .77, respectively).
A
composite
mea-
sure of
neighborhood danger
was
computed by
standardizing
and then
averaging
the
mother-report
and two
interviewer-report
measures (A across the
three measures = .78).
806 Ellis et al.
Measures
of Psychosocial Adjustment
and Educational
Achievement (Adolescence)
To assess the extent to which
timing
of father
absence
discriminantly predicted early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy
(but not other behavioral
and mental health
problems),
the
following
educa-
tional and
psychosocial
outcome variables were
investigated.
These outcomes were measured con-
currently
with assessment of
timing
of sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy
from
ages
14 to 18.
High
school
grade point average (GPA).
Data on
high
school GPA were drawn from archival school
records (Grades 9-11). Staff members examined each
child's file and noted the
grades
earned in
math,
language,
science,
and social studies. Conventional
grade
conversions were used
(i.e.,
A
=4,
B=
3,
C =
2,
D =
1,
E =
0). A
composite
GPA was calcu-
lated for each child
by averaging
the
grades
received
across the four
subjects
across the three
years
(0
=
.89,
M
=
2.50,
SD =
.96).
Violent acts (adolescence). Data on violent acts were
collected in Years 12 and 13
(approximate ages
16-
17). Girls in each
year reported
how often
they
had
performed
each of seven violent acts in the last 12
months
(e.g.,
"How
many
times have
you
been
physically
cruel to someone else
[causing
harm]?"
"How
many
times have
you
started a
fight
with
someone
else,
where
you
hurt that
person?"
"How
many
times have
you
used a
weapon
that can cause
serious
physical
harm to others [like a
bat, brick,
broken
bottle, knife,
or
gun]?").
Girls who
reported
no violent acts in either
year
were coded as 0 for
violent acts
(76%);
girls
who
reported
at least one
violent act in either
year
were coded as 1 for violent
acts (24%).
Externalizing
behavior
problems
(adolescence). Self-
report
and mother
reports
of
externalizing
behavior
problems
were assessed in Years 11
through
13
(ages
15-17)
using
the Youth
Self-Report
(YSR) and
CBCL,
respectively (Achenbach, 1991). The
highly
reliable
score (30 and 33 items in the
YSR and CBCL, respectively)
was used to index
daughters'
adolescent
externalizing problems.
A
composite self-report externalizing
behavioral
pro-
blems score was
computed by averaging self-reports
over Years 11
through
13 (a across the three
scores = .87, M =
10.72, SD = 6.29) and a
composite
mother-report externalizing
behavioral
problems
score was
mother
reports
over Years 11
through
13 (L across the three
scores =
.90,
M =
7.91, SD= 7.39). The
composite
self-report
and
mother-report externalizing
scores
were
moderately correlated, r (241) = .52, p
< .001. To
facilitate
comparison
with rates of
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy,
both
self-reports
and mother
reports
of both
externalizing
behavior
problems
were dichotomized (bottom 85% =
0, top
15%
=
1).
Internalizing
behavior
problems
(adolescence). Self-
report
and mother
reports
of
internalizing
be-
havior
problems-those
behaviors considered to
be
anxious, withdrawn,
or
depressed-were
also
assessed in Years 11
through
13
using
the YSR
and CBCL
(Achenbach, 1991). The
highly
reliable
internalizing problems
score (32 items in both
the YSR and CBCL) was used to index
daughters'
adolescent
internalizing problems.
A
composite
self-report internalizing
behavioral
problems
score
was
computed by averaging self-reports
over
Years 11
through
13 (a across the three scores
=
.86,
M =
11.39,
SD =
7.40) and a
composite mother-report
internalizing
behavioral
problems
score was
mother
reports
over Years
11
through
13
(a
across the three scores
=
.84,
M
= 7.18,
SD=5.98).
The
composite self-report
and
mother-report internalizing
scores were
moderately
correlated,
r
(241)
=
.46,
p<.001. Again,
to facilitate
comparison
with rates of
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy,
both
self-reports
and
mother
reports
of both
internalizing
behavior
problems
were dichotomized (bottom
85%
=
0,
top
15%
=
1).
Method: New Zealand
Participants
and Overview
The New Zealand data were collected as
part
of
the Christchurch Health and
Development Study
(CHDS). The CHDS is an
ongoing longitudinal study
of an unselected birth cohort of
1,265
children (635
males,
630 females) born in the
Christchurch,
New
Zealand,
urban
region during
a 4-month
period
in
mid-1977
(Fergusson
&
Horwood, 2001;
Fergusson,
Horwood, Shannon,
&
Lawton, 1989).
The current
research is based on this female
subsample,
which
was
demographically
diverse and
representative
of
the
geographic region (13% Maori/Polynesian,
25%
father
unemployed
or in low-skill
occupation,
8%
living
with a
single
mother at birth). The
girls
and
their families have been studied at birth, 4 months, 1
year,
and at annual intervals to
age
16
years,
and
again
at
ages
18 and 21
years.
In the vast
majority
of
cases
(typically>95%) follow-up
assessments have
been conducted within 4 weeks of the
sample
member's
birthday.
Data have been collected from
Father Absence 807
a combination of sources
including: parental
inter-
views (birth-16
years), self-report
(8-21
years),
psychometric testing
(8-13
years),
teacher
reports
(6-13
years),
medical records (birth-21
years),
and
police
records (13-21
years).
In
general
terms the
aims of the
study
have been to
build
up
a
running
record of the life
history,
social
circumstances,
health,
and
development
of a
large
cohort of New
Zealand children
growing up
in the 1980s and 1990s.
In
particular,
the
study
has
gathered
a wealth of
information on
family composition,
social and
family functioning
in
childhood,
and
psychosocial
outcomes in adolescence.
The
present analyses
are based on the
sample
of
520 female cohort members for whom information
on the
timing
of father absence and adolescent
outcome measures was available. This
sample
represented
83% of the
original
cohort of 630 females
and was
generally representative
of the
original
sample
(13%
Maori/Polynesian,
23% father unem-
ployed
or in low-skill
occupation,
and 7%
living
with a
single
mother at birth).
Comparison
of the
analysis sample
of 520 females with the
remaining
110
sample
members from the
original
female cohort
on a
range
of
sociodemographic
measures collected
at birth
suggested slight
but
(p
<
.05) tendencies for the
analysis sample
to under-
represent girls
from
socially disadvantaged
back-
grounds
(low
paternal occupational
status,
low
maternal education). This raises the issue of the
extent to which
study findings
could be influenced
by
the effects of
sample-selection
bias. To examine
this
issue,
all
analyses
were
repeated using
the data-
weighting
method described
by
Carlin, Wolfe,
Coffey,
and Patton (1999) to
adjust
for
possible
selection effects
resulting
from the
pattern
of
sample
attrition. These
analyses produced essentially
iden-
tical results to those based on the
unweighted
data,
suggesting
that the small biases detected in the
sample
are
unlikely
to affect
study
conclusions.
Because the two sets of results were
mutually
consistent,
in the interests of
simplicity,
the results
reported
here are based on the
unweighted sample
data.
Timing of
Onset
of
Father Absence
Comprehensive
data were
gathered
on
family
composition
at annual intervals to
age 13, including
information on the
relationship
between the
daugh-
ter and
any
adult males in the home. Classification
of
girls
into the three father-absent and father-
present groups (early
father absent, late father
absent, and father
present)
was based on the same
coding procedures
used in the U.S.
sample
(16%
=
early
father
absent,
11% = late father
absent,
73% = father
present).
Adolescent Sexual Outcomes
Early
sexual
activity.
At each assessment from
ages
14 to
16,
sample
members were
questioned
concern-
ing
their sexual
behavior,
including
their
experience
of consensual sexual intercourse since the
previous
assessment. At
age
18
sample
members were
again
questioned concerning
their
previous experience
of
sexual
intercourse,
and those who
reported
such
experience
were asked to
report
their
age
at first
experience
of consensual intercourse.
Young
women
were classified as
having engaged
in
early
sexual
activity
if
they
had ever
reported
involvement in
consensual sexual intercourse before
age
16.
Overall,
33% of the
sample reported early
sexual
activity.
Adolescent
pregnancy.
At
age
14,
the mothers of
female
sample
members were asked whether their
daughter
had ever been
pregnant.
From
age
15
onwards
sample
members themselves were
ques-
tioned about
any pregnancies
since the
previous
assessment
and,
in
particular,
the
timing
and out-
come of these
pregnancies. Young
women were
classified as
having
an adolescent
pregnancy
if
they
had ever been
reported
as
being pregnant
before
age
18.
Overall,
8% of
young
women had been
pregnant
before
age
18.
Covariate Factors
To assess the extent to which associations between
timing
of father absence and adolescent sexual
outcomes could be
explained by
the effects of child
conduct
problems
and familial and
ecological
stressors,
we included the
following
10 variables as
covariates in the
analysis.
Early
conduct
problems
(6
years).
When
sample
members were
age
6,
maternal and teacher
reports
of
the child's tendencies to conduct disordered and
oppositional
behaviors were obtained
using
the 9-
item mother- and
teacher-report
versions of the
Rutter Behavior
Rating
Scale (Rutter, Tizard, &
Whitmore, 1970). For the
present analysis
the
maternal and teacher
reports
were summed to
produce
an overall scale measure
reflecting
the
extent to which the child was
reported
to be
exhibiting
conduct
problems
at
age
6 (a= .83,
M =
20.44, SD = 3.21).
Maternal
age
at
first
childbirth. The mother's
age
at
first childbirth was assessed
during
the initial
parental
interview at the time of the
survey
child's
808 Ellis et al.
birth. The mean
age
at first childbirth was 23.7
years
(SD
=
4.2).
Race. The
sample
member's
ethnicity
was coded
as a
dummy
variable: 0 =
European
New Zealander
(87%),
1
=
Maori/Polynesian
(13%).
Maternal education. The mother's education level
was assessed at the time of the
survey
child's
birth
and coded into a three-level classification: no formal
educational
qualifications
(50.0% of the
sample),
high
school
qualifications (28.3%),
and
postsecond-
ary
certificate or
degree
(21.7%).
Higher
scores
indicated
higher
levels of educational achievement.
Father's
occupational
status. Father's
occupational
status was classified at the time of the
survey
child's
birth
using
the
Elley-Irving
(1976) scale of
occupa-
tional status for New Zealand. This scale classifies
families into six
groups
on the basis of
paternal
occupation.
In the
present analysis,
the
Elley-Irving
coding
was reduced to a three-level classification as
follows: Levels
1,
2
(professional, managerial:
22.5%
of the
sample);
Levels
3,
4
(clerical, technical,
skilled:
54.4%);
and Levels
5,
6
(semiskilled, unskilled,
unemployed:
23.1%). This variable was reverse-
scored so that
higher
scores
represent higher
occupational
status.
Family living
standards (0-10
years).
At each
assessment from
ages 1
to 10
years,
a measure of
the
quality
of the
family's
standard of
living
was
obtained on the basis of an interviewer
rating
of
family living
standards.
Ratings
were made on a 5-
point
scale
(1 =
family obviously poor/very poor,
5 =
fa-
mily obviously affluent
and well-to-do). These
ratings
were
averaged
over the
10-year period
to
provide
an
overall measure of the
quality
of
family living
standards
during
this
period
(a
across the 10
ratings =
.92,
M =
2.16,
SD
=
.45).
Family life
stress (0-10
years).
At each assessment
up
to the
child's
age
10,
parents
were
questioned
about the occurrence of adverse
family
life events
during
the
preceding year using
a 20-item life events
inventory based on the Holmes and Rahe (1967)
Social
Readjustment Rating
Scale. For each
year,
a
life events score was calculated for the
family
based
on a count of the number of adverse events
reported.
To
provide
an overall measure of the
family's
exposure
to adverse life stress from birth to 10
years,
the annual life events scores were summed
over the
10-year period (c across the 10
ratings
=
.80,
mean number of adverse life events =
20.80,
SD =
12.22).
Marital
conflict (0-10 years).
At annual intervals
up
until the children were
age 10, parents
were
questioned using
three items that described the
quality
of the marital
relationship
over the
previous
12 months. For each
item,
a count of the number of
positive reports
over the
10-year period
was calcu-
lated,
and the
resulting
count measures were
combined to
produce
a scale measure of the extent
to which
sample
members were
exposed
to
parental
conflict from birth to
age
10
years (Fergusson,
Horwood,
&
Lynskey,
1992; a = .66,
M
= 4.24,
SD = 8.98).
Early
mother-child interaction
(3 years).
To
provide
an assessment of the
quality
of
early
mother-child
interactions,
when
sample
members were
age
3,
mothers were assessed on the 10-item Maternal
Emotional
Responsiveness
and 5-item Maternal
Punitiveness subscales of the Home Observation
for Measurement of the Environment (HOME)
Inven
tory (Bradley
&
Caldwell, 1977; Elardo, Bradley,
&
Caldwell, 1977). Each item is scored 0 or 1 to indicate
the absence or
presence
of the
target
behavior. The
Maternal Emotional
Responsiveness
subscale
pro-
vides an index of the
frequency
with which the
mother makes
positive
emotional
responses
to her
child and was scored so that a
high
score indicates
more
positive responses
(a = .69,
M
= 8.44,
SD
=
1.41). The Maternal Punitiveness subscale
provides
an index of the
frequency
with the which the mother
is observed to make
punitive responses
to her child's
behavior and was scored so that a
high
score
implies
more
punitive responses (a = .71,
M
= .82,
SD
= .80).
Measures
of Psychosocial Adjustment
and Educational
Achievement (14-18
years)
At
ages
15 and
16,
sample
members were
interviewed
by
trained
survey
interviewers on a
comprehensive
mental health interview that exam-
ined various
aspects
of the
young person's psycho-
social
adjustment
over the
preceding
12 months. A
parallel
interview was administered to
parents.
At
age
18,
a similar interview was administered to
sample
members that assessed the individual's
mental
health,
psychosocial adjustment,
and educa-
tional achievement from 16 to 18
years. Using
this
information,
the
following
additional outcome mea-
sures were constructed.
School
qualifications.
School Certificate is a na-
tional series of examinations that is undertaken
by
most New Zealand students in their third
year
of
high
school. Students
may
sit examinations in
any
number of
subjects (typically
four or five), and
performance
in each
subject
is
graded
from A to E,
with a
grade
of C or better
implying
a
pass
in that
subject.
For the
present analysis,
a
young
woman
was classified as
having
left school without
qualifi-
cations if she had left school
by age
18
years
without
Father Absence 809
at least one
pass grade
in School Certificate: This
criterion was met
by
16.5% of the
sample.
Mood disorder. At
ages
15 and
16, information on
the
young person's experience
of
depressive symp-
tomatology
was obtained
using
items from the child
and
parent
versions of the
Diagnostic
Interview
Schedule for Children
(DISC; Costello, Edelbrock,
Kalas, Kessler,
&
Klaric, 1982). This information was
used to
classify young people according
to the
Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual
of
Mental Disorders
(3rd ed.,
rev.
[DSM-III-R],
American
Psychiatric
Association, 1987)
symptom
criteria for
major
de-
pression (Fergusson,
Horwood,
&
Lynskey,
1993).
At
age
18
years,
the assessment of
depressive
symptomatology
was based on the
Diagnostic
and
Statistical Manual
of
Mental Disorders
(4th
ed. [DSM-
IV],
American
Psychiatric
Association, 1994) criteria
for
major depression
assessed
using
items from the
Composite
International
Diagnostic
Interview
(CIDI;
World Health
Organization,
1993). For the
present analysis, young
women were classified as
having
a mood disorder from 14 to 18
years
if
they
met the relevant DSM criteria for
major depression
on the basis of self- or
parent-report
at
any
time
during
the
4-year period:
This criterion was met
by
37.3% of the
sample.
Anxiety
disorder. Parallel to the assessment of
major depression,
at
ages
15 and 16
sample
members
and their
parents
were also
questioned
about the
young person's history
of
anxiety symptomatology
in the
previous
12 months
using
items from the
DISC. This information was used to
classify young
people
on DSM-III-R criteria for the
following
anxiety
disorders:
separation anxiety,
overanxious
disorder,
generalized anxiety
disorder,
social
phobia,
simple phobia, agoraphobia,
and
panic
disorder. As
part
of the
age
18
interview,
items from the CIDI
were used to assess DSM-IV
symptom
criteria for
the
following anxiety
disorders:
generalized anxiety
disorder,
social
phobia, specific phobia, agorapho-
bia,
and
panic
disorder. For the
present analysis,
young
having
an
anxiety
disorder if
they
met DSM criteria for
any
of the
preceding
disorders over the
4-year period:
This
criterion was met
by
44.6% of the
sample.
Suicide
attempts.
At
ages 15, 16, and 18, sample
members were
questioned
about their
experience
of
suicidal
thoughts
since the
previous
assessment.
Those
reporting
suicidal
thoughts
were further
questioned
about
any
suicide
attempts
and the
frequency, nature, and outcome of
any
such at-
tempt(s). Overall, 7.1% of the
sample reported
making
at least one suicide
attempt during
the 4-
year period.
All
respondents
who
reported
suicidal
behavior or other mental health
problems
were
offered assistance in
obtaining
a referral to an
appropriate
treatment service.
Violent
offending.
At
ages
15 and
16,
the
young
person's
involvement in criminal
offending
over the
previous year
was assessed
using
the Self
Report
Early Delinquency inventory
(SRED; Moffitt & Silva,
1988). Similar
questioning
was conducted at
age
18
using
the Self
Report Delinquency Inventory
(SRDI;
Elliott &
Huizinga,
1989).
Using
these data,
young
being
violent offenders if
they reported committing any
violent offence (in-
cluding physical
assault,
getting
into
fights, using
a
weapon
or
strong-arm
tactics to commit a
robbery,
threatening
behavior,
and related offenses) over the
4-year period:
by
13.7% of the
sample.
Conduct disorder. At
ages
15 and
16,
sample
members were assessed on
DSM-III-R
symptom
criteria for conduct disorder based on
self-reports
and
parent reports
on the SRED
(Fergusson
et al.,
1993). At
age
18,
DSM-IV criteria for conduct
disorder were derived from items in the SRDI.
Young
women were classified as conduct disordered
if
they
met DSM criteria for conduct disorder on the
basis of
self-report
or
parental report
at
any
time
during
the
4-year period:
by
7.5% of the
sample.
Results
Statistical
Analyses
As described
previously,
there were 16
dependent
variables to be
analyzed: early
sexual
activity,
teenage pregnancy,
and six other measures of
psychosocial adjustment
and educational achieve-
ment in each of the two
samples.
With one
exception
(GPA in the U.S.
sample),
all outcomes were
dichotomous.
Analysis
of the associations between
father absence and the
dependent
variables was
conducted in several
stages.
Before
conducting
the
primary
data
analysis,
preliminary analyses
were carried out to test the
linearity
of the associations between the three-level
timing
of onset of father absence measure and the
dependent
variables. For the 15 dichotomous de-
pendent variables, these tests were conducted
using
the Mantel-Haenszel
chi-square
test of
linearity.
Comparison
of the Mantel-Haenszel results with
the alternative Pearson's
chi-square
test of
indepen-
dence showed that, in all cases, the linear model
appeared
to
provide
the best
fitting
and most
parsimonious representation
of the association. For
810 Ellis et al.
the measure of
GPA,
similar tests of
linearity
were
conducted within an ANOVA framework. These
tests also
suggested
that a linear model most
accurately represented
the association. We thus
concluded that the relations between
timing
of onset
of father absence and all outcome measures were
essentially
linear. In all
subsequent analyses,
there-
fore,
father absence was treated as a continuous
(linear) variable,
which was coded so that
higher
scores indicated earlier onset of father absence
(0 = father
presence,
1 = late onset of father
absence,
2 =
early
onset of father absence).
Treating
father absence in this manner is
concep-
tually
similar to
analyzing age
at onset of father
absence.
Although age
at onset
might
be a more
appropriate
metric for
analysis,
detailed information
on this variable was available
only
in the New
Zealand
sample.
Thus,
for
consistency
we have used
the same three-level classification of
timing
of onset
of father absence across the two
samples.
However,
further
analysis
of the New Zealand data indicated
that
age
at onset of father absence correlated in
excess of .97 with the current three-level measure.
This
suggests
that similar conclusions would be
drawn if more accurate assessments of the
timing
of
father
absence
were available in both
samples.
The
principal
data
analyses
were based on a series
of
regression analyses examining
the relations
between the
timing
of father absence and the 16
dependent
variables before and after
adjustment
for
child,
family,
and
ecological
factors. For
binary
dependent
variables,
these
analyses
were conducted
using logistic regression
methods in which the
log
odds of the
dependent
variable was modeled as a
linear function of the
timing
of father absence and
covariates (where
applicable).
The full covariate
adjusted
model fitted to the data was of the form:
logit [pr(Yi)] =BOi
+ B1iX1 +
,BjiZj
where
logit[pr(Yi)]
was the
log
odds of the ith
dependent variable, X1
was the continuous measure
of
timing
of father absence, and
Zj
was the set of
child, family,
and
ecological
covariates. The
para-
meter
Bli represents
the effect of father absence on
the
log
odds of the ith
dependent
variable. A
measure of effect size is
provided by
the odds ratio
between the
timing
of father absence and the
dependent
variable. The odds ratio
represents
the
multiplicative
effect of a one-unit shift in the three-
level father absence variable. The
corresponding
analyses
for the continuous
dependent
variable
(GPA) were based on standard linear
regression,
and the measure of effect size is
provided by
the
standardized
regression
coefficient (beta) for the
timing
of father absence measure.
To illustrate the extent of the association between
the
timing
of father absence and the
binary
outcome
measures after
adjustment
for
covariates,
estimates
of the
adjusted
rates for each outcome were
computed using
the
parameters
of the fitted
logistic
regression
models. The
adjusted
rates were com-
puted using
the method described
by
Lee (1981)
and
can be
interpreted
as the
hypothetical
rates of each
outcome that would have been observed had all
sample
members
experienced
their
existing
mix of
covariate factors but varied in their
exposure
to
father absence.
Rates
of Early
Sexual
Activity
and Adolescent
Pregnancy
by Timing of
Father Absence
Do rates of
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy
differ
according
to
timing
of onset of
father absence? We
expected
a
dose-response
rela-
tionship
in which
early
father-absent
girls
would
have the
highest
rates of
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy,
followed
by
late father-absent
girls,
followed
by father-present girls.
Figure
1 shows rates of
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy
in both the U.S. and New
Zealand
samples according
to
timing
of father
absence:
Early
father absence
(beginning ages
0-5),
late father absence
(beginning ages
6-13),
and father
presence (ages
0-13). For each father-absent and
father-present group,
the solid lines in the
figure
show the
percentage
of
girls
who had sexual
intercourse
by age
16 and the
percentage
of
girls
who
experienced
an adolescent
pregnancy. Logistic
regression
of the data in
Figure
1 showed that earlier
onset of father absence was associated with a
corresponding
increase in
girls'
rates of both
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy
in both
samples.
For
early
sexual
activity
in the U.S.
sample:
N
=
227, B(SE
=
.16)
=
.70,
X2
= 20.51,
p<.0001,
odds
ratio
=
2.01;
and for
early
sexual
activity
in the New
Zealand
sample:
N
=
520, B(SE = .12)
=
.76,
X2
= 38.04, p<.0001,
odds ratio
=
2.14. For adolescent
pregnancy
in the U.S.
sample:
N
=
242,
B(SE = .23) =
1.15,
X2=24.97,
p<.0001,
odds ra-
tio =
3.15; and for adolescent
pregnancy
in the
New Zealand
sample: N= 520, B(SE = .19)= 1.16,
X2= 38.28, p<.0001, odds ratio = 3.19. As expected,
early
father-absent
girls
had the
highest
rates of both
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy,
followed
by
late father-absent
girls,
followed
by
father-present girls (Figure 1). For
example,
adoles-
cent
pregnancy
rates were
approximately
7 times
Father Absence 811
United States New Zealand
65% 65%
60% -.--------..------ -----------------------------------0--- 60%0
-
55%
........ ...............
................................ 55%
........ ....
...............................
5 0 %
............... . ......... ...........................
5 0 %
...............
.
... .
.... ...............................
45%
-------- -----
------------..........- 45%
..................Rates
of
44-
early sexual
40%
40%
...............
................40%...........
........................
activitya
Rates of
35%......................--..---.-------
35%
-............-E.-
early sexual
2....activityb
30%.---...........................
30%.-...........
%
40Rates of
25%
- ......................
25%
-
................
....... ......
teenage
pregnancya
20%
-
--------------------- -
20%
-
Rates of
1. ..
teenage
1 5% ----- ----------------------------- 15%
. .... .
G
. ..... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. ........
b
pregnancy
o10%.....
.
..................................
..................
10%
.
............................%................................
5%
-
----------------- ------------------------- ----- ----
-
5%
-
0%
I
I 0% I
I I
Early
father- Late father- Father
pre- Early
father- Late father- Father
pre-
absent
girls
absent
girls
sent
girls
absent
girls
absent
girls
sent
girls
aRates prior to adjustment for covariates. bRates after
adjustment
for covariates.
Figure 1.
Rates of
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy,
before and after
adjustment
for covariates.
higher
in the U.S.
sample
and 8 times
higher
in the
New Zealand
sample among early
father-absent
girls
than
among father-present girls.
In
addition,
there was remarkable
similarity
between the U.S.
and New Zealand
samples
in both the
ordering
of
results across
groups
and the base rates for
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy
within each
group (despite
the overall base rates'
being higher
in
the U.S.
sample).
Child,
Family,
and
Ecological
Factors
Associated
With
Timing of
Father
Absence,
Early
Sexual
Activity,
and
Adolescent
Pregnancy
Although
the results in
Figure
1 indicate that
earlier onset of father absence was associated with
increased risk of
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy,
it is
possible
that these associations are
due to contextual factors that correlate with both the
timing
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy.
To examine this
issue,
Table 1
displays
mean levels of child conduct
problems
and familial and
ecological
stressors in
relation to (a) the
timing
of father absence, (b)
occurrence of
early
sexual
activity,
and (c) occur-
rence of an adolescent
pregnancy.
For ease of data
presentation,
all measures
(except
for race and
mother's
age
at first birth) have been
expressed
in
standardized form. Mean differences were tested
using
the F statistic.
Table 1 demonstrates the
presence
of a
pervasive
relationship
between earlier
timing
of father absence
and more
exposure
to familial and
ecological
stressors. Across both
samples, girls
whose birth
fathers were absent from an earlier
age
were more
likely
to come from
socially disadvantaged
back-
grounds
characterized
by young
motherhood,
min-
ority
racial
status,
lower
SES,
more
family
life
stress,
poor parental relationships
(i.e.,
low
dyadic adjust-
ment,
high
marital
conflict),
and
low-quality par-
ental investment
(i.e.,
harsh
discipline,
lack of
parental monitoring,
low maternal emotional
812 Ellis et al.
Table 1
Mean Levels
of
Child Conduct Problems and Familial and
Ecological
Stressors
by Timing of
Father Absence,
Early
Sexual
Activity,
and Adolescent
Pregnancy:
United States and New Zealand
Father absence status Sexual
activity Pregnancy
status
Early
Late
Early
No
early
father father Father sexual sexual Not
Variable absence absence
presence
F
activity activity
F
Pregnant pregnant
F
United States
Externalizing problems
0.20 - 0.24 - 0.08 2.86 0.22 - 0.13 6.66*
0.48 - 0.09 10.77***
(ages
4-6)
Mother's
age
at first birth 20.82 22.30 24.84 19.80*** 22.69 23.63 1.98 21.68 23.51 4.24*
Race (% other) 32% 21% 8% 19.28*** 24% 13% 4.33* 41% 13% 16.65***
SES
(ages
4-13) -0.58 -0.07 0.40 28.78*** -0.19 0.18 7.71** - 0.59 0.15 17.48***
Family
life stress 0.43 0.23 - 0.35
18.55"***
0.17 - 0.13 5.30* 0.33 -
0.08
4.38*
(ages
1-5)
Dyadic adjustment
- 0.79 0.09 0.42 46.26#* -
0.34
0.27 21.72*** - 0.67 0.15 21.72***
(ages
1-5)
Harsh
discipline
0.38 - 0.21 - 0.19 9.00*** 0.22 - 0.14 7.52** 0.58 -0.11 15.76***
(ages
4-5)
Harsh
discipline
0.25 - 0.25 - 0.08 3.69* 0.07 - 0.06 0.87 0.45 - 0.07 7.83**
(ages
10-13)
Parental
monitoring
-0.47 - 0.04 0.30 15.10*** - 0.22 0.21 10.14** -
0.66
0.13 18.67***
(ages
10-13)
Neighborhood danger
0.57 -
0.08
-
0.31
29.39*-
0.20 - 0.13 7.68** 0.55 -0.11 18.10***
(ages
10-13)
New Zealand
Conduct
problems
0.38 0.20 -0.11 9.25*** 0.16 - 0.08 6.12* 0.52 - 0.05 12.17***
(age
6)
Mother's
age
at first birth 21.01 22.70 24.43 27.07m 22.29 24.38 30.47*** 21.67 23.88
11.03***
Race
(% Maori/Polynesian)
28% 19% 8% 26.52*** 15% 12% .94 29% 11% 10.63***
Father's
occupation
(at birth) -0.54 -0.20 0.15 18.84*** -0.32 0.16 27.28*** - 0.63 0.05 18.50***
Mother's education (at birth) -0.46 -0.31 0.15 16.43#* -0.32 0.15 26.93*** -0.54 0.05 13.70***
Standard of
living (ages
0-10)
- 0.77 -
0.23 0.20 38.27***
-
0.24 0.12 15.43*** - 0.64 0.06 19.67***
Family
life stress
(ages
0-10) 0.73 0.58 -0.23 42.78*** 0.34 -0.16 27.72*** 0.79 -0.07 26.79***
Mom emotional
responsiveness
-0.49 -0.07 0.11
12.61m* - 0.16 0.08 6.20* -0.24 0.02 2.59
(age
3)
Mom
punitiveness (age
3) 0.40 -0.19 -0.05 8.15*** 0.10 -0.05 2.32 0.48 -0.04 10.14**
Marital conflict
(ages
0-10) 1.18 0.59 -0.32 111.10m 0.32
- 0.15 23.87*** 0.86 -0.07 31.71***
Note. All variables
standardized,
except
race and mother's
age
at first birth. F statistic and
p
values for
comparison
of means
using
one-
way
ANOVA.
Comparison
of
percentages by
race are based on the x2 test. For the U.S.
sample,
Ns =
213-243;
for the New Zealand
sample,
Ns = 468-520.
*p <.05.
**p <.01.
***p <.001.
responsiveness).
The
strong pattern
of covariation
between
timing
girls' exposure
to familial and
ecological
stressors was similar
across the two
samples
(Table 1).
Table 1 also
demonstrates,
in both the U.S. and
New Zealand
samples,
that
early
conduct
problems
and
exposure
to familial and
ecological
stressors
during
childhood were associated with
precocious
sexual outcomes. That
is,
girls
who
displayed early
conduct
problems;
who were from
socially
disad-
vantaged backgrounds
characterized
by young
motherhood,
minority
racial
status,
lower
SES,
and
more
family
life
stress;
who were
exposed
to
dysfunctional parental relationships;
and who re-
ceived
low-quality parental
investment were more
likely
to
engage
in
early
sexual
activity
and become
pregnant
as adolescents (Table 1). The overall
pattern
of relations between
girls' early
behavioral,
familial,
and
ecological
characteristics and their
subsequent
involvement in
early
sexual and
repro-
ductive
activity
was
again
similar across the two
samples
(Table 1).
Father Absence 813
Rates
of Early
Sexual
Activity
and Adolescent
Pregnancy
by Timing of
Father
Absence,
After Adjustment for
Covariates
Next,
we examined whether
timing
of father
absence contributed to
subsequent
risk of
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy,
even after
controlling
for
early
child conduct
problems
and
familial and
ecological
stressors. That
is,
we exam-
ined whether father absence constituted an inde-
pendent path
to
early
sexual and
reproductive
activity.
The results
presented
in
Figure
1 and Table 1
indicate that
although
father absence was associated
with elevated risk of
early
sexual
activity
and
adolescent
pregnancy,
the
behavioral, familial,
and
ecological profiles
of father-absent
girls
were com-
paratively disadvantaged.
Moreover,
early
conduct
problems
and
exposure
to familial and
ecological
stressors
consistently predicted early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy.
Thus,
girls'
behavioral,
familial,
and
ecological profiles
could
potentially
account for the relations between
timing
of father
absence and
subsequent
sexual outcomes.
To address this
issue,
we conducted
logistic
regressions
to estimate the
strength
of the associa-
tion between
timing
of father absence and rates of
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy
after
adjustment
for child conduct
problems
and familial
and
ecological
stressors. Ten covariates were simul-
taneously
controlled for in the
analyses.
These
covariates are listed in the first column of Table 1
(see
upper
section of table for covariates in the U.S.
study
and lower section of table for covariates in
New Zealand
study).
As shown
by
the broken lines in
Figure
1,
after
statistical
adjustment
for all
covariates,
there con-
tinued to be a linear
logistic
association between
earlier onset of father absence and
higher
rates of
both
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy
in both
samples.
For
early
sexual
activity
in the U.S.
sample:
N =
197, B(SE
=
.23) = .72,
X2
=
9.54,
p=.002,
odds ratio = 2.04;
and for
early
sexual
activity
in the New Zealand
sample: N=466,
B(SE =
.17)=.45, z2=6.75, p
=
.009, odds ratio
1.57. For adolescent
pregnancy
in the U.S.
sample:
N= 207, B(SE =
.33)
=
.1.07,
X2 =
10.45, p
=
.001,
odds ratio =
2.91; and for adolescent
pregnancy
in
the New Zealand
sample:
N =
466, B(SE
=
.26)
=
.74,
X2
=
7.89, p = .005, odds ratio = 2.09. Thus, even after
simultaneously controlling
for all covariates, early
father-absent
girls
continued to have the
highest
rates of both
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy,
followed
by
late father-absent
girls,
followed
by father-present girls (Figure
1). For
example,
after covariate
adjustment,
adolescent
pregnancy
rates were
approximately
5 times
higher
in the U.S.
sample
and 3 times
higher
in the New
Zealand
sample among early
father-absent
girls
than
among father-present girls (Figure
1).
There was one notable difference between the U.S.
and New Zealand
samples.
Whereas the effects of
father absence on sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy
remained
largely unchanged
after covari-
ate
adjustment
in the U.S.
sample,
these effects were
substantively
reduced after covariate
adjustment
in
the New Zealand
sample
(as shown in
Figure
1). To
examine which covariates caused this reduction,
additional
logistic regression analyses
were con-
ducted in the New Zealand
sample
in which father
absence was entered into the
equation
simulta-
neously
with each covariate. This enabled us to
calculate the
degree
to which individual covariates
caused a reduction in the effect of father absence (as
indicated
by change
in the odds ratio) on
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy.
For
early
sexual
activity,
the
following
covariates each
caused a reduction in the odds ratio at least 10%:
mothers'
age
at first
birth,
family
life
stress,
father's
occupational
status,
maternal
education,
and marital
conflict.
Similarly,
for adolescent
pregnancy,
reduc-
tions in the odds ratio of at least 10% were caused
by
family living
standards,
family
life
stress,
father's
occupational
status,
maternal
education,
maternal
punitiveness,
and marital conflict.
Finally,
to examine which
group
of covariates
uniquely predicted early
sexual
activity
and
teenage
pregnancy
after
controlling
for
timing
of father
absence,
we
again performed
the
logistic regression
analyses using
forward
stepwise procedures, forcing
the
entry
of the father absence variable into the
equation
on the first
step
and then
allowing
free
entry
of all covariates into the
equation
on subse-
quent steps.
In the U.S.
sample,
in
prediction
of both
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy, only
early
childhood
entered the
equation
after
controlling
for
timing
of father
absence. None of the measures of familial or
ecological stress, therefore, predicted early
sexual
outcomes after
controlling
for
timing
of father
absence and
early externalizing problems.
In the
New Zealand
sample,
in
prediction
of both
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy,
both
maternal education and
family
life stress entered
the
equation
after
controlling
for
timing
of father
absence. In addition, father's
occupational
status
entered the
equation
for
predicting early
sexual
activity.
814 Ellis et al.
Rates
of
Behavioral Problems and Academic
Performance
by Timing of
Father
Absence,
Before
and
After
Adjustment for
Covariates
Next,
we examined whether father absence dis-
criminantly
increased risk for adolescent sexual
outcomes but not for behavioral and mental
health
problems
in
general.
To address this
question,
we conducted the same
regression analyses
that were conducted in the
preceding
section,
but we substituted different outcome variables for
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy.
The
outcome measures examined in the U.S.
sample
included
externalizing
behavioral
problems (ages
15-17;
mother
report
and child
report), internalizing
behavior
problems (ages
15-17;
mother
report
and
child
report),
violent acts
(ages
16-17),
and
high
school GPA. The outcome measures examined in the
New Zealand
sample
included
DSM-III-R
diag-
noses for conduct
disorder,
mood
disorder,
and
anxiety
disorder (all
ages
14-18);
violent
offending
(ages
14-18);
attempted
suicide
(ages
14-18);
and
failure to attain at least one
pass
in School Certificate
before
leaving high
school. As in the
previous
analyses,
the effect of
timing
of onset of father
absence on each outcome variable was examined
before and after
adjustment
for all covariates listed
in Table 1.
The
key analysis
concerns the effect of
timing
of
father absence after
adjustment
for covariates. As
shown in Table 2
(adjusted
rates in
parentheses),
after statistical
adjustment
for all
covariates,
there
were no
substantively meaningful
linear relations
between
timing
any
of the
measures of behavioral
problems
(all
p
values >
.33)
in the U.S.
sample,
as indicated
by
both the low odds
ratios
(range
=
1.05-1.35) and
relatively
flat rates of
behavioral
problems
across the two father-absent
and one
father-present groups.
In
addition,
after
statistical
adjustment
for all
covariates,
there was not
a
substantively meaningful
relation between father
absence and
high
school GPA
(N=
177, = -.11,
t =
-1.43,
p
=
.16).
As noted in the Method
section,
the four
measures of
externalizing
and
internalizing
behavior
problems
were dichotomized (to facilitate
compar-
ison with other outcome variables). Because dichot-
omization attenuates the
power
to detect relations
with other variables (MacCallum,
Zhang,
Preacher,
&
Rucker, 2002),
we also
performed
the
analyses
using
standard linear
regression
with continuous
measures of the four
dependent
variables (as
described in the Method section).
After
controlling
for the full set of
covariates,
the effects of
timing
of
onset of father absence on both mother- and
daughter-reported externalizing
and
internalizing
behavior
problems
remained
uniformly
small and
statistically nonsignificant
(N
=
203; Ps range
from
.01 to
.16,
all
ps
>
.05).
The
pattern
of results was different for the New
Zealand
sample.
As shown in Table 3
(adjusted
rates
in
parentheses),
after statistical
adjustment
for all
covariates,
there was a
pattern
of modest associa-
tions between father absence and the measures of
Table 2
Rates
of
Behavioral Problems and Academic
Performance by Timing of
Father Absence,
Before
and
Covariates: United States
Timing
of onset of father absence
Variable
Early
onset of Late onset of Father B (SE)
z2
p
Odds ratio
father absence father absence
presence
Externalizing problems
Mother
report
25.6% 10.3% 9.8% .58 (.20) 8.55 .003 1.79
(15.8%) (13.3%) (11.1%) .30 (.36) 0.69 .41 1.35
Child
report
15.6% 24.1% 11.3% .20 (.20) 1.02 .31 1.22
(17.5%) (14.7%) (12.3%)
.28 (.36) 0.61 .44 1.32
Internalizing problems
Mother
report
14.1% 24.1% 12.9% .08 (.20) 0.15 .70 1.08
(14.1%) (13.7%) (13.2%)
.05 (.31) 0.02 .89 1.05
Child
report
15.6% 27.6% 12.8% .14 (.19) 0.52 .47 1.15
(18.9%) (16.3%) (13.9%)
.22
(.31)
0.49 .49 1.24
Violent acts 39.0% 29.6% 15.3% .63 (.17) 14.22 <.001 1.88
(28.1%) (23.8%) (20.1%)
.25 (.26) 0.94 .33 1.28
Note.
Percentages
after covariate
adjustment
are shown in
parentheses.
N
=
240 and 203 (mother
report externalizing
and
internalizing),
N = 239 and 202 (child
report externalizing
and
internalizing),
and N = 236 and 202 (violent
offending),
before and after covariate
adjustment, respectively.
Father Absence 815
behavioral and mental health
problems,
as indicated
by
both the odds ratios
(range
= 1.36-1.59) and the
modest decline in rates of these outcome variables
across the two father-absent and one
father-present
groups.
Most of these associations obtained at least
marginal
statistical
significance.
In
sum,
in the U.S.
sample,
after
statistically
controlling
for all
covariates,
timing
of onset of
father absence remained
strongly
associated with
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy
but not
with other behavioral
problems
and academic
performance. Although
the direction of the effects
indicated that earlier onset of father absence was
associated with more behavioral and academic
problems
in the U.S.
sample,
the size of the effects
were small and did not
approach
statistical
signifi-
cance.
By
contrast,
in the New Zealand
sample,
after
statistically controlling
for all
covariates,
there was
still a
pattern
of at least trend associations between
timing
of father absence and the measures of
adolescent
adjustment,
with odds ratios
ranging
from 1.36 to 2.09.
Although early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy occupied
the
upper
end of this
range,
and
although
the odds ratio for
teenage
pregnancy
was
substantially higher
than for
any
other variable (+.50 or
greater),
there was not a clear
divide between the effects of father absence on
early
sexual
activity
and other behavioral and mental
health outcomes.
Specifically,
after covariate
adjust-
ment,
the odds ratio for
early
sexual
activity
(1.57)
was about the same as for conduct disorder
(1.59),
violent
offending
(1.56),
and no school
qualifications
(1.50).
Discussion
Does father absence
uniquely
and
discriminantly
increase
daughters'
risk for
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy, independent
of
early
externaliz-
ing
behavior
problems
and
exposure
to familial and
ecological
stressors
during
childhood? In
addressing
this
question,
the current research had several
important strengths. First, the use of a cross-national
research
design
enabled us to
replicate key findings
across diverse
samples
in different countries. Sec-
ond, in
conducting
two studies, we were able to
carry
out
independent
tests of the
hypotheses using
different measures and methods. The
similarity
in
results across the U.S. and New Zealand
samples
underscores the robustness and
generalizability
of
the
findings. Nonetheless, it will be
important
to
replicate
these
findings
in non-Western
samples (see
Waynforth, 2002). Third, the
longitudinal
nature of
the
research--in
which
girls
were
prospectively
studied
throughout
their entire childhoods-en-
abled us to examine child and
family
variables that
preceded
risk for involvement in sexual
activity
and
pregnancy
in adolescence.
Finally,
the use of multi-
ple
informants,
in which antecedent child and
family
data were collected from mothers and adolescent
sexual outcome data were collected from
daughters,
makes it less
likely
that the current
findings
are an
artifact of method variance.
Does Father Absence Place
Daughters
at
Special
Risk
for
Early
Sexual
Activity
and
Teenage Pregnancy?
Although
the current research cannot demon-
strate
causation,
three
converging
lines of evidence
suggest
that the answer to this
question
is
yes.
First,
in both the U.S. and New Zealand
samples,
there
was a
dose-response relationship
between
timing
of
onset of father absence and
early
sexual outcomes:
Early
father-absent
girls
had the
highest
rates of both
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy,
followed
by
late father-absent
girls,
followed
by
father-present girls.
This
dose-response relationship
suggests
that
past
research,
which has
consistently
treated father absence as a dichotomous
yes-no
variable,
has underestimated the
impact
of father
absence on
daughters'
sexual outcomes. This issue
may
be
especially
relevant to
predicting
rates of
teenage pregnancy,
which were 7 to 8 times
higher
among early
father-absent
girls,
but
only
2 to 3 times
higher among
late father-absent
girls,
than
among
Second,
in both the U.S. and New Zealand
samples,
father absence constituted a
unique
and
independent path
to
early
sexual
activity
and
adolescent
pregnancy. Although
measures of
early
conduct
problems
and life-course
adversity
covaried
with both
timing
of father absence and adolescent
sexual
outcomes,
these measures either did not
account for (in the U.S.
sample)
or
only partially
accounted for (in the New Zealand
sample)
the links
between father absence and
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy.
The relations between father
absence and
teenage pregnancy
were
particularly
robust. For
example,
after
controlling
for all of the
covariates, early
father-absent
girls
were still about 5
times more
likely
in the U.S.
sample
and 3 times
more
likely
in the New Zealand
sample
to
experi-
ence an adolescent
pregnancy
than were father-
present girls.
In total, these data
suggest
that father
absence
may
affect
daughters'
sexual
development
through processes
that
operate independently
of life-
course
adversity
and
go beyond
mere continuation
of
early
conduct
problems.
816 Ellis et al.
Third,
in the U.S.
sample,
father absence was
discriminantly
associated with
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy.
This association was
specific
to sexual outcomes
and,
after
controlling
for
early
conduct
problems
and familial and
ecological
stressors,
did not extend to
academic, behavioral,
or mental health
problems
more
generally.
In the
New Zealand
sample,
however,
the
picture
was less
clear. After covariate
adjustment,
there was still a
pattern
of at least trend associations between
timing
of father absence and the measures of adolescent
adjustment,
with
early
sexual
activity
and adoles-
cent
pregnancy occupying
the
upper
end of this
range
of associations.
Considering
the U.S. and New
Zealand
findings together,
after
controlling
for
measures of
early
conduct
problems
and life-course
adversity,
the effects of father absence on sex and
pregnancy
(a) were
generally stronger
than were the
effects of father absence on other outcome variables
and (b)
clearly replicated
across the two studies
whereas other effects of father absence were more
equivocal
and
replicated only
in the sense of
being
in
the same direction. In
sum,
after covariate
adjust-
ment,
there was
stronger
and more consistent
evidence of effects of father absence on
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy
than on other
behavioral or mental health
problems
or academic
achievement.
It is worth
reiterating
that all of these conclusions
are based on the linear
model,
which
provided
the
best
fitting
and most
parsimonious representation
of
the associations between father absence and the
outcome variables. Power would have been
low,
however,
to detect
nonlinearity
in the U.S.
sample
(given
the use of dichotomous
dependent
variables
and the
relatively
small
sample
size in the late
father-absent
group).
The base rates shown in Table
2 indicate nonlinear trends in the U.S.
data,
with late
father-absent
girls displaying higher
rates of inter-
nalizing problems
(both child and mother
reports)
and
(child
reports only)
than
either
early
father-absent or
These nonlinear trends did not
replicate
in the
New Zealand data (see Table 3). Nonetheless,
the
possibility
that late father absence
places daughters
at
special
risk for some outcome variables deserves
further consideration in future research with
larger
sample
sizes.
Implications for
the
Life-Course Adversity
Model
In the literature on
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage pregnancy,
the life-course
adversity
model
occupies
a dominant
position.
It
proposes
that a life
history
of familial and
ecological stress-poverty,
exposure
to
violence,
inadequate parental guidance
and
supervision,
lack of educational and career
opportunities
-makes
early
sexual
activity
and
adolescent
pregnancy
more
likely (e.g., Coley
&
Chase-Lansdale, 1998;
Rindfuss & St.
John, 1983).
Table 3
Rates
of
Behavioral and Mental Health Problems
by Timing of
Father
Absence,
Before
and
Covariates: New Zealand
Timing
of onset of father absence
Variable
Early
onset of Late onset of Father B (SE)
p2
p
Odds
father absence father absence
presence
ratio
Conduct disorder 16.9% 15.8% 4.2% .78 (.19) 17.85 <.001 2.19
(12.6%) (8.5%) (5.7%) .46 (.27) 3.03 .082 1.59
Mood disorder 54.2% 49.1% 31.8% .49 (.12) 17.04 <.001 1.64
(48.1%) (40.9%) (34.1%) .31 (.17) 3.29 .070 1.36
Anxiety
disorder 59.0% 54.4% 40.0% .41 (.12) 11.72 .001 1.50
(56.5%) (48.8%) (41.0%) .33 (.17) 3.80 .051 1.39
Violent
offending
31.3% 14.0% 9.7% .71 (.15) 23.12 <.001 2.03
(21.4%) (15.2%) (10.5%) .44 (.21) 4.28 .039 1.56
Suicide
attempt
14.5% 8.8% 5.3% .56 (.19) 8.33 .004 1.74
(10.9%) (8.3%) (6.3%) .32 (.27) 1.40 .237 1.38
No school
qualifications
35.8% 37.5% 9.3% .90 (.14) 41.09 <.001 2.45
(23.7%) (18.5%) (14.1%) .40 (.21) 3.62 .057 1.50
Note.
Percentages
after covariate
adjustment
are shown in
parentheses.
For school
qualifications,
N
=
515 and 461 before and after
covariate
adjustment, respectively;
for all other
variables, N = 520 and 466 before and after covariate
adjustment, respectively.
Father Absence 817
The life-course
adversity
model has
gained
wide
acceptance through
consistent
empirical support.
Rates of
teenage pregnancy
have been found to
covary positively
with
family
stress, conflict,
and
disruptions (e.g., Fergusson
&
Woodward, 2000a;
Hanson,
Myers,
&
Ginsburg,
1987;
Robbins et
al.,
1985);
with low
parental
warmth or
support,
lack of
parental
control and
monitoring,
and maternal
punitive
behavior
(e.g., Fergusson
&
Woodward,
2000a;
Hansen et
al., 1987;
Scaramella et
al., 1998;
reviewed in Miller et
al., 2001);
with low SES
(e.g.,
Fergusson
&
Woodward, 2000a; Geronimus &
Korenman, 1992;
Robbins et
al., 1985);
with
high
neighborhood mortality
rates
(Geronimus, 1996;
Wilson &
Daly,
1997);
and with
minority
racial or
ethnic status
(Cheesbrough
et
al., 1999;
Dickson et
al., 2000). The results
presented
in Table 1 are
consistent with this
body
of research.
As discussed in the
Introduction,
the life-course
adversity
model has
incorporated
father absence as
one of
many
stressors that can influence sexual
outcomes.
Indeed,
as shown in Table
1,
timing
of
father absence
significantly
covaried with all of the
measures of familial and
ecological
stress in both the
U.S. and New Zealand studies.
Proponents
of the
life-course
adversity
model have
recurrently
stated
that father absence
predicts early
sexual outcomes
because it covaries with these stressors
(Belsky,
et
al.,
1991,
p.
658; Chisholm, 1999,
p.
162; McLanahan,
1999,
p.
119;
Robbins et
al., 1985,
p.
568;
Silverstein &
Averbach, 1999,
p.
403).
The current research
suggests
that the
opposite
interpretation
is
equally plausible:
Measures of life-
course
adversity may predict early
sexual outcomes
primarily
because
they covary
with
timing
of father
absence. In the U.S.
sample,
father absence
predicted
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy
after
controlling
for
early
conduct
problems
and all of the
measures of familial and
ecological
stress; however,
none of the measures of familial and
ecological
stress
predicted
either
early
sexual
activity
or adolescent
pregnancy
after
controlling
for
timing
of father
absence and
early
conduct
problems.
The results in
the New Zealand
sample
were more
equivocal:
Both
father absence and some measures of familial and
ecological
stress (i.e., maternal education and
family
life stress) independently predicted early
sexual
outcomes.
Evolutionary
and
Social Learning
Models
Given that the life-course
adversity
model does
not
appear
to
explain
the current results, the
question
then becomes: What are the
psychological
mechanisms and
processes
that account for the
relations between
increasing exposure
to father
absence and
greater
risk for
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy?
From a social
learning
perspective, increasing
duration of father absence is
associated with
increasing exposure
of
daughters
to
their mothers'
dating
and
repartnering
behaviors,
and these
exposures may encourage
earlier onset of
sexual behavior in
daughters,
with
consequent
increased risk of
teenage pregnancy.
As Thornton
and Camburn
(1987,
p.
325)
suggest,
"We
expect
that
many
children know whether their
parents
are
sexually
active after a marital dissolution and that
formerly
married
parents
who continue to be
sexually
active serve as behavioral models for their
maturing
children,
thus
increasing
the children's
levels of
permissiveness."
The social
learning
model
thus
posits
that the effect of father absence on
daughters'
sexual outcomes will be mediated
by
mothers'
dating
and
repartnering
behaviors. This
hypothesis
deserves careful consideration in future
research.
Another
possibility
is that mothers'
dating
and
repartnering
behaviors do not
fully
mediate the
relation between father absence and
precocious
sexual outcomes in
daughters.
Rather,
as discussed
earlier,
quality
of
paternal
investment
may
have a
direct effect on
daughters' sexuality.
The current
evolutionary
model
posits
that the motivational
systems underlying
variation in
timing
of sexual
and
reproductive
behavior are
especially
sensitive to
the father's
role in the
family
in
early
childhood.
According
to
Draper
and
Harpending
(1982, 1988),
girls
whose
early family experiences
are character-
ized
by
father absence tend to
develop
sexual
psychologies
that are consistent with the
expectation
that male
parental
investment is unreliable and
unimportant;
these
girls
are
hypothesized
to
develop
in a manner that accelerates onset of sexual
activity
and
reproduction,
reduces reticence in
forming
sexual
relationships,
and orients the
individual toward
relatively
unstable
pair-bonds
(see also Ellis &
Garber, 2000;
Ellis et
al., 1999).
This
evolutionary
model
posits
an
early
sensitive
period (approximately
the first 5
years
of life) for the
effects of father absence on
daughters'
sexual
development. Although
the current
results--that
earlier onset of father absence was associated with
greater
risk for
early
sexual
activity
and
teenage
pregnancy--are
consistent with the sensitive
period
hypothesis, they
do not
clearly support
it because
timing
of father absence was confounded with
length
of father absence in the current research. In
total, the current results are
equally
consistent with
818 Ellis et al.
either a sensitive
period
or linear
dose-response
interpretation.
Alternative
Behavior Genetic
Explanations
Perhaps
the
major
weakness of the current
research
design
was that it was not
genetically
informative. As noted in the
Introduction,
one
plausible behavior-genetic explanation
for the cur-
rent
findings
is
that,
through genetic transmission,
mothers and fathers who have a
history
of externa-
lizing
disorders not
only
tend to have
daughters
who
experience externalizing
behavioral
problems
(including
increased rates of
early
sexual
activity
and teen
pregnancy)
but also tend to
disproportion-
ately expose
their
daughters
to father absence and
accompanying
maternal
dating
and
repartnering
behaviors because
externalizing
disorders
predict
divorce. A second
plausible behavior-genetic expla-
nation is that mothers who
experience early age
of
first sex and
pregnancy
not
only
tend to have
daughters
who
experience early age
of first sex
and
pregnancy (through genetic
transmission;
see
Dunne et
al., 1997;
Rodgers,
Rowe,
&
Buster, 1999)
but also tend to
expose disproportionately
their
daughters
to father absence and maternal
dating
and
repartnering
because
young
mothers are less
likely
to form stable
relationships
with the fathers of their
children
(e.g.,
Amato, 1996; Bennett, Bloom,
&
Miller, 1995).
Consistent with these behavior
genetic
models,
in
the current research both
early
childhood conduct
problems
in
daughters
and earlier
age
at first birth in
mothers
generally predicted early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy
in
daughters.
It is
important, though,
that
controlling
for both
early
conduct
problems
and mothers'
age
at first birth
(along
with the other
covariates) either did not
account for (in the U.S.
sample)
or
only partially
accounted for (in the New Zealand
sample)
the
relations between father absence and elevated rates
of
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy.
Although
these results do not rule out the
possibility
that common
genetic
influences underlie the covar-
iation between father absence and
precocious
sexual
outcomes (see especially Comings, Muhleman,
Johnson, &
MacMurray, 2002), they
do make it less
likely
that the current
findings
can be accounted for
by
the
specific genetic pathways
outlined above.
Conclusion
Over the last 25
years
the field of
developmental
psychology
has
experienced
a fundamental shift
away
from a social address
perspective,
in which
variables such as father absence and social class
were studied without
explicitly considering
how
they
influenced child
functioning,
to a
developmen-
tal
process perspective,
in which
intervening path-
ways
and mechanisms have become of fundamental
interest (discussed
in Bronfenbrenner &
Crouter,
1983).
Critiques
of the father absence literature
(reviewed
in
Phares, 1996)
partly
motivated this
change.
A
widely
held
assumption
is that it is not
father absence
per
se that is harmful to children but
the stress associated with
divorce,
family
conflict,
loss of a second
parent,
loss of an adult male
income,
and so on. The current research
suggests
that,
in
relation to
daughters'
sexual
development,
the social
address of father absence is
important
in its own
right
and not
just
as a
proxy
for its
many
correlates.
This does not
imply
that
process
is
unimportant,
but
rather that relevant
processes
are
likely
to be father
driven
(e.g., father-daughter processes,
father-
mother
relationships, exposure
to
stepfathers;
see
Ellis et
al., 1999).
In
conclusion,
father absence was an
overriding
risk factor for
early
sexual
activity
and adolescent
pregnancy. Conversely,
father
presence
was a
major
protective
factor
against early
sexual
outcomes,
even
if other risk factors were
present.
These
findings may
support
social
policies
that
encourage
fathers to
form and remain in families with their children
(unless the
marriage
is
highly
conflictual or
violent;
Amato &
Booth, 1997).
References
Achenbach,
T. M. (1991).
Integrative guide for
the 1991 CBCL
14-18, YSR,
and
TRF
profiles. Burlington: University
of
Vermont,
Department
of
Psychiatry.
Amato,
P. (1996).
Explaining
the
intergenerational
trans-
mission of divorce.
Journal of Marriage
and the
Family,
58,
628-640.
Amato, P.,
&
Booth,
A. (1997). A
generation
at risk:
Growing
up
in an era
of family upheaval. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University
Press.
American
Psychiatric
Association. (1987).
Diagnostic
and
Statistical Manual
of
Mental Disorders (3rd ed., Rev.).
Washington,
DC: American
Psychiatric
Association.
American
Psychiatric
Association. (1994).
Diagnostic
and
Statistical Manual
of
Mental Disorders
(4th ed).
Washing-
ton,
DC: American
Psychiatric
Association.
Bardone,
A.
M., Moffitt,
T.
E.,
Caspi,
A., Dickson, N.,
&
Silva,
P. A. (1996). Adult mental health and social
outcomes of adolescent
girls
with
depression
and
conduct disorder.
Development
and
Psychopathology,
8,
811-829.
Father Absence 819
Bates, J. E., Pettit,
G.
S.,
Dodge,
K.
A.,
&
Ridge,
B. (1998).
The interaction of
temperamental
resistance to control
and restrictive
parenting
in the
development
of externa-
lizing
behavior.
Developmental Psychology, 34,
982-995.
Belsky, J.,
Steinberg,
L.,
&
Draper,
P.
(1991). Childhood
experience, interpersonal development,
and
reproduc-
tive
strategy:
An
evolutionary theory
of socialization.
Child
Development, 62,
647-670.
Bennett,
N.
G., Bloom,
D.
E.,
&
Miller,
C. K. (1995). The
influence of nonmarital
childbearing
on the formation of
first
marriages. Demography,
32,
47-62.
Bereczkei, T.,
&
Csanaky,
A. (1996).
Evolutionary pathways
of child
development: Lifestyles
of adolescents and
adults from father-absent families. Human
Nature, 7,
257-280.
Blain, J.,
&
Barkow, J.
H. (1988). Father
involvement,
reproductive strategies,
and the sensitive
period.
In K.
B. MacDonald
(Ed.),
Sociobiological perspectives
on human
development (pp.
376-396). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Bradley,
R.
H., &
Caldwell,
B. M. (1977). Home observation
for measurement of the environment: A validation
study
of screen
efficiency.
American
Journal of
Mental
Deficiency,
81,
417-424.
Bronfenbrenner, U.,
&
Crouter,
A. C. (1983). The evolution
of environmental models in
developmental
research. In
W. Kessen
(Ed.),
Handbook
of
child
psychology,
Vol. 1:
History, theory,
and methods
(pp.
357-414). New York:
Wiley.
Carlin, J. B., Wolfe, R.,
Coffey,
C.,
&
Patton, G.
C. (1999).
Tutorial in biostatistics.
Analysis
of
binary
outcomes in
longitudinal
studies
using weighted estimating equa-
tions and discrete-time survival methods: Prevalence
and incidence of
smoking
in an adolescent cohort.
Statistics in
Medicine, 18,
2655-2679.
Cheesbrough, S.,
Ingham,
R.,
&
Massey,
D.
(1999). A review
of
the international evidence on
preventing
and
reducing
teenage conceptions:
The United States, Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand. London: Health Education
Authority.
Chisholm, J. S. (1999). Death,
hope
and sex:
Steps
to an
evolutionary ecology of
mind.
Cambridge, England:
Cam-
bridge University
Press.
Coley,
R.
L.,
&
Chase-Lansdale,
P. L.
(1998). Adolescent
pregnancy
and
parenthood:
Recent evidence and future
directions. American
Psychologist,
53, 152-166.
Comings,
D.
E., Muhleman, D., Johnson, J. P.,
& MacMur-
ray, J.
P.
(2002).
Parent-daughter
transmission of the
androgen receptor gene as an
explanation of the effect of
father absence on
age
of menarche. Child
Development,
73, 1046-1051.
Costello, A., Edelbrock, C., Kalas, R., Kessler, M., & Klaric,
S. A. (1982). Diagnostic
Interview Schedule
for
Children
(DISC). Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Mental
Health.
Day,
R. D. (1992). The transition to first intercourse
among
racially
and
culturally
diverse
youth, Journal of Marriage
and the
Family, 54, 749-762.
Devine, D., Long, P., & Forehand, R. (1993). A
prospec-
tive
study
of adolescent sexual
activity: Description,
correlates, and
predictors.
Advances in Behavioral Re-
search
Therapy,
15,
185-209.
Dickson, N.,
Sporle,
A., Rimene, C.,
& Paul, C. (2000).
Pregnancies among
New Zealand
teenagers:
Trends,
current status and international
comparisons.
New
Zealand Medical
Journal, 113, 241-245.
Dodge,
K.
A., Bates, J. E.,
&
Pettit,
G.
S. (1990).
Mechanisms
in the
cycle
of violence. Science, 250,
1678-1683.
Dodge,
K.
A., Pettit,
G.
S.,
&
Bates, J.
E. (1994).
Socialization mediators of the relation between socio-
economic status and child conduct
problems.
Child
Development,
65,
649-665.
Draper,
P. &
Harpending,
H. (1982). Father absence and
reproductive strategy:
An
evolutionary perspective.
Journal of Anthropological
Research, 38,
255-273.
Draper,
P. &
Harpending,
H.
(1988).
A
sociobiological
perspective
on the
development
of human
reproductive
strategies.
In K. B. MacDonald (Ed.), Sociobiological
perspectives
on human
development (pp.
340-372). New
York:
Springer-Verlag.
Dunne,
M.
P., Martin,
N.
G., Statham,
D.
J., Slutske,
W.
S.,
Dinwiddie,
S.
H., Bucholz,
K.
K.,
et al. (1997). Genetic
and environmental contributions to variance in
age
at
first sexual intercourse.
Psychological
Science, 8,
211-216.
Elardo, R.,
&
Bradley,
R. M.
C.,
&
Caldwell,
B. M. (1977). A
longitudinal study
of the relation of infant home
environments to
language development
at
age
three.
Child
Development,
48,
595-603.
Elley,
W.
B.,
&
Irving, J.
C. (1976). Revised socio-economic
index for New Zealand. New Zealand
Journal of
Educa-
tional
Studies, 11,
25-36.
Elliott,
D.
S.,
&
Huizinga,
D. (1989).
Improving
self-
reported
measures of
delinquency.
In M. W. Klein (Ed.),
Cross-national research in
self-reported
crime and delin-
quency (pp.
155-186). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Ellis,
B.
J.,
& Garber, J. (2000).
Psychosocial
antecedents of
variation in
girls' pubertal timing:
Maternal
depression,
stepfather presence,
and martial and
family
stress. Child
Development,
71,
485-501.
Ellis,
B.
J., McFadyen-Ketchum,
S.,
Dodge,
K.
A., Pettit,
G.
S.,
&
Bates, J.
E. (1999).
Quality
of
early family
relationships
and individual differences in the
timing
of
pubertal
maturation in
girls:
A
longitudinal
test of an
evolutionary
model.
Journal of Personality
and Social
Psychology,
77,
387-401.
Emery,
R.
E., Waldron, M., Kitzmann,
K.
M.,
& Aaron, J.
(1999).
Delinquent
behavior,
future divorce or nonmar-
ital
childbearing,
and
externalizing
behavior
among
offspring:
A
14-year prospective study. Journal of Family
Psychology, 13, 568-579.
Fergusson,
D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2001). The Christch-
urch Health and
Development Study:
Review of
findings
on child and adolescent mental health. Aus-
tralian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35, 285-296.
Fergusson,
D. M., Horwood, L. J., &
Lynskey,
M. T. (1992).
Family change, parental
discord and
early offending.
Journal of
Child
Psychology
&
Psychiatry
&
Allied
Disciplines, 33, 1059-1075.
820 Ellis et al.
Fergusson,
D.
M., Horwood,
L.
J.,
&
Lynskey,
M. T.
(1993).
Prevalence and
comorbidity
of
DSM-III-R
diagnoses
in
a birth cohort of 15
year
olds.
Journal of
the American
Academy of
Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry,
32, 1127-1134.
Fergusson,
D.
M., Horwood,
L.
J., Shannon,
F.
T., &
Lawton, J.
M. (1989). The Christchurch Child
Develop-
ment
Study:
A review of
epidemiological findings.
Paediatric & Perinatal
Epidemiology,
3, 278-301.
Fergusson,
D.
M.,
&
Woodward,
L.
J. (2000a).
Teenage
pregnancy
and female educational underachievement:
A
prospective study
of a New Zealand birth cohort.
Journal of Marriage
and the
Family,
62,
147-161.
Fergusson,
D.
M.,
&
Woodward,
L.
J. (2000b). Educational,
psychosocial,
and sexual outcomes of
girls
with conduct
problems
in
early
adolescence.
Journal of
Child
Psychol-
ogy
and
Psychiatry, 41,
779-792.
Furstenberg, E
F., Jr., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
&
Chase-Lansdale,
L. (1989).
Teenaged pregnancy
and
childbearing.
Amer-
ican
Psychologist,
44, 313-320.
Geronimus,
A. T. (1996). What teen mothers know. Human
Nature, 7,
323-352.
Geronimus,
A.
T.,
&
Korenman, S. (1992). The socio-
economic
consequences
of teen
childbearing
reconsid-
ered.
Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 107,
1187-1214.
Hanson,
S.
L.,
Myers,
D.
E.,
&
Ginsburg,
A. L. (1987). The
role of
responsibility
and
knowledge
in
reducing
teen-
age
out-of-wedlock
childbearing. Journal of Marriage
and
the
Family,
49, 241-256.
Hetherington,
E. M. (1972). Effects of father absence on
personality development
in adolescent
daughters.
De-
velopmental Psychology,
7,
313-326.
Hogan,
D.
P.,
&
Kitagawa,
E. M. (1985). The
impact
of
social
status,
family
structure,
and
neighborhood
on the
fertility
of black adolescents. American
Journal of
Sociol-
ogy,
90,
825-855.
Hollingshead,
A. B. (1975). Four
factor
index
of
social status.
New
Haven,
CT: Yale
University, Department
of
Sociology.
Holmes,
S.
J.,
&
Rahe,
R. (1967). The social
readjustment
rating
scale.
Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 11,
213-
218.
Kiernan,
K.
E.,
&
Hobcraft, J. (1997). Parental divorce
during
childhood:
Age
at first
intercourse,
partnership
and
parenthood. Population
Studies, 51,
41-55.
Konner, M.,
&
Shostak,
M. (1986). Adolescent
pregnancy
and
childbearing:
An
anthropological perspective.
In
J.
B. Lancaster & B. A.
Hamburg
(Eds.),
School-age
pregnancy
and
parenthood:
Biosocial dimensions
(pp.
325-
346). New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Kotchick, B. A., Shaffer, A., Forehand, R., & Miller, K. S.
(2001). Adolescent sexual risk behavior: A
multi-system
perspective.
Clinical
Psychology Review, 21, 493-519.
Lee, J. (1981). Covariance
adjustment
of rates based on the
multiple logistic regression
model. Journal of
Chronic
Disease, 34, 415-426.
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D.
D. (2002). On the
practice
of dichotomization of
quantitative
variables.
Psychological Methods, 7, 19-40.
McLanahan, S. S. (1999). Father absence and the welfare of
children. In E. M.
Hetherington
(Ed.),
Coping
with
divorce,
single parenting,
and
remarriage.
Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Miller,
B.
C., Benson, B.,
& Galbraith,
K. A. (2001).
Family
relationships
and adolescent
pregnancy
risk: A research
synthesis. Developmental
Review, 21, 1-38.
Miller,
B.
C., Norton,
M.
C., Curtis, T., Hill, E.
J.,
Schvaneveldt, P.,
&
Young,
M. H. (1997). The
timing
of
sexual intercourse
among
adolescents:
Family, peer,
and
other
antecedents. Youth and
Society,
29,
54-83.
Moffitt,
T.
R.,
&
Silva,
P. A. (1988).
Self-reported
delin-
quency:
Results from an instrument for New Zealand.
Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Criminology,
21,
227-240.
Newcomber, S.,
&
Udry, J.
R. (1987). Parental marital status
effects on adolescent sexual behavior.
Journal of Marriage
and the
Family,
49,
235-240.
Paul, C.,
Fitzjohn, J., Herbison, P.,
&
Dickson,
N. (2000).
The determinants of sexual intercourse before
age
16.
Journal of
Adolescent
Health, 27,
136-147.
Pettit,
G. S., Bates, J. E., &
Dodge,
K. A. (1997).
Supportive
parenting, ecological
context,
and children's
adjustment:
A seven
year longitudinal study.
Child
Development,
68,
908-923.
Pettit,
G.
S., Bates, J. E.,
&
Dodge,
K.
A.,
& Meece,
D. W.
(1999). The
impact
of after-school
peer
contact on
early
adolescent
is moderated
by
parental monitoring, perceived neighborhood safety,
and
prior adjustment.
Child
Development,
70,
768-778.
Pettit,
G.
S, Laird,
R.
D,
Dodge,
K.
A., Bates, J. E,
&
Criss,
M. M. (2001). Antecedents and
behavior-problem
out-
comes of
parental monitoring
and
psychological
control
in
early
adolescence. Child
Development,
72,
583-598.
Phares,
V. (1996). Fathers and
developmental psychopathology.
New York:
Wiley.
Posner, J. K.,
&
Vandell,
D. L. (1994). Low-income
children's after-school care: Are there beneficial effects
of after-school
programs?
Child
Development,
65,
440-
456.
Quinton, D., Pickles, A.,
Maughan,
B., & Rutter,
M. (1993).
Partners,
peers,
and
pathways:
Assortative
pairing
and
continuities in conduct disorder.
Development
and
Psy-
chopathology,
5,
763-783.
Rhee,
S.
H.,
& Waldman, I. D. (2002). Genetic and
environmental influences on antisocial behavior: A
meta-analysis
of twin and
adoption
studies.
Psychologi-
cal
Bulletin, 128, 490-529.
Rindfuss, P. R., & St. John, C. (1983). Social determinants of
age
at first birth. Journal of Marriage
and the
Family, 45,
553-565.
Robbins, C., Kaplan,
H. B., & Martin, S.
S.
(1985).
Antecedents of
pregnancy among
unmarried adoles-
cents. Journal of Marriage
and the
Family, 47, 567-583.
Rodgers, J. L., Rowe, D. C., & Buster, M. (1999). Nature,
nurture, and first sexual intercourse in the USA:
Fitting
behavioural
genetic
models to NLSY
kinship
data.
Journal of
Biosocial Science, 31, 29-41.
Father Absence 821
Rothbart,
M.
K.,
&
Bates, J.
E. (1998).
Temperament.
In W.
Damon (Ed. in Chief) & N.
Eisenberg
(Vol. Ed.),
Handbook
of
child
psychology (pp.
105-176). New York:
Wiley.
Rutter, M., Tizard, J.,
&
Whitmore,
K. (1970). Education,
health and behaviour. London:
Longmans.
Sampson,
R.
J.,
&
Laub, J.
H.
(1990). Crime and deviance
over the life course: The salience of adult social bonds.
American
Sociological
Review, 55,
609-627.
Scaramella,
L.
V.,
Conger,
R.
D., Simons, L.,
&
Whitbeck,
L.
B. (1998).
Predicting
risk for
pregnancy by
late adoles-
cence: A social contextual
perspective. Developmental
Psychology, 34,
1233-1245.
Silverstein,
L.
B.,
&
Auerbach,
C.
E
(1999).
Deconstructing
the essential father. American
Psychologist,
54,
397-407.
Thornton, A., &
Camburn,
D.
(1987). The influence of the
family
on
premarital
sexual attitudes and behavior.
Demography, 24,
323-340.
Upchurch,
D.
M., Aneshensel,
C.
S., Sucoff,
C.
A.,
&
Levy-
Storms,
L.
(1999).
Neighborhood
and
family
contexts of
adolescent sexual
activity. Journal of Marriage
and the
Family,
61,
920-933.
Waynforth,
D. (2002).
Evolutionary theory
and
reproduc-
tive
responses
to father absence:
Implications
of kin
selection and the
reproductive
returns to
mating
and
parenting
effort. In C. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera
(Eds.),
Handbook
of father
involvement
(pp.
337-357).
Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Wilson, M.,
&
Daly,
M. (1997). Life
expectancy,
economic
inequality,
homicide,
and
reproductive timing
in Chi-
cago neighbourhoods.
British Medical
Journal, 314, 1271-
1274.
Woodward,
L.
J.,
&
Fergusson,
D.
M. (1999).
Early
conduct
problems
and later risk of
teenage pregnancy
in
girls.
Development
and
Psychopathology,
11,
127-141.
World Health
Organization.
(1993).
Composite
International
Diagnostic
Interview
(CIDI). Geneva,
Switzerland: World
Health
Organization.

EXHIBIT 38
Home Inside RCP Polls Videos Issues Comments Links World Markets Sports
NEWS & ELECTION VIDEOS
Up Late with
RealClearPolitics: May
8, 2014
Rep. Cummings on
Lois Lerner: We Have
To Uphold The
Constitutional Rights
Of Every American
Ronan Farrow on
Lewinsky Trying To
Take Ownership of
Scandal: "Has She
Earned That?"
Harry Reid on Sheldon
Adelson: "Don't Pick
On Him; He's Not In It
To Make Money"
More Political Videos
Approve 44.0
Disapprove 52.1
Spread -8.1
Republicans 43.6
Democrats 43.0
Republicans +0.6
Right Direction 27.9
Wrong Track 63.0
Spread -35.1
Approve 13.2
Disapprove 76.8
Spread -63.6
RCP POLL AVERAGES
President Obama Job Approval
RCP Average
2014 Generic Congressional Vote
RCP Average
Direction of Country
RCP Average
Congressional Job Approval
RCP Average
Elian Gonzalez saga could
haunt Obama
Gitmo trial looms in election
homestretch
Back at Senate, Clinton
treated like royal
GOP favoritism in new IG
report
How Hoyer got the deal done
THE RCP BLOG
LA Times/Bloomberg Poll:
Obama +12
IN Polls: Prez Race Even, Gov
Race Close
McCain's Psychological
Benefits
VP Watch: Michigan Numbers
The Charm Offensive
Continues
LATEST OPINION
McCain's Speech in Santa
Barbara
SEND TO A FRIEND | PRINT ARTICLE |
Election 2008 Obama vs. McCain | Clinton vs. McCain | Latest 2008 Polls | Latest 2008 News
June 15, 2008
Obama's Speech on Fatherhood
Barack Obama
Apostolic Church of God
Chicago, IL
Good morning. It's good to be home on this Father's Day with my girls, and it's an honor to
spend some time with all of you today in the house of our Lord.
At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus closes by saying, "Whoever hears these
words of mine, and does them, shall be likened to a wise man who built his house upon a
rock: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that
house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock." [Matthew 7: 24-25]
Here at Apostolic, you are blessed to
worship in a house that has been
founded on the rock of Jesus Christ, our
Lord and Savior. But it is also built on
another rock, another foundation - and
that rock is Bishop Arthur Brazier. In
forty-eight years, he has built this
congregation from just a few hundred
to more than 20,000 strong - a
congregation that, because of his
leadership, has braved the fierce winds
and heavy rains of violence and poverty;
joblessness and hopelessness. Because
of his work and his ministry, there are
more graduates and fewer gang
members in the neighborhoods
surrounding this church. There are more homes and fewer homeless. There is more
community and less chaos because Bishop Brazier continued the march for justice that he
began by Dr. King's side all those years ago. He is the reason this house has stood tall for
half a century. And on this Father's Day, it must make him proud to know that the man
now charged with keeping its foundation strong is his son and your new pastor, Reverend
Byron Brazier.
Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the
most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to
that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They
are examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it.
But if we are honest with ourselves, we'll admit that what too many fathers also are is
missing - missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their
responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are
weaker because of it.
You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more
than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled
- doubled - since we were children. We know the statistics - that children who grow up
without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times
more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They
are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage
parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.
How many times in the last year has this city lost a child at the hands of another child?
How many times have our hearts stopped in the middle of the night with the sound of a
gunshot or a siren? How many teenagers have we seen hanging around on street corners
when they should be sitting in a classroom? How many are sitting in prison when they
should be working, or at least looking for a job? How many in this generation are we
willing to lose to poverty or violence or addiction? How many?
Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who
shouldn't have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools, and more outstanding
LOGIN | REGISTER | RSS
More Barack Obama
A Serious Energy Policy
for Our Future
Obama's Remarks to
Working Women
A Metropolitan Strategy
for America's Future
Obama's Remarks on
College Affordability
Renewing American
Competitiveness
SEARCH RCP
Page 1 of 3 RealClearPolitics - Articles - Obama's Speech on Fatherhood
5/8/2014 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obamas_speech_on_fatherhood.html
A Serious Energy Policy for
Our Future
The Imitators
'Victims' of Cut-Rate Loans
Obama Rides The Wave
RELATED OPINION
Elisabeth Hasselbeck on
Michelle Obama's View Visit
Satire and Cruelty
Today's Newsroom Not for
the Chicken Hearted
Who Is Obama? Where Is the
Press?
Parents' Rights Trump
Polygamy
RELATED TOPICS
Media
Religion
Social Issues
teachers in the classroom, and more afterschool programs for our children. Yes, we need
more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities.
But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that
responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a
man is not the ability to have a child - it's the courage to raise one.
We need to help all the mothers out there who are raising these kids by themselves; the
mothers who drop them off at school, go to work, pick up them up in the afternoon, work
another shift, get dinner, make lunches, pay the bills, fix the house, and all the other things
it takes both parents to do. So many of these women are doing a heroic job, but they need
support. They need another parent. Their children need another parent. That's what keeps
their foundation strong. It's what keeps the foundation of our country strong.
I know what it means to have an absent father, although my circumstances weren't as
tough as they are for many young people today. Even though my father left us when I was
two years old, and I only knew him from the letters he wrote and the stories that my family
told, I was luckier than most. I grew up in Hawaii, and had two wonderful grandparents
from Kansas who poured everything they had into helping my mother raise my sister and
me - who worked with her to teach us about love and respect and the obligations we have
to one another. I screwed up more often than I should've, but I got plenty of second
chances. And even though we didn't have a lot of money, scholarships gave me the
opportunity to go to some of the best schools in the country. A lot of kids don't get these
chances today. There is no margin for error in their lives. So my own story is different in
that way.
Still, I know the toll that being a single parent took on my mother - how she struggled at
times to the pay bills; to give us the things that other kids had; to play all the roles that
both parents are supposed to play. And I know the toll it took on me. So I resolved many
years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle - that if I could be anything in life, I
would be a good father to my girls; that if I could give them anything, I would give them
that rock - that foundation - on which to build their lives. And that would be the greatest
gift I could offer.
I say this knowing that I have been an imperfect father - knowing that I have made
mistakes and will continue to make more; wishing that I could be home for my girls and
my wife more than I am right now. I say this knowing all of these things because even as
we are imperfect, even as we face difficult circumstances, there are still certain lessons we
must strive to live and learn as fathers - whether we are black or white; rich or poor; from
the South Side or the wealthiest suburb.
The first is setting an example of excellence for our children - because if we want to set
high expectations for them, we've got to set high expectations for ourselves. It's great if you
have a job; it's even better if you have a college degree. It's a wonderful thing if you are
married and living in a home with your children, but don't just sit in the house and watch
"SportsCenter" all weekend long. That's why so many children are growing up in front of
the television. As fathers and parents, we've got to spend more time with them, and help
them with their homework, and replace the video game or the remote control with a book
once in awhile. That's how we build that foundation.
We know that education is everything to our children's future. We know that they will no
longer just compete for good jobs with children from Indiana, but children from India and
China and all over the world. We know the work and the studying and the level of
education that requires.
You know, sometimes I'll go to an eighth-grade graduation and there's all that pomp and
circumstance and gowns and flowers. And I think to myself, it's just eighth grade. To really
compete, they need to graduate high school, and then they need to graduate college, and
they probably need a graduate degree too. An eighth-grade education doesn't cut it today.
Let's give them a handshake and tell them to get their butts back in the library!
It's up to us - as fathers and parents - to instill this ethic of excellence in our children. It's
up to us to say to our daughters, don't ever let images on TV tell you what you are worth,
because I expect you to dream without limit and reach for those goals. It's up to us to tell
our sons, those songs on the radio may glorify violence, but in my house we live glory to
achievement, self respect, and hard work. It's up to us to set these high expectations. And
that means meeting those expectations ourselves. That means setting examples of
excellence in our own lives.
The second thing we need to do as fathers is pass along the value of empathy to our
children. Not sympathy, but empathy - the ability to stand in somebody else's shoes; to
look at the world through their eyes. Sometimes it's so easy to get caught up in "us," that
we forget about our obligations to one another. There's a culture in our society that says
remembering these obligations is somehow soft - that we can't show weakness, and so
therefore we can't show kindness.
But our young boys and girls see that. They see when you are ignoring or mistreating your
wife. They see when you are inconsiderate at home; or when you are distant; or when you
are thinking only of yourself. And so it's no surprise when we see that behavior in our
schools or on our streets. That's why we pass on the values of empathy and kindness to our
FACEBOOK | EMAIL | PRINT |
RELATED TOPICS: Media | Religion | Social Issues |
SPONSORED LINKS
children by living them. We need to show our kids that you're not strong by putting other
people down - you're strong by lifting them up. That's our responsibility as fathers.
And by the way - it's a responsibility that also extends to Washington. Because if fathers
are doing their part; if they're taking our responsibilities seriously to be there for their
children, and set high expectations for them, and instill in them a sense of excellence and
empathy, then our government should meet them halfway.
We should be making it easier for fathers who make responsible choices and harder for
those who avoid them. We should get rid of the financial penalties we impose on married
couples right now, and start making sure that every dime of child support goes directly to
helping children instead of some bureaucrat. We should reward fathers who pay that child
support with job training and job opportunities and a larger Earned Income Tax Credit
that can help them pay the bills. We should expand programs where registered nurses visit
expectant and new mothers and help them learn how to care for themselves before the
baby is born and what to do after - programs that have helped increase father involvement,
women's employment, and children's readiness for school. We should help these new
families care for their children by expanding maternity and paternity leave, and we should
guarantee every worker more paid sick leave so they can stay home to take care of their
child without losing their income.
We should take all of these steps to build a strong foundation for our children. But we
should also know that even if we do; even if we meet our obligations as fathers and
parents; even if Washington does its part too, we will still face difficult challenges in our
lives. There will still be days of struggle and heartache. The rains will still come and the
winds will still blow.
And that is why the final lesson we must learn as fathers is also the greatest gift we can
pass on to our children - and that is the gift of hope.
I'm not talking about an idle hope that's little more than blind optimism or willful
ignorance of the problems we face. I'm talking about hope as that spirit inside us that
insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better is waiting for us if we're
willing to work for it and fight for it. If we are willing to believe.
I was answering questions at a town hall meeting in Wisconsin the other day and a young
man raised his hand, and I figured he'd ask about college tuition or energy or maybe the
war in Iraq. But instead he looked at me very seriously and he asked, "What does life mean
to you?"
Now, I have to admit that I wasn't quite prepared for that one. I think I stammered for a
little bit, but then I stopped and gave it some thought, and I said this:
When I was a young man, I thought life was all about me - how do I make my way in the
world, and how do I become successful and how do I get the things that I want.
But now, my life revolves around my two little girls. And what I think about is what kind of
world I'm leaving them. Are they living in a county where there's a huge gap between a few
who are wealthy and a whole bunch of people who are struggling every day? Are they living
in a county that is still divided by race? A country where, because they're girls, they don't
have as much opportunity as boys do? Are they living in a country where we are hated
around the world because we don't cooperate effectively with other nations? Are they
living a world that is in grave danger because of what we've done to its climate?
And what I've realized is that life doesn't count for much unless you're willing to do your
small part to leave our children - all of our children - a better world. Even if it's difficult.
Even if the work seems great. Even if we don't get very far in our lifetime.
That is our ultimate responsibility as fathers and parents. We try. We hope. We do what
we can to build our house upon the sturdiest rock. And when the winds come, and the
rains fall, and they beat upon that house, we keep faith that our Father will be there to
guide us, and watch over us, and protect us, and lead His children through the darkest of
storms into light of a better day. That is my prayer for all of us on this Father's Day, and
that is my hope for this country in the years ahead. May God Bless you and your children.
Thank you.
Barack Obama is a Democratic Senator from Illinois and a candidate for the Democratic presidential
nomination.
About Us | RSS | Contact | Advertise
| Privacy Policy
RealClearPolitics 2008

EXHIBIT 39
1
INSTITUTE
FOR
AMERICAN
VALUES
EST. 1988
A Report Released Internationally by
the Commission on Parenthoods Future
A New Study of Young Adul ts
Concei ved Through Sperm
Donati on
ELIZABETH MARQUARDT, NORVAL D. GLENN,
AND KAREN CLARK, CO-INVESTIGATORS
i
Tis report is released internationally under the auspices of the
Commission on Parenthoods Future, an independent, nonpartisan group
of scholars and leaders who have come together to investigate the status
of parenthood and make recommendations for the future.
Te lead co-investigator of this report, Elizabeth Marquardt, is
director of the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for
American Values. Te Centers online site for engagement is www.
fami lys chol ars. org.
Te co-investigators would like to thank Jeremy Uecker of the
University of Texas at Austin for analysis; Chintan Turakhia at Abt SRBI
for his expertise and helpfulness; David Mills for copy editing; and the
members of the Commission on Parenthoods Future for their advice.
Elizabeth Marquardt would like to thank her colleagues at the Institute
for American Values for their extraordinary support of and commit-
ment to this project. Te views in this report are atributable to the
co-investigators alone.
Copyright 2010, Institute for American Values. All rights reserved.
No reproduction of the materials contained herein is permited without
the writen permission of the Institute for American Values.
isbn: 1-931764-20-4
New York, NY 10023
Tel: (212) 246-3942
Fax: (212) 541-6665
i nfo@ameri canvalues. org
www. ameri canvalues. org
Acknowledgements
5
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
In 1884, a Philadelphia physician put his female patient to sleep
and inseminated her with sperm from a man who was not her
husband. Te patient became pregnant and bore a child she
believed was the couples biological ofspring.
Today, this event occurs every day around the world with the willing
consent of women and with the involvement of millions of physicians,
technicians, cryoscientists, and accountants. Te United States alone has
a fertility industry that brings in $3.3 billion annually. Meanwhile, fertility
tourism has taken of as a booming global trade. A number of nations bill
themselves as destinations for couples who wish to circumvent stricter laws
and greater expense in their own countries in order to become pregnant
using reproductive technologies. Te largest sperm bank in the world,
Cryos, is in Denmark and ships three-quarters of its sperm overseas.
In the U.S., an estimated 30,000-60,000 children are born each year
through sperm donation, but this number is only an educated guess. Nei-
ther the industry nor any other entity in the U.S. is required to report on
these vital statistics. Most strikingly, there is almost no reliable evidence,
in any nation, about the experience of young adults who were conceived
in this way.
Tis study is the frst efort to learn about the identity, kinship, well-
being, and social justice experiences of young adults who were conceived
through sperm donation. Te survey research frm Abt SRBI of New York
City felded our survey through a web-based panel that includes more than
a million households across the United States. Trough this method we
assembled a representative sample of 485 adults between the ages of 18
and 45 years old who said their mother used a sperm donor to conceive
them. We also assembled comparison groups of 562 young adults who
were adopted as infants and 563 young adults who were raised by their
biological parents.
We learned that, on average, young adults conceived through sperm
donation are hurting more, are more confused, and feel more isolated from
their families. Tey fare worse than their peers raised by biological parents
on important outcomes such as depression, delinquency and substance
abuse. Nearly two-thirds agree, My sperm donor is half of who I am.
6
Nearly half are disturbed that money was involved in their conception.
More than half say that when they see someone who resembles them they
wonder if they are related. Almost as many say they have feared being
atracted to or having sexual relations with someone to whom they are
unknowingly related. Approximately two-thirds afrm the right of donor
ofspring to know the truth about their origins. And about half of donor
ofspring have concerns about or serious objections to donor conception
itself, even when parents tell their children the truth.
Te title of this report, My Daddys Name is Donor, comes from a
t-shirt marketed to parents of babies who were donor conceived. Te
designers of the shirt say its just meant to be funny. But we wondered
how the children feel when they grow up.
Tis unprecedented, large, comparative, and very nearly representa-
tive study of young adults conceived through sperm donation responds
to that question. Te extraordinary fndings reported in the stories, tables
and fgures that follow will be of concern to any policy maker, health
professional, civic leader, parent, would-be parent, and young or grown
donor conceived person, anywhere in the world. An extensive list of
recommendations is found at the conclusion.
We aim for nothing less than to launch a national and international
debate on the ethics, meaning, and practice of donor conception, starting now.
7
FIFTEEN MAJOR
F
I
N
D
I
N
G
S
Young adults conceived through sperm donation (or donor 1.
ofspring) experience profound struggles with their origins
and identities.
Sixty-fve percent of donor ofspring agree, My sperm donor is
half of who I am. Forty-fve percent agree, Te circumstances of my
conception bother me. Almost half report that they think about donor
conception at least a few times a week or more ofen.
Te role of money in their conception disturbs a substantial number
of donor ofspring. Forty-fve percent agree, It bothers me that money
was exchanged in order to conceive me. Forty-two percent of donor
ofspring, compared to 24 percent from adoptive families and 21 percent
raised by biological parents, agree, It is wrong for people to provide their
sperm or eggs for a fee to others who wish to have children.
When they grow up, donor ofspring are more likely to agree, I
dont feel that anyone really understands me, with 25 percent of them
agreeing strongly, compared to 13 percent of the adopted and nine percent
of those raised by biological parents.
Family relationships for donor ofspring are more ofen char- 2.
acterized by confusion, tension, and loss.
More than half (53 percent) agree, I have worried that if I try to
get more information about or have a relationship with my sperm donor,
my mother and/or the father who raised me would feel angry or hurt.
Seventy percent agree, I fnd myself wondering what my sperm donors
family is like, and 69 percent agree, I sometimes wonder if my sperm
donors parents would want to know me.
Nearly half of donor ofspring (48 percent) compared to about a
ffh of adopted adults (19 percent) agree, When I see friends with their
biological fathers and mothers, it makes me feel sad. Similarly, more
than half of donor ofspring (53 percent, compared to 29 percent of the
adopted adults) agree, It hurts when I hear other people talk about their
genealogical background.
Forty-three percent of donor ofspring, compared to 15 percent
of adopted persons and six percent of those raised by their biological
f rom My Daddys Name
i s Donor: A New Study
of Young Adults Conceived
Through Sperm Donation
Elizabeth Marquardt, Norval D. Glenn,
and Karen Clark, co-investigators
8
parents, agree, I feel confused about who is a member of my family and
who is not.
Almost half of donor ofspring (47 percent) agree, I worry that
my mother might have lied to me about important maters when I was
growing up, compared with 27 percent of the adopted and 18 percent
raised by their biological parents. Similarly, 43 percent of donor ofspring,
compared to 22 percent and 15 percent, respectively, of those raised by
adoptive or biological parents, agree, I worry that my father might have
lied to me about important maters when I was growing up.
When they grow up, well over half (57 percent) of donor ofspring
agree, I feel that I can depend on my friends more than my family about
twice as many as those who grew up with their biological parents.
Donor ofspring ofen worry about the implications of inter- 3.
acting with and possibly forming intimate relationships with
unknown, blood-related family members.
Well over half of donor ofspring58 percentagree, When I see
someone who resembles me I ofen wonder if we are related, compared
to 45 percent of adopted adults and 14 percent raised by their biological
parents.
Nearly half46 percentof donor ofspring, but just 17 percent of
adopted adults and 6 percent of those raised by their biological parents,
agree, When Im romantically atracted to someone I have worried that
we could be unknowingly related. Similarly, 43 percent of adult donor
ofspring, and just 16 percent of adopted adults and 9 percent of those
raised by their biological parents, agree, I have feared having sexual rela-
tions unknowingly with someone I am related to.
Donor ofspring are more likely to have experienced divorce or 4.
multiple family transitions in their families of origin.
Te married heterosexual parents of the donor ofspring are unusu-
ally likely to have divorced, with 27 percent of donor ofspring reporting
that their parents divorced before the respondent was age 16, compared
to 14 percent of those who were adopted and 25 percent of those raised by
their biological parents. (Te comparison between the parents of donor
9
ofspring and those of the adopted is apt, because in both cases the parents
would likely have turned to donor conception or adoption later in their
marriages, when marriages on average are more stable.) See Figure 4. (p. 117)
Overall, 44 percent of donor ofspring experienced one or more
family transitions between their birth and age 16, compared to 22 percent
of the adopted, and 35 percent of those raised by their biological parents.
See Figure 3a. (p. 116)
Donor ofspring are signifcantly more likely than those raised 5.
by their biological parents to struggle with serious, negative
outcomes such as delinquency, substance abuse, and depression,
even when controlling for socio-economic and other factors.
Donor ofspring and those who were adopted are twice as likely as
those raised by biological parents to report problems with the law before
age 25.
Donor ofspring are about 1.5 times more likely than those raised
by their biological parents to report mental health problems, with the
adopted being closer to twice as likely as those raised by biological parents
to report the same thing.
Donor ofspring are more than twice as likely as those raised by
biological parents to report substance abuse problems (with the adopted
falling between the two groups). See Figure 1. (p. 115)
Donor ofspring born to heterosexual married couples, single 6.
mothers, or lesbian couples share many similarities.
In our survey, 262 of the donor ofspring report they were born
to heterosexual married couples, 113 to single mothers, and 39 to lesbian
couples.
While at frst glance the number of those born to lesbian couples
might seem rather small, this study is notable for having even 39 respondents
who grew up with this experience. Most studies of the ofspring of lesbian
or gay parents are based on a smaller or similar number of respondents, and
they typically lack the comparison groups that our survey ofers. However,
we must caution that due to the size of the sample of ofspring of lesbian
10
couples, most reported fndings related to that particular group can only
suggest diferences or similarities, although where signifcant diferences
emerge they are noted.
All three groups of donor ofspring appear fairly similar in a number
of their atitudes and experiences. For example, they are all about equally
likely to agree that they feel confused about who is a member of their family
and who is not, that they fear being atracted to or having sexual relations
with someone they are unknowingly related to, that they worry their
mother might have lied to them about important maters, and that they
have worried about hurting their mothers or others feelings if they tried
to seek out their sperm donor biological father. See Table 2. (p. 109)
At the same time, there appear to be notable diferences between 7.
donor ofspring born to heterosexual married couples, single
mothers, and lesbian couples.
Overall, donor conceived persons born to single mothers seem to
be somewhat more curious about their absent biological father, and seem
to be hurting somewhat more, than those born to couples, whether those
couples were heterosexual or lesbian.
Donor ofspring born to single mothers are more likely than the
other two groups to agree, I fnd myself wondering what my sperm donors
family is like. Most (78 percent) born to single mothers agree, compared
to two-thirds of those born to lesbian couples or married heterosexual
parents. With regard to My sperm donor is half of who I am, 71 percent
of those born to single mothers agree, compared to 46 percent born to
lesbian couples and 65 percent born to married heterosexual parents.
Regarding family transitions, the single mothers by choice appear to
have a higher number of transitions, although if the single mother married
or moved in with someone, that would count as at least one transition.
Still, with about half (49 percent) of the ofspring of single mothers by
choice in our sample reporting one or more family transitions between
their birth and age 16, its clear that family change was not uncommon for
them. See Figure 3b. (p. 116)
Donor of fspri ng
born to si ngle mothers:
11
Regarding troubling outcomes, even with controls, the ofspring
of single mothers who used a sperm donor to conceive are almost 2.5
times as likely as those raised by biological parents to report problems
with the law before age 25. Similarly, even with controls, the ofspring of
single mothers who used a sperm donor to conceive are more than 2.5
times as likely as those raise by biological parents to report struggling
with substance abuse. See Figure 2. (p. 115)
Meanwhile, compared to those born to single mothers or heterosexual
couples, those born to lesbian couples seem overall to be somewhat less
curious about their absent biological father, and somewhat less likely to
report that they are hurting. However, substantial minorities of those born
to lesbian couples still do report distressing experiences and outcomes, for
example agreeing that the circumstances of their conception bother them,
that it makes them sad to see friends with biological fathers and mothers,
and that it bothers them that money was exchanged in their conception.
Nearly half (46 percent) of the donor ofspring born to lesbian couples
in our study agree their sperm donor is half of who they are, and more
than half (59 percent) say they sometimes wonder if their sperm donors
family would want to know them. Finally, more than one-third of donor
ofspring born to lesbian couples in our study agree it is wrong deliberately
to conceive a fatherless child. See Table 2. (p. 109)
Regarding family transitions, the donor conceived born to lesbian
mothers appear only slightly less likely to have had one or more family
transitions before age 16, compared to the donor conceived born to het-
erosexual married parents. See Figure 3b. (p. 116)
Regarding troubling outcomes, even with controls, the ofspring of
lesbian couples who used a sperm donor to conceive appear more than
twice as likely as those raised by their biological parents to report strug-
gling with substance abuse. See Figure 2. (p. 115)
Donor ofspring broadly afrm a right to know the truth about 8.
their origins.
Depending on which question is asked, approximately two-thirds of
grown donor ofspring support the right of ofspring to have non-identifying
information about the sperm donor biological father, to know his identity,
Donor of fspri ng
born to lesbi an couples:
12
to have the opportunity to form some kind of relationship with him, to
know about the existence and number of half-siblings conceived with
the same donor, to know the identity of half-siblings conceived with the
same donor, and to have the opportunity as children to form some kind
of relationship with half-siblings conceived with the same donor.
In recent years Britain, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzer-
land, and some parts of Australia
,
and New Zealand have banned anony-
mous donation of sperm and eggs. Croatia has recently considered such
a law. In Canada, a class-action suit has been launched seeking a similar
outcome. Tis study afrms that a majority of donor ofspring support
such legal reforms.
About half of donor ofspring have concerns about or serious 9.
objections to donor conception itself, even when parents tell
the children the truth about their origins.
Of the donor conceived adults we studied, a sizeable portion 44
percent are fairly sanguine about donor conception itself, so long as
parents tell their children the truth. But another sizeable portion 36
percent still have concerns about donor conception even if parents
tell the truth. And a noticeable minority 11 percent say that donor
conception is hard for the kids even if the parents handle it well. Tus
about half of donor ofspring about 47 percent have concerns about
or serious objections to donor conception itself, even when parents tell
their children the truth.
Openness alone does not appear to resolve the complex risks that 10.
are associated with being conceived through sperm donation.
In our study, those donor ofspring whose parents kept their origins
a secret (leaving the donor ofspring to fnd out the truth in an accidental
or unplanned way) were substantially more likely to report depression or
other mental health issues (51 percent), having struggled with substance
abuse (36 percent) or having had problems with the law (29 percent).
Tese diferences are very large and striking. See Table 4 (p. 112)
Still, while they fared beter than those whose parents tried to keep
it a secret, those donor ofspring who say their parents were always open
13
with them about their origins (which are 304 of the donor ofspring in our
study) still exhibit an elevated risk of negative outcomes. Compared to
those raised by their biological parents, the donor ofspring whose parents
were always open with them are signifcantly more likely to have struggled
with substance abuse issues (18 percent, compared to 11 percent raised by
their biological parents) and to report problems with the law (20 percent,
compared to 11 percent raised by their biological parents).
While a majority of donor ofspring support a right to know 11.
the truth about their origins, signifcant majorities also sup-
port, at least in the abstract, a strikingly libertarian approach
to reproductive technologies in general.
Well over half (61 percent) of donor ofspring say they favor the
practice of donor conception (compared to 39 percent of adopted adults
and 38 percent raised by their biological parents).
Te majority of donor ofspring about three-quarters agree, I
think every person has a right to a child; Artifcial reproductive technolo-
gies are good for children because the children are wanted; Our society
should encourage people to donate their sperm or eggs to other people
who want them; and Health insurance plans and government policies
should make it easier for people to have babies with donated sperm or
eggs. Tese numbers are substantially higher than those from adoptive
or biological parent families who agree with the same statements. More-
over, in a particularly startling fnding, a majority of donor ofspring (64
percent) agree, Reproductive cloning should be ofered to people who
dont have any other way to have a baby, compared to 24 percent who are
adopted and 24 percent raised by their biological parents.
Adults conceived through sperm donation are far more likely 12.
than others to become sperm or egg donors or surrogates
themselves.
In another startling fnding, a full 20 percent of donor ofspring in
our study said that, as adults, they themselves had already donated their own
sperm or eggs or been a surrogate mother. Tats compared to 0 percent
14
of the adopted adults and just 1 percent of those raised by their biological
parents an extraordinary diference.
Tose donor ofspring who do not support the practice of donor 13.
conception are more than three times as likely to say they do
not feel they can express their views in public.
We asked donor ofspring whether they favor, oppose, or neither
favor nor oppose the practice of donor conception. Of those who favor
donor conception, just 14 percent say they do not feel they can express their
positive views about donor conception in society at large. By contrast,
of those who oppose it, 46 percent said they do not feel they can express
these negative views about donor conception in society at large.
More than one-third of donor ofspring in the study (37 percent),
compared to 19 percent of adopted adults and 25 percent raised by their
biological parents, agree, If I had a friend who wanted to use a sperm
donor to have a baby, I would encourage her not to do it.
Donor conception is not just like adoption. 14.
Adoption is a good, vital, and positive institution that fnds parents
for children who need families. Tere are some similarities between donor
conception and adoption, but our study reveals there are also many difer-
ences. And, if anything, the similarities between the struggles that adopted
people and donor conceived people might share should prompt caution
about intentionally denying children the possibility of growing up with
their biological father or mother, as happens in donor conception.
Todays grown donor ofspring present a striking portrait of 15.
racial, ethnic, and religious diversity.
A full one-ffh 20 percent of the donor ofspring in our sample
said they are Hispanic, compared to just six percent of those from adop-
tive families and seven percent of those raised by biological parents. Te
donor ofspring are also well represented among races in general. Many
of them grew up with Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish religious identities
and/or identify with those traditions today. Tis striking diversity helps
to illustrate the complexity of their experience and the reality of their
presence in every facet of American life today.

EXHIBIT 40
Fertility,FamilyPlanning,
andReproductiveHealth
ofU.S.Women:DataFrom
the2002NationalSurvey
ofFamilyGrowth
S
e
r
i
e
s
2
3
,
N
u
m
b
e
r
2
5
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
5

In tables 61, 74, 77, 80, and 85-96, data by "Metropolitan Residence" are revised.
In Appendix II, the definition of "Metropolitan Residence" is revised.
Copyright information
All material appearing in this report is in the public domain and may be
reproduced or copied without permission; citation as to source, however, is
appreciated.
Suggested citation
ChandraA, Martinez GM, Mosher WD,Abma JC, Jones J. Fertility, family
planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: Data from the 2002 National
Survey of Family Growth. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat
23(25). 2005.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Trade name disclaimer
The use of trade names is for identification
only and does not imply endorsement by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents
Mail Stop: SSOP
Washington, DC 20402-9328
Printed on acid-free paper.
Series23,Number25
Fertility,FamilyPlanning,and
ReproductiveHealthofU.S.
Women:DataFromthe2002
NationalSurveyofFamilyGrowth
DataFromtheNationalSurveyof
FamilyGrowth
U.S.DEPARTMENTOFHEALTHANDHUMANSERVICES
CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention
NationalCenterforHealthStatistics
Hyattsville,Maryland
December2005
DHHSPublicationNo.(PHS)2006-1977
Page108 [ Series 23, No. 25
Table 69. Number of married women 1544 years of age and percent distribution by infertility status, according to selected characteristics:
United States, 2002
Number in Surgically
Characteristic thousands Total sterile Infertile Fecund
Percent distribution
Total
1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,327 100.0 34.8 7.4 57.8
Age
1529 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,246 100.0 12.2 6.3 81.5
3034 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,351 100.0 26.0 8.1 65.9
3539 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,989 100.0 45.6 5.7 48.7
4044 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,740 100.0 53.4 9.4 37.3
Parity and age
0 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,142 100.0 9.1 16.6 74.3
1529 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,364 100.0 1.6 11.0 87.4
3034 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,279 100.0 2.4 16.9 80.7
3539 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684 100.0 33.1 22.6 44.3
4044 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815 100.0 21.0 27.4 51.6
1 or more births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,185 100.0 40.5 5.4 54.2
1529 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,882 100.0 17.4 4.0 78.6
3034 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,072 100.0 32.0 5.9 62.1
3539 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,305 100.0 46.9 3.9 49.2
4044 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,925 100.0 57.2 7.2 35.6
Medical help to become pregnant
Yes, at least once in last year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,180 100.0 14.2 30.5 55.3
Yes, but not within last year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,311 100.0 33.4 14.0 52.6
No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,836 100.0 36.1 4.9 58.9
Education
2
No high school diploma or GED
3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,764 100.0 44.1 10.4 45.5
High school diploma or GED
3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,092 100.0 44.0 6.5 49.5
Some college, no bachelors degree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,198 100.0 37.9 6.6 55.5
Bachelors degree or higher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,521 100.0 23.0 8.4 68.6
Percent of poverty level
4
0149 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,590 100.0 37.5 7.4 55.1
150299 percent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,306 100.0 38.7 5.7 55.7
300 percent or more. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,233 100.0 31.9 8.4 59.7
Hispanic origin and race and parity
Hispanic or Latina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,138 100.0 34.5 7.7 57.8
0 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470 100.0 * 24.3 72.5
1 or more births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,668 100.0 38.5 5.6 55.9
Not Hispanic or Latina:
White, single race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,061 100.0 35.1 7.0 57.9
0 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,068 100.0 9.9 15.9 74.2
1 or more births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,992 100.0 41.5 4.7 53.8
Black orAfricanAmerican, single race . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,133 100.0 44.2 11.5 44.3
0 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 100.0 * 27.7 61.6
1 or more births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,885 100.0 48.6 9.4 42.1
*Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.
1
Includes women of other or multiple race and origin groups, not shown separately.
2
Limited to women 2244 years of age at time of interview.
3
GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
4
Limited to women 2044 years of age at time of interview.
NOTES: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Roughly comparable data for 1995 are shown in reference 16, table 51.

EXHIBIT 41
Number 67 n August 14, 2013
Infertility and Impaired Fecundity in the United States,
19822010: Data From the National Survey of
Family Growth
byAnjani Chandra, Ph.D., and Casey E. Copen, Ph.D., National Center for Health Statistics;
and Elizabeth Hervey Stephen, Ph.D., Georgetown University
Abstract
ObjectivesThis report presents nationally representative estimates and
trends for infertility and impaired fecunditytwo measures of fertility
problemsamong women aged 1544 in the United States. Data are also
presented on a measure of infertility among men aged 1544.
MethodsData for this report come primarily from the 20062010 National
Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), which consisted of 22,682 interviews with
men and women aged 1544, conducted from June 2006 through June 2010.The
response rate for women in the 20062010 NSFG was 78%, and for men was
75%. Selected trends are shown based on prior NSFG years.
ResultsThe percentage of married women aged 1544 who were infertile
fell from 8.5% in 1982 (2.4 million women) to 6.0% (1.5 million) in 20062010.
Impaired fecundity among married women aged 1544 increased from 11% in
1982 to 15% in 2002, but decreased to 12% in 20062010.Among all women,
11% had impaired fecundity in 20062010. Both infertility and impaired
fecundity remain closely associated with age for nulliparous women.Among
married, nulliparous women aged 3544, the percentage infertile declined from
44% in 1982 to 27% in 20062010, reflecting greater delays in childbearing over
this period.Among married women in 20062010, non-Hispanic black women
were more likely to be infertile than non-Hispanic white women. Some form of
infertility (either subfertility or nonsurgical sterility) was reported by 9.4% of
men aged 1544 and 12% of men aged 2544 in 20062010, similar to levels
seen in 2002.
Keywords: current fertility problems nonsurgical sterility male fertility
problems demographic trends
Introduction
As part of its overall mission to
collect data on fertility and the
intermediate factors that explain birth
rates in the United States, the National
Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) has
provided two population-based,
nationally representative measures for
fertility problems: infertility (since
1973) and impaired fecundity (since
1982) (14). Infertility is defined as a
lack of pregnancy in the 12 months
prior to survey, despite having had
unprotected sexual intercourse in each
of those months with the same husband
or partner. Impaired fecundity is defined
as physical difficulty in either getting
pregnant or carrying a pregnancy to live
birth. NSFG data are used to monitor
the prevalence and correlates of
infertility and to evaluate the use,
efficacy, and safety of infertility services
and treatments.The survey is also used
in research on the causes of infertility
and provides information to guide
programs for the primary and secondary
prevention of infertility among women
and men (4,5).
This report presents trends and
national estimates for both NSFG-based
measures of fertility problems among
women, and one measure of infertility
among men, in the United States, using
the most recently available data from
the 20062010 NSFG. By using a
standardized approach to monitoring the
prevalence of impaired fecundity among
all women aged 1544 since 1982, and
12-month infertility among married
women since 1973, NSFG provides
demographic snapshotsof the impact
of societal trends such as delayed
marriage and childbearing, and tracks
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Page2 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013
the potential demand for infertility-
related medical services.
Data from the 2002 NSFG showed
that an estimated 12% of women
(7.3 million) in the United States had
impaired fecundity or difficulties
conceiving or bringing a pregnancy to
term (1).This represented a significant
increase from both the percentage
(8.4%) and number (4.5 million) seen in
1982 (2,6). In 2002, 7.4% of married
women aged 1544 (2.1 million) were
infertile for at least 12 consecutive
months, a slight decrease from 8.5%
seen in 1982 (1).The reasons for these
disparate trends in infertility and
impaired fecundity are not completely
understood, but both measures are likely
affected by the upward shifts in age at
first marriage and age at first birth
among women (1,2,712), as well as
trends in surgical sterilization (1315).
In addition, the past two decades have
seen an increasing range and availability
of medical treatment options for
infertility (4).Amidst these societal
trends, it is widely recognized that
estimates of infertility will vary,
sometimes significantly, based on the
definitions and study methodology used,
particularly with regard to defining the
at-riskpopulation (1621).
Despite uncertainty as to how many
individuals are affected by infertility in
the United States, considerable research
has focused on several known or
potential causes of infertility or impaired
fecundity, apart from the well-
documented decline in natural fecundity
with female age (2225).These include
sexually transmitted infections such as
chlamydia, pelvic inflammatory disease,
environmental toxins, and certain
lifestyle factors closely associated with
fertility problems, such as smoking and
obesity (4,26). In addition, there are
known disparities in the diagnosis and
treatment of infertility by socioeconomic
and demographic factors that may raise
questions about differential access to
infertility services and potentially unmet
need for these services (2731). In this
context, NSFG data are useful for
measuring and monitoring infertility and
fecundity status consistently over time.
This report focuses on the most
recent trends in infertility and impaired
fecundity through 2010.Topics include:
+Trends in the overall numbers and
percentages of women, by fecundity
and infertility status (the table and
Figures1 and 2 in the main text, plus
Table1 on p. 13).
+Fecundity and infertility status, by
selected sociodemographic
characteristics such as age, parity, and
education (Tables24 and
Figures36).
+Multivariate analysis for infertility
and impaired fecundity (Table5).
+Infertility status among men aged
1544 (Table6).
Acompanion report on the use of
infertility services is forthcoming.
Methods
Data source
NCHS has conducted NSFG seven
times: in 1973 and 1976 with samples
of married and formerly married
women; in 1982, 1988, and 1995 with
samples of women of all marital status
categories; and in 2002 and 20062010
with national samples of both women
and men aged 1544. Each time, the
interviews were conducted in person by
trained female interviewers in the
selected persons homes.
The current report is based
primarily on interviews conducted
with women from June 2006 through
June 2010.The 20062010 NSFG
was based on 22,682 face-to-face
interviews12,279 with women and
10,403 with men, aged 1544, in the
household population of the United
States.The 20062010 sample is a
nationally representative multistage area
probability sample.The response rate
for the 20062010 NSFG was 77%
overall: 78% for women and 75% for
men. Further details on the methods and
procedures of NSFG have been
published previously (3234).
Infertility and impaired
fecundity measures
To present population-based trends
over time for fertility problems, this
report uses two measures that have been
consistently defined for women since
the 1982 NSFG: infertility status and
fecundity status.
Infertility status among women
Infertility status, as coded in the
INFERTvariable, reflects a measure
typically used by physicians and others
to identify couples who may warrant
medical evaluation to see whether
fertility treatment services could help
them have a baby.The INFERTvariable
is constructed based on answers to
detailed questions on contraceptive use,
sexual activity, and marital or cohabiting
status.When neither the respondent nor
her current husband or cohabiting
partner is surgically sterile, a woman is
defined as infertile at time of interview
if, during the previous 12 months or
longer, she and her husband or partner
were continuously married or
cohabiting, were sexually active each
month, had not used contraception, and
had not become pregnant.
This measure has traditionally been
limited to married or cohabiting women
because infertility is a couple-based
phenomenon; unless he or she is
completely sterile, either partner may
potentially achieve pregnancy with a
different partner.This measure does not
attempt to distinguish whether the
infertility stems from the female or male
partner.Also, the measure requires at
least 12 months of sexual relationship
with the same partner and reliable
reporting of contraception and
pregnancy, and married or cohabiting
womens reporting of these experiences
is less prone to misreporting.
Infertility status, as shown in
Tables1 and 4, has three categories:
surgically sterile, infertile, and presumed
fertile.The presumed fertilecategory
is a residual category indicating that the
married or cohabiting woman is neither
surgically sterile nor infertile at the time
of interview.
Fecundity status among women
Fecundity status, as coded in the
FECUND variable, describes the
physical ability of a woman to have a
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013 Page3
child and not simply to conceive a
pregnancy.This measure is defined for
all women, regardless of their
relationship status.As with the infertility
measure, married or cohabiting women
are classified as surgically sterile on
FECUND if their husbands or
cohabiting partners are surgically sterile.
In addition, married or cohabiting
women are asked separate questions
about fertility problems encountered by
each member of the couple, whereas
single, noncohabiting women can report
only about their own impaired fecundity.
For the purposes of the fecundity status
measure, this means that a married or
cohabiting woman could be classified as
surgically sterile or as having impaired
fecundity solely on the basis of her
husbands or cohabiting partners status.
As shown in this report, fecundity
status has three main categories:
surgically sterile, having impaired
fecundity, and presumed fecund.As with
the INFERTvariable, the FECUND
variable is constructed based on
responses to NSFG survey questions,
not by a medical examination.Also, the
presumed fecundcategory is a
residual category indicating that the
woman does not meet the conditions of
surgical sterility or impaired fecundity.
Women were classified as surgically
sterile if they (or their current husband
or cohabiting partner) had an unreversed
sterilizing operation, for example, a
tubal sterilization, hysterectomy, or
vasectomy.The category is further
divided into contraceptive and
noncontraceptive subcategories, based
on the reasons reported for the
sterilizing operation.
Impaired fecundity includes women
in the following three subgroups:
nonsurgically sterile, subfecund, and
long interval without conception.
Nonsurgically sterileWomen
who have not reported any
sterilization operations for
themselves or their current husband
or cohabiting partner are asked the
following questions, and are defined
as nonsurgically sterile if they
answer noto either question:
+ Some women are not physically
able to have children.As far as
you know, is it physically possible
for you, yourself, to have (a/
another) baby?
+If the woman is married or
cohabiting: What about
[HUSBAND/PARTNER]?As far as
you know, is it physically possible
for him to father a baby in the
future?
SubfecundWomen not already
responding as surgically or
nonsurgically sterile are asked the
following questions about physical
difficulties having a baby, and a
yesanswer on any question is
considered subfecundity:
+Some women are physically able
to have (a/another) baby, but have
difficulty getting pregnant or
carrying the baby to term.As far
as you know, would you, yourself,
have any difficulty getting
pregnant (again) or carrying
(a/another) baby (after this
pregnancy)?
+If the woman is married or
cohabiting: As far as you know,
does [HUSBAND/PARTNER] have
any difficulty fathering a baby?
+At any time has a medical doctor
ever advised you never to become
pregnant (again)?
Long interval without conception
(or36-month infertility)Women
not already classified as surgically
sterile, nonsurgically sterile, or
subfecund could be defined as
having a long interval without
conceptionif they had been
continuously married or cohabiting,
were sexually active in each month,
had not used contraception, and had
not had a pregnancy for 36
consecutive months or longer.
Presumed fecund is a residual
ategory (as was presumed fertile
ith infertility status) and means that
he womanor couple, if married or
ohabitingwas not surgically sterile
nd did not have impaired fecundity.
he percentage of currently married
omen with impaired fecundity is
igher than the percentage of married
c
w
t
c
a
T
w
h
women with 12-month infertility
because impaired fecundity includes
problems carrying pregnancies to live
birth in addition to problems conceiving,
whereas infertility includes only
problems conceiving. However,
12-month infertility is not strictly a
subset of impaired fecundity for married
women or cohabiting women, as
explained below.
Relationship between infertility
and impaired fecundity
Despite the broader definition of
impaired fecundity that includes
problems carrying pregnancies to live
birth, not all married or cohabiting
women with 12-month infertility will
necessarily have impaired fecundity.The
main reason for this is that impaired
fecundity includes a component of
36-month infertility, rather than
12-month infertility. Some married or
cohabiting women who have not been
infertile as long as 36 months may be
categorized as presumed fecund on the
impaired fecundity measure, based on
their answers to the questions about
nonsurgical sterility and subfecundity.
Because of this potential but incomplete
overlap of the two measures of fertility
problems for married or cohabiting
women, some analyses of infertility
services focus on women with current
fertility problems,defined as having
either infertility or impaired fecundity
(Table5). For example, among the 3.53
million married women aged 1544 with
current fertility problems in 20062010,
31% had both impaired fecundity and
12-month infertility, 57% had only
impaired fecundity, and 12% had only
12-month infertility.Asimilar extent of
overlap in these measures was seen
among married women aged 1544 with
current fertility problems in 1995 and
2002.
Infertility status among men
Although a completely analogous
measure of infertility cannot be
constructed for men as for women,
NSFG does include data from which to
construct a fairly comparable measure
(Table6). Infertility status among men is
based on directly asked questions about
Page 4 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013
surgical sterility and mens physical
ability to father a child. Men are coded
into four categories based on responses
they give for themselves or their current
wives or cohabiting partners:
Surgically sterileIf they reported
an unreversed vasectomy or some
other reason for surgical sterility, or
they reported that their wives or
cohabiting partners are surgically
sterile
Nonsurgically sterileIf they
responded no to the following
question that parallels the question
women are asked about nonsurgical
sterility:
Some men are not physically able to
father children. As far as you know,
is it physically possible for you,
yourself to biologically father a
child in the future?
Men are also coded in this category
if their current wives or cohabiting
partners are nonsurgically sterile.
SubfertileIf they respond yes
to the following question about their
subfertility, paralleling the question
women are asked about
subfecundity:
Some men are physically able to
father a child, but would have
difficulty doing so. As far as you
know, would you have any difficulty
fathering a child?
Presumed fertileA residual
category indicating that he (or his
current wife or cohabiting partner)
did not meet the definitions for the
other categories.
Demographic and behavioral
variables
The data on infertility and impaired
fecundity presented in this report are
shown with respect to several key social
or demographic characteristics, including
age, parity (or number of biological
children fathered by men), marital or
cohabiting status, educational
attainment, percent of poverty level of
household, and Hispanic origin and race.
These characteristics have been chosen
because prior studies have documented
their association either with fertility
problems or with timing of attempts to
have a child. For example, prior
literature (2225) has demonstrated the
marked decline in womens physical
ability to have a child (fecundity) with
increasing age, particularly among those
trying to have their first child. Factors
such as educational attainment have
been correlated with fertility
impairments, but by way of their
association with older ages when
women first try to have a child (10).
All characteristics reflect the
respondents status at the time of
interview. Paritythe number of live
births a woman has hadis
dichotomized as 0, or 1 or more.
Similarly for men, their number of
biological children is shown as 0, or 1
or more. Primary infertility or primary
impaired fecundity is defined as
physical difficulties having a first child,
and childless (nulliparous) women who
are infertile would be said to have
primary infertility. Secondary infertility
or impaired fecundity would be defined
among those who have had at least one
child at the time of interview and are
experiencing physical difficulties having
another child.
The measure of marital or
cohabiting status used in this report is
based only on relationships with
opposite-sex spouses or partners, in
keeping with the marital or cohabiting
status variables that have been defined
across all NSFG surveys to date. The
measure of education used here is
generally limited to those aged 2544,
to enable showing a top category of
Masters degree or higher; younger
respondents may still be attending
school to earn these degrees. Where
sample sizes did not permit this level of
detail (Table 5 and Figure 3), the top
category used was Bachelors degree or
higher, and results were based on the
larger group of women aged 2244.
Percent of poverty level is based on a
comparison of each respondents
household income with the poverty
thresholds for a family of this size, as
defined by the U.S. Census Bureau;
adjustments are not made for variations
in cost of living in the place where the
respondent resides. This measure is
shown only for respondents aged 2044,
to exclude potentially misreported or
incompletely reported household
incomes for teenagers. The definitions
of Hispanic origin and race used in this
report comply with the 1997 guidelines
from the Office of Management and
Budget (35), taking into account
multiple-race reporting. In selected
tables where sample sizes permit, Asian
persons are shown separately.
The 20062010 NSFG and earlier
NSFG surveys offer several strengths
for studying infertility and impaired
fecundity in the U.S. household
population. In addition to rigorous
quality control measures and good
response rates (3234), NSFG includes
detailed data on sexual activity,
contraception, pregnancy, marriage, and
cohabitation, such that reliable and
consistent measures of fertility problems
can be defined over time. Although the
NSFG age range of 1544 excludes
measurement of fertility problems
among older women who may still be
pursuing childbearing, using nationally
representative survey datarather than
non-probability-based samples of
women or couples trying to conceive
or those seeking medical help for
infertilityallows NSFG to derive a
more generalizable estimate of the
prevalence of fertility problems in the
U.S. household population in this age
group.
Although NSFG collects
information on fertility intentions and
desires, its two measures of fertility
problems are not contingent on these
factors. This is both a strength and a
limitation for understanding the
population-based estimates. On the one
hand, NSFG measures may provide a
more accurate snapshot of the fecundity
and infertility status of the general
reproductive-age population,
independent of any sociodemographic
selectivity or temporal trends associated
with who seeks pregnancy and when
they do so in their life course. On the
other hand, these measures can be
misconstrued as direct indicators of the
need (or unmet need) for infertility
services (36). Some data users may not
recognize that an individual or couple
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013 Page5
can remain infertile or fulfill the
definition of impaired fecundity for
years after they have stopped trying to
have a child. In sum, NSFG measures
for women can be used in conjunction
with fertility intentions and desires to
provide population-based estimates of
potential demand for infertility services
and to assess the extent to which this
demand is met.
For men, first included in NSFG in
2002, the time trend for providing
nationally representative estimates is
shorter than for women.Also, given that
a significant association with age and
male infertility is not generally seen
until ages beyond the NSFG upper
bound of 44, it is unlikely that the
NSFG-based estimates of male infertility
will show the same prevalence or
differentials seen among women.
However, these data can still provide a
useful estimate of infertility for the
general population from the male
perspective.
Statistical analysis
All estimates in this report are
based on sampling weights designed to
produce unbiased estimates of men and
women aged 1544 in the United States.
The statistical package SAS, version 9.3
(http://www.sas.com), was used to
produce all estimates of percentages and
numbers in this report. SAS
SURVEYFREQ procedures were used to
estimate the sampling errors of the
statistics because these procedures take
into account the use of weighted data
and the complex design of the sample in
calculating estimates of standard errors
and in performing significance tests.
Each table in this report (with the
exception ofTable5, which shows
logistic regression results for women)
includes standard errors as a measure of
the precision of each point estimate
(percentage) presented.
The significance of differences
among subgroups was determined by
standard two-tailed t tests using point
estimates and their standard errors. For
selected comparisons,Wald chi-square
tests of overall association were also
performed within SAS PROC
SURVEYFREQ, and symbols denoting
these test results are included in selected
tables. No adjustments were made for
multiple comparisons.Terms such as
greater thanand less thanindicate
that a statistically significant difference
was found.Terms such as similaror
no differenceindicate that the
statistics being compared were not
significantly different. Lack of comment
regarding any difference does not mean
that significance was tested and ruled
out.
In the description of the results
below, when the percentage being cited
is below 10%, the text will cite the
exact percentage to one decimal point.
To make reading easier and to remind
the reader that the results are based on
samples and subject to sampling error,
percentages above 10% will generally
be shown rounded to the nearest whole
percent. Percentages are not shown if
the denominator is fewer than 100 cases
or the numerator is fewer than 5 cases.
When a percentage or other statistic is
not shown for this reason, an asterisk
footnote (*) is inserted to signify that
the statistic does not meet standards of
reliability or precision. For most
statistics presented in this report, the
denominators are much larger than 100.
Although this report is primarily
intended to provide basic descriptive
statistics for key population subgroups
that may guide future multivariate
analyses,Table5 shows multiple logistic
regression (PROC SURVEYLOGISTIC)
results for 12-month infertility, impaired
fecundity, and a combined measure
indicating either of these measures.
Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for these
infertility measures among women aged
2244 are shown, controlling for age,
parity, marital or cohabiting status,
education, percent of poverty level, and
Hispanic origin and race.Table5 shows
95% confidence intervals for eachAOR,
along with a p value indicating the
statistical significance of theAOR.
Results
Trends in infertility and
impaired fecundity
Table1 shows the percent
distribution, by fecundity and infertility
status, for all women and for married
women aged 1544 in the United States
for NSFG years 1982, 1988, 1995,
2002, and 20062010.
+ Among all women aged 1544, the
percentage with impaired fecundity
increased significantly, from 8.4% in
1982 and 1988 to 10% in 1995.After
reaching 12% in 2002, the percentage
remained stable at 11% in 2006
2010.
+ Among married women aged 1544,
a similar pattern was seen for
impaired fecundity, although with
higher percentages through 2002:
11% of married women in 1982 and
1988 had impaired fecundity; the
percentage rose to a high of 15% in
2002, and fell in 20062010 to 12%.
+ The key subgroup of impaired
fecundity that appears to drive the
increase from 1982 to 2002 is the
subfecund groupthose for whom it
is physically difficult or dangerous to
have a baby.There was no significant
change over time in the nonsurgically
sterile or long interval without
conception subgroups of impaired
fecundity. In 1982, 6.7% of married
women aged 1544 were subfecund.
After reaching a high of 11%
subfecund in 2002 when impaired
fecundity was at its highest point
(15%), the percentage subfecund
among married women was 10% in
20062010.
+ Ahigher percentage of married
women (or their husbands or
partners) were surgically sterile for
contraceptive reasons, compared with
the levels seen among all women
regardless of marital status. For
example, in 20062010 35% of
married women aged 1544 were
surgically sterile for contraceptive
reasons, compared with 21% of
women in that age group as a whole.
As a result of these higher levels of
surgical sterilization and impaired
fecundity among married women, a
smaller proportion (roughly one-half)
were in the residual category presumed
fecund.
Figure1 and the bottom panel of
Table1 show that the percentage of
married women who were infertile has

EXHIBIT 42

EXHIBIT 43
--- ----... -- --------J -- ----------o ..... ~ ____ .. ____ .,. _ ------- ~ ---------
i'endy D. Manning; Pamela J. Smock ; Dcbarun Majumdar
'opulation Research and Policy Review; Apr 2004; 23, 2; ABI/fNFORM Global
g. 135
PopulaJion Research and Policy Review 23: 135-159,2004.
~ 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
The relative stability of cohabiting and marital unions for
children*
WENDY D. MANNING
1
, PAMELA J. SMOCK
2
& DEBARUN
MAJUMDAR
3
135
1
Departnre/11 of Sociology & Center for Family m1d Demographic Research, Bowling Green
State University, Ohio, USA;
2
Department of Sociology & Population Studies Cell/er; The
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Michigan. USA;
3
Department of Sociology, Southwest
Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA
Abstract. Children an! increasingly born into cohabiting parent families, but we know little to
date about the implications of this family pattern for children's lives. We examine whether chil-
dren born into premarital cohabitation and 6rst marriages experience similar rates of parental
disruption, and whether marriage among cohabiting parents enhances union stability. These
issues are important because past research has linked instability in family structure with lower
levels of child well-being. Drawing on the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, we find
that white, black and Hispanic children born to cohabiting pa.rents experience greater levels
of instability than children born to married parents. Mo1eover, black and Hispanic children
whose cohabiting parents marry do not expetience the same levels of family stability as those
born to married parents; among white children, however, lhe marriage of cohabiting parents
raises levels of family stability to that eKperienced by chi]dren born in man'iage. The findings
from this paper contribute to the debate about the benefits: of marriage for children.
Keywords: Children, Cohabitation, Divorce, Family structure, Mruriage, Race and ethnicity
Cohabitation has become an increasingly common family form in the United
States. Over half of young adults have cohabited, and cohabitation is now the
typical path to marriage (Bumpass & Lu 2000; Bumpass l 998). While co-
habitation is popularly viewed as a childless union, increasingly children are
being born or raised in cohabiting parent families (Casper & Bianchi 2002;
Manning 200 L; Bumpass & Lu 2000). Estimates suggest that approximately
two-fifths of all children will live in a cohabiting family at some point before
adulthood (Bumpass & Lu 2000).
Despite the increase in children's experience of cohabitation, relatively
little is known about the implications of cohabitation for children's well-being
(Manning 2002; Smock 2000). One fundamental dimension of well-being
to evaluate is the relative stability of cohabitation and marriage from the
viewpoint of children. A large body of Literature demonstrates that family
* An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the National Council
on lamily Relations in Minneapolis, Minnesota on II November 2000.
136 WEI\DY D. MAN'<ING ET AL.
structure has important effects on children, with deleterious ones for children
who experience parental separation (McLanahan & Sandefur 1994; Seltzer
1994 ). While some of this effect is due to changes in income and other factors,
there is also some evidence that the number of changes in family structure is
important (Wu 1996; Wu & Martinson 1993). The fewer the changes, the
better for children.
The issue of union stability is particularly relevanr for assessing the im-
plications of the dramatic rise in cohabitation for children's well-being in
the United States. A well-known difference between cohabitation and mar-
riage is that cohabiting unions are generally quite sho1t-lived. Although a
substantial proportion of cohabitations lead to marriage, many end in sep-
aration (Bramlett & Mosher 2002; Bumpass 1998), and maniages begun by
cohabitation face higher risks of dissolution (Lillard et al. 1995; Axinn &
Thornton 1992; DeMaris & Rao 1992; Schoen 1992; Teachman & Polonko
1990; Bennett et al. 1988; Bumpass & Sweet 1989;).
To date, however, there is little direct knowledge about how cohabitation
compares to marriage in terms of stabil ity for children. Only a handful of
studies have examined this issue, and none have used nationaUy represent-
ative samples to explicitly compare trajectories for white, black and Latino
children bom within cohabi ti ng versus mruital unions (e.g., Bumpass & Lu
2000; Graefe & Lichter 1999; Land ale & Hauan 1992). This paper thus exam-
ines the early life course of children born into premarital cohabiting unions,
contrasting the stability of their parents' unions to those of children born in
first marriages. We determine whether and to what extent being born into a
cohabiting couple increases the likelihood of experiencing the end of parents'
unions, as well as whether the marriage of cohabiting parents promotes sta-
bility and equalizes the experiences of children bom to cohabiting versus
mruri.ed parents. Tlu-oughout, we focus on similarities and differences for
Hispanic, black and white children because of evidence that the prominence
and role of cohabitation in family formation varies by race and ethnicity.
1. Background and significants
The trend in children' s experience of cohabitation is upwruds. Overall, the
propo1tion of cohabitations with children present increased from 28 to 4 1%
between the early 1978 and 2000 (Casper & Bianchi 2002; Fields & Casper
2001). However, the percentage of children born. within cohabiting unions
increased much more dramatically, doubling between 1980-84 and 1990-
94, and now accounting for almost one in eight buths in the US (Bumpass
& Lu 2000). In fact, cohabitation accounts for much of the recent trend in
nonmarital childberuing; the shrue of bilths to unmarried mothers who were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
RELATIVE STABILITY OF Al\D MARITAL Ul\IONS FOR CHI LDREN 137
cohabiting increased substantially more between the early 1980s and early
1990s than did the share to noncohabiting, unmarried mothers (Bumpass &
Lu 2000).
Given the importance of family structure stability for children, an import-
ant empirical issue then becomes the stability of cohabitation for children.
As is well known, cohabitations are generally of shor1. duration. Over 50%
of cohabiting unions in the US, whether or not they are eventually legalized
by maniage, end by separation within five years compared to roughly 20%
for marriages (Bumpass & Lu 2000; Bumpass & Sweet 1989). In addition,
marriages preceded by cohabitation-a growing proportion of marriages- are
more likely to end than those not prefaced by cohabitation (Hall & Zhao 1995;
LiUard et al. 1995; DeMaris & MacDonald 1993; Axinn & Thornton 1992;
DeMaris & Rao 1992; Schoen 1992; Thomson & Colella 1992; Teachman et
al. 1991; Teachman & Polonko 1990; Booth & Johnson 1988; Rao & Trussell
1989; Bennett et al. 1988).
At the same time, we currently have limi ted knowledge about the stability
of cohabitation from the perspective of children because most extant research
focuses on cohabitation generally rather than on cohabiting unions with chil-
dren. While one can extrapolate from the above findings that cohabitation
is less stable than marriage for children, there are two limitations to this
approach. The most obvious is that not all cohabi tations contain chil dren-
about 60% do not (Fields & Casper 2001). Second, of those that do, half
are cases in which children are not biologically related to both cohabiting
partners (Acs & Nelson 2001; Fields 2001). As seen, there are two routes
through which children may experience parental cohabitati.on: the first is by
being bom to a cohabiting couple and the second is when a custodial parent,
typically a mother, enters a cohabiting relationship, making the arrangement
akin to a step-family.
When grappling with the issue of whether, and to what extent, marriage
is better for children (e.g., Waite & Gallagher 2000), we argue that it is
important to focus on children born within cohabiting unions and compare
theu experiences to those of children born within marriages. Wlhile most re-
search aggregates both kinds of cohabiting families, this is problematic when
investigating the implications of cohabitation versus marriage for children.
This is because cohabiting families are much more likely to contain a non-
biological parent than married families. Given the high levels of instability of
stepfamil ies in general (Bumpass et aL 1995), and the higher prevalence of
step families among cohabiting compared to married families, the appropriate
comparison would be between the di fferent types of two-parent biological
fammes (Manning 2002). We start from the premise that it is imp011ant to
focus on cohabiting unions in which the child resides with both biological
Reproduced with permission of t he copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
parents because these may be potentially more stable than unions in which
the child does not have biological ties to both cohabiting partners.
P ast research has generally not directly compared prospects for family
stability for children bom into cohabiting versus manied couple families.
Bumpass and Lu (2000) aggregate children born in cohabiting and marital
unions in their analysis of instabili ty, but greater instabili ty among children
bom to cohabiting parents can be inferred based on children's time spent
in single mother families. Similarly, Raley and Wildsmith (2001) provide
important descriptive findings that show white and black children from the
1980-1984 birth cohort born to married mothers experience fewer family
transitions than children bom to cohabiting mothers. In another study, Wu,
Bumpass and Musick (2001) focus on women who had a first birth between
1980 and 1984, fi nding that 16% who were married at birth and one-third
(3 1%) of mothers cohabiting at blith were separated four years later. These
findings are supported when the period is extended beyond 1980 and 1984
(Wu & Musick 2002) . These results are suggestive that marriages are more
stable than cohabiting unions for children, but the focus of their work is on
first-time mothers, rather than on chi ldren. Moreover, over hall of women
who had children during cohabitation were not first-time mothers (McLana-
han & Carlson 2002). Graefe and Lichter ( 1999), drawing on a sample of
children born to young mothers from the National Longi tudinal Survey of
Youth, estimate the percentage of children born to cohabiting and married
mothers who will experience instability. They find that about one-fifth of
children born to cohabiting couples will experience a transition within one
year and 88% will experience a transition by age five. However, this study
defines the marriage of cohabiting mothers as instability, thus counting the
Legalization of cohabiting unions as instabil ity. From the perspective of chil-
dren, however, the u:ansition to marriage is a continuation, and a possible
su-emgthening, of their parents' relationships.
An exception is Landale and Hauan (1992), who examine the family life
courses of Puerto Rican children born in the mid-1980s. They find that chil-
dren born i..n cohabiting unions have almost twice the odds of experiencing
the breakup of their parents' unions (whethe1 or not the rel ationship was
transformed into marriage) as children bom in matTiage, although the gap
narrowed with the inclusion of characteiistics of the mother, father and the
union (see Marcil-Gratton et al. (2000) for a si milar study of Canadian chil-
dren). Our study uses a similar approach but focuses on children from a range
of racial and ethnic gwups.
RELATIVE STABILITY OF Al\D MARITAL Ul\IONS FOR CHILDREN 139
1.1. Racial and ethnic variation
Past research on the issue of union stability for children has focused on
one ethnic group (Landale & Hauan 1992) or has not focused explicitly on
variation by race and ethnicity (Wu et al. 2001; Bumpass & Lu 2000; Marcil-
Gratton & LeBourdais 1995). Yet patterns of cohabitation instability may
differ substantially across racial and ethnic groups.
While cohabitation has become an increasingly prominent feature of the
lives of American children, this is especially so for minority children. Chil-
dren are much more likely to be present in minority cohabiting couple
households (67 and 70% among blacks and Hispanics, respectively) than in
white cohabiting households (35%) (McLanahan & Casper 1995). Further,
estimates suggest that about half (55%) of black children, two-fifths (40%)
of Hispanic children, and three-tenths (30%) of white children are expected
to experience a cohabiting-parent family and more time in such a family
(authors' calculations from Bumpass and Lu 2000).
Similarly, there are racial and ethnic differentials in the proportion of chil-
dren being born to cohabiting parents. Among whites, only about one in ten
children are now bom into cohabiting-parent families compared to nearly one
in five black ami Hispanic children (Bumpass & Lu 2000). These differentials
are consistent with Astone et al.'s (1999) study of a cohort of black men
in Baltimore, which fi nds that a good deal of fatherhood among blacks is
occuning in the context of cohabitation. They are al so consistent with results
from the Fragile Families Project (e.g., McLanahan & Carlson 2002; Waller
1999).
It is difficult to fotmulate expectations about racial and ethnic variation
a priori. For all children, we expect that those born into cohabiting relation-
ships will face less stability than those born into marriage. However, based
on past research on both cohabitation and marriage, we expect that black
children will experience the most instability, whether bom to cohabiting
or married parents. Blacks more commonly separate from their cohabiting
partners than Hispanics or whites, and experience higher levels of marital in-
stability (Bramlett & Mosher 2002; Brown 2000b; Manning & Smock 1995).
On the other hand, marriage is less common among blacks than whites or
Hispanics so that the marriages that do occur may be most 'selective' . Thus,
the marriage of cohabiting parents may be protective in terms of stability for
black children.
Pattems may be more similar for whites and Hispanics. On tihe one hand,
there are indications that cohabitation is more ' normative' for His panics. His-
paniic women are more likely to give biJth to children while cohabiting than
either white or black women, are more likely to state that their children were
planned if born while cohabiting, and appear to experience a cultural context
140 WEI\ DY D. MAN'<ING ET AL.
relatively supportive of cohabitation (Landale & l'ennelly 1992; Manning
2001; Musick 2002). The upshot could be that children born to cohabiting
Hispanic parents would experience levels of stability closer to that of children
bom to married parents. On the other hand, recent evidence s uggests that
levels of union instability are very similar for Hispanics and whites; this is
the case for both mari tal and cohabiting unions (Bramlet.t & Mosher 2002).
This is at Least suggestive that the relative stability of being born to cohabiting
and married parents may be similar for Hispanic and white children.
2. Current investigation
Thi.s paper has three goals. First, we compare the trajectories of children born
into cohabiting versus married couple families with a measure that begins at
birth and includes maniage among cohabiting couples as part of the process.
Our approach acknowledges that while cohabitation can 'end' in two ways,
marr iage or separation, marriage represents movement into a potentially more
stable family form. Thus, our measure of instability focuses on parental sep-
aration, defining the end of the relationship as when the couple stops living
togelher ralher than when the cohabitation ends. [t is vital to incorporate lhe
marital years because a substantial share of cohabitations results in marriage;
for example, within three years nearly 60% of first cohabiting unions end in
marriage (Bramleu & Mosher 2002).
Our second goal :is to evaluate how marriage among cohabiting parents
influences stability. Specifically, we assess whether children of cohabiting
couples who matTy share similar trajectories as children born to manied
parents and cohabiting parents, a significant issue for evaluating the benefits
of marriage in a time of increasing cohabitation. Overall, there are several
reasons to expect that children born into cohabiting unions may experience
more instability, even if marriage occurs, than those born into maniages.
First, cohabitation tends to be selective of people of slightly lower levels
of educational attainment and income than is maniage, and this general-
ization holds when comparing the situations of children in married couple
and cohabiting households (Casper & Bianchi 2002; Bumpass & Lu 2000;
Morrison & Ritualo 2000; Cohen 1999; Hao 1996; Manning & Lichter 1996;
Nock 1995; Thornton et al. 1995; Waite 1995). Similarl y, a large body of
research suggests that union stability is positively conelated wi th socioeco-
nomic status. Although we at.tempt to control for socioeconomic status in
our analysis, our measures are restricted due to data limitations. Second,
cohabitors report slightly lower levels of happiness, relationship quality, and
satisfaction than marded people (Waite & Joyner 2001; Brown 2000a; Waite
& Gallagher 2000; Booth & Brown 1996). These indicators are associated
with relationship stability and suggest that cohabiting couples may be less
successful at maintaining their relationships than married couples. Third,
cohabitors may have experienced more relationship instability than married
parents, sugges ting that cohabiting parents may form less stable families
than married parents. Prior work indicates that only about half of cohabit-
ing iUnions result in marriage (Bumpass & Lu 2000) and ma1Tiages that start
out in cohabitation are more unstable than marriages that are not preceded
by cohabitation (e.g .. , Lillard et al. 1995; Bennett et al. 1988). We tap into
prior relationship instabili ty in our analyses by including variables that meas-
ure cohabitation experience prior to a child's biological parents' marriage
or cohabitation. Fou1th, childbearing within cohabitation is not normative.
Cohabiting women are substantially less likely to have children than married
women (Raley 2001; Loomis & Landale 1994). Moreover, mothers are more
likel y to report that children born during cohabitations are unplanned than
children born during marriage (Manning 2001) .. fifth, cohabitation is not 'in-
stitutionalized' in the United States (Manning 2002; Smock & Gupta 2002).
Cohabitation is not broadly sanctioned by government or society, and some
argue that it lacks defined fumiJy roles and even language to refer to family
members, leading to unique stresses (Nock 1995). Concomitantly, the legal
rights and obligations of cohabiting partners to their children and one another
are not clearly identified or uniform (Durst 1997; Seff 1995; Wiesensale &
Heckert 1993).
Our third goal is to investigate potentially important race and ethnic simil-
arities and differences in family stability for children. We expect the effects of
cohabitation to operate differently for blacks, whites and Latinos, because of
race and ethnic differentials in childbear ing, planning status of children, and
propensity to marry (Musick 2002; Manning 200 l ; Bumpass & Lu 2000). We
present results separately for whites, blacks, and Hispanics and formally test
for interactions between our union status variables and race and ethnicity.
3. Data and methods
3.1. Data
We draw on Cycle 5 of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), a
recently collected, large, and nationally representative data source. Collected
in 1995 and including 1 0,847 women of reproductive age ( 15-44), these data
are valuable because they include birth, pregnancy, marri age, and cohabita-
tion histories; Cycle 5 also includes complete cohabitation histoies for the
first time. No other data source has such high quality data on iboth fertility
behavior and cohabitation experiences.
This project relies on the child as the unit of analysis. We restrict the
sample to children who were born into either a premarital cohabitation or
a tirst marriage. The restriction to children born in a premarital (rather than
postmarital) cohabitation reflects the typical experience in these data; the vast
majority (80%) of children born in cohabiting unions were bom to women
who had never been married. Also, prior work indicates that among some
women the effect of cohabitation on childbearing operates differently among
previously man.ied than never mruried women (Loomis & Landale 1994).
Indeed, stepfamilies face unique fertility decision-making processes (e.g.,
Stewart 2002; Thomson 2002). Thus, our analyses rue limited to children born
to never-married cohabiting mothers or mothers in first mru-riages and may
reflect greater differences between cohabiting and manied parent families
than analyses that include previously married mothers.
Children in our sample were born between 1980 and 1995. We also limit
om sample to women who were less than 30 when their child was born. This
is a necessruy restriction because of the upper age limit of the NSFG; women
over age 30 in 1980 were not incl uded in the 1995 interview because they
were older than the upper age limit of 44. This has only a minimal effect
on our analyses because we are focusing on children born during or prior to
first mru-riages. Based on the experiences of 4,013 women, our (i nal sample
consists of I ,001 children born in cohabiting unions and 5,577 children born
into first marriages.
3.2. Variables
Our dependent variable is the disruption of mothers' cohabiting unions or
mruTiages, measured by date of sepru-ation. Our measure of instability is
based on the break-up of the couples' relationship and not simply whether
the cohabiting union ended. If cohabiting pruen ts many, we continue to count
them as stable until the breakup of the marriage. If they do not mruTy, then
instabiJjty is mruked by the date of the end of the cohabitation.
Table 1 shows the variable distributions for the total sample and for
each race and ethnic group sepruately. Our central independent variables
are mother' s union status at birth, and, for cohabiting mothers, whether and
when she mruTies her cohabiting partner. Slightly under 13% of the children
in tlhis sample were born into cohabiting unions and 87% were born into
marriages. The proportion of children born in cohabitation is highest among
black children (36%) , in contrast to one-fifth of Hispanic children and 8% of
white children. Ofthese, about 36% of Hispanic children's parents eventually
married, compared to 46% for whites and 28% for blacks (not in table).
We also include several chru-acteristics of the mother and of the child
as independent vruiables. These measmes have been found to be important
RELATIVE STABILITY OF Al\D MAR !TAL Ul\IONS FOR CHILDREN 143
Table 1. Distribution of independent for child born in unions,
maniage and cohabitation
Total Hispanic Black White
Union stutus at birth
Uorn in cohabitation 12.7 19.5 36.3 8.2
Burn in mani age 87.3 80.5 63.6 91.8
Mother's characteristics
Race/ethnicity
Black 9.5
Hispanic 16.1
Other 4.8
White 69.6
Family background
Single 9.9 12. 1 22.3 7.6
Step 8.2 6.0 12.1 8.5
Other 4.8 4.8 13.6 3.5
Two biological 77.1 77.1 52. 0 80.4
Religio>-ily (mean) 2.55 2.53 2.28 2.59
Education
<12 25.5 46.7 29.9 18.4
12 56.1 45.7 55.9 60.7
13+ 18.4 7.6 14.2 20.9
Employment
Part 7.9 7.4 7.7 8.1
Full 55.3 38.5 44.1 61.7
Not 36.8 54.1 58.2 30.2
Prior cohabitation
No 68.4 75.7 73.3 65.8
Yes 31.6 24.3 26.7 34.2
Age at birth (mean) 24.2 23.2 23.6 24.5
Parity( mean) 0.8 0.9 1. 1 0.7
Child' s characteristics
Preunion conception
No 86.8 84.9 79.5 88.3
Yes 13.2 15. 1 20.5 I 1.7
Unplanned
No 73.2 70.1 62.7 75.5
Yes 26.8 29.9 37.3 24.5
Birth Cohot1
34.3 29.9 36.0 35.4
1985-89 32.9 33.1 34.6 32.4
1990-95 32.8 37.0 29.4 32.2
N 6578 1410 1128 3800
Note: 1995 NSFG unweighted N's and weighted means and proportions.
control variables in other studies examining marital or cohabitation dissolu-
tion (e.g., Bramlett & Mosher 2002; Bumpass & Lu 2000; Graefe & Lichter
1999; Smock & Manning 1997; Landale & Huan 1992). Characteristics of
the mother include race and ethnicity, family background, and religiosity. As
shown in Table 1, roughly 10% of the sample is black, 16% are Latino or
Hi spanic, 70% is white and 5% belong to some other race or ethnic group.
Family background r efers to the mother's family stmcture at age 14 (two
biological married parents, step-family, single-parent, and other family type).
Past research has found that individuals who lived with both of their biolo-
gical parents face lower tisks of union dissolution. The majority of the sample
is from two biological parent families, with 10% having lived with a single
parent at age 14. Religiosity is based on a question with a five-category re-
sponse option about attending services at age 14 'greater than once per week'
to 'never' , and is included as an indicator of a traditional upbringing. The
mean is 2.55, indicating the mother attended religious services !between Less
than once a month and l-3 times per month.
We also use two variables - educational attainment and employment status
-to attempt to capture the mother's socioeconomic status. Both are measured
at the time of union formation (among women who cohabited and then mar-
ried, this is measured at time of cohabitation) to avoid problems associated
with the simultaneity of decisions about employment, education and union
instability. Education is coded into three categories: less than high school,
high school, and more than high school. Overall, roughly half of the sample
has 12 years of education, with one-qmuter having less than 12 years of
schooling. Employment status is categorized into not employed, employed
part-time, employed full-time. Only 8% of the mothers were employed part-
time, 55% were employed full-time and 37% were not employed at the time
of u11ion formation.
Three variables are included in our models that tap the mother' s fertility
and union experiences. First, we account for whether the mother cohabited
prior to the current cohabitation or marriage. This measure taps into a his-
tory of relationship instabiLity. Nearly one-third (32%) of the sample had
cohabited prior to their current cohabitation or marriage. In our sample, most
women (97%) who cohabited prior to marTiage lived with their husband (res-
ults not shown). Second, we incl ude a variable indicating the mother's parity
at the time of the focal child's birth; as indicated in Table I, the mean number
of children bom prior to the focal child was 0.8. Nearly half (47%) of the
mothers had no prior children at the time of the focal child's bilth (results
not shown). Third, mother's age at time of the child's bi.tth is i.ncluded in the
model. The mean is 24 (22 for the mothers of children born in cohabitation
and 25 for the mothers of children bom in marriage).
Finally, three characteristics of the child are included in analyses. One is
whether or not the child was conceived prior to the formation of the current
union. Only 13% of the children were conceived prior to union formation,
although these levels are higher among cohabitors (24%) than married wo-
men (l l %) (results not shown). Second, we include the planning status of
the child. 'Unplanned' indicates whether a child was unwanted or mistimed.
Overall, about one-quarter of the children were unplanned, although almost
half of those born in cohabitation compared to one-quarter born in marriage
were unplanned (results not shown). Third, the child's birth cohott is di-
vided into three time periods: 1980-84, 1985- 89, and 1990-95. Children are
distributed fairly evenly across the birth cohorts.
3.3. Analyses
Our analysis consists of two parts: life tables estimates and event history
analyses. We construct both single and multiple decrement cohort life tables,
which represent the experiences of actual cohotts of children.
1
Conceptually
similar to competing risk models, multiple decrement tables take into account
the odds of experiencing both possible 'exits': in this case, parental marriage
or separation for children born to cohabiting parent<> (e.g., Graefe & Lichter
1999). As discussed earlier, these double decrement tables are less appro-
ptiate for our research question because they assume that the couple is no
longer at risk of separation after marriage and that the matTiage of cohabiting
partners is an exit. Thus, we present single decrement tables, which counts
separation as the only exit and follows couples beyond the time of maniage,
and present the single decrement tables. Our life table results are based on
the total sample of children born into premarital cohabiting and first marital
unions and separately by race and ethnicity.
We use event history models to compare instability for children born in
premarital cohabiting versus first marital union and to take account of the
effects of our independent variables. Specifically, we use Cox proportional
hazard techniques, which do not require us to assume a particular probability
distri.bution and allow the use of time-varying variables (Allison 1984). Our
event history analyses are applied to a data file converted to person-months;
mothers either end their union or are censored by the interview. We adjust
our results to account for the fact that the sample includes more than one
birth from the mother. This issue is important because dependence among
observations create downwardly biased standard errors (Allison 1995). We
obtain robust standard error estimates using the covsandwich option in SAS,
and we are able to adjust the standard errors for our time-varying analyses by
adopting a counting process style of input.
Our first set of models evaluates whether being born in a cohabiting union
raises the risk of instability compared to being born in a marriage. We es-
timate models with zero-order effects and then include the covariates in the
model. A second set of models examines whether and how marriage among
cohabiting parents influences family stability for children. To do so, we first
assess whether children born to cohabitors who later marry share similar ri sks
of parental stability as children born to manied parents by including a time-
varying measure of marriage among the cohabiting parents; the reference
category here is children born to manied parents. Second, we estimate a
nearly identical model that alters the reference category to children born to
cohabiting parents who do not marry; this allows us to specifically examine
whether chlldren whose cohabiting parents marry experience higher levels of
stability than those whose parents do not legalize their unions.
To investigate racial and ethnic differences, our models are estimated for
the total sample and separately for each race and ethnic group. We used stat-
istical tests analogous to the Chow test to determine whether models should
be estimated separately for race and ethnic groups (DeMaris 2002). The tests
suggested that they should. Contrasting log likelihood ratios for models of
all children with no interactions to models that include crossproducts of
all covatiates with race and ethnicity also indicated the need for separate
models.
2
4. Results
4.1. Life tables
Figure l presents the si ngle decrement life tables, allowing cohabiting parents
to remain at risk of dissolution after they marry. Of the total sample, 15% of
children born into premarital cohabiting unions experience the end of their
parents' union by age l , half by age 5, and two-thirds by age 10. Estimates
for children born into first marital unions reveal substantially more stability.
As Figure I shows, 4% of children born to married parents experienced par-
ental instability within one year and 15% by age 5. Figure 1 also shows that
black children born to cohabiting and married parents experience consider-
ably more instability, and instability at somewhat younger ages, than white
or Hispanic children. For example, by the time a child turns five years old,
two-fifths of Hispanic and white children versus three-fifths of black children
bom into cohabiting-parent families are no longer living with both parents.
0,9
0,8
l
!
0,5
i
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
--Coh Tooal
--Mar Tot.d
5
Chlld'ai.Qe
- CohBiack
- Mar Black
.. .... Coh Wh<le
4 MarWhito
10
--+--Coh Hispanic
-- - Mar Hisparlic
Figure 1. Cumulative proportion of children born in cohabiting and manied unions experien-
cing parental disruption
4.2. Event history analyses
Table 2 shows the effects of union status at birth on the odds of parental separ-
ation for the total sample as well as for each race and ethni c group separately.
Children born in cohabiting unions have significantly higher odds of experi-
encing their parent's break-up than children born in marriage. Children born
to cohabiting parents have 119% (2. 19-1.00) higher odds of separation than
children born to married parents. In bivariate models, we observe a significant
negative effect of cohabitation on union stability, children born to cohabit-
ing parents have 246% greater odds of experiencing parental disruption than
children born to marl'ied parents (results not shown). This indicates that our
sociodemographic covariates are not accounting for all of the relationship
between parental union status at bi.tth and parental separation, but the effect
of cohabitation is reduced by 37% in the multivariate model.
We generally find a similar relationship of union status at birth for black,
white and Hispanic children in both bivariate and multivariate models. Al -
though, somewhat unexpectedly, in the mul tivariate model the positive effect
of being born to cohabiting parents on the odds of experiencing parental
breakup is statistically similar for Hispanic, black and white children (results
not shown). Yet, the sociodemographic variables explain a greater share of
Table 2. Relative risk of parental separation among children born in
rnani age and cohabitation
Union status at bit1h
Born in cohabitation 2.19** 2.81** 2.20** 1.87**
(Born in marriage)
Mother's charactetistics
Race/ethnici ty
Black 1.62**
Hispanic O.RR
Other 1.03
(White)
Family background
Single 1.15 1.17 1.14 1.05
Step 1.32 1.26 0.94 1.61 "*
Other 1.11 lSI 0.78 LSI
(Two biological)
Religiosity 1.03 1.06 0.98 1.04
Education
<l2 1.12 0.85 1.27 1.04
(12)
13+ 0.96 1.3 0.94 0.96
Employment
Part 0.87 1.27 1.1 0.57**
Full 1.10 1.63** 0.98 0.96
(Not)
Prior cohabit ation 1.43** 1.50* 1.15 1.46**
Age at bit1h 0.91** 0.89** 0.94** 0.88**
Parity 1.07 1.20*" 1.02 1.11
Child's Characteristics
Preunion couception 1.10 1.17 1.12 1.05
Unplanned 1.25** 1.28* 1.06 1.39**
Bil1h cohon
1980--84 0.78** 0.82 0.64** 0.85
1985-89 0.87 0.92 0.79 0.89
(1990-95)
- 2 log likelihood 29456.8 4656.7 6717.3 13210.2
N 6578 1410 1128 3800
Source: NSFG 1995.
Note: Reference category in parentheses.
*p .::: 0.05; **p .::: 0.01.
the effect of parental cohabitation status at birth among white (45%) than
Hispanic ( 15%) or black (17%) children (result<; not shown).
The effects of other variables are largely as expected from prior research.
These variables are all significantly related to union stability at the zero-order
level. The first column of Table 2 shows that black children are more likely to
experience their parents' separation than white children; analyses not shown
suggest that black children face higher odds of instability than Hispanic chil-
dren as well. We do not find significant differences in the odds of instability
according to mother's family background, religiosity, education or employ-
ment. Yet we do find some of these factors influence instability among racial
and ethnic groups. For instance, growing up in a stepfamily has a positive ef-
fect on instability among whites. Also employment infl uences parental union
stability among white and Hispanic children. Unfortunately, we lack inform-
ation about the spouse/partner' s employment at the time of union formation
and cannot assess how the family' s overaU economic circumstances influence
stability.
We fi nd that mother' s relationship and childbearing histories (prior co-
habitation, mother's age, and parity) inll uence relationship stability. Children
whose mothers have prior cohabitation experience have higher odds of ex-
peliencing parenral break-up than mothers who had no plior cohabitation
experience. We observe this relationship only among white and Hispanic
children, and fi nd that mother's prior cohabitation is not associated with par-
ental instability among black children. We include an interaction term to test
whether prior cohabitation has a more negative effect on parental stability
among children born to cohabiting rather than marTied parents. We fi nd a
similar negative effect of mother's prior cohabitation among children born in
cohabiting and marital unions (results not shown). We also tap into instability
by evaluating whether children born to marr ied parents who cohabited prior
to the child's birth experienced similar odds of instability as children born to
cohabiting parents as well as mar-ried parents who never cohabited. We find
that white and Hispanic children born to marTied parents who cohabited prior
to marriage had higher odds of parental disruption than children born to mar-
ried parents who never cohabited and lower odds of parental disruption than
children born to cohabiting parents (results not shown). Our second measure,
age of mother, shows that for each race and ethnic group, children born to
older mothers face lower odds of union instabil ity. Lastly, the mother's parity
at the time of the focal child' s birth is not associated with uni on dissolution.
Yet, we do find a positive effect of parity on union instability among Hispanic
children. We find that parity has a similar effect on instability for children
born to marlied and cohabiting parents (results not shown).
Table 3. Relative tisks of parent al separation among children born in maniage and
cohabitation
Union status
Parents cohabit at hitth 2.48** 3.09** 2.39*" 2.47**
Parents cohabit at bitth & mmTied 1.62** 2.10** 1.73** 1.16
(Parents rnanietl atl birth)
Mother's characteristics
Race/ethnicity
Black 1.60**
Hispanic 0.87
Other 1.02
(White)
Family background
Siugle 1.15 1.17 1.15 1.06
Step 1.33** 1.25 0.96 1.63**
Other 1.09 1.48 0.77 1.51
(Two biological)
Religiosity 1.03 1.06 0.98 1.04
Education
<12 1.11 0.84 1.25 1.03
(12)
13+ 0.96 1.28 0.95 0.96
Employment
Part 0.88 1.24 1.10 0.57**
Full 1.10 1.60** 0.97 0.97
(Not)
Prior cohabitation 1.43** 1.51* 1.14 1.47**
Age at birth 0.90** 0.89** 0.93** 0.88**
Parity 1.06 1.19** 1.00 1.11
Child's characteristics
Preunion conception 1.1 1.19 0.94 1.04
Unplanned 1.26** 1.28* 1.21 * 1.38**
Dirth cohort
1980--84 0.78** 0.82 0.66** 0.86
1985- 89 0.87 0.92 0.85 0.91
(1990-95)
-2 log likelihood 29439.2 4653.7 5557.9 13195.0
N 6933 1507 1055 3930
Somce: NSFG 1995.
iNote: Reference category in parentheses.
*p 5 0.05; **p 5 0.0'1.
The next covariates in Table 2 are characteristics of the child. Children
who were conceived prior to the union have similar odds of disruption as
those conceived during the union, although children who were unplanned
have substantially higher odds of experiencing the end of their parent's union;
this is uue for Hispanics and whites. Finally, children born during the cohab-
itation in the early 1980s have lower odds of parental separation than the
lates t cohort, but children born in the mid 1980s experience similar odds of
separation as their counterparts born in the early 1990s. We find that this
relati.onship operates among blacks but not Hispanics or whites.
Table 3 presents the model that includes a time-varying variable indicating
whether or not the parents are married to assess how the marriage of cohab-
iting parents influences parental union stability. Children are categorized into
three groups: born to cohabiting parents who do not marry, born to cohabiting
parents who do marry, and born to married parents. The reference category is
children born into marriage.
Our bivariate results indicate that the risk of parental disruption is 292%
greater among children whose cohabi ting parents do not marry than children
born to married parents and 151% greater among children whose cohabiting
parents marry than children born into marriage (result<; not shown). These
parental union status effects persist in the multivariate model, but are reduced
by almost one-half. The effects of parental union status cannot ibe explained
completely by the parent and child's sociodemographic characteristics. The
first column and fi rst row of Table 3 show that children born to cohabiting
parents who do not many have 148% (2.48-1.00) higher odds of experiencing
parental separation than children born to manied parents. The second row
shows that cohabiting parents who marry have 62% ( 1.62- 1.00) higher odds
of dissolution than parents who gave birth to their children in marriage. Thus,
while the marriage of cohabiting parents appears to increase levels of stability,
children in this situation still face significantly higher odds of instability than
children born to married parents.
At the same time. there are irnp01tant racial and ethnic differences. The
remaining columns in Table 3 present the results for race and ethnic groups
separately. Hispanic, black and white children born to cohabiting parents
have higher odds of parental instability than children born to married par-
ent<; . Hispanic and black children bom to cohabiting parents who marry have
significantly higher odds of dissolution than children born to married par-
ents. Tn contrast, the multivari ate results indicate that white children whose
cohabiting parenrs rnruTy experience statistically similar odds of separation
as white chHdren born to married parents. At the bivariate level we find that
white children bom to cohabiting parents who man y have higher odds of par-
ental disruption than children bom to mruTied pruents, but these differences
among white children are explained by the mother's age at birth (results not
shown). Thus, marriage after the birth of a child appears to provide some
buffer against instability among white cohabiting parents.
We re-estimate the same models but shift the reference category to more
closely examine the extent to which children born to cohabiting parents are
benefited by their parents' marriage (results not shown). We find that children
bom to cohabiting parents who later marry have 35% lower odds (significant
at the p < 0.001 level) of experiencing union dissolution than children whose
parents do not marry. Again, however, we observe different patterns accord-
ing to race and ethnicity. White children whose cohabiting parents marry do
expetience greater parental stability than those born to cohabitors who do
not marry. That is, white children born to cohabitors who marry have stat-
istically lower odds of parental separation as those born to cohabitors who
do not ultimately marry. In contrast, our multivariate models indicate that
black and Hispanic children born to cohabiting couples experience statist-
icall!y sin1ilar odds of parental separation if their parents marry. This effect
of marriage among cohabiting parents is significantly greater for white than
black children. Yet, at the bivariate level, Hispanic children bom to cohabiting
parents who marry experience lower odds of instability than children born to
cohabiting parents who do not marry. We find that this bivatiate relationship
is explai ned by mother's age at birth. Generally, marriage appears to provide
a stability benefit for white and Hispanic children but at the multivariate level
this relationship holds true for only white children.
5. Discussion
Our goal was to compare the prospects for family stability for children bom
to cohabiting and married parents. We limited our analyses to children's ex-
periences during or before their mothers' first marriage. 'Using life tables and
event history analyses, we adopted an analytic approach that treats cohabiting
parents who marry as intact families that remain at 1i sk of dissolution. This
approach allows us to take the child's standpoint by focusing on the stability
of the parental relationship itself. We also examined how the marriage of
cohabiting couples influences the experiences of children born to married and
cohabiting couples by including a time-varyi ng union status variable.
There are several key findings. Most broadly, our results indicate that
children born to never-married cohabiting mothers face significantJy higher
odds of instability than children born to fi rst-time ma.nied mothers. Life
table results show that, by age 5, two-fi fths of Hispanic and white children
and three-fifths of black children bom into cohabiting-parent families are no
longer living with both parents; this compares to disruption levels of 14% for
Hispanic, 16% for white and 25% for black children born to married parents.
Our multivariate analyses indicate that, even after controlling for potentially
important sociodemographic factors, children born into cohabiting families
face approximately double the odds of experiencing their parents' break up
than those born to married couples. This holds true across racial and ethnic
groups.
Second, our research suggests that significant racial and ethnic differences
are masked in models that simply control for race and ethnicity. While, over-
all, white children face the lowest odds of experiencing instability, separate
models show that the marriage of cohabiting parents significantly enhances
stability for white children; in fact, marriage is associated with improved
prospects for stability among children bom in cohabiting unions. For His-
panilcs and blacks, this does not appear to be the case, with children bom in
cohabiting unions facing significantly higher prospects of instability even if
theit parents legalize the union. At the same time, it is impmtant to underscore
that proportionately fewer black and Hispanic children born in cohabitation
have parents who ultimately marry compared to whites (e.g., 28% of black
antl 36% of Hispanic children compared to 46% of white children born in
cohabitation). These findings may speak to racial and ethnic differences of
selection into maniage. For example, the education gap between manied and
cohabiting white parents is much greater than the education gap of cohabit-
ing and married minority parents (Manning & Brown 2003). This suggests
that white children may potentially benefit more from their parents marriage
because the educational (and economic) requirements for entry into marriage
are much higher among whites than nonwhites.
Third, mothers with a history of relationship instability have lower odds of
stab llity in their current relationship, and we fi nd statistically similar negative
effects among children born to cohabiting and married mothers. However,
we only observe this relationship among white and Hispanic children and
not black children. Black children's mothers' prior relationship instability
does not appear to infiuence parental disruption. In a similar vein, white
and Hispanic children bom to married mothers with some prior cohabitation
experience exhibit greater odds of instability than children born to mothers
whose marriages were not preceded by cohabitation. Thus, our findings only
partially echo ptior studies that suggest premarital cohabitation has a negative
influence on marital stabil ity (e.g. , Lillard et al. 1995; Axinn & Thornton
1992; DeMaris & Rao 1992; Schoen 1992; Bennett et al. 1988).
Our study has several limitations. First, the measures available in the
NSFG for this analysis do not allow us to include a number of potentially
relevant factors that may affect union stability. In particular, we lack detailed
measures of income and economic weU-being. Racial/ethnic differences in
family patterns, as well as differences between cohabitation and marriage
as a context for childbearing and childrearing, have, in part, an economic
basis. Blacks and most Hispanic groups, for example, have lower incomes and
higher poverty rates than whites, and research shows that, in comparison to
marriage, cohabitation tends to be more prevalent among the less advantaged
(Bumpass & Lu 2000; Morrison & Rit.ualo 2000; Clarkberg 1999; Cohen
1999; Smock & Manning 1997; Hao 1996; Manning & Lichter 1996; Nock
1995; Thomton et al. 1995; Waite 1995). Moreover, research has demon-
su-ated that the occurrence and stability of unions (especially marriage) are
consequences, and not just causes, of good economic circumstances (e.g.,
Smock et al. 1999; Smock & Manning 1997; Oppenheimer 1994; Lichter et
al.l992;Mare&Winship 199l;Testaetal.1989).
Thus, it is quite possible that better measures would reduce the instability
disadvantage for children bom to cohabiting, rather than married, parents.
Better measures might also reduce the higher level of overall instability ex-
perienced by black children. However, economics probably does not explain
all of this variation. Manning and Smock (2002), for example, examine the
marriage intentions of white, black, and Hispanic cohabiting women. They
find that black cohabiting women are less likely than white or Hispanic wo-
men to expect to marry their partners, even after controlling for the education
of both the women and their partners and their partners' income (see, also,
Astone et al. 1999; Clarkberg 1999; Oropesa 19%; Raley 1996; Manning &
Smock 1995; Oropesa et al. 1994). We do tap into relationship instability and
find that this does not explain differences between children born to cohabiting
and married mothers. Other factors, and ones nearly impossible to measure,
might also help to a.ccount for the cohabitation disadvantage (i.e., lack of
instntutionalization).
A second Limitation, and related to the first, is that we cmmot assess causal-
ity in this study; we are just showing associations. Without good longitudinal
data with strengths in several domains (e.g., fertility, union transitions, cohab-
itation, partner characteristics, detailed income measures), it will be difficult
to fully understand the sowces of the cohabitation effect on instability.
Third, it is unfortunate that sample size limitations in the NSFG precluded
our ability to subdivide Hispanics. Grouping all Hispanics together, for ex-
ample, may obscure substantial variation that is potentially r e ~ e v n t to the
stability of cohabiting and marital unions (e.g., Lichter & Landale 1995; Bean
& Tienda 1987). For example, Puerto Ricans have high cohabitation rates as
well as high levels of poverty - on par with the poverty rate for blacks - and
Mexican Americans and whites have similar famlly patterns, but the former
have substantially lower socioeconomic status than whites.
Nonetheless, our findings contribute to the effort to understand the im-
plications of cohabitation for children. Increasingly, children are bom into
cohabiting parent families, and documenting the implications of this context
for childbirth for children's early family life course is a fundamental concem;
parental stability is associated with improved education, economic, and de-
velopmental outcomes (e.g., McLanahan & Sandefur 1994; Wu & Martinson
1993). While our findings appear to strengthen the 'case for marriage' (Waite
& Gallagher 2000), because they show quite clearly that children bom into
first marriage enjoy much higher chances of a stable childhood, they also
challenge that case. For never-married cohabiting Hispanic and black moth-
ers, marriage after the birth of child does not provide an advantage in terms
of stability; they face statistically similar odds of instability as children bom
to never-married cohabiting parents who remain cohabiting. In light of recent
policy discussions surrounding welfare, our research suggests that efforts to
encourage marriage among low-income parents, many of whom are already
cohabiting (McLanahan & Carlson 2002), may not be an effective strategy
for asswing child well-being. Hispanic and black children appear to face the
same odds of experiencing their parents' breakup as they would have had the
parents not married. More broadly, we would argue that futme research on the
implications of family structure for children's well -being needs to incorporate
instability not only as a key aspect of family experience, but directly as an
indicator, in its own right, of child well-being.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by the Center for Family and Demo-
graphic Research, Bowling Green State University which has core funding
from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R21
HD042831). This work was also supported by the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development grant HD39835. The authors appreciate
helpful suggestions and comments provided by Susan Brown, .Al DeMaris,
and Laura Sanchez.
Notes
1. We also estimated period life tables and the results mirror closely those reported for the
cohon life tables.
2. Por the model presented in Table 2, for example, the Chow test for group differences is
significant with 3530..4 = (29,480.8- (6739.5 + 13210.2 + 4657.7 + 517.4) and 64((16 +
16+ 16 + I 6)- I9) degrees of freedom. The model chi-square fort he complete interaction
model is 4356 with 45 degrees of freedom. The complete interaction model adds to the fit
of the model with a difference in the -2log likelihoods of 179.7 (29321.1-29480.8) and
a difference of 48 (64-19) degrees of freedom, indicating significance at the p < 0.01
level.
References
Acs, G. & Nelson, S. (2001), Honey, I'm home. Changes in living arrangemems in the late
New Pederalism National Survey of f1amilies 11-38, Washington DC:
Urban Institute.
Allison, P. (1984), Evem history analysis: Regression for longitudinal evenJ data, Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications.
Allison, P. ( 1995), Survival analysis using the SAS system: A practical guide, Cary, NC: SAS
Institute.
A stone, N., Schoen, R., Ensminger, M. & Rothett, K. (1999), The family life course of African
American men. Papet presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of
America, NY.
Axinn, W. & Thornton, A. (1992), The relationship between cohabitation and divorce:
Selectivity or causal influence? Demography 29: 357-374.
Bean, F. & Tienda, M. ( 1987), The Hispanic population of the United States, New York:
Russell Sage.
Bennett, N., Blanc, A. & Bloom, D. (1988), Comm.itment and the modern union: Assess-
ing the link between premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital instability, American
Sociological Review 53: 127-138.
Booth, A. & Johnson, D. (1988), Premalital cohabitation and marital success, Joumal of
Family Issues 9: 255-272.
Branllett, M. & Mosher, w. (2002), Cohabitation, marriage and divorce and remarriage in
the United States, National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics 23(22),
Brown, S. (2000a), The effect of union type of psychological well-being: Depression among
cohabitors versus marrieds, Joumal of Healih and Social Behavior 41: 24 J -255.
Brown, S. (2000b), Union transitions among cohahitors: The significance of relationship
assessments and expectations, Jo .. mal of Marriage and the Family 62: 833-846.
Brown, S. & Booth, A. (1996), Cohabitation versus maniage: A comparison of relationship
quality, Joumal of Marriage and the Family 58: 668-678.
Bumpass, L. (1998), The changing significance of maniage in the United States, pp. 63-
70, in K.O. Mason, N. Nilsuya & M. Choe (eds.), The changing family in comparative
pen.pective: Asia and the United StaleS, Honolulu: East West Center.
Bumpass, L. & Lu, H. (2000), Trends in cohabitation and implications for children's family
contexts, l'opulmion Studies 54: 29-41.
Bumpass, L. & Sweet, J. (1989), National estimates of cohabitation, Demography 26: 615-
625.
Bumpass, L., Raley, R. & Sweet, J. ( 1995), The changi ng character of stepfamilies: Implica-
tions of cohabitation and nonrnarital childbearing, Demography 32: 425-436.
Casper, L. & Bianchi, S. (2002), Comin11ity and clumge in the American family, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Clarkherg, M. (1999), The price of partnering: The role of economic well-being in young
adults' first union experiences, Social Forces 77: 945-968.
Cohen. P. (1999), Racial-ethnic and gender differences in returns to cohabitation and marriage:
E vidence from the current population survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Population Association of American. Washington, DC.
Del Pinel, J. &. Singer, A. (1997), Generations of diversity: Latinos in the United States,
Populmion Bulletin 52, No. 3.
DeMaris, A. (2002), Regression models, pp. 255-288, in M. Wiedennan & B. Whitley (eds.),
Handbook for conducting research on human sexuality, Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbum.
DeMiaris, A. & MacDonald, W. ( 1993), Premarital cohabitation and marital im1ability: A test
of the unconventionality hypothesis, lou mal of Marriage and the Family 55: 399- 407.
DeMaris, A. & Rao, K. (1992), Prematital cohabitation and subsequent marita I stability in the
United States: A n:assessment, l ou mal of Marriage and the Family 54: I 78-I 90.
Du.rs'l, R. (1997), Ties that bind: Drafting enforceable cohabitation agreements, New Jersey
Law Journal 147, SI3-SI4.
Fields, J. (2001), Living arrangements of children, Current Population Reports P70-74.
Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.
Fields, J. & Casper, L. (2002), America's families and living arrangemems: March 2000,
Current Population P20-537. Washington, DC: US Census nureau.
Graefe, D. & Lichter, D. (1999), Life course transitions of American children: Parental
cohabitation, maniage and single motherhood, Demography 36: 205-217.
Hao, L. ( 1996), Family structure, private transfers, and the economic well-bei ng of families
with children, Social 75: 269- 292.
Landale, N. & Fennelly, K. ( 1992), Informal unions among mainland Puerto Ricans: Co-
habitation or an alternative to legal marriage? Joumal of Marriage and the Family 54:
269-280.
Landale, N. & Hauan, S. ( 1992), The family life course of Puerto Rican child reo, Journal of
Marriage and the Family 54: 912-924.
Lichter, D. & Landale, N. (1995), Parental employment, family structure, and poverty among
Latino children, Joumal of Marriage and the Family 57: 346-361.
Lichter, D. , McLaughlin, C., Kephart, G. & Landry, D. (1992), Race and the retreat from
mani age: A shOitage of maniageable men? American Sociological Review 57: 781-799.
Lillard, L.. Brien, M. & Waite, L. (1995), Premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital
dissolution: A matter of self-selection? Demography 32: 437-457.
Loornis, L. & Laudale, N. (1994), Norunatital cohabitation and childbeating among black and
white Ame1ican women, Joumal of Marriage and the Family 56: 949- 962.
McLanahan, S. & Carlson, M. (2002), Welfare reform, fe11ility, and father involvement, Future
ojChildren 12: 147-165.
McLanahan, S. & Casper, L. ( 1995), Growing diversity and inequality in the American family,
pp. 1-45, in R. Farley (ed.), State of the Union: America in the 1990s, New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
McLanahan, S. & Sandefur, G. ( 1994), Crowing up with a single parent: What hurts, whaJ
helps? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Manning, W. (2001 ), Chil dbearing in cohabiting unions: Racial and ethnic differences, Family
Planning Perspectives 33: 217- 223.
Manning, W. (2002), The implications of cohabitation for children's well-being, pp. 121-152,
in A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (eds.), Just living together: lmplicationsfor children,familie.l,
and public policy, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Manning, W. & Brown, S. (2003), Children's economic well-being in cohabiting parent fam-
ilies: An update and extension. Pape1 presented at the annual meeting of the Population
Association of Americ.:a, Minneapolis, MN.
Reproduced with permission of t he copyright owner. Further reproduct ion prohibited without permission.
Manning. W. & Lichter. D. (1996). Parental cohabitation and children's economic well-being.
Joumal of Marriage and the Family 58: 998-1010.
Manning, W. & Smock, P. (1\195), Why marry'! Race and t he transition to marriage among
cohabitors, Demography 32: 509- 520.
Manning, W. & Smock, P. (2002), First comes cohabitation and then comes maniage, Jounzal
of Family Issues 23: 1065-1087.
Marcil-Gratton, N., Le Bourdais, C. & Lapierre-Adamcyk, E. (2000), The implications of
parents' conjugal histories for children, Canadian Joumal of Policy Research 1: 32-40.
Mare, R. & Winship, C. (1991), Socioeconomic change and the decline of marr iage for blacks
a.nd whites, pp. 175- 202, in C. Jencks & P. E Peterson (eds.), The urban underclass,
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Morrison, D. R. & Ritualo, A. (2000), Routes to childreo' s economic recovery after divorce:
Are maternal cohabitation and remaniage equivalent'? American Sociological Review 65:
560-580.
Musilck, K. (2002), Planned and unplanned childbearing among unmarried women, Journal of
Marriage and Family 64: 915-930.
Nock, S. ( 1995), A comparison of marriages 1md cohahiting relationships, Joumal of Pimlily
Issues 16: 53-76.
Oppenheimer, V. (1994), Women's rising employment and t he future of the family in indusuial
societies, Population and Developmem Review 20: 293-342.
Oropesa, R. ( 1996), Nonnative heliefs ahout maniage and cohanitation: A compatison of
non-Latino whites, Mexican Ameticans and Puerto Ricans, Joumal o{ Marriage and the
Family 58: 49-62.
Oropesa, R., Lichter, D. & Anderson, R. ( 1994), Marriage markets and the paradox of Mexican
American nuptiality, Joumal of Marriage and 1he t'amily 56: 889- 907.
Raley, R. ( 1996), A shortage of maniageable men? A note on d1e role of cohabitation in
black-white differences in marriage rates, American Sociological Review 6 1: 973- 983.
Raley, R. (200 1 ), Increasing fertility in cohabiting unions: evidence for the second demo-
graphic transition in the United States'! Demography 38: 5\1-66.
Raley, R. & Wildsmith, E.M. (2001), Cohabitation and children's family instability. Population
research center working paper 01-02-06. University of Texas.
Schoen, R. ( 1992), First onions and the stability of fi rst marriages, Journal of Marriage and
Jhe Family 54: 281-2!:!4.
Seff, M. (1995), Cohabita.tion and the law, Marriage and Family Review 21: 141- 168.
Selt z:er, J. ( 1994), Consequences of marital dissolution for children, Annual Review of
Sociology 20: 235-266.
Smock, P. (2000), Cohabitation in the United States, Annual Review of Sociology 26: 1-20.
Smock, P. & Gupta, S. (2002), what is the role of cQhabitation in contempomry North
American family structure?, pp. 53- 84, in A. Booth & A. Crouter (eds.), Just living to-
gether: lmplicatioriS of cohabitation on families, childrm, and social policy, Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smock, P. & Manni ng, W. ( 1997), Cohabiting pmtners' economic circumstances and marriage,
Demography 34: 331- 341.
Smock, P., Manning, W. & Gupta, S. ( l\19\1), The effect of marriage and divorce on women's
economic well-being, American Sociological Review 64: 794-812.
Stewart, S. (2002), The effects of stepchildren on childbearing intentions and births, Demo-
g raphy 39: 181- 197
Teachman, J. & Po1onko, K. (1990), Cohabitation and marit al stability in the United States,
Social Forces 69: 207- 220.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduct ion prohibited without permission.
Teachman, J.. Thomas, J. & Paasch, K. (1991), Legal status and stability of coresidential
unions, Demography 28: 571- 586.
Testa, M., Astone, N., Krogh, M. & Neckerman, K. (I \189), Employment and marriage among
inner-dty fathers, Annals of the America11 Academy of Political and Social Science 501:
79-91.
Thomson, E. & Collela, U. ( 1992), Cohabitation and marit al stability: Quality or commitment?
Joumal q[Marriage and the J:<(unily 54: 259-267.
Thomson, E. & Li, J. (2002), Her, his and their children: Childbearing in1e1uions and births in
stepfamilies, National Survey of Families and Households Working Paper 89, University
of Wisconsin-Madison.
Thornton, A. , Axinn, W. & Teachman, J. (1995), The influence of school enrollment and
accumulation on cohabitation and marriage in early adulthood, American Sociological
Review60: 762-774.
Waite, L. ( 1995), Does marriage matter? Demography 32: 483-508.
Waite, L. & Gallagher, M .. (2000), The case for marriage, New York: Doubleday.
Waite, L. & Joyner, K. (2001), Emotional and physical satisfaction in married, cohabiting,
and dating sexual uniions: Do men and women differ?, pp. 239- 274, in E. Laumann &
R. Michael (eds.), Sex, love, and health in America: Private choices and public policies,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Waller, M. (1999), Meanings and motives in new family stories: The separation of repro-
duction and maniage among low-income hlack and white pp. 182- 2 18, in M.
Lamont (ed.), Tile culturalrerritories qf race: Black and white b01mdaries, New York:
Russell Sage.
Wiesensale, S. & Heckatt, K. ( 1993), Domestic prumerships: A concept paper and policy
discussion, Family NelaJions 42: 199- 204.
Wu, L. (1996), Effects of family instability, income, and income instability on the risk of
premarital birth, American Sociological Review 61: 386-406.
Wu, 1.. & Mattinson, 13. ( 1993), T'amily structure and the risk of a premarital birth, American
Sociological Review 58: 210-232.
Wu, JL. & Musick, K. (2002), Stability of marital and cohabiting unions following a first birth.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Atlanta.
Wu, L., Bumpass, L. & Musick, K. (2001), Historical and life course trajectories of non-
marital childbearing, pp. 3-48, in L. Wu & B. Wolfe (eds.), Ow ofwedlo.ck: Causes and
consequences ofnomnaritalfertilily, New York: Russell Sage.
Address for correspondence: Wendy D. Manning, Department of Sociology & Center for
Familly and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio
43403, USA
Phone: 419-372-2850; Fa.x.: 419-372-8306; E-mail: wmaonin@bgnet.bgsu.edu

EXHIBIT 44
Original research article
Unintended pregnancy in the United States:
incidence and disparities, 2006
Lawrence B. Finer
, Mia R. Zolna
Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY 10038, USA
Received 22 July 2011; accepted 28 July 2011
Abstract
Background: The incidence of unintended pregnancy is among the most essential health status indicators in the field of reproductive health.
One ongoing goal of the US Department of Health and Human Services is to reduce unintended pregnancy, but the national rate has not been
estimated since 2001.
Study Design: We combined data on women's pregnancy intentions from the 20062008 and 2002 National Survey of Family Growth with
a 2008 national survey of abortion patients and data on births from the National Center for Health Statistics, induced abortions from a
national abortion provider census, miscarriages estimated from the National Survey of Family Growth and population data from the US
Census Bureau.
Results: Nearly half (49%) of pregnancies were unintended in 2006, up slightly from 2001 (48%). The unintended pregnancy rate increased
to 52 per 1000 women aged 1544 years in 2006 from 50 in 2001. Disparities in unintended pregnancy rates among subgroups persisted and
in some cases increased, and women who were 1824 years old, poor or cohabiting had rates two to three times the national rate. The
unintended pregnancy rate declined notably for teens 1517 years old. The proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion
decreased from 47% in 2001 to 43% in 2006, and the unintended birth rate increased from 23 to 25 per 1000 women 1544 years old.
Conclusions: Since 2001, the United States has not made progress in reducing unintended pregnancy. Rates increased for nearly all groups
and remain high overall. Efforts to help women and couples plan their pregnancies, such as increasing access to effective contraceptives,
should focus on groups at greatest risk for unintended pregnancy, particularly poor and cohabiting women.
2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Unintended pregnancy; Reproductive health; Disparities; Abortion; Demographics; United States
1. Introduction
Preventing unintended pregnancy is a personal goal for
most couples, and reducing the national level of unintended
pregnancy is one of the most important reproductive health
goals identified by the US Department of Health and Human
Services [1]. Women who have an unintended pregnancy are
also at risk for unintended childbearing, which is associated
with a number of adverse maternal behaviors and child health
outcomes, including inadequate or delayed initiation of pre-
natal care, smoking and drinking during pregnancy, premature
birth and lack of breast-feeding, as well as negative physical
and mental health effects on children [29].
While the unintended pregnancy rate in the United States
decreased between the late 1980s and mid 1990s [10], it
stalled by 2001, the last year for which estimates are available
[11]. Recent decreases in births and abortions have occurred
among some population subgroups (e.g., teens) [12], but it is
unclear if unintended pregnancy rates have also changed. The
recent release of new data on pregnancy intentions has made
it possible to determine the incidence of unintended
pregnancy for 2006. We calculated unintended pregnancy
rates for all women of reproductive age and for key
population subgroups, including race and ethnicity and
relationship status, because previous studies indicate strong
associations between unintended pregnancy and these groups
[11]. We also present information on outcomes of unintended
pregnancy, including the percentage of unintended pregnan-
cies that ended in abortion and the rate of births that followed
unintended pregnancy. These estimates are some of the most
Contraception 84 (2011) 478485
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 212 248 1111; fax: +1 212 248 1951.
E-mail address: lfiner@guttmacher.org (L.B. Finer).
0010-7824/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2011.07.013
essential indicators in the field of reproductive health, and
periodic trend assessments provide valuable information for
public health officials and policy makers who monitor
progress toward reducing unintended pregnancy.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Overview
For all US women and by key population subgroups (age,
educational attainment, race and ethnicity, income, relation-
ship status, parity and religious affiliation), we determined the
number of pregnancies that ended in birth, induced abortion
and miscarriage
1
; calculated the proportion of each of these
outcomes that were unintended; and then divided the total
number of unintended pregnancies by the population of
women aged 1544 years to obtain an unintended pregnancy
rate per 1000 women.
2.2. Counts and intendedness of pregnancies by outcome
2.2.1. Births
We relied on data from the National Center for Health
Statistics (NCHS) [1315] to obtain the number of US births
that occurred in 2001 and 2006 overall and by the mother's
age, educational attainment, race and ethnicity, relationship
status (not including cohabitation) and parity (2006 only).
We distributed births by other subgroups (including
cohabiting status) using the National Survey of Family
Growth (NSFG), a nationally representative survey of US
women aged 1544 years conducted by the NCHS.
Women's pregnancy intentions were obtained from the
NSFG, which asked women a series of retrospective questions
to determine whether each of the pregnancies they had had
were intended or unintended at the time it occurred. Intended
pregnancies were those that occurred to women who wanted a
baby at the time they became pregnant or sooner or who were
indifferent about conceiving; unintended pregnancies were
conceptions that were mistimed (i.e., the woman wanted to
become pregnant at some point in the future, but not when she
conceived) or unwanted (i.e., she did not want to become
pregnant at the time of conception nor in the future). We
focused on the births in the 5 years preceding the 20062008
(n=2044) and 2002 (n=2618) interviews.
2.2.2. Abortions
The total number of surgical and medication abortions
performed in 2001 and 2006 came from a census of US
abortion providers [16] conducted by the Guttmacher
Institute. Counts by age came from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's 2001 and 2006 abortion surveil-
lance reports [17,18], and estimates for all other subgroups
were based on interpolations of distributions from two
nationally representative Abortion Patient Surveys (APS)
conducted by the Guttmacher Institute in 2000 (n=10,683)
[19] and 2008 (n=9493) [20].
Abortions are underreported in the NSFG. Therefore,
pregnancy intentions among women obtaining abortions for
both 2006 and 2001 were based on distributions from the
2008 APS, which, for the first time, asked women the same
set of questions that were used in the NSFG. Use of these
data enabled us to identify the proportion of abortions that
followed intended pregnancies, rather than assuming that all
abortions followed unintended pregnancies, an approach
used in previous analyses.
2
2.2.3. Miscarriages
There is no gold standard count of miscarriages.
Official statistics are limited to fetal deaths at 20 weeks of
gestation or later [21] and, hence, miss those that occur
earlier in pregnancy. We estimated the number of mis-
carriages for 2006 by calculating the ratio of miscarriages to
births [22] overall and by subgroup that occurred in the 7
years preceding the last two NSFG rounds (2002 and 2006
2008) and multiplying that ratio by the total number of
US births in 2006 overall and by subgroup. Women in their
teens and those 40 years or older had relatively fewer preg-
nancies, so we increased the sample size by including data
from a third round of the NSFG (1995) to improve the
validity of the estimate.
3
To estimate the number of mis-
carriages for 2001, we applied the same ratio calculated from
all three NSFG surveys combined to the 2001 birth counts.
Information on the intendedness of pregnancies ending in
miscarriage came from miscarriages in the 5 years preceding
the 20062008 (n=560) and 2002 (n=729) NSFG interviews.
In previous analyses, we relied directly on women's reports
of intendedness, but subgroup sample sizes for 2006 were
inadequate. Because miscarriages are pregnancies that would
otherwise end in either birth or abortion, we would expect
that the proportion of miscarriages that were intended would
fall between the proportion of births that were intended and
the proportion of abortions that were intended. For the entire
NSFG sample, this assumption was accurate.
4
Therefore, for
subgroups, we calculated the proportion of miscarriages that
were intended by constraining it to fall between the proportion
of births and abortions intended.
5
2.3. Population denominators and calculations
Denominators for pregnancy, birth and abortion rates for
all women aged 1544 years and by age and race and
1
Miscarriage refers to spontaneous fetal loss or stillbirth.
2
This change resulted in lower unintended pregnancy estimates for
2001 than were previously reported [11].
3
The ratio of miscarriages to births has not changed much between
1995 and 2006, so use of earlier 1995 data should not be problematic.
4
In 2006, 57% of miscarriages followed intended pregnancies,
compared with 64% of births and 5% of abortions.
5
For example, in 2006, the proportion of miscarriages that were
intended within each subgroup was calculated as A+(0.884[BA]), where
A is the proportion of abortions in that subgroup that were intended, B is the
proportion of births in that subgroup that were intended and 0.884 is (57%
5%)/(64%5%), based on the overall proportions for the sample population
mentioned in the previous footnote.
479 L.B. Finer, M.R. Zolna / Contraception 84 (2011) 478485
ethnicity were obtained from population estimates pub-
lished by the US Census Bureau [23]. Population distri-
butions by educational attainment, poverty and relationship
status came from the Annual Social and Economic Supple-
ments of the Current Population Survey. The population
distributions for women by cohabitation status, religious
affiliation and parity were based on interpolations of the
1995, 2002 and 20062008 NSFG. Distributions by edu-
cation were limited to the population of women 20 years
and older who were likely to have completed or mostly
completed schooling.
When calculating the percentage of unintended pregnan-
cies that ended in abortion, we excluded miscarriages from
the denominator in order to better represent pregnancies with
outcomes decided by the woman.
3. Results
3.1. Proportion of unintended pregnancies and unintended
pregnancy rates
There were 6.7 million pregnancies in the United States in
2006 (Table 1), up from6.4 million in 2001 (data not shown).
Some 3.2 million pregnancies were unintended in 2006,
compared with 3.1 million in 2001 (data not shown). The
percentage of pregnancies that were unintended increased
slightly between 2001 (48%) and 2006 (49%), and the
unintended pregnancy rate also increased during this time
period: In 2006, there were 52 unintended pregnancies for
every 1000 women aged 1544 years, compared with 50 in
2001. In other words, about 5% of women of reproductive
age had an unintended pregnancy in 2006. When looking at
unintended pregnancy by timing, 29% of all pregnancies
were mistimed and 19% were unwanted (data not shown).
The intended pregnancy rate stayed nearly the same, and the
overall pregnancy rate increased.
3.1.1. Age
The proportion of pregnancies that were unintended
generally decreased with age, with more than four out of
five pregnancies unintended among women 19 years and
younger. Between 2001 and 2006, this percentage decreased
for women aged 1517 years and increased or stayed nearly
the same for all other women. The unintended pregnancy rate
was highest for women 2024 years old due to an increase
between 2001 and 2006.
3.1.2. Educational attainment
Women with the fewest years of education had the highest
unintended pregnancy rate, and rates decreased as years of
education attained increased. Unintended pregnancy rates
increased the most among women with no college experience.
3.1.3. Race and ethnicity
Black women had the highest unintended pregnancy rate
among all racial and ethnic subgroups, more than double that
of non-Hispanic white women. Rates changed little between
2001 and 2006.
3.1.4. Income
Poor and low-income women's unintended pregnancy
rates increased substantially, while the rate for higher-
income women decreased. The rate for poor women was
more than five times the rate for women in the highest
income level. While there was little difference by education
among women in the highest income bracket (Fig. 1A),
minorities had the highest unintended pregnancy rates
regardless of income level (Fig. 1B).
3.1.5. Relationship status
Unintended pregnancy rates increased among cohabitors
and formerly married women. Cohabiting women exhibited
both the highest rate and the greatest increase among all
individual subgroups measured in this analysis. Rates were
even higher among cohabiting women who were under
25 years old (Fig. 2A), poor or low-income (Fig. 2B).
3.1.6. Parity
Women with one previous birth had an unintended
pregnancy rate that was roughly twice as high as the rate for
women who had never given birth and women with two
or more previous births.
3.1.7. Religious affiliation
Women with no religious affiliation reported the highest
unintended pregnancy rate, followed by Catholics, Protes-
tants, and women with other affiliations.
3.2. Outcomes of unintended pregnancies
Forty-three percent of unintended pregnancies ended in
abortion
6
in 2006, a decline from 47% in 2001 (Table 2). In
2006, the unintended birth rate
7
was 25 per 1000 women
aged 1544 years, up from 23 in 2001.
3.2.1. Age
Between 2001 and 2006, the proportion of unintended
pregnancies ending in abortion increased for women aged
1517 years and declined or stayed the same for all other
women. The greatest declines were exhibited among women
aged 1824 years. As a result, the unintended birth rate
decreased for women aged 1517 years and increased the
most for women aged 1824 years. Rates for women aged
1824 years were more than twice the national rate.
3.2.2. Educational attainment
Women with some college but no degree were most likely
to end an unintended pregnancy by abortion; these women
were also more likely to still be enrolled in school. Those
without a high school diploma were most likely to continue an
6
As described above, this calculation excludes miscarriages.
7
The phrase unintended birth rate is shorthand for the rate of births
that followed unintended pregnancies.
unintended pregnancy, and had an unintended birth rate that
was almost twice the national rate and nearly four times the rate
for college graduates.
3.2.3. Race and ethnicity
The proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in
abortion decreased across all racial and ethnic subgroups,
with black women most likely to end an unintended
pregnancy by abortion. Hispanic women had the highest
unintended birth rate, and minority women had rates that
were more than twice that of white women.
3.2.4. Income
Compared with higher-income women, poor and low-
income women were less likely to end an unintended
pregnancy by abortion. Consequently, poor women had a
relatively high unintended birth rate. While lower-income
women experienced an increase in the unintended birth rate,
Table 1
Number of pregnancies, percentage of pregnancies unintended and pregnancy rate by intention for all women and by demographic characteristics
Characteristics No. of pregnancies
(000), 2006
Percentage of
pregnancies
unintended
Total pregnancy
rate
a
Intended
pregnancy rate
a
Unintended
pregnancy rate
a
Total Unintended 2001 2006 2001 2006 2001 2006 2001 2006
All women 6658 3240 48 49 104 108 54 55 50 52
Age (years)
b
b15 21 21 98 98 3 2 0 0 2 2
1519 769 629 82 82 82 74 14 13 67 60
1517 263 209 89 79 47 42 5 9 42 33
1819 505 420 79 83 133 124 28 21 105 103
2024 1716 1094 59 64 172 168 72 61 101 107
2529 1751 715 40 41 171 174 102 103 69 71
3034 1334 440 33 33 131 139 88 93 43 46
3539 832 230 28 28 68 80 49 58 19 22
40 235 112 49 48 18 21 9 11 9 10
Educational attainment
c
Not HS graduate 853 445 49 52 146 154 74 74 72 80
HS graduate/equivalent 1709 826 47 48 113 122 60 63 53 59
Some college/associate degree 1565 813 52 52 90 94 43 45 47 49
College graduate 1742 459 24 26 105 113 80 84 26 30
Race and ethnicity
d
White non-Hispanic 3471 1392 40 40 87 89 52 53 34 36
Black non-Hispanic 1193 805 67 67 138 136 45 44 93 91
Hispanic 1551 824 54 53 147 155 67 72 80 82
Income as a percentage of poverty
b100% 1970 1221 61 62 196 214 77 82 120 132
100%199% 1786 1026 54 57 146 157 66 67 79 90
200% 2902 993 37 34 74 70 46 46 28 24
Relationship status
Currently married 3404 966 28 28 120 122 86 88 33 35
Never married and not cohabiting 1265 1029 78 81 57 56 13 10 45 46
Formerly married and not cohabiting 388 264 59 68 74 78 30 25 44 53
Cohabiting 1601 981 65 61 194 248 68 96 126 152
Parity
No previous births 2670 1260 u 47 u 100 u 53 u 47
1 2030 933 u 46 u 193 u 105 u 88
2 1959 1048 u 53 u 79 u 37 u 42
Religious affiliation
Protestant 3022 1456 u 48 u 101 u 52 u 48
Mainstream 1546 774 u 50 u 110 u 55 u 55
Evangelical 1476 682 u 46 u 92 u 50 u 42
Catholic 1901 862 u 45 u 120 u 66 u 54
Other 578 207 u 36 u 96 u 62 u 34
None 1158 717 u 62 u 116 u 44 u 71
Note: Numbers may not sum to group totals due to rounding. u denotes unavailable; HS, high school.
a
Rates are per 1000 women aged 1544 years.
b
The population denominator for the rates for women aged b15 years is women aged 1014 years; the denominator for the rates for women aged
40 years is women aged 4044 years.
c
Among women aged 20 years.
d
Excludes women who self-identify as other non-Hispanic race/ethnic groups.
this rate remained relatively stable for women in the highest
income category.
3.2.5. Relationship status
Married and cohabiting women were much less likely
than other women to end an unintended pregnancy by abor-
tion. The rate of unintended births among cohabiting women
increased sharply and was more than three times the rate
for other women.
3.2.6. Parity
Women with exactly one previous birth were least likely
to end an unintended pregnancy by abortion, and their
unintended birth rate was more than twice that of the
other groups.
3.2.7. Religious affiliation
Women with no religious affiliation were most likely to
end an unintended pregnancy by abortion; they also had the
highest unintended birth rate, followed closely by Catholics
and Protestants. Evangelicals were least likely to terminate
an unintended pregnancy.
4. Discussion
The US unintended pregnancy rate increased slightly
between 2001 and 2006, a worrisome trend, and remains
significantly higher than the rate in many other developed
countries [24]. Population shifts for example, increases in
groups with high rates, such as poor and minority women
may have contributed to the overall increase. In addition, the
overall increase could have occurred if the trend toward later
childbearing [25] has led to a longer period before child-
bearing when relatively less-effective methods are used [26]
and a shorter period post-childbearing when use of highly
effective long-term methods is more common.
Fig. 1. (A) Unintended pregnancy rates for poor women were inversely
related to educational attainment, but rates among women in the highest
income bracket varied little across education levels. (a) Rates for
educational attainment are among women aged 2044 years. (b) Rates
for college graduates at b100% and 100%199% of poverty are com-
bined to account for small sample sizes. (B) Among poor women,
Hispanics had the highest unintended pregnancy rate, and among the
low- and higher-income groups, black women had the highest rate. Note:
This figure excludes women who self-identify as other non-Hispanic
race/ethnic groups.
Fig. 2. (A) Teens had relatively high unintended pregnancy rates among
married and cohabiting women, but noncohabiting teens had a lowunintended
pregnancy rate. (a) The rate for married women aged 1519 years is not
available. (B) Women in lower-income groups had relatively high unintended
pregnancy rates regardless of relationship status. Cohabiting women had the
highest rates across all income levels, and among them, poor or low-income
women had very high rates. Notes: Unmarried women include never-married
and formerly married women. Cohabiting women were not married.
During the same period, the overall proportion of women
ending an unintended pregnancy by abortion decreased.
These changes may have been due to decreased access to
abortion in some areas, increased stigmatization of abortion
or both.
Among all the subgroups for which we present data, only
women aged 1517 years saw notable improvements since
2001; both their unintended pregnancy rate and unintended
birth rate declined by roughly one quarter.
Many disparities among subgroups, already large, grew.
In particular, cohabiting women exhibited very high and
increasing unintended pregnancy and unintended birth rates.
Like married women, cohabiting women are regularly
sexually active but are less likely than married women to
desire pregnancy and, thus, are at a very high risk for unin-
tended pregnancy. They are, however, more likely to carry a
pregnancy including an unintended pregnancy to term
than unmarried noncohabiting women, perhaps because
they have more partner support. In addition, the decline in
the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion
may have been related to increased normalization of child-
bearing among these couples. These findings represent con-
sequences of broad demographic trends specifically,
fewer married women and a greater proportion of child-
bearing to unmarried women and also help to explain
those trends by showing that cohabiting couples, regardless
of marital status, have high pregnancy rates and that a large
proportion of those pregnancies are unintended.
Poor and low-income women also experienced some of the
greatest increases and highest rates of unintended pregnancy.
This finding is consistent with numerous studies that document
the association between disadvantage and higher risk for
unintended pregnancy [2729]. While reasons behind this
relationship are not fully understood, they are related to the
significant life challenges facing many of these women [30,31].
The upward trend in their unintended pregnancy rate has
continued for over a decade [10]. During this time, publicly
funded family planning clinicswhich have been shown to
helplowincome womenachieve their childbearing goals [32]
were only able to meet about 40% of the need for publicly
subsidized care [33]. This gap in services, along with rising
unintended pregnancy rates, underscores the need to expand
programs that could enable low income women and couples to
be more consistent and effective contraceptive users.
The disparities by parity are probably explained by the
desire for families with two children. In other words, the
high intended and unintended rates for women with one birth
compared with childless women or those with two or more
births may be due to the fact that women reporting only
one birth may be more likely to have a second birth but are
less likely to progress to a third birth [34]. At the same
time, their high unintended pregnancy rate suggests that
mothers have difficulties timing births, and their high unin-
tended birth rate suggests less concern about continuing an
unintended pregnancy compared with other women.
This is an aggregate-level analysis incorporating data from
multiple data sets, which makes statistical testing difficult.
One test that can be performed is a comparison based on a
subset of our data: the proportion of pregnancies ending in
birth (i.e., excluding abortions, which are underreported, and
miscarriages) that were unintended in 2006 and 2001. The
Table 2
Percentage of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion and unintended
birth rate for all women and by demographic characteristics
Characteristics Percentage of
unintended
pregnancies
ending in
abortion
a
Unintended
birth rate
b
2001 2006 2001 2006
All women 47 43 23 25
Age (years)
c
b15 50 49 1 1
1519 39 37 35 32
1517 37 41 21 16
1819 40 35 54 57
2024 47 41 47 56
2529 49 46 31 33
3034 47 45 20 22
3539 56 56 7 7
40 47 46 3 4
Educational attainment
d
Not HS graduate 34 32 41 46
HS graduate/equivalent 43 40 26 30
Some college/associate degree 59 56 17 19
College graduate 54 49 10 12
Race and ethnicity
e
White non-Hispanic 42 39 17 18
Black non-Hispanic 57 52 35 37
Hispanic 40 38 42 45
Income as a percentage of poverty
b100% 40 43 63 66
100%199% 48 38 36 46
200% 51 49 11 10
Relationship status
Currently married 24 22 21 23
Never married and not cohabiting 59 61 16 15
Formerly married and not cohabiting 66 60 12 17
Cohabiting 53 39 53 79
Parity
No previous births u 44 u 22
1 u 40 u 45
2 u 46 u 19
Religious affiliation
Protestant u 38 u 25
Mainstream u 44 u 26
Evangelical u 32 u 24
Catholic u 44 u 26
Other u 47 u 15
None u 51 u 30
Note: u denotes unavailable; HS, high school.
a
Pregnancies exclude spontaneous fetal losses and stillbirths.
b
Rates are per 1000 women aged 1544 years.
c
The population denominator for the rates for women aged b15 years
is women aged 1014 years; the denominator for the rates for women aged
40 years is women aged 4044 years.
d
Among women aged 20 years.
e
Excludes women who self-identify as other non-Hispanic race/
ethnic groups.
overall percentage increase, from 35% to 36%, was
not significant, although the increase among women aged
2024 years, from 45% to 53%, was significant at the pb.10
level. Nonetheless, we do see substantively significant
changes in unintended pregnancy rates in several subgroups.
This argues that the limited tests on a subset of our key
statistic do not capture the whole picture, and their results
should not be considered conclusive.
In conclusion, the United States did not make progress
toward its goal of reducing unintended pregnancy between
2001 and 2006. To better understand what drove these rates
up, we are currently conducting a demographic analysis of
changes in population composition and reproductive health
behaviors that have historically affected them. However,
given the nation's increasingly high unintended pregnancy
rate and the fact that 11% of the population at risk does
not use birth control [26], reducing the unintended pregnancy
rate requires that we focus on increasing and improving
contraceptive use among women and couples who want to
avoid pregnancy. Increased use of long-acting and cost-
effective contraceptive methods such as the intrauterine
device (IUD) could play an important role in such an effort. In
particular, the age at which childbearing begins has increased
[25], and the length of time from first intercourse to first birth
is, on average, 8 years; this is a period of potential risk for
women and couples and should be seen as an appropriate time
to use long-acting methods. The American Congress of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists has indicated that such
methods should be first-line choices for young women, and
coupling IUDs with condoms for additional protection may
have the potential to reduce unintended pregnancy even
further [35,36]. Although these methods are highly cost-
effective over time, even women with health insurance may
have difficulty paying for these methods because some plans
do not cover the high upfront costs or other charges women
often incur to use them [37]. Research indicates that when
financial barriers are completely removed and comprehen-
sive information is provided on all methods, women choose
long-acting, highly effective methods in large numbers [38].
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Stanley Henshaw, Rachel
Jones and Megan Kavanaugh for reviewing the manuscript,
as well as Jacqueline Darroch and Susheela Singh for pro-
viding guidance on study methodology. This study was sup-
ported by award R01HD059896 from the Eunice Kennedy
Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (NICHD). The content is solely the responsi-
bility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the
official views of NICHD or the National Institutes of Health.
References
[1] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020
topics &objectives. HealthyPeople.govhttp://www.healthypeople.gov/
2020/topicsobjectives2020/objectiveslist.aspx?. Published December
2, 2010. Accessed March 7, 2011.
[2] Axinn WG, Barber JS, Thornton A. The long-term impact of parents'
childbearing decisions on children's self-esteem. Demography 1998;
35:43543.
[3] Barber JS, Axinn WG, Thornton A. Unwanted childbearing, health,
and mother-child relationships. J Health Soc Behav 1999;40:
23157.
[4] Dott M, Rasmussen SA, Hogue CJ, Reefhuis J. Association
between pregnancy intention and reproductive-health related behav-
iors before and after pregnancy recognition, National Birth Defects
Prevention Study, 1997-2002. Matern Child Health J 2010;14:
37381.
[5] Dye TD, Wojtowycz MA, Aubry RH, Quade J, Kilburn H. Unintended
pregnancy and breast-feeding behavior. Am J Public Health 1997;87:
170911.
[6] Hellerstedt WL, Pirie PL, Lando HA, et al. Differences in preconcep-
tional and prenatal behaviors in women with intended and unintended
pregnancies. Am J Public Health 1998;88:6636.
[7] Mayer JP. Unintended childbearing, maternal beliefs, and delay of
prenatal care. Birth 1997;24:24752.
[8] Orr ST, Miller CA, James SA, Babones S. Unintended pregnancy
and preterm birth. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2000;14:30913.
[9] Taylor JS, Cabral HJ. Are women with an unintended pregnancy less
likely to breastfeed? J Fam Pract 2002;51:4316.
[10] Henshaw SK. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Fam Plann
Perspect 1998;30:249 & 46.
[11] Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy
in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health
2006;38:906.
[12] Kost K, Henshaw S, Carlin L. U.S. teenage pregnancies, births and
abortions: national and state trends and trends by race and ethnicity,
2010. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2010.
[13] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Natality information: live
births. CDC WONDER online database. http://wonder.cdc.gov/
natality.html. Updated 2009. Accessed April 9, 2010.
[14] Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, et al. Births: final data for 2001.
Natl Vital Stat Rep 2002;51(2).
[15] Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, et al. Births: final data for 2006.
Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009;57(7).
[16] Jones RK, Zolna MR, Henshaw SK, Finer LB. Abortion in the United
States: incidence and access to services, 2005. Perspect Sex Reprod
Health 2008;40:616.
[17] Pazol K, Gamble SB, Parker WY, Cook DA, Zane SB, Hamdan S.
Abortion surveillance United States, 2006. MMWR Surveill Summ
2009;58:135.
[18] Strauss LT, Herndon J, Chang J, et al. Abortion surveillance United
States, 2001. MMWR Surveill Summ 2004;53:132.
[19] Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Patterns in the socioeconomic
characteristics of women obtaining abortions 20002001. Perspect
Sex Reprod Health 2002;34:22635.
[20] Jones RK, Finer LB, Singh S. Characteristics of U.S. abortion patients,
2008. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2010.
[21] MacDorman M, Kirmeyer S. Fetal and perinatal mortality, United
States, 2005. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009;57:119.
[22] Ventura SJ, Abma JC, Mosher WD, Henshaw SK. Estimated preg-
nancy rates by outcome for the United States, 19902004. Natl Vital
Stat Rep 2008;56:128.
[23] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bridged-race population
estimates. CDC WONDER online database. http://wonder.cdc.gov/
bridged-race-population.html. Updated 2011. Accessed January
10, 2011.
[24] Singh S, Sedgh G, Hussain R. Unintended pregnancy: worldwide
levels, trends, and outcomes. Stud Fam Plann 2010;41:24150.
[25] Mathews TJ, Hamilton B. Delayed childbearing: more women are
having their first child later in life. NCHS Data Brief 2009;21:
18.
[26] Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982
2008. National Center for Health Statistics; 2010. Report No.: 23.
[27] Forrest JD, Frost JJ. The family planning attitudes and experiences of
low-income women. Fam Plann Perspect 1996;28:24655, 277.
[28] Frost JJ, Singh S, Finer LB. Factors associated with contraceptive
use and nonuse, United States, 2004. Perspect Sex Reprod Health
2007;39:909.
[29] Frost JJ, Darroch JE. Factors associated with contraceptive choice and
inconsistent method use, United States, 2004. Perspect Sex Reprod
Health 2008;40:94104.
[30] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC Health Disparities
and Inequalities Report United States, 2011. MMRW 2011;60
(Suppl):1116.
[31] McLanahan S, Percheski C. Family structure and the reproduction
of inequalities. Ann Rev Sociol 2008;34:25776.
[32] Frost JJ, Finer LB, Tapales A. The impact of publicly funded family
planning clinic services on unintended pregnancies and government
cost savings. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2008;19:77896.
[33] Guttmacher Institute. Contraceptive needs and services, 2006, 2009.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/win/allstates2006.pdf. Accessed July
1, 2011.
[34] Frejka T, Sardon JP. Cohort birth order, parity progression ratio and
parity distribution trends in developed countries. Demogr Res 2007;16:
31574.
[35] Pazol K, Kramer MR, Hogue CJ. Condoms for dual protection:
patterns of use with highly effective contraceptive methods. Public
Health Rep 2010;125:20817.
[36] ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins. Clinical management guide-
lines for obstetrician-gynecologists: intrauterine device. Obstet Gyne-
col 2005;105:22332.
[37] Sonfield A, Gold RB, Frost JJ, Darroch JE. U.S. insurance coverage of
contraceptives and the impact of contraceptive coverage mandates,
2002. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2004;36:729.
[38] Secura GM, Allsworth JE, Madden T, Mullersman JL, Peirpert JF. The
Contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting
reversible contraception. Am J Obstet Gyn 2011;203:115.e17.

EXHIBIT 45
WILLIAM J. D OHERTY, EDWARD F. KOUNESKI, AND MARTHA F. ERICKSON
University of Minnesota
Responsible Fathering:
An Overview and Conceptual Framework
This article defines responsible fathering, sum-
marizes the relevant research, and presents a sys-
temic, ecological framework to organize research
and programmatic work in this area. A principal
finding is that fathering is influenced, even more
than mothering, by contextual factors in the family
and community.
For more than a century, American society has
engaged in a sometimes contentious debate about
what it means to be a responsible parent. Whereas
most of the cultural debate about mothers has fo-
cused on what, if anything, mothers should do
outside the family, the debate about fathers has
focused on what fathers should do inside the fam-
ily. What role should fathers play in the everyday
lives of their children, beyond the traditional
breadwinner role? How much should they emu-
late the traditional nurturing activities of mothers,
and how much should they represent a masculine
role model to their children? Is fatherhood in a
unique crisis in late twentieth century America
(Blankenhorn, 1995; Doherty, 19'97; Griswold,
1993; LaRossa, 1997; Popenoe, 1996)?
Department of Family Social Science and Children, Youth, and
Families Consortium, University of Minnesota, 1985 Buford
Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108 (bdoherty@che2.che.umn.cdu).
Key Words: coparental relationship, fathers, father-child rela
rionship, family relations and dynamics, divorce, pareming.
The recent upsurge of interest in fathering has
generated concern among supporters of women's
and mothers' rights that the emphasis on the impor-
tant role of fathers in families may feed longstand-
ing biases against female-headed single-parent fam-
ilies, that services for fathers might be increased at
the expense of services for single mothers, and that
the profatherhood di:scourse might be used by the
fathers' rights groups who are challenging custody,
child support, and visitation arrangements after di-
vorce. On the other hand, feminist psychologists
have recently argued for more emphasis on father-
ing and have suggested that involved, nurturing fa-
thers will benefit women as well as children
(Phares, 1996; Silverstein, 1996). Only an ecologi-
cally sensitive approach to parenting, whilch views
the welfare of fathers, mothers, and children as in-
tertwined and interdependent, can avoid a zero-sum
approach to parenting in which fathers' gains be-
come mothers' losses.
These cultural debates serve as a backdrop to
the social science research on fathering because
researchers are inevitably influenced by the cul-
tural context within which they work (Doherty,
Boss, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, 1993). In
their recent reanalysis of the historical trends of
American ideals of fatherhood, Pleck and Pleck
( 1997) see the emerging ideal of fatherhood in the
late twentieth century as father as equal coparent.
(From 1900 to L970, the dominant cultural ideal
was the genial dad and sex role model, and from
1830 to 1900, the distant breadwinner.) Research
on fathering, then, has attained prominence in the
Journal of Marriage and the Family 60 (May 1998): 277- 292 277
This content downloaded from 128.83.63.20 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 07:52:43 AM
278
social sciences during an era of historically high
expectations of men's involvement in the every-
day lives of their children. Not surprisingly, a
good deal of that research has compared levels of
fathers' involvement with mothers' involvement
because mothers have become the benchmark for
norms for fathering (Day & Mackey, 1989).
This post-1970s interest in fathering has been
fueled by the reappraisal of family roles for
women and by unprecedented demographic
changes in the American family. In other words,
scholarly, professional, and public policy interest
in fathering has crystallized during the time that
the foundation of traditional fathering-the physi-
cally present father who serves as the unique fam-
ily breadwinner-has been eroding rapidly. With
more than half of mothers in the work force, with
new marriages breaking up at a ratte of 50%, and
with nearly one t!hird of births to single women,
the landscape of fathering has been altered sub-
stantially (Bumpass, 1990; U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1994a).
Sociological and historical work on fathering
makes it clear that fathering (at least beyond in-
semination) is fundamentally a social construction.
Each generation molds its cultural ideal of fathers
according to its own time and condi tions, and
each deals with the inevitable gap between what
ILaRossa (1988) terms the "culture" of fatherhood
and the "conduct" of fathers in families. Sociolog-
ical and historical analyses also make it clear that
f athering cannot be defined in isolation from
mothering, mothers' expectations, and social ex-
pectations about childrearing in the society, and
that these social expectations have been fairly
fluid in the United States in the twentieth century.
LaRossa ( 1997) has demonstrated how the culture
of fatherhood and the conduct of fathers change
from decade to decade as social and political con-
ditions change.
In addition to this historical and social con-
structivist perspective, fathering also lends itself to
a systemic framework, which views fathering not
primarily as a characteristic or behavioral set of
individual men or even as a dyadic characteristic
of a father-child relationship, but as a multilateral
process involving fathers, mothers, children, ex-
tended family, and the broader community and its
cultures and institutions. Fathering is a product of
the meanings, beliefs, motivations, attitudes, and
behaviors of all these stakeholders in the lives of
children. Indeed, this article will suggest that fa-
thering may be more sensitive than mothering to
contextual forces, forces that currently create
Journal of Marriage and the Family
more obstacles than bridges for fathers but that
potentially could be turned in a more supportive
direction.
With these historical, social constructionist,
and systemic perspectives as a backdrop, we ex-
amine the concept of responsible fatheri ng, sum-
marize findings from the major areas of research
on responsible fathering, and offer a conceptual
framework to guide future research and program
development. Because of the vastness of the liter-
ature on fathering and the presence of a number
of recent reviews, the review of the literature in
this report is selective rather than comprehensive.
It focuses on major recent work and points out
continuing gaps, such as cultural issues in father-
ing. In some areas, we rely almost entirely on re-
cent reviews by other scholars such as Pleck
( 1997) . Our goal is one of synthesis and theory
development rather than comprehensive docu-
mentation.
RESPONSIBLE FATHERING
The use of the term "responsible fathering,"
which was the original language used by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services in
commissioning our work, reflects a recent shift by
academics and professionals away from value-
free language and toward a more explicit value-
advocacy approach. "Responsible" suggests an
"ought," a set of desired norms for evaluating fa-
thers' behavior. The term also conveys a moral
meaning (right and wrong) because it suggests
that some fathering could be judged "irresponsi-
ble." The willingness to use explicitly moral terms
reflects a change in the social climate among aca-
demics, professionals., and policymakers, who
until recently embraced the traditional notion that
social science, social policy, and social programs
could be value free. In the late twentieth century,
there is more appreciation of the inevitability of
value-laden and moral positions being part of so-
cial science and social interventions and a greater
willingness to be explicit about values so that they
can be debated openly and their influence on social
science and policy can be made clear, rather than
being covert (Doherty, 1995a; Doherty et al. , 1993;
Wolfe, 1989). Indeed, there has always been a
strong but implicit undercurrent of value advocacy
in fathering research, much of it conducted by
men and women interested in promoti ng more
committed and nurturing involvement by men in
their children's lives. Similarly, there has always
been a moral undertone to the focus on fathers'
Responsible Fathering
deficits that has characterized much of the litera-
ture on absent, "deadbeat," and emotionally unin-
volved fathers (Doherty, 1990). The term "respon-
sible fathering," as we use it, applies to fathers
across all social classes and racial groups, not nar-
rowly to men in lower social classes or minority
groups. Now that value advocacy has become
more explicit in the fatheri ng area (Doll ahite,
Hawkins, & Brotherson, 1997), responsible father-
ing needs to be clearly defined. James Levine and
Edward Pitt ( 1995) have made an important start
in their delineation of responsible fathering. They
write:
A man who behaves responsibly towards his
child does the following:
He waits to make a baby until he is prepared
emotionally and financially to support his child.
He establishes his legal paternity if and when
he does make a baby.
He actively shares with the child's mother in
the continuing emotional and physical care of
their child, from pregnancy onwads.
He shares with the child' s mother in the con-
tinuing financial support of their child, from
pregnancy onwards. (pp. 5- 6)
Levine and Pitt's elements of responsible fa-
thering have the advantage of referring to both
resident and nonresident fathers, a reflection of the
diversity of fathers' situations. The authors also
assert that commitment to this ethic of responsi-
ble fatherhood ex.tends beyond the father to the
mother, to professionals who work with families,
and to social institutions entrusted with the support
of famil ies. We employ Levine and Pitt's defini-
tion in this article, but we narrow our scope to men
who are already fathers; we do not address the
issue of postponing fatherhood.
The developmental backdrop for the discussion
of fathering reflects children' s needs for pre-
dictability, nurturance, and appropriate limit setting
from fathers and mothers, as well as for economic
security and a cooperative, preferably loving rela-
tionship between their parents (Hetherington &
Parke, 1993). Furthermore, the specific needs of
children vary by their developmental stage. Parents
are required to provide higher levels of physical
caregiving when their children are infants and
greater levels of conflict management when their
children become adolescents. Although we do not
review the literature on the effects of active father-
i ng on children, an assumption behind this arti-
279
cle- and our value stance- is that children need
and deserve active, involved fathers throughout
their childhood and adolescence. The prEme justi-
fication for promoting responsible fathering is the
needs of children.
RESEARCH ON RESPONSIBLE FATHERING
The major areas of research on responsible father-
ing reflect the domains outlined by Levine and Pitt
(1995), with the addition of attention to whether
the father resides with the child. These domains
can be categorized as (a) establishing legal pater-
nity, (b) nonresidential fathers' presence versus
absence, (c) nonresidential fathers' economic sup-
port for their children, and (d) residential fathers'
level of involvement with their children. There are
not many theoretical models or research studies
that cross over between residential and nonresiden-
tial fathers. Offering such a model is one of the
goals of this article. The review of literature, how-
ever, will be organized by the four research tradi-
tions delineated above. In order to delimit the re-
view, we focus on heterosexual, biological fathers
and not gay fathers, stepfathers, adoptive fathers,
or father surrogates- groups deserving consider-
ably more research and programmatic attention.
Fathers and Legal Paternity
Declaring legal paternity is the sine qua non of re-
sponsible fathering. With legal paternity comes a
variety of economic, social, and psychological
benefits to the child and some degree of protection
of the father's rights. Tangible benefits for the
child include health care if the father is employed,
social security, mandated child support, and armed
forces benefits if the father is in the military.
They also include the intangible benefit of know-
ing one's biological heritage and having a clearer
sense of social identity (Wattenberg, 1993).
Unfortunately, only about one third of non-
marital births in the U.S. are followed by paternity
adjudication (Adams, Landsbergen, & Hecht,
1994). There is limited research on the reasons,
but they appear to involve lack of information
about the benefits of legal paternity, the dynamics
of the couple relationship, opposition from moth-
ers, cultural issues, social policy barriers, and low
priority actions on the part of social institutions
(Anderson, 1993; Wattenberg, 1993). In a study of
new, unmarried parents, Wattenberg documented
the faulty and incomplete information the young
couples had. Nor were they informed by health
This conlenl downloaded from 128.83.63.20 on Mon, 16 Sep 20 13 07:52:43 AM
280
personnel or social service personnel , who them-
selves had major gaps in their knowledge about the
advantages of paternity determination. What's
more, current institutional practices encourage
unmarried fathers in welfare families to remain
' 'underground" because the state generally keeps
a substantial portion of the child support the father
pays. If he does not declare paternity, any infor-
mal, under-the-table payments he makes go directly
to the mother and child (Achatz & MacAllum,
1994).
Anderson (1993) and Wattenberg (1993) also
have explored the ambivalence of the mother and
father themselves about establishing paternity.
Young fathers sometimes feel tricked and trapped
by the mother, and the mother may feel both pro-
tective of the father (not wanting him to be ha-
rassed by authorities) and reluctant to tie herself
to him in the future. Extended family on both
sides may have mixed feelings about legal pater-
nity and father involvement. Social service per-
sonnel, too, have been found to have the same
ambivalence and reluctance to encourage the
mother and father to establish paternity. Recently,
however, federally mandated reforms have re-
quired states to implement programs to promote
the acknowledgment of paternity. The results thus
far have been mixed: Rates of paternity establish-
ment have increased, but paternity is still unac-
knowledged in the majority of cases for reasons
cited in prior studies (Sorenson & Turner, 1996).
The available research on the process of estab-
lishing legal paternity supports an ecological
model that emphasizes how contextual forces in
the community combine with mother-father rela-
tionship factors and individual father factors to
create a situation where too many fathers stumble
on the first step of responsible fathering.
Father Presence Versus Absence
After the declaration of paternity, the bedrock of
fathering is presence in the child' s life. The two
major structural threats to fathers' presence are
nonmarital childbearing and divorce. In 1993, 6.3
million children (9% of all children) were living
with a single parent who had never married, up
from 243,000 in 1960 (.4% of all children). In
terms of percentages of all births, nonmarital
births have risen from 4% of births in 1940 to
31% in 1993; the biggest increases occurred in
the 1970s and 1980s. The nonmarital birth rate
for women over age 20 has increased substantially
si nce the late 1970s. For teenagers, although the
overall birth rate has actually remained steady for
decades, the decision to not marry has led to a dra-
matic increase in the nonmarital birth rate (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 1995).
In nearly all cases, children born outside of
marriage reside with their mothers. If fathers do
not live with the mother and child, their presence
in the child' s life is frequently marginal and, even
when active for a while, tends to be fragile over
time. Until recently, studies in this area have been
hampered by small, nonrepresentative samples.
Lerman (1993), using data from a nationally rep-
resentative group of over 600 unwed fathers, found
that about three fourths of young fathers who did
not reside with their children at birth never lived
in the same household with them. About 50% of
these fathers visited their child once a week, but
about 20% never visited or visited once a year. The
pattem over time was toward Jess contact as the
children got older. There were racial dilfferences
in these findings, however. African American un-
married fathers were more likely to live close to
their children and see them more frequently than
were White and Hispanic fathers. The figures for
fathers who rarely or never visited their children
were as follows: African American (12%), Hispanic
(30%), and White (37%). African American un-
married fathers also had a slightly higher frequency
of support payments.
A number of qualitative studies have docu-
mented how mothers and grandmothers serve as
gatekeepers for the father's presence in the child' s
life and how institutional practices create barriers,
particularly for young fathers (Allen & Doherty,
1996; Wattenberg, 1993). Many of these fathers
relinquish involvement, and many who try to stay
involved face structural and relationship barriers.
Overall, there appears to be a strong negative
effect of nonmarital fathering on the father-child
bond. Furstenberg and !Harris ( 1993), reporting on
their 20-year follow-up of new unmarried African
American parents in Baltimore (a group who were
generally representative of African American un-
married parents nationally), found that only 13%
of the young adults reported a strong bond with
their biological father if he had not !Eved with
them. The figure was 50% for fathers who lived
with the child. These investigators also examined
bonds with stepfathers and other male figures in
the child's life. Here, too, the findings were sober-
ing: "Taking all these father figures into account,
just I% of the children had a strong relationship
with two or more fathers, 30% reported a strong tie
with at least one, and 69% had no father figure to
This content downloaded from 128.83.63.20 on Mon, 16 Sep 20 13 07:52:43 AM
whom they were highly attached" (p. 126). Note
that this study focused on the quality of father-
child bonds among young adult children, not the
frequency of contact.
In more than 25% of nonmarital births, the
parents are cohabiting (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, 1995). In these cases, fathers
are far more present in their children's lives. How-
ever, studies indicate that cohabiting couples have
high breakup rates, and those who go on to marry
have higher divorce rates (Bumpass, Sweet, &
Cheri in, 1991; DeMaris & Rao, 1992). Therefore,
even when the father lives with the mother of the
child, his ongoing presence in the chHd's life is
often fragile.
Although the number of nonmarital births has
been increasing, an even greater number of chil-
dren (6.6 million) Live with a single parent subse-
q uent to divorce (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1994b). In about 90% of cases, these children re-
side with their mothers. Research has documented
a declining presence of noncustodial fathers over
the years after a divorce. One national study of
school-aged children found that 2 years after a di-
vorce about half had not seen their father for a
year (Furstenberg & Nord, 1985). A more recent
study, using I 990 data from the Survey oflncome
and Program Participation, reported that about
one third of divorced fathers did not spend time
with their children in the previous year (Nord &
Zill, 1996). In general, although father involve-
ment after divorce seems to be increasing and
some fathers are quite involved with their chil-
dren after a divorce, the predominant pattern
among noncustodial fathers is one of gradual
withdrawal from their children's lives (Amato &
Rezac, 1994; Seltzer, 1991).
The sequelae of divorce for the quality of father-
child relations is also quite sobering. Zill, Morrison,
and Coiro (1993) followed a large national sample
of children and parents through the young adult-
hood of the children. After adjusting for a variety
of demographic factors and vocabulary test scores,
they found increasing alienation of divorced fa-
thers from their children, measured by the chil-
dren' s descriptions of these relationships. Among
18- to 22-year-olds, 65% of those whose parents
had divorced reported a poor relationship with
their father, compared with 29% of those whose
parents had not divorced. The data also showed
poorer relationshi ps with mothers after divorce,
but the effect for fathers was stronger. Remarriage
of one of the parents made things worse: 70% of
children of divorce and remarriage reported a
poor relationship with their father.
281
Much of the research on fathers' involvement
with their children after divorce has focused on
children' s well -being. Although some studies
have found that higher levels of father involvement
were associated with greater psychological adjust-
ment among children, other studies, especially
those with nationally representative samples, have
failed to support that conclusion (Furstenberg,
Morgan, & Allison, 1987; Hetherington, Cox, &
Cox, 1982; Guidubaldi, Cleminshaw, Perry, Nas-
tasi, & Lightel, 1986; Kalter, Kloner, Schreier, &
Okla, 1989). A number of scholars who reported
no effects for father involvement suggested that,
although contact with both parents is desirable in
principle, the benefits of father involvement for
the child may be neutralized when there is signifi-
cant conflict between parents. That is, when there
is a good deal of interparental conflict, higher
contact with the father might create additional
strains on the child, strains that offset the advan-
tages of seeing the father more frequently (Heth-
erington et al., 1982).
Amato and Rezac ( 1994) tested this hypothesis
directl y with data from the National Survey of
Families and Households. They found that higher
levels of involvement by the nonresidential parent
(mostLy fathers), measured by frequency of con-
tacts, were associated with less problem behavior
in children only in the presence of low inter-
parental conflict. In other words, when the parents
got along well, frequent contact of fathers with
their children had positive behavioral outcomes
for the children. When the parents had more seri-
ous conflict, however, high contact between father
and child was associat,ed with worse behavioral
outcomes. This finding, which was statistically
significant for boys but fell short of significance
for girls, supports the importance of a systemic
and ecological model for fathering, rather than a
dyadic model that focuses only on the father-child
relationship. Recent analyses of national data by
Nord and Zill ( 1996) also shed light on the com-
plexities of involvement of nonresidential fathers.
They found that joint custody and voluntary visi-
tation agreements were associated with better
health among adolescents than were sole custody
and court-ordered agreements. Generall y, al-
though more contact with the nonresident father
was associated with better reports of health, the
status of the parents' divorce agreements was an
important moderating factor.
Overall, it appears that there are many barriers
to the father' s presence in a child' s life outside of
a mari tal context. Residential status alone, of
282
course, cannot account for this situation. Although
there is a dearth of studies in this area, noncustodial
mothers appear to do a better job of maintaining
presence in their children's li ves. For instance,
more noncustodial mothers than fathers live in the
same state as their children (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1995) and have more contact with their
children than noncustodial fathers do (Amato &
Rezac, I 994). It appears that there are personal,
relational, cultural, and institutional barriers spe-
cific to fathering that inhibit fathers' presence in
the li ves of children with whom they do not live.
Fathers' Payment of Child Support
For many policy special ists, the principal concern
with fathering outs ide of marriage lies with the
payment of child support. The term "deadbeat
dad" was coined to communicate moral indigna-
ti on at the number of fathers who do not con-
tribute to their children's economic well-being
after a divorce. The research data are clear and
consistent on the subject. According to a report
on child support by the U.S. Bureau of the Census
( 1995), only 48% of the mothers who are award-
ed child support by the courts receive the full
amount due. The remainder are divided more or
less equally between those who receive partial
payment and those who received nothing. Further-
more, other research has found that the amounts
awarded and paid are not adequate to support a
child, given mothers' often low incomes. even if
the full amounts are forthcoming (Rettig, Chri s-
tensen, & Dahl, I 99 I).
This economic struggle is even more common
for nonmarital childbearing than for postdivorce
situations, especially when fathers have lost con-
tact with their children (Lerman, 1993). In 1993,
38% of children Ji ving with divorced mothers, but
66% of those living with never-married mothers,
were living below the poverty line, compared with
I I% of children Jiving in two-parent fami lies
(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994b ). Only 27% of
never-married custodial mothers have a child sup-
port award (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995).
Because many children born to never-married par-
ents have not had legal paternity established, the
prospects of establishing awards for these chil-
dren are limited.
Researchers have examined factors in the non-
payment of child support by fathers. One important
predictor is having j oint custody or visitation
privileges or both. Fathers with these arrangements
pay all or part of child support more often than
those who do not (79% vs. 56%; U.S. Bureau of
the Census, 1995). When asked about their lack
of economic support, many fathers point to re-
sentment toward mothers for misusing the funds
and for withholding the children from the father
(Furstenberg, Sherwood, & Sulli van, 1992; Kur-
dek, I 986). Indeed, studies have documented that
more frequent contact is associated with more
child s upport (Seltzer, 1991). Similarly, a tug-of-
war over visitation and other contacts with chil-
dren is associated with lower child support pay-
ments ( Dudley, 199 1; Seltzer, Schaeffer, &
Charng, 1989).
Researchers and policymakers have tended to
assume that the failure of noncustodial parents to
provide economic support is primarily a problem
specific to fathers. Without studies of noncustodial
mothers' child support , many assumed that non-
custodial mothers would be better payers of child
support in the same way that they maintain more
contact with their nonresidential children. This
appears not to be the case. The most recent U.S.
Bureau of the Census ( 1995) report on child sup-
port offered the first national data on child sup-
port payments by noncustodial mothers, as well
as fathers. The findings showed that noncustodial
mothers, li ke noncustodial fathers, do not pay all
the child support that is owed. Custodial fathers
receive about 53% of the child support owed, and
custodial mothers receive about 68%. Slightl y
more than half of the noncustodial fathers (52%)
and Jess than hal f of the noncustodial mothers
(43%) pay all of what they owe. Mothers' nonpay-
ment cannot be dismi ssed as stemming from their
incomes being lower than the incomes of fathers
because child support awards by the court are cal-
ibrated partly according to income.
These findings of nonsupport by noncustodial
mothers suggest that t here is somethi ng in the
structure of nonresidential parenting, rather than
in the culture of fatherhood, that is the principal
inhibitor of economic support for chi ldren outside
of marriage. Structural aspects of nonresidential
parenting that may inhibit economic support
might include having to send funds to an ex-spouse
or to an ex-partner, having to provide economic
support in the absence of day-to-day contact with
one's children, and having no influence over how
child support funds are spent. Because there are
far more noncustodial fathers than noncustodial
mothers, the greater social and policy problem is
the lack of paternal support. But the solutions
should retlect the possibility that there are inher-
ent difficulties in paying money to an ex-spouse
This content downloaded from 128.83.63.20 on Mon, 16 Scp 2013 07:52:43 AM
All usc subject to JSTOR Tcnns and Conditions
or to an ex-partner when a parent does not live
with, and thus does not have daily contact with,
his or her children.
RPsidPntinl Fnthn Involvement with Children
A striking aspect of research on father involve-
ment with the residential children is its emphasis
not on the traditional responsibility of the father
for economic support, but on the father's face-to-
face interaction with hi s child in the family set-
ting. However, it is clear that the quality of fathers'
interactions with their children is tied to the fa-
ther's success, real or perceived, as a breadwinner.
The classic studies documenting this phenomenon
are reports by Glen Elder and colleagues on how
unemployment during the Great Depression af-
fected the quality of father-child relations for men
who became unemployed or who perceived them-
selves as less than adequate providers. These men
increased the quantity of time with their children
but showed decreased parenting quality through
more arbitrariness and rejecting behaviors. Elder
and colleagues found that the impact of unemploy-
ment on fathering was greater than on mothering,
a finding replicated by other st udies as well
(Elder, Liker, & Cross, 1984; Elder, Van Nguyen,
& Cas pi, 1985; McLoyd, 1989). Studies with
more recent cohorts of fathers have shown the
same results and have emphasized that the father's
perception of his fi nancial situation, even more
than his actual situation, influenced his fathering
behavior (Harold-Goldsmith, Radin, & Eccles,
1988; La Rossa & Reitzes, 1993 ).
It appears that feeling like a failure in the
breadwinning role is associated with demoraliza-
tion for fathers, which causes their relationships
with their children to deteriorate (McLoyd, 1989).
This phenomenon has particular relevance for
Afri can American fathers and other fathers of
color, who often face serious barriers to success in
the provider role, with deleterious consequences
for the ability to father (McLoyd, 1990; Taylor,
Leashore, & Toliver, 1988). At a conceptual level,
this connection between fathering and breadwin-
ning demonstrates the i mportance of taking an
ecological approach to fathering (Allen & Con-
nor, 1997).
As for research on the kinds of father involve-
ment inside the home, earl y studies on father-
child interactions were dispersed into a variety of
content categories such as warmth, control, sex
ro le modeling, playfulness, and independence
training. Lamb, Pleck, Charnov, and Levine
283
( 1985) then introduced the content-free dimen-
sions of paternal engagement (direct caregiving,
leisure, or play), paternal accessibility (availability
to the child), and paternal responsibility (knowi ng
what the child needs and making decisions about
how to respond). Subsequentl y, research began to
focus on the extent of paternal involvement in
these three domains (especially the first two, be-
cause responsibil ity proved hard to operational-
ize). En addition to examining fathers' absolute
levels of involvement with their children, re-
searchers also concerned themsel ves with mea-
suring the proportion of the father' s involvement
to the mother's involvement and assessi ng the
predictors and child outcomes of different levels
of paternal involvement with children of different
ages.
Lamb and Pleck also introduced an often used
model of the determinants of father involvement:
motivation, skills, social support, and institutional
practices (Lamb, l987a; Lamb et al., 1985). They
proposed that optimal father involvement will be
forthcoming when these four factors are pres-
ent- that is, when a father is hi ghly motivated,
has adequate parent ing skills, receives social sup-
port for his parenting, and is not undermined by
work and other institutional settings.
Recently, the literature on residential father in-
volvement has been comprehensively reviewed
and analyzed by Pleck (1997) for the third edition
of Lamb's classic book, The Role of the Father in
Child Development. The following summary relies
heavil y on Pleck's review.
Pleck's ( 1997) summary of studies during the
1980s and 1990s indicates that fathers' engage-
ment (in proportion to mothers) is currently some-
what over 40%, and their accessibility is nearly
two thirds that of mothers. (This indicates a level
of engagement that is less than half of mothers'
level; 100% means a level of involvement equal
to mothers.) These figures are higher than those
found in s tudi es duri ng the 1970s and early
I980s-by about one third for engagement and
one half for accessibi lit y.
As for absolute levels of engagement and ac-
cessibility (distinguished from the proportion of
mother's involvement), Pleck (1997) reports that
the age of the chi ld and the day of the week were
important factors in the available studies. For ex-
ample, McBride and Mills (1993), using a guided
interview to determine time of activities, found
that paternal engagement with young children was
from 2.0 to 2.8 hours per day, with 1.9 hours on
weekdays and 6.5 hours on weekends. According
TI1is content downloaded from 128.83.63.20 on Mon. 16 Scp 2013 07:52:43 AM
All usc subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
284
to Fleck's review, hours with adolesc.ents tend to
be lower. U.S. studies show a range from .5 to 1.0
hour on weekdays and from 1.4 to 2.0 hours on
Sundays. Fathers spent more time with sons than
with daughters. Accessibility estimates are higher
across a number of studies, ranging from 2.8 to 4.9
hours per day with younger children and 2.8 hours
per day with adolescents (Pieck, 1997). Pleck
notes that these well-documented amounts of time
are markedly different than the figure of 12 minutes
per day that is often cited in the media.
The best data on paternal accessibility are de-
rived from federal surveys of child-care arrange-
ments of employed mothers. These studies indicate
that fathers are a significant source of primary
child care when mothers are working outside the
home. Fathers are as common a source as child-
care centers and family day care homes. Twenty-
three percent of families with a working mother
have a father who serves as the primary parent
while the mother works. These figures are up sub-
stantially from the 1970s, although recent find-
ings indicate that fathers' involvement as primary
caregivers changes in response to the larger U.S.
economy and the availability of jobs (U.S. Bureau
of the Census, 1996).
Overall, Pleck (1997) concludes that, in keep-
ing with the shift toward a cultural ideal of the
highly involved, coequal parent, there is evidence
of the increasing engagement, accessibility, andre-
sponsibility of fathers in the lives of their children
over the past 20 years. However, there remains a
large gap between fathers' levels of involvement
and mothers' levels. Research on child and so-
ciodemographic predictors of residential fathers'
involvement may ibe summarized from Fleck's re-
view as follows: Fathers tend to be more involved
with their sons than their daughters, particularly
with older children. Fathers are less involved with
older children than younger children, although the
decline of fathers' involvement as children get
older is proportionately less than the decline in
mothers' involvement. Fathers with larger num-
bers of children are more involved, although the
I-esearch in this area is somewhat mixed. Fathers
are more involved with firstborn than later-born
children and with infants born prematurely and
who have difficult temperaments; these trends are
tme for mothers as well. Fathers' socioeconomic
characteristics and race and ethn icity have not
been found consistently related to their involve-
ment with their children.
Theory and research on residential fathers' in-
volvement with their children have not explicitly
used the framework of responsible fathering, al-
though this value-advocacy position comes through
in the literature. Indeed, engagement, accessibility,
and responsibility are ways to operationalize
Levine and Pitt's (1995) notion of responsible fa-
thering as involving "continuing emoti onal and
physical care of their child" (p. 5). Unresolved is
the issue of the utility of comparisons between
mothers' and fathers' levels of involvement with
children. In much of the literature on fathers, the
behavior of mothers is the benchmark for evalua-
tion (Levine, 1993). This leads to what feminist
psychologist Vicky Phares ( 1996) termed a "matri-
centric" approach to parenting research, family
therapy, and parent education, in which mothers are
considered the standard parent and fathers are either
ignored or studied for how they differ from mothers
or how they neglect or abandon children. What is
needed is a systemic, ecological approach to parent-
ing in which the behaviors and beliefs of children,
fathers, and mothers are viewed within an interde-
pendent web of personal, relational, and community
influernces (Bateson, 1972; Bronfenbrenner, 1979;
Park, 1996).
INFLUENCES ON F ATHERING:
A CONCEPTUAL MODEL
The fathering literature has been long on empiri-
cal studies and short on theory. Researchers mostly
have adapted concepts from social sciences to fit
their particular area, but work is beginning on
overarching conceptual frameworks to guide re-
search and program development. In his review of
theory in fathering research, Marsiglio ( 1995)
mentions life course theory (which emphasizes
how men's experience of fatherhood changes
with life transitions), social scripting theory
(which emphasizes the cultural messages that fa-
thers internalize about their role), and social iden-
tity theory (which focuses on how men take on
the identity of a father in relation to their other so-
cial roles). Hawkins, Christiansen, Sargent, and
Hill (1995), Hawkins and Dollahite (1997), and
Snarey (1993) have used Erik Erikson's develop-
mental theory in their work on how fathering can
promote generativity among adult men. Other
scholars have explored the utility of economic
theories to understand fathers' decisions to invest
i n, or wi thdraw from, their children (Becker,
1991).
The most specific conceptual model frequently
used in the fatherhood literature is Lamb's and
Fleck's four-factor model of father involvement,
which is not explicitly grounded in a broader the-
ory such as Erikson's theory or social identity
theory. (See Lamb et al., 1985.) Lamb and Pleck
proposed that father involvement is determined
by motivation, skills and self-confidence, social
support, and institutional practices. These factors
may be viewed as additive, building on one an-
other, and as interactive, with some factors being
necessary prior to others. For example, motiva-
tion may be necessary for the development of
skills. lhinger-Tallman, Pasley, and Buehler
(1995) proposed an eight-factor model of media-
tors between father identity and actual involvement
after divorce: mother's preferences and beliefs,
father's perception of mother' s parenting, father' s
emotional stability, mother's emotional stability,
sex of child, coparental relationship, father's eco-
nomic well-being, father's economic security, and
encouragement from others. Recently, Park
( 1996) articulated a systems model of residential
father involvement that includes individual, family,
extrafamilial, and cultural influences.
Based on the research literature, prior theoreti-
cal work on fathering, and the systemic ecological
orientation described earlier, we present a concep-
tual model of influences on responsible fathering.
(See Figure 1.) Unlike prior work, the model is in-
tended to include fathering inside or outside mar-
riage and regardless of coresidence with the child.
The focus is on the factors that help create and
maintain a father-child bond. The model attempts
285
to transcend the dyadic focus of much traditional
child development theory by emphasizing first the
child-father-mother triad and then larger systems'
influences.
The model highlights individual factors of the
father, mother, and child; mother-father relation-
ship factors; and larger contextual factors in the
environment. Within each of these domains, the
modd outlines a number of specific factors that
can be supported by the research literature. The
center of the model is the interacting unit of child,
father, and mother, each formulating meanings
and enacting behaviors that influence the others.
The three are embedded in a broader social con-
text that affects them as individuals and affects the
quality of their relationships.
We are particularly interested in highlighting
factors that pertain to fathers because one of the
goals of this article is to guide father-specific re-
search, program development, and public policy.
All of the factors in the model affect the mother-
child relationship, as well, because they are generic
to parenting (see Belsky, 1984), but many of them
have particular twists for fathers. Because theory
and research on parenting so often have been de-
rived from work on mothers, it seems particularly
important to illuminate the distinctive influences
on fathering. The arrows point to the father-child
relationship, in particular to the four domains of
responsible fathering covered in this review-pater-
nity, presence, economic support, and involvement.
FIGURE I. INFLUENCES ON RESPONSIBLE f ATHERING: A CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Contextual Factors
Institutional Practices
Employment Opportunities
Economic Factors
Father Factors
Role Identification
Knowledge
Skills
Race or Ethnicity Resources and Challenges
Cultural Expectations
Commitment
Psychological Well-Being
Relations with Own Father
Employment Characteristics
Residential Status
Coparental Relationship
Marital or Non marital Status
Dual vs. Single Earner
Custodial Arrangement
Relationship Commitment
Cooperation
Mutual Support
Conflict
Social Support
Child Factors
Attitude toward Father
Behavioral Difficulties
Temperament
Gender
Age
Developmental Status
Mother Factors
Attitude toward Father
Expectations of Father
Support of Father
Employment Characteristics
This contenl downloaded from 128.83.63.20 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 07:52:43 AM
286
Although the model can depict fathers' indirect
influence on their children through their support
for the mother, the focus here is on direct father-
child interaction. And although the influences de-
picted in the model also can be viewed as influenc-
ing the father directly, we prefer to focus on the
effects on father-child relations because enhancing
those relations and, therefore, the well-being of
children is the ultimate goal of programs for fathers.
The research reviewed for this article supports
the notion that father-child relations are more
strongly influenced than mother-child relations by
three of the dimensions of the model: the coparental
relationship, factors in the other parent, and larger
contextual factors.
Coparental Relationship
A number of studies have shown that the quality
of father-child relations both inside and outside
marriage is more highly correlated with the quality
of the coparental relationship than is true for the
mother-child relationship (Belsky & Volling, 1987;
Cox, Owen, Lewis, & Henderson, 1989; Feld-
man, Nash, & Aschenbrenner, 1983; Levy-Shiff
& Israelashvili, 1988). Fathers appear to withdraw
from their child when they are not getting along
with the mother, whereas mothers do not show a
similar level of withdrawal. This is om: way to
understand the tendency of fathers to remove
themselves from their children's li ves after a
breakup with the mother, especially if they have a
negative relationship with the mother (Ahrons &
Miller, 1993). As Furstenberg and Cherlin (1991)
have asserted, for many men, marriage and parent-
hood are a "package deal." Or one might say that
in American culture, a woman is a mother all of
her life, but a man is a father if he has a wife. Fur-
thermore, if he has a wife but does not get along
with her, he may be present as a father, but the
quality of his relationship with his children is apt
to suffer.
One reason that fathering is particularly sensi-
ti ve to the marital or coparental relationship is
that standards and expectations for fathering ap-
pear to be more variable than those for mothering.
There is more negotiation in families over what
fathers will do than over what mothers will do and
hence more dependence among fathers on the
quality and outcome of those negotiations (Sack-
ett, 1987). As Lewis and O' Brien ( 1987) state,
men have a less clear "job description" as fathers
than women do as mothers. Therefore, fathers'
behavior is strongly influenced by the meanings
and expectations of fathers themselves, as well as
mothers, children, extended family, and broader
cultural institutions.
One of the most sensitive areas of research on
fathering is the importance of fathers being mar-
ried to the children's mothers. Because many fa-
thers are not married to the mother, it can seem
prejudicial to these men and their children- and
perhaps to single-parent mothers- to emphasize
the importance of marriage. On the other hand, an
implication of our review of the research and our
conceptual framework is that, for most American
heterosexual fathers, the family environment most
supportive of fathering is a caring, committed,
and collaborative marriage. This kind of marriage
means that the father lives with his children and
has a good partnership with their mother. These
are the two principal intrafamilial detenninants of
responsible fathering.
Some of the controversy over the role of mar-
riage in responsible fathering can be circumvented
by specifyi ng the quality of the marriage, as we
have done. It is the quality of the marital process,
rather than the legal or coresidential status, that
most affects fathering. One might argue, then,
that being married is not important because co-
habiting couples could have the same qualities of
relationship. Although, in principle, thiis is true,
the best national research on cohabitation indi-
cates that cohabitation is a temporary arrange-
ment for most heterosexual couples; they eventu-
ally either marry or break up (Bumpass et al.,
1991). We conclude that, in practice, the kind of
mother-father relationship most conducive to re-
sponsi ble fathering in contemporary U.S. society is
a caring, committed, collaborative marriage. Out-
side of this arrangement, substantial barriers stand
in the way of active, involved fathering.
Mother Factors
Among external influences on fathering, the role
of the mother has parti cular salience because
mothers serve as partners and sometimes as gate-
keepers in the father-child relationship, both inside
and outside marriage (De Luccie, 1995). Mother
factors in the conceptual model, of course, interact
with the coparental relationship because the moth-
er's personal feelings about the father influence the
coparental relationship. But there is also evidence
that, even within satisfactory marital relation-
ships, a father's involvement with his children,
especially young children, is often contingent on
the mother's attitudes toward, expectations of,
and support for the father, as well as the extent of
her involvement in the labor force (De Luccie,
1995; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Mel by,
1990). Marsiglia (1991), using the National Sur-
vey of Families and Households data set, found
that mothers' characteristics were more strongly
correlated with fathers' involvement than fathers'
own characteristics were. Indeed!, studies have
shown that many mothers, both inside and outside
marriage, are ambivalent about the fathers' active
i nvolvement with their children (Baruch & Bar-
nett, 1986; Cowan & Cowan, 1987). Given the
powerful cultural forces that expect absorption by
women in their mothering role, it is not surprising
that active paternal involvement would threaten
some women's identity and sense of control over
this central domain of their lives. The evolution
of a social consensus on responsible fathering,
therefore, will necessarily involve a consensus
that responsible mothering means supporting the
father-child bond.
Contextual Factors
Research demonstrates the particular vulnerability
of fathering to contextual and inst itutional prac-
tices- from the establishment of legal paternity to
the greater impact of unemployment on fathering
than on mothering. Lack of income and poor occu-
pational opportunities appear to have a particularly
negative effect on fathering (Thomson, Hanson,
& McLanahan, 1994 ). The prevalence of the aban-
donment of economic and psychological responsi-
bilities among poor, unemployed men and among
other men who undergo financial and employment
crises is partly a function of the unique vulnera-
bility of fathering to perceived success in the ex-
ternal environment (Jones, 1991; McLoyd, 1989).
This analysis suggests that fathering is especially
sensitive to changes in economic forces in the
work force and marketplace and to shifts in public
policy. It also suggests that fathering suffers dis-
proportionately from negative social forces, such
as racism, that inhibit opportunities in the environ-
ment. McLoyd ( 1990), in a review and conceptual
analysis of economic hardship in African Ameri-
can families, descri bes how poverty and racism
combine to create psychological distress, which
is, in turn, associated with more negative parent-
ing styles and more difficulty in the coparental re-
lationship.
Our conceptual model also depicts the positive
contribution of ethnic and cultural factors to father-
ing. One aspect of responsible fathering, that of
287
economic support, is nearly universall y expected
of fathers by their cultures (Lamb, l987b ). La-
Rossa ( 1997), in hi s historical analysis, has
demornstrated how changing cultural expectations
in the first part of the twentieth century Jed to
more nurturing father involvement in the U.S.
Allen and Connor (1997) have examined how
role flexibility and concern for children in the
African American community create opportunities
for men to become involved in surrogate father re-
lationships with chi ldren who lack day-to-day
contact with their biological fathers. Unfortunately,
there has not been much empirical research that
examines fathering in its cultural context, using
representative samples of fathers to explore how
cultural meanings and practices influence fathers'
beliefs and behaviors.
The final contextual factor in the model is so-
cial support, which Belsky ( 1984) emphasized in
his theoretical model of parenting and which
McLoyd ( 1990) documented as a crucial factor in
diminishing the negative effects of poverty on
parenting behavior. However, most of the research
on social support specifically for fathers has fo-
cused on mothers as sources of social support.
Pleck { 1997) reviewed the limited research on ex-
trafamilial social support for fathering and found
the studies skimpy and inconsistent, except for
the pattern that highly involved fathers tend to en-
counter negative attitudes from acquaintances, rel-
atives, and fellow workers. Clearly, there is a need
for studies that exami!lle the sources and influ-
ences of social support on fathering, particularly
the roEe of other fathers.
From the perspective of both the contextual fac-
tors and the mother factors discussed thus far, fa-
thering can be conceptualized as a more contextually
sensitive process than mothering is. Not that moth-
ering is not also contextually sensitive, but the cul-
tural norms are stricter on the centrality and en-
durance of the mother-child dyad, regardless of
what is happening outside that relationship. Father-
child relations, on the other hand, are culturally de-
fined as less dyadic and more multilateral, requiring
a threshold of support from inside the family and
from the larger environment. Undermining from the
mother or from a social institution or system may
induce many fathers to retreat from responsible fa-
thering unless their own individual level of commit-
ment to fathering is quite strong.
This point about the ecological sens itivity of
fathering is a principal conclusion of this article.
It suggests that fathering programs and policy ini-
tiatives that focus only on fathers will benefit
288
mainly fathers who already have a supportive so-
cial and economic environment. Fathers whose
context is less supportive-for example, fathers
who do not live with their children, who have
strained relationships with the mother, or who are
experiencing economic stress- will need more
extensive and multilateral efforts to support their
fathering.
Child Factors
Individual child factors are included in the model
for completeness, but the child factors studied in
the research literature do not appear to be as im-
portant as the other dimensions in influencing fa-
thering. Fathers do appear to find it easier to be
more involved with their sons, especially older
sons, presumably because they identify with them
and are more comfortable communicating with
them (Marsiglia, 1991). Most of the other child
factors, such as age, appear to influence mothers as
much as fathers, although Larson ( 1993) and Lar-
son and Richards ( 1994) have documented how
fathers withdraw more from parent-adolescent
conflict than mothers do. More research is needed
on the influence of the child's temperament and
developmental status on relations. with nonresi-
dential fathers. Similarly, research is needed on
how the child's beliefs about father involvement
influence fathers' and mothers' expectations and
behavior.
Mother-Child Relationship Factors
We include this domain for theoretical complete-
ness, but we could find no research directly exam-
ining how the father-child relationship is affected
by the mother-child relationship. Such effects
may be tapped indirectly through other dimen-
sions in the model, such as the mother's attitudes
toward the father's involvement with the child.
For example, a close mother-child bond, combined
with an ambivalent maternal attitude toward pa-
ternal involvement, might lead to less closeness
of the father than a situation in which a mother
had the same attitude but, herself, was less close
to the child.
Father Factors
Fathers' role identification, skills., and commit-
ment are important influences on fathering
(Baruch & Barnett, 1986; lhinger-Tallman eta!.,
1995; Pleck, J 997). These three appear to fluctu-
ate from low to high levels along with a number
of interpersonal and contextual factors, such as the
mother's expectations and the father's residential
status with his children (Marsiglia, 1995; Ihinger-
Tallman eta!., 1995). In American culture, fathers
are given more latitude for commitment to, identi-
fication with, and competence in their parental
role. This latitude brings with it the price of confu-
sion for many fathers about how to exercise their
roles (Daly, 1995).
The variability of the individual father factors
suggests two important implications of our con-
ceptual model: that the positive support from
mothers and the larger context can move men in
the direction of more responsible parenting even
in the face of modest personal investment, and
that strong father commitment, knowledge, and
skills are likely to be necessary to overcome neg-
ative maternal, coparental, and contextual influ-
ences. This latter point is similar to Lamb's
( 1987a) hypothesis that high levels of father moti-
vation can override institutional barriers and the
lack of social support.
As for the father's experience in his own family
of origin, some research suggests that the father's
relationship with his own father may be a factor-
either through identifying with his father or com-
pensating for his father's lapses-in contributing
to his own role identification, sense of commit-
ment, and self-efficacy (Cowan & Cowan, 1987;
Daly, 1995). Snarey ( 1993 ), in a longitudinal
study, documented the role of multigenerational
connections between fathers.
The final father factors, psychological well-
being and employment characteristics, have been
studied extensively. Research examining psycho-
logical adjustment and parenting quality consis-
tently shows a positive relationship between fathers'
(and mothers' ) psychological well-being and their
parenting attitudes and skills (Cox et a!., 1989;
Levy-Shiff & Israelashvili, 1988; Pleck, 1997).
The research on job loss and economic distress
generally has examined declines in psychological
well-being as mediating factors leading to poorer
fathering (Elder et a!., 1984; Elder et a!., 1985;
Jones, 1991). And fathers' work situations have
been shown to have mixed relationships with in-
volvement with children. Specific work schedules
are not strongly related to involvement, but
greater flex time and other profamily practices are
associated with more father involvement (Pleck,
1997). Indeed, consistent with other research on
fathering, mothers' employment characteristics
are more strongly associated with fathers ' in-
Fathering
volvement than fathers' employment characteristics.
When mothers are employed, fathers' proportionate
share of parenting is greater, although studies are
inconsistent about the absolute level of father in-
volvement (Pleck, 1997).
Conceptual Overview
The conceptual model outlines multiple factors that
influence fathering, from individua.l and relational
to contextual. The factors can be viewed as additive.
For example, low identification with the parental
role, combined with low expectations from the
mother, would be strongly associated with low in-
volvement of the father in both residential and non-
residential contexts. High identification with the
parental role, combined with high expectations
from the mother, would lead to greater father in-
volvement in any residential context.
The factors in the model also can be viewed as
interactive. For example, high role identification
and good employment and income might be suffi-
cient to offset low expectations from the mother.
Similarly, not living with the child could be offset
by the father's strong commitment to his children
and the support of the mother. And strong institu-
tional suppmt through public policies could miti-
gate unmarried fathers' and mothers' reluctance
to declare paternity.
Although the conceptual framework is intended
to apply to the four domains of responsible father-
i ng (paternity, presence, economic support, and
involvement), most of the research has focused on
one or another of these areas. Indeed, the bulk of
the empirical research has been on father involve-
ment. Researchers have tended to assume that
economic factors uniquely influence economic
support and that father factors uniquely i nfluence
father involvement. Putting a range of factors into
one model challenges researchers to examine how
all the factors might influence all the domains of
responsible fathering. We acknowledge that some
components of the model are likely to influence
some aspects of fathering more than others.
Finally, the model should be seen as depicting
a dynamic set of processes, rather than a set of
linear, deterministic influences. Systemic, ecolog-
ical models run the risk of reducing the target be-
havior-in this case, responsible fathering-to a
contextually determined phenomenon stripped of
ilndividual initiati ve and self-determination. We
want to emphasize the pivotal role of fathers,
themselves, in appropriating or discarding cultural
and contextual messages, in formulating a father-
289
ing identity and developing fathering skills with
their own children, in working out their feelings
about their own fathers, and in dealing collabora-
tively with their children' s mother. The social
construction of fatherhood is an evolving creation
of all stakeholders in the lives of children, and
contemporary fathers have a central role in this
creation. The active construction of fathering by
fathers, themselves, is not a prominent theme in
the research literature, although it is crucial to
programs that work with fathers. More qualitative
research is needed to explore the kinds of identity
development and social negotiation that constitute
the experience of fathering.
CONCLUSION
This article delineates a conceptual model of influ-
ences on fathering that can serve as a stimulus for
future research, programming, and policy develop-
ment. The main premise, supported by a variety
of studies, is that fathering is uniquely sensitive to
contextual influences, both interpersonal and envi-
ronmental. Fathering is a multilateral relationship,
in addition to a one-to-one relationship. A range
of influences-including mothers' expectations
and behaviors, the quality of the coparental rela-
tionship, economic factors, institutional practices,
and employment opportunities-all have poten-
tially powerful effects on fathering. These contex-
tual factors shape the major domains of responsi-
ble fathering discussed here: acknowledgment of
patemity, willingness to be present and provide
economic support, and level of involvement with
one' s children. When these influences are not
supportive of the father-child bond, a man may
need a high level identification with the father
role, strong commitment, and good parenting
skills to remain a responsible father to hi s chil-
dren, especially if he does not live with them.
This review and conceptual model deal with
factors that promote active, involved fathering,
not with the effects of that kind of fathering on
children. (See review by Pleck, 1997.) Nor do we
take a posi tion on whether there are essential
characteristics of fathering versus mothering or
whether having parents of two genders is neces-
sary for the well-being of children. The growing
literature on gay and lesbian parenting suggests
that these kinds of questions are more complex
than many scholars assumed in the past (Patter-
son, 1992; Patterson & Chan, 1997). However, it is
not necessary to resolve these issues in order to
address the factors that enhance and inhibit the
290
parenting of men jn the role of father in the late
twentieth century.
A potentially controversial conclusion of this
article is that a high quality marriage is the opti-
mal context for promoting responsible father-
hood. This position moves opposite the trend in
contemporary fam:ily studies to disaggregate mar-
riage and parenting. We do not suggest that men
cannot parent adequately outside this context or
that children must be raised in a married house-
hold in order to grow up well adjusted. However,
we believe that the research strongly indicates
that substantial barriers exist for most men's fa-
thering outside a caring, committed, collaborative
marriage and that the promotion of these kinds of
enduring marital partnerships may be the most
important contribution to responsible fathering in
our society.
An encouraging implication of this systemic,
ecological analysis is that there are many pathways
to enhancing the quality of father-child relation-
ships. Fathering can be enhanced through pro-
grams and policies that help fathers relate to their
coparent, that foster employment and economic
opportunities if needed, that change institutional
expectations and practices to better support fathers,
and that encourage fathers' personal commitment
to their children.
NOTE
An earlier version of this article was prepared as a report
for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under contract HHS-100-93-0012 to the Lewin Group.
We would like to thank Linda Mellgren, Office of the As-
sistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, and Mark
Fucello, Administration for Children and Families, for their
invaluable support. We also would li ke to thank Bill Allen,
David Dollahite, Ralph LaRossa, Theodora Ooms, Glen
Palm, Joseph Pleck, Dwaine Simms, and Dave Stapleton,
as well as members of Vice President AI Gore's Father to
Father advisory group--Ken Canfield, Judy Carter, Bar-
bara Clinton, Don Eberly, Vivian Gadsden, Jim Levine,
Anne Peretz, Ed Pitt, Juan Sanchez, and Rick Weiss-
bourd-for their helpful comments on earl ier drafts. To ob-
tain a copy of the recommendations for fathering programs
included in the original report for the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, contact the first author.
R EFERENCES
Achatz, M., & MacAllum, C. A. (1994). Young unwedfa-
thers: Report from the field. Philadelphia: Public/Pri-
vate Ventures.
Adams, C. F., Landsbergen, & Hecht, D. (1994). Orga-
nizational impediments to paternity establishment and
child support. Social Science Review, 72, 109-126.
Ahrons, C. R., & Miller, R. B. ( 1993). The effect of the
postdivorce relationship on paternal involvement A
longitudinal analysis. American Journal of Orthopsy-
chiatry, 63, 441-450.
Allen, W. D., & Connor, M. (1997). An African Ameri-
can perspective on generative fathering. In A. J .
Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative father-
ing: Beyond deficit perspectives. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Allen, W. D., & Doherty, W. J. (1996). The responsibili-
ties of fatherhood as perceived by African American
teenage fathers. Families in Society: The Journal of
Contempormy Human Services, 77, 142- 155.
Amato, P. R., & Rejac, S. J. ( 1994). Contact with non-
resident parents, interparental conflict, and children's
behavior. Journal of Family Issues, 15, 191-207.
Anderson, E. (1993). Sex codes and family lnfe among
poor inner-city youths. In R.I. Lerman & T. 1. Ooms
(Eds.), Young unwed fathers: Changing roles and
emerging policies. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Arendel l, T. (1996). Coparenting: A review of the litera-
ture. Philadelphia: National Center on Fathers and
Fami lies.
Sackett, K. ( 1987). The negotiation of fatherhood. In
C. Lewis & M. O'Brien (Eds.), Reassessing father-
hood: New observations on fathers and the modern
family. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Baruch, G. K., & Barnett, R. C. (1986). Consequences
of fa1hers' participation in family work: Parent's role
strain and well-being. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 51, 983-992.
Bateson, G. ( 1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New
York: Ballatine Books.
Becker, G. S. (1991 ). A treatise on the family. Cam-
Belsky, 1. ( 1984). The determinants of parenting: A pro-
cess model. Child Development, 55, 83-96.
Belsky, J., & Volling, B. L. (1987). Mothering, father-
ing, and marital interaction in the family triad during
infancy. In P. W. Berman & F. A. Pedersen (Eds.),
Men's transitions to parenthood: Longitudinal stud-
ies of early family expe,-ience (pp. 37-63). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Blankenhorn, D. ( 1995). Fatherless Amerl'ca: Con-
fronting our most urgent social problem. New York:
Basic Books.
Bronfenbrenner, U. ( 1979). The ecology of human de-
velopment: Experiments by nature and design. Cam-
Bumpass, L. L. (1990). What' s happening to the family:
Interactions between demographic and institutional
change. Demography, 27, 483-498.
Bumpass, L. L., Sweet, J. A., & Cherlin, A. ( 1991). The
role of cohabitation in declining rates of marriage.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 913-927.
Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. ( 1987). Men's involve-
ment in parenthood: Identifying the antecedents and
understanding the barriers. In P. W. Berman & F. A.
Pedersen (Eds.), Men's transitions to parenthood:
Longitudinal studies of early family experience (pp.
145-174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cox, M. J., Owen, M. T., Lewis, J. M., & Henderson, V. K.
( 1989). MaJTiage, adult adjustment, and early parent-
ing. Child Development, 60, I 015-1024.
Daly, K. J. (1995). Reshaping fatherhood: Finding the
models. In W. Marsiglia (Ed.), Fatherhood: Contem-
porary theory, research, and social policy (pp. 21 -
40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Day, R. D., & Mackey, W. C. ( 1989). An alternate stan-
dard for evaluating American fathers. Journal of
Family Issues, /0, 40 l-408.
De Luccie, M. F. (1995). Mothers as gatekeepers: A
model of maternal mediators of father involvement.
71le Journal of Genetic Psychology, 156, 1 15-131.
DeMaris, A., & Rao, V. (1992). Premarital cohabitation
and subsequent marital stability in the United States:
A reassessment. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
54, 178- 190.
Doherty, W. J. ( 1990). Beyond reactivity and the deficit
model of manhood: A commentary on articles by
Napier, Pittman, and Gottman. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 17, 29-32.
Doherty, W. J. (1995a). Soul searching: Why psy-
chotherapy must promote moral responsibility. New
York: Basic Books.
Doherty, W. J. (1997). The best of times and the worst
of times: Fathering as a contested arena of academic
discourse. In A . .]1. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.),
Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Doherty, W. J., Boss, P. G., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R.,
& Stei nmetz, S. K. (1993). Family theories and meth-
ods: A contextual approach. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Do-
herty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz
(Eds.), Family theories and methods: A conlextual
approach. New York: Plenum Press.
Dollahite, D. C., Hawkins, A. J., & Brotherson, S. E.
( 1997). Fatherwork: A conceptual ethic of fathering
as generative work. In A. J. Hawkins &. D. C. Dol -
lahite (Eds.), Generalive falhering: Beyond deficil
perspeclives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dudley, J. R. ( 1991 ). Exploring ways to get divorced fa-
thers to comply willingly with child support agree-
ments. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 14, 121-
135.
Elder, G., Liker, J., & Cross. C. (1984) .. Parent-child be-
havior in the Great Depression: Life course and inter-
generational influences. In P. Baltes & 0. Brim (Eds.),
Life span development and behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 109-
1 58). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Elder, G., Van Nguyen, T., & Caspi. A. ( 1985). Linking
family hardship to children's lives. Child Development,
56, 361-375.
Feldman, S. S., Nash, S. C., & Aschenbrenner, B. G.
( 1983). Antecedents of fathering. Child Development,
54, 1628-1636.
Furstenberg, F. S., & Cherlin, A. J. (1991). Dividedfam-
i/ies: What happens ro children when parents par/.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., & Harris, K. M. ( 1993). When
and why fathers matter: Impacts of father involve-
ment on the children of adolescent mothers. In R. I.
Lerman & T. J. Ooms (Eds.), Young unwed fathers:
Changing roles and emerging policies. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., Morgan, S. P., & Allison, P. D.
( 1987). Paternal participation and chi ldren's well -
being after marital dissolution. American Sociological
Review, 52, 695-701.
291
Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., & Nord, C. W. ( 1985). Parenting
apari: Patterns of childrearing after marital disruption.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 893-904.
Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., Sherwood, K. E., & Sullivan, M. L.
( 1992). Caring and paying: Whal fa/hers and molh-
ers say abou.J child support. New York: Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation.
Griswold, R. L. ( 1993). Fmherhood in America. New
York: Basic Books.
Guidubaldi, J., Cleminshaw, H. K., Perry, J. D., Nastasi,
B. D., & Lightel, J. ( 1986). The role of selected family
environment factors in children's postdivorce adjust-
ment. Family Relations, 35, 141- 151.
Harold-Goldsmith, R., Radin, N., & Eccles, J. S. (1988).
Objective and subjective real ity: The effects of job
loss and fi nancial stress on fathering behaviors. Family
Perspective, 22, 309-325.
Hawkins, A. J., Christiansen, S. L., Sargent, K. P., &
Hill, E. J. ( 1995). Rethi nking fathers' involvement in
child care. In W. Marsiglia (Ed.), Fatherhood: Con
tempora1y theory, research. and social policy (pp. 41-
56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hawkins, A. J., & Dollahite, D. C. (1997). Generative
fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. ( 1982). Effects
of di vorce on parents and children. In M. Lamb (Ed.),
Nontradilionalfamilies: Parenting and child develop
men/. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hetheri ngton, E. M., & Parke, R. D. ( 1993). Child psy-
chology: A contemporary view. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Ihinger-Tallman, M., Pasley, K., & Buehler, C. (1995).
Developing a middle-range theory of father involve-
ment postdivorce. In W. Marsiglia (Ed.), Falherhood:
Contemporary the01y, research, and social policy
(pp. 57-77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jones, L. ( 1991 ). Unemployed fathers and thei r children;
Implications for policy and practice. Child and Ado-
lescent Social Work Journal, 8, 101- 116.
Kalter, N., Kloner, A., Schreier, S., & Okla. K. ( 1989).
Predictors of children's post divorce adjustment.
American Journal ofOrthopsychiafl)', 59, 605-618.
Kurdek, L.A. (1986). Custodial mothers' perceptions of
visitation and payment of child support by noncusto-
dial fathers in families with low and high levels of
preseparation interparental conflict. Journal of Ap
plied Developmental Psychology, 7, 307-323.
Lamb, M. E. ( 1987a). Introduction: The emergent
American father. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The fmher's
role: Cross-cui/ural perspectives (pp. 3-25). Hills-
dale, NJ ; Erlbaum.
Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1987b). 7he fmher's role: Cross
cull ural perspeclives. Hillsdale: NJ: Er1baum.
Lamb. M. E., Pleck, J., Charnov, E. L., & Levine, J. A.
( 1985). Paternal behavior in humans. American Zool
ogisJ, 25, 883-894.
LaRossa, R. ( 1988). Fatherhood and social change.
Family Rela1ions, 36. 451 -458.
LaRossa, R. ( 1997). The modernizaJion of fatherhood: A
social and poli1ical hislory. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
LaRossa, R., & Reitzes, D. (1993). Continuity and
charnge in middle-class fatherhood: 1925-1939. Jour-
nal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 455-468.
Larson, R. W. (1993). Finding time for fatherhood: The
emotional ecology of adolescent-father interactions. In
This contenl downloaded from 128.83.63.20 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 07:52:43 AM
All use subjecrro JSTOR Terms and Condirions
292
S. Shulman & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Father-adolescent
relationships (pp. 7-25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Larson, R. W., & Richards, M. H. (1994). Divergent re-
cdities: The emotional lives of mothers, fathers, and
adolescents. New York: Basic Books.
Lerman, R. I. ( 1993). A national profile of young unwed
fathers. In R. I. Lerman & T. J. Ooms (Eds.}, Young
unwed fathers: Changing roles and emerging poli-
cies. Philadelphia:. Temple University Press.
Levine, J. A. (1993). Involving fathers in Head Start: A
framework for public policy and program develop-
ment. Families in Society, 74, 4-21.
Levine, J. A., & Pitt, E. W. ( 1995). New expectations:
Community strategies for responsible fatherhood.
New York: Families and Work Institute.
Levy-Shiff, R., & lsraelashvili, R. ( 1988). Antecedents
of fathering: Some further exploration. Developmen-
tal Psychology, 24, 434-440.
Lewis, C., & O' Brien, M. (1987). Constraints on fathers:
Research, theory and clinical practice. In C. Lewis, &
M. O'Brien (Eds.). Reassessing fatherhood: New ob-
servations on fathers and the modern family (pp. 1-
19). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Marsiglia, W. ( 1991 ). Paternal engagement activities
with minor children. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 53, 973-986.
Marsiglia, W. (1995). Fathers' diverse life course pat-
terns and roles: Theory and social i nterventions. In
W. Marsiglio (Ed.). Fatherhood: Contemporary theory.
research, and social policy (pp. 78-10 I). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
McBride, B. A., & Mills, G. (1993). A comparison of
mother and father involvement with their preschool
age chi ldren. Early Childhood Research Quarter, 8,
457-477.
McLoyd, Y. C. ( 1989). Socialization and development
in a changing economy: The effects of paternal j ob
loss and income loss on children. American Psycholo-
gist, 44, 293-302.
McLoyd, Y. C. ( 1990). The impact of economic hard-
ship on Black families and children: Psychological
distress, parenting, and socioemotional development.
Child Development, 61, 311-346.
Nord, C. W., & Zill , N. (1996). Non-custodial parents'
participation in their children's lives: Evidence from
the Survey of Income and Program Participation.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services.
Park, R. D. ( 1996). Fatherhood. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Patterson, C. J. ( 1992). Children of lesbian and gay par-
ents. Child Development, 63, I 025-1042.
Patterson, C. J. , & Chan, R. W. (1997). Gay fathers. In
M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child de-
velopment (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Pfannenstiel, A. E., & Honig, A. S. ( 199 1). Prenatal in-
tervention and support for low-income fathers. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 12, 103-115.
Phares, Y. ( 1996). Conducting nonsexist research, preven-
tion, and treatment with fathers and mothers: A call for
change. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 55-77.
Pleck, J. H. ( 1997). Paternal i nvolvement: Levels,
sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The
role of the father in child development. (3rd ed.). New
York: Wiley.
Pleck, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1997). Fatherhood ideals in
the United States: Historical dimensions. In M. E.
Lamb (Ed.). The role of the father in child develop-
ment (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father. New York:
Free Press.
Rettig, K. D., Christensen, D. H., & Dahl, C. M. (1991).
Impact of child support guidelines on the economic
well-being of children. Family Relations, 40, 167-175.
Seltzer, J. A. (1991). Relationships between fathers and
chi ldren who live apart: The father's role after separa-
tion. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53. 79- 101.
Seltzer, 1. A., Schaeffer, N.C., & Charng, H. W. (1989).
Family ties after divorce: The relationship between
visiti ng and paying child support. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 51, 1013-1032.
Silverstein, L. B. (1996). !Fathering is a feminist issue.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 3-37.
Simons, R., Whitbeck, L., Conger. R., & Melby, J.
( 1990). Husband and wife differences in determinants
of parenting: A social learning and exchange model
of parental behavior. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 52, 375-392.
Snarey. J. (1993). How fathers care for the next genera-
tion: A four-decade srudy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Sorenson, E., & Turner, M. ( 1996). Barriers in child
support policy: A literarure review. Philadelphia: Na-
tional Center on Fathers and Families.
Taylor, R., Leashore, B., & Toliver, S. (1988). An as-
sessment of the provider role as perceived by Black
m a l ~ s Family Rt:lutiuns, 37, 426-431.
Thomson, E., Hanson, T., & McLanahan, S. S. (1994).
Family structure and child well-being: Economic re-
sources versus parent socialization. Social Forces, 73,
221-242.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1994a). Household andfam-
ily characteristics (Current Population Reports, Se-
ries P20-483). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census ( 1994b). The diverse living
arrangements of children: Summer, 199/. Washing-
ton. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census ( 1995). Child support for
custodial mothers and fathers: 1991 (Current Popula-
tion Reports, Series P60-187). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census ( 1996). Who's minding our
preschoolers? (Current Population Reports, Series
P70-53). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ( 1995).
Report to Congress on out-of-wedlock childbearing
(Pub. No. PHS 95-1257-1). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Wattenberg, E. (1993). Paternity actions and young fa-
thers. In R. I. Lerman & T. J. Ooms (Eds.), Young
unwed fathers: Changing roles and emerging poli-
cies. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Wolfe, A. (1989). Whose keeper? Social science and
moral obligation. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Zill, N., Morrison, D. R., & Coiro, M. J. (1993). Long-
term effects of parental divorce on parent-child rela-
tionships, adjustment, and achievement in young
adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 91-103.

EXHIBIT 46

EXHIBIT 47
Peter L. Berger
and Thomas Luckmann
The Social Construction
of Reality
A Treatise in the Sociology
of Knowledge
Penpnn Books
PENGUIN BOOKS
Published by the Penguin Group
Penguin Books Ltd, 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5TZ. England
Penguin Putnam Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014, USA
Penguin Books Australia Ltd, Ringwood, Victoria, Australia
Penguin Books Canada Ltd. 10 Alcorn Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4V 3B2
Penguin Books (NZ) Ltd, Private Bag 102902. NSMC, Auckland, New Zealand
Penguin Books Ltd, Registered Offices: Harmondsworth. Middlesex. England
First published in the USA 1966
Published in Great Britain by Allen Lane
The Penguin Press 1967
Published in Penguin University Books 1971
Reprinted in Peregrine Books 1979
Reprinted in Pelican Books 1984
Reprinted in Penguin Books 1991
10 9 8 7 6
Copyright Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, 1966
All rights reserved
Printed in England by Clays Ltd, St Ives pic
Set in Monotype Plantin
Except in the United States of America. this book is sold subject
to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent,
re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's
prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in
which it is published and without a similar condition including this
condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser
Part Two
Society as
Objective Reality
1. Institutionalization
Organism mzd Activity
Man occupies a peculiar position in the animal kingdom.
1
Unlike the other higher mammals, he has no species-specific
environment,
2
no environment firmly structured by his own
instinctual organization. There is no man-world in the sense
that one may speak of a dog-world or a horse-world. Despite
an area of individual learning and accumulation, the individual
dog or the individual horse has a largely fixed relationship to
its environment, which it shares with all other members of its
respective species. One obvious implication of this is that dogs
and horses, as compared with man, are much more restricted
to a specific geographical distribution. The specificity of
these animals' environment, however, is much more than a
geographical delimitation. It refers to the biologically fixed
character of their relationship to the environment, even if
geographical variation is introduced. In this sense, all non-
human animals, as species and as individuals, live in closed
worlds whose structures are predetermined by the biological
equipment of the several animal species.
By contrast, man's relationship to his environment is charac-
terized by world-openness.
3
Not only has man succeeded in
establishing himself over the greater part of the earth's surface,
his relationship to the surrounding environment is everywhere
very imperfectly structured by his own biological constitution:
The latter, to be sure, permits man to engage in different acti-
vities. But the fact that he continued to live a nomadic exist-
ence in one place and turned to agriculture in another cannot
be explained in terms of biological processes. This does not
mean, of course, that there are no biologically determined
limitations to man's relations with his environment; his
speciesspecific sensory and motor equipment imposes obvious
limitations on his range of possibilities, The peculiarity of man's
THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY
..... ,_...... . .. ----
biological constitution lies rather in its instinctual component.
Man's instinctual organization may be described as under-
developed, compared with that of the other higher mammals.
Man does have drives, of course. But these drives are highly
unspecialized and undirected. This means that the human
organism is capable of applying its constitutionally given
equipment to a very wide and, in addition, constantly variable
and varying range of activities. This peculiarity of the human
organism is grounded in its ontogenetic development. Indeed,
if one looks at the matter in terms of organismic development,
it is possible to say that the foetal period in the human being
extends through about the first year after birth.
5
Important
organismic developments, which in the animal are completed
in the mother's body, take place in the human infant after its
separation from the womb. At this time, however, the human
infant is not only in the outside world, but interrelating with
it in a number of complex ways.
The human organism is thus still developing biologically
while already standing in a relationship to its environment. In
other words, the process of becoming man takes place in an
interrelationship with an environment. This statement gains
significance if one reflects that this environment is both a
natural and a human one. That is, the developing human being
not only interrelates with a particular natural environment,
but with a specific cultural and social order, which is mediated
to him by the significant others who have charge ofhim.
1
Not
only is the survival of the human infant dependent upon cer-
tain social arrangements, the direction of his organismic
development is socially determined. From the moment of
birth, man's organismic development, and indeed a large part
of his biological being as such, are subjected to continuing
socially determined interference.
Despite the obvious physiological limits to the range of pos-
sible and different ways of becoming man in this double
environmentalinterrelationship, the human organism manifests
an immense plasticity in its response to the environmental
forces at work on it. This is particularly clear when cine ob-
serves the flexibility of man's biological constitution as it is
subjected to a variety of socio-cultural determinations. It is an
ethnological commonplace thattheways of becoming and being
66
SOCIETY AS OBJECTIVE REALITY
human are as numerous as man's cultures. Humanness is
socio-culturally variable. In other words, there is no human
nature in the sense of a biologically fixed substratum deter-
mining the variability of socio-cultural formations. There is
only human nature in the sense of anthropological constants
(for example, world-openness and plasticity of instinctual
structure) that delimit and permit man's socio-cultural forma-
tions. But the specific shape into which this humanness is
moulded is determined by those socio-cultural formations and
is relative to their numerous variations. While it is possible to
say that man has a nature, it is more significant to say that
man constructs his own nature, or more simply, that man
produces himself.
7
The plasticity of the human organism and its susceptibility
to socially determined interference is best illustrated by the
ethnological evidence concerning sexuality.
1
While man pos-
sesses sexual drives that are comparable to those of the other
higher mammals, human sexuality is characterized by a very
high degree of pliability. It is not only relatively independent
of temporal rhythms, it is pliable both in the objects towards
which it may be directed and in its modalities of expression.
Ethnological evidence shows that, in sexual matters, man is
capable of almost anything. One may stimulate one's sexual
imagination to a pitch of feverish lust, but it is unlikely that
one can conjure up any image that will not correspond to what
in some other culture is an established norm, or at least an
occurrence to be taken in stride. If the term 'normality' is to
refer either to what is anthropologically fundamental or to
what is culturally universal, then neither it nor its antonym
can be meaningfully applied to the varying forms of human
sexuality. At the same time, of course, human sexuality is
directed, sometimes rigidly structured, in every particular
culture. Every culture has a distinctive sexual configuration,
with its own specialized patterns of sexual conduct and its own
'anthropological' assumptions in the sexual area. The empirical
relativity of these configurations, their immense variety and
luxurious inventiveness, indicate that they are the product of
man's own socio-cultural formations rather than of a bio-
logically fixed human nature.'
The period during which the human organism develops
THE SociAL CoNSTRUCTION OP REALITY
towards its completion in interrelationship with its environ-
ment is also the period during which the human seJfis formed.
The formation of the self, then, must also be understood in
relation to both the ongoing organismic development and the
social process in which the natural . and the human environ-
ment are mediated through the significant others.
10
The
genetic presuppositions for the self are, of course, given at
birth. But the self, as it is experienced later as a subjectively
and objectively recognizable identity, is not. The same social
processes that determine the completion of the organism pro-
duce the self in its particular, culturally relative form. The
character of the self as a social product is not limited to .the
particular configuration the individual identifies as himself
(for instance, as 'a man', in the particular way in which this
identity is defined and formed in the culture in question), but
to the comprehensive psychological equipment that serves as
an appendage to the particular configuration (for instance,
'manly' emotions, attitudes and even somatic reactions). It
goes without saying, then, that the organism and, even more,
the self cannot be adequately understood apart from the
particular social context in which they were shaped.
The common development of the human organism and the
human self in a socially determined environment is related to
the peculiarly human relationship between organism and self.
This relationship is an eccentric one.
11
On the one hand, man
is a body, in the same way that this may be said of every other
animal organism. On the other hand, man has a body. That is,
man experiences himself as an entity that is not identical with
his body, but that, on the contrary, has that body at its dis-
posal. In other words, man's experience of himself always
hovers in a balance between being and having a body, a
balance that must be redressed again and again. This eccen-
tricity of man's experience of his own body has certain con-
sequences for the analysis of human activity as conduct in the
material environment and as externalization of subjective
meanings. An adequate understanding of any human pheno-
menon willhaveto take both theseaspectsintoconsideration,for
reasons that are grounded in fundamental anthropological facts.
It should be clear from the foregoing that the statement that
man produces himself in no way implies some sort of Prome-
68
0 1 4 - .. --. - --- -
thean vision of the solitary individual.
12
Man's self-production
is always, and of necessity, a social enterprise. Men together
produce a human environment, with the totality of its socio-
cultural and psychological formations. None of these forma-
tions may be understood as products of man's biological
constitution, which, as indicated, provides only the outer
limits for human productive activity. Just as it is impossible
for man to develop as man in isolation, so it is impossible for
man in isolation to produce a human environment. Solitary
human being is being on the animal level (which, of course,
man shares with other animals). As soon as one observes
phenomena that are specifically human, one enters the realm
of the social. Man's specific humanity and his sociality are
inextricably intertwined. Homo sapiens is always, and in the
same measure, homo soa"usY .
The human organism lacks the necessary biological means
to provide stability for human conduct. Human existence, if it
were thrown back on its organismic resources by themselves,
would be existence in some sort of chaos. Such chaos is, how-
ever, empirically unavailable, even though one may theo-
retically conceive of it. Empirically, human existence takes
place in a context of order, direction, stability. The question
then arises: From what does the empirically existing stability
of human order derive? An answer may be given on two levels.
One may first point to the obvious fact that a given social
order precedes any individual organismic development. That
is, world-openness, while intrinsic to man's biological make-
up, is always pre-empted by social order. One may say that the
biologically intrinsic world-openness of human existence is
always, and indeed must be, transformed by social order into
a relative world-closedness. While this reclosure can never
approximate the closedness of animal existence, if only because
of its humanly produced and thus 'artificial' character, it is
nevertheless capable, most of the time, of providing direction
and stability for the greater part of human conduct. The
question may then be pushed to another level. One may ask
in what manner social order itself arises.
The most general answer to this question is that social order
is a human product, or, more precisely, an ongoing human
production. It is produced by man in the course of his ongoing
THB SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OP REALITY
--------.... ..... .. --
externalization. Social order is not biologically given or derived
from any biological data in its empirical manifestations. Social
order, needless to add, is also not given in man's natural
environment, though particular features of this may be factors
in determining certain features of a social order (for example,
its economic or technological arrangements). Social order is
not part of the 'nature of things', and it cannot be derived
from the 'laws of nature' .
14
Social order exists only as a product
of human activity. No other ontological status may be ascribed
to it without hopelessly obfuscating its empirical manifesta-
tions. Both in its genesis (social order is the result of past
human activity) and its existence in any instant of time (social
order exists only and in so far as human activity continues to
produce it) it is a human product.
While the social products of human externalization have a
character sui generis as against both their organismic and their
environmental context, it is important to stress that externali-
zation as such is an anthropological necessity.
15
Human being
is impossible in a closed sphere of quiescent interiority.
Human being must ongoingly externalize itself in activity.
This anthropological necessity is grounded in man's biological
equipment.tt The inherent instability of the human organism
makes it imperative that man h i m ~ l provide a stable environ-
ment for his conduct. Man himself must specialize and direct
his drives. These biological facts serve as a necessary pre-
supposition for the production of social order. In other words,
although no existing social order can be derived from bio-
logical data, the necessity for social order as such stems from
man's biological equipment.
To understand the causes, other than those posited by the
biological constants, for the emergence, maintenance and
transmission of a social order one must undertake an analysis
that eventuates in a theory of institutionalization.
Origins of Institutionalization
All human activity is subject to habitualization. Any action
that is repeated frequently becomes cast into a pattern, which
70
can then be reproduced with an economy of effort and which,
ipso facto, is apprehended by its performer as that pattern.
Habitualization further implies that t h action in question
may be performed again in the future in the same manner and
with the same economical effort. This is true of non-social as
well as of social activity. Even the solitary individual on the
proverbial desert island habitualizes his activity. When he
wakes up in the morning and resumes his attempts to construct
a canoe out of matchsticks, he may mumble to himself, 'There
I go again', as he starts on step one of an operating procedure
consisting of, say, ten steps. In other words, even solitary
man has at least the company of his operating procedures.
Habitualized actions, of course, retain their meaningful
character for the individual although the meanings involved
become embedded as routines in his general stock of know-
ledge, taken for granted by him and at hand for his projects
into the future.
17
Habitualization carries with it the important
psychological gain that choices are narrowed. While in theory
there may be a hundred ways to go about the project of
building a canoe out of matchsticks, habitualization narrows
these down to one. This frees the individual from the burden
of 'all those decisions', providing a psychological relief that
has its basis in man's undirected instinctual structure. Habitu-
alization provides the direction and the specialization of
activity that is lacking in man's biological equipment, thus
relieving the accumulation of tensions that result from un-
directed drives.
18
And by providing a stable background in
which human activity may proceed with a minimum of
decision-making most of the time, it frees energy for such
decisions as may be necessary on certain occasions. In other
words, the background of habitualized activity opens up a
foreground for deliberation and innovation.
19
In terms of the meanings bestowed by man upon his activity,
hab{ tualization makes it unnecessary for each situation to be
defined anew, step by step.
10
A large variety of situations may
be subsumed under its predefinitions. The activity to be
undertaken in these situations can then be anticipated. Even
alternatives of conduct can be assigned standard weights.
These processes of habitualization precede any institu-
tionalization, indeed can be made to apply to a hypothetical
71
THE SociAL CoNSTRUCTION or REALITY
solitary individual detached from any social interaction. The
fact that even such a solitary individual, assuming that he has
been formed as a self (as we would have to assume in the case
of our builder), will habitualize his activity
in accordance with biographical experience of a world of social
institutions preceding his solitude need not concern us at the
moment. Empirically, the more important part of the
alization of human activity is coextensive with the latter's
institutionalization. The question then becomes how do
institutions arise.
Institutionalization occurs whenever there is a reciprocal
typification of habitualized actions by types of actors. Put
differently, any such typification is an institution.
21
What must
be stressed is the reciprocity of institutional typifications and
the typicality of not only the actions but also the actors in
institutions. The typifications of habitualized actions that
constitute institutions are always shared ones. They are avail-
able to all members of the particular social group in question,
and the institution itself typifies individual actors as well as
individual actions. The institution posits that actions of type
X will be performed by actors of type X. For example, the
institution of the law posits that heads shall be chopped off in
specific ways under specific circumstances, and that specific
types of individuals shall do the chopping (executioners, say,
or members of an impure caste, or virgins under a certain age,
or those who have been designated by an oracle).
Institutions further imply historicity and control. Recipro-
cal typifications of actions are built up in the course of a shared
history. They cannot be created instantaneously. Institutions
always have a history, of which they are the products. It is
impossible to understand an institution adequately without an
understanding of the historical process in which it was pro-
duced. Institutions also, by the very fact of their existence,
control human conduct by setting up predefined patterns of
conduct, which channel it in one direction as against the many
other directions that would theoretically be possible. It is
important to stress that this controlling character is inherent
in institutionalization as such, prior to or apart from any
mechanisms of sanctions specifically set up to support an in-
stitution. These mechanisms (the sum .of which constitute
SOCIETY AS OBJECTI VE REALITY
what is generally called a system of social control) do, of course,
exist in many institutions and in all the agglomerations of
institutions that we call societies. Their controlling efficacy,
however, is of a secondary or supplementary kind. As we shall
see again later, the primary social control is given in the exis-
tence of an institution as such. To say that a segment of
human activity has been institutionalized is already to say
that this segment of human activity has been subsumed under
social control. Additional control mechanisms are required
only in so far as the processes of institutionalization are less
than completely successful. Thus, for instance, the law may
provide that anyone who breaks the incest taboo will have his
head chopped off. This provision may be necessary because
there have been cases when individuals offended against the
taboo. It is unlikely that this sanction will have to be invoked
cqntinuously (unless the institution delineaterl by the incest
taboo is itself in the course of disintegration, a special case
that we need not elaborate here). It makes little l)ense, there-
fore, to say that human sexuality is socially coiLi:rolled by
beheading certain individuals. Rather, human sexuality is
socially controlled by its institutionalization in the course of
the particular history in question. One may add, of course,
that the incest taboo itself is nothing but the negative side of
an assemblage of typifications, which define in the first place
which sexual conduct is incestuous and which is not.
In actual experience institutions generally manifest them-
selves in collectivities containing considerable numbers of
people. It is theoretically important, however, to emphasize
that the institutionalizing process of reciprocal typification
would occur even if two individuals began to interact de novo.
Institutionalization is incipient in every social situation con-
tinuing in time. Let us assume that two persons from entirely
different social worlds begin to interact. By saying 'persons'
we presuppose that the two individuals have formed selves,
something that could, of course, have occurred only in a social
process. We are thus for the moment excluding the cases of
Adam and Eve, or of two 'feral' children meeting in a clearing
of a primeval jungle. But we are assuming that the two indivi-
duals arrive at their meeting place from social worlds that have
been historically produced in segregation from each other, and
73
THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIO!o{ OP REALITY
that the interaction therefore takes place in a situation that has
not been institutionally defined for either of the participants.
It may be possible to imagine a Man Friday joining our
matchstick-canoe builder on his desert island, and to imagine
the former as a Papuan and the latter as an American. In that
case, however, it is likely that the American will have read or
at least have heard about the story of Robinson Crusoe, which
will introduce a measure of predefinition of the situation at
least for him. Let us, then, simply call our two persons A and
B.
As A and B interact, in whate,ver manner, typifications will
be produced quite quickly. A watches B perform. He attri-
butes motives to B's actions and, seeing the actions recur,
typifies the motives as recurrent. As B goes on performing, A
is soon able to say to himself, 'Aha, there he goes again.' At
the same time, A may assumethat B is doing the same thing
with regard to him. From the beginning, both A and B
assume this reciprocity of typification. In the course of their
interaction these typifications will be expressed in specific
patterns of conduct. That is, A and B will begin to play roles
vis-a-vis each other. This will occur even if each continues to
perform actions different from those of the other. The possi-
bility of taking the role of the other will appear with regard to
the same actions performed by both. That is, A will inwardly
appropriate B's reiterated roles and make them the models for
his own role-playing. For example, B's role in the activity of
preparing food is not only typified as such by A, but enters as
a constitutive element into A's own food-preparation role.
Thus a collection of reciprocally typified actions will emerge,
habitualized for each in roles, some of which will be performed
separately and some in common.
22
While this reciprocal typi-
fication is not yet institutionalization (since, there only being
two individuals, there is no possibility of a typology of actors),
it is clear that institutionalization is already present in nucleo.
At this stage one may ask what gains accrue to the two in-
dividuals from this development. The most important gain is
that each will be able to predict the other's actions. Con-
comitantly, the interaction of both becomes predictable. The
'There he goes again' becomes a 'There we go again'. This
relieves both individuals of a considerable amount of tension.
74
They v ~ time and effort, not only in whatever external tasks
they might be engaged in separately or jointly, but in terms of
their respective psychological economies. Their life together
is now defined by a widening sphere of taken-for-granted
routines. Many actions are possible on a low level of attention.
Each. action of one is no longer a source of astonishment and
potential danger to the other. Instead, much of what goes on
takes on the triviality of what, to both, will be everyday life.
This means that the two individuals are constructing a back-
ground, in the sense discussed before, which will serve to
stabilize both their separate actions and their interaction. The
construction of this background of routine in turn makes
possible a division of labour betyveen them, opening the way
for innovations, which demand a higher level of attention. The
division of labour and the innovations will lead to new habitu-
alizations, further widening the background common to
both individuals. In other words, a social world will be in
process of construction, containing within it the roots of an
expanding institutional order.
Generally, all actions repeated once or more tend to be
habitualized to some degree, just as all actions observed by
another necessarily involve some typification on his part.
However, for the kind of reciprocal typification just described
to occur there must be a continuing social situation in which
the habitualized actions of two or more individuals interlock.
Which actions are likely to be reciprocally typified in this
manner?
The general answer is, those actions that are relevant to both
A and B within their common situation. The areas likely to be
relevant in this way will, of course, vary in different situations.
Some will be those facing A and B in terms of their previous
biographies, others may be the result of the natural, pre-social
circumstances of the situation. What will in all cases have to
be habitualized is the com:nunication process between A and
B. Labour, sexuality and territoriality are other likely foci of
typification and habitualization. In these various areas the
situation of A and B is paradigmatic of the institutionalization
occurring in larger societies.
Let us push our paradigm one step further and imagine that
A and B have children. At this point the situation changes
7S

EXHIBIT 48
STRUCTURE AND FlJNCTION
IN PRIMITIVE SOCIETY

STRUCTURE AND
IN PRIMITIVE
FUNCTION
SOCIETY
Essays and Addresses
by
A. R. RADCLIFFE-BROWN
PROPBSSOR BKERITUS OP OXFORD UNIVERSITY
-
With a Foreword by
E. E. EVANS-PRITCHARD
PROFESSOR OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY, OXFORD UNIVERSITY
--
and
FRED EGGAN
PROPES!OR OP ANTHROPOLOGY, CHICAGO Ul'IIVERSITY
THE FREE PRESS
G L E N C 0 E, I L L I N 0 I S
1952
INTRODUCTION
9
\Yith their wings, the maintenance of temperature in the winter
by clustering together. Spencer uses the term 'co-operation' to
refer to this feature of social life. Social life and social
therefore involve the adjustment-of the behaviour of indivi<Xllal
orf!amsms. to the requirements of the process .by_,\Yhich th
social life continues.
\Vhen \\ c exam:1ne a form of social life amongst human beings
as an adaptational systen1 it is useful to cl.istinguish three aspects
of the total system. There is the way in which the tsocial life is
adjusted to the physical environment, and we can, if we wish,
speak of this as the recological adaptation. Secondly, there are
the institutional arrangements by which an orderly social life is
maintained, so that what Spencer calls co-operation is provided
'for and conflict is restrained or regulated. This we might call,
if we wished, the institutional aspect of social adaptation. Thirdly,
there is the social process by which an individual acquires habits
and mental characteristics that fit him for a place in the social
life and enable him to participate in its activities. 'fhis, if we wish,
could be called cultural adaptation, in accordance with the
earlier definition of cultural tradition as process. \Vhat must be
emphasised is that these modes of adaptation are only different
aspects from. which the total adaptational system can be looked
at for convenience of analysis and comparison.
The theory of social evolution therefore makes it a part of our
scheme of interpretation of social systetns to examine any given
system as an adill)tational system. The stability of the system,
and its continuance over a certain period, depends
the effectiveness of the adaptation.
Social Structure
----- - The theory of evolution is one of a trend of development by
which tnore complex types of structure come into existence by
derivation fro1n less complex ones. An address on Social Structure
is included in this volume, hut it \Yas delivered in war time and
"
\Vas printed in abbreviated fonn, so that it is not as clear as it
might be. \\'ben we use the term structure we are referring to some
so'rt .of ordered arrangement of parts or components. A musical
composition has a structure, and so does a sentence. A building
has a structure, so docs a molecule or ::111 anizn::1l. The cotnponents
or units of social structure are persons, and a person is ::1 hutnan
JO STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION IN PRIMITIVE SOCIETY
being considered not as an organism but as occupying position
i rJ a social structure.
"] One of the fundamental theoretical problems of sociology is
that of the nature of social continuity. (Continuity in forms
of social life depends on structural continuity, that is, some
sort of continuity in the arrangements of persons in relation
to one another the present day there is an arrangement of
persons into nations, and the fact that for seventy years I have
belonged to the English nation, although I have lived much of
my life in other countries, is a fact of social structure. A nation,
a tribe, a clan, a body such as the French Academy, or such as the
Roman Church, can continue in existence as an arrangement of
persons though the personnel, the units of which each is com-
posed, changes from time to time. There is continuity of the
structure, just as a human body, of which the components are
molecules, preserves a continuity of structure though the actual
molecules, of which the body consists, are continually changing.
In the political structure of the United States there must always
be a President; at one time it is Herbert Hoover, at another time
Franklin Roosevelt, but the structure as an arrangement remains
co!ltjnuous.
Vfhe social relationships, of which the continuing network
constitute social structure, are not haphazard conjunctions of
)
individuals, but are determined by the social process, and any
relationship is one in which the conduct of persons in their inter-
actions with each other is controlled by norms, rules or patterns.
So that in any relationship within a social structure a person
knows that he is expected to behave according to these norms and
}s justified in expecting that other persons should do the same.
/ The established norms of conduct of a particular form of social
< life it is usual to refer to as institutions. An institution is an es-
norm of conduct recognised as such by a distinguishable
group or class of which therefore it is an institution. The
institutions refer to a distinguishable type or class of social
relationships and interactions. Thus in a given locally defined
society we find that there are accepted rules for the way a man is
expected to behave towards his wife and children. The relation
of institutions to social structure is therefore twofold. On the one
side there is the sociaL structure, such as the family in this instance,
for the constituent relationships of which the institutions provide
INTRODUCTION II
the norms; on the other there is the group, the local society in
this instance, in which the norm is established by the general
recognition of it as defining proper behaviour. Institutions,
if that term is used to refer to the ordering by society of the inter-
actions of persons in social relationships, have this double
connection with structure, with a group or class of which it can
be said to be an institution, and with those relationships within the
structural system to which the norms apply. In a social system
there may be institutions which set up norms of behaviour for a
king, for judges in the fulfilment of the duties of their office, for
policemen, for fathers of families, and so on, and also norms of
behaviour relating to persons who come into casual contact within
the social life.
A brief mention may be made of the term organisation. The
concept is clearly closely related to the concept of soc tal structure,
but it is desirable not to treat the two terms as synonymous. A
convenient use, which does not depart from common usage in
English, is to define social structure as an arrangen1ent of persons
in institutionally controlled or defined relationships, such as the
relationship of king and subject, or that of husband and wife, and
to use organisation as referring to an arrangement of activities.
The organisation of a factory is the arrangement of the various
activities of manager, foremen, workmen within the total activity
of the factory. The structure of a family household of parents,
children and servants is institutionally controlled. The activities
of the various members of the persons of the household will
probably be subject to some regular arrangement, and the or-
ganisation of the life of the household in this sense may be different
in different families in the same society. The structure of a modern
army consists, in the first place, of an arrangement into groups-
regiments, divisions, army corps, etc., and in the second place an
arrangement into ranks-generals, colonels, majors, corporals,
etc. The organisation of the army consists of the arrangement of
the activities of its personnel whether in time of peace or in time
of war. Within an organisation each person may be said to have
a role. Thus we may say that when we are dealing with a structural
system we are concerned with a system of social positions, while
in an organisation we deal with a system of roles.
I 2 STHUCTUHE AND FUNCTION IN PIUl\llTIVE SOCIETY
Social Frmcjion.---..
-----
The term function has a very great number .of different
meanings in different contexts. In mathematics the word, as
introduced by Euler in the eighteenth century, refers to an
expression or which can be written on paper, such as
'log. x', and has no relation whatever to the same word as used
in such a science as physiology. In physiology the concept of
function is of fundamental importance as enabling us to deal with ,.
the continuing relation of structure and process in organic life.
A complex organism, such as a human body, has a structure
as an arrangement of organs and tissues and fluids. Even an
organism that consists of a single cell has a structure as an arrange-
ment of molecules. An organism also has a life, and by this we
refer to a process. The concept of organic function is one that is
used to refer to the bnnection between the structure of an organ-
ism and the life process of that organism.] The processes that go
on within a human body while it is livmg are dependent on the
organic structure. It is the function of the heart to pump blood
through the body. The organic structure, as a living structure,
depends for its continued existence on the processes that make up
the total life processes. If the heart ceases to perform its function
the life process comes to an end and the structure as a living
structure also comes to an end. Thus process is dependent on
structure and continuity of structure is dependent on process.
In reference to social systems and their theoretical under-
standing one way of using the concept of function is the same as
its scientific use in physiology. It can be used to refer to the
interconnection between the social structure and the process of
social life. It is this use of the word function that seems to me to
make it a useful term in comparative three concepts
of process, structure and function are thus components-of a single
theory as a scheme of interpretation of human social systems.
" The three concepts are logically interconnected, since 'function'
is used to refer to the relations of process and structure. The theory
is one that we can apply to the study both of continuity in forms
of social life and also to processes of change in those forms.
If we consider such a feature of social life as the punishment
of crime, or in other words the application, by some organised
procedure, of penal sanctions for certain kinds of behaviour, and.

EXHIBIT 49
Schneider: The Channeling Function in Family Law
HOFSTRA lAW REVIEW
Volume 20
THE CHANNELLING FUNCTION
IN FAMJLY LAW
Carl E. Schneider
Spring 1992
Every culture has two main functions: (1) to organize the moral
demands men make upon themselves into a system of symbols that
make men intelligible and trustworthy to each other, thus rendering
also the world intelligible and trustworthy, (2) to organize the ex-
pressive remissions by which men release themselves, in some de-
gree, from the strain of conforming to the controlling symbolic,
internalized variant readings of culture that constitute individual
character.
PHlLIP RIEFF, THE TRruMPH OF THE THERAPEUTIC
* Professor of Law, University of Michigan. This essay is an expanded version of the
Sidney & Walter Siben Distinguished Professozshlp Lecture, delivered April 1, 1992, at the
Hofstra University School of Law. A version of this essay directed to some constitutional
aspects of the channelling function was presented at the Conference on Compelling State
Interests at the Albany Law School. Another version was presented 'at a faculty workshop at
SL Mary's University School of Law faculty workshop. I am grateful to participanls at all
these sessions and to Edward H. Cooper, Stephen Gottlieb, Richard 0. Lempert. Victoria
Mather, Milton C. Regan, Jr., Joseph L. Sax, Kent Syverud, and Carol Weisbrod for their
helpful comments.
495
Published by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law, 1992
496
Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 20, Iss. 3 [ 1992], Art. 1
HOFSTRA LAW REJIJEW [Vol. 20:495
The paradoxes are familiar. Society moulds and makes the individu-
al; but individuals are and mould society. Law is a going whole we
are born into; but law is a changing something we help remodel.
lAw decides cases; but cases make law. lAw deflects society; but
society is reflected in the law.
Karl Llewellyn, Behind the Law ({/Divorce
I. THE THEORY OF THE CHANNELLING .FuNcnoN
A. What is the Channelling Function?
On an occasion such as this, we are called to step back from our
daily work to seek what Justice Holmes called a "liberal view" of our
subject.
1
Today, I propose to do so by exploring a function of family
law that I believe is basic, that underlies much of family law, that
resonates with the deepest purposes of culture but that is rarely ad-
dressed expressly-namely, what I call the "channelling function." As
I will soon explain at length, in the channelling function the law
recruits, builds, shapes, sustains; and promotes social institutions.
2
My exploration of this topic will have several stages. First, I will
defme what I mean by "channelling function and try to convince
you that, rightly or wrongly, for good or ill, it has played a .weighty
role in family law. I will do so because I believe that our failure to
recognize the function regularly ~ u s e s courts and scholars to misun-
derstand the regulation of families and the work of the law.
3
In addi-
1. Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the law, in COLLECTED LEGAL PAPERS 167,
197 (1920). For an argument for such a view of family law, see Carl E. Schneider, The Next
Step: Definition, Generalization, and Theory in American Family Law, 18 U. MICH. J.L. REF.
1039 (1985).
2. As the reader will soon see, "channelling" does not fully capture all I mean in
llllking about the law' s role in promoting social institutions and their use. However, I have
failed to devise a more precise and equally economic phrase. As the reader may already have
noticed, I am not the fust to employ the term "charutelling function." Lon Fuller memorably
used it in describing the functions legal formalities perform. Consideration and Form, 41
COLUM. L. REV. 799, 801-03 (1941). Fuller, however, was referring to ways in which such
formalities offer "channels for the le_gally effective expression of intention," channels which
serve (to change the image) as a language which parties may use to communicate with each
other and with judges who might later interpret their communications. Id. at 801.
3. For a discussion of how the Supreme Court's failure to comprehend the channelling
function's role leads the Court to misunderstand the interests states advance to justify statutes
http://scholarlycommons.Jaw.hofstra.edulhlr/vol20/ iss3/ 1 2
1992] Channelling Function 497
tion, one of my purposes in this essay is to urge an appreciation of
and deference to the complexity of the social and legal world in
which we live. The temper of academic thought in recent decades has
been to demonstrate the undoubted risks and deficiencies of social
institutions. I believe it is now time to remind ourselves that in our
painfully and implacably complicated world, there is another side of
the ledg\,;r,
In the second stage of my paper I will examine some of the
factors that constrain the channelling function's effectiveness and
moderate its attractions. I will try to show that the function's power
is limited, that that power may be used both wisely and foolishly,
and that its use exacts costs. Finally, I will seek to make my discus-
sion of the channelling function more concrete by exploring a recent
case-Michael H. v. Gerald D.
4
-in channelling terms.
But let me begin at the beginning. Family law has, I think, five
functions.
5
The first is the protective function. One of law's most
basic duties is to protect citizens against harms done them by other
citizens. This means protecting people from physical harm, as the law
of spouse arld child abuse attempts to do, and from non-physical
hanns, especially economic wrongs and psychological injuries. Law's
second function is to help people organize their lives and affairs in
the ways they prefer. Family law performs this "facilitative, function
by offering people the law's services in entering and enforcing con-
tracts, by giving legal effect to their private arrangements. Family
law's third function is to help people resolve disputes. The law of
divorce exemplifies family law's "arbitral, function, since today's
divorce courts primarily adjudicate conflicting claims to marital prop-
erty, alimony, and child custody.
Instinct in each of these first three functions of family law lies a
relatively commonplace idea: There are people (particularly children)
the law is widely expected to protect, contracts it is widely expected
to facilitate, and disputes it is widely expected to arbitrate. However,
against Fourteenth Amendment challenges, see Carl E. Schneider, State-Interest Analysis and
the Channelling Function in Privacy lAw, in PUBLIC VALUES ~ CONSTITUltONAL LAW
(forthcoming, Stephen Gottlieb ed. 1993).
4. 491 u.s. 110 (1989).
S. l discuss these functions at length in CARL E. SCHNEIDER, FAMILY LAW: CASES
AND MATERIALS (forthcoming). The functions of law which I posit are, of course, primarily
analytic constructs. Legislators may not think in terms of them when they write statutes. Nor
does any crystalline line divide them. On the contrary, they may often overlap and even
conflicL Further, a statute may and often does serve more than one function.
Published by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law, 1992 3
'
498 HOFSTRA. UW REVIEW [Vol. 20:495
the last two functions of family law are less and more
controversial. The first of these is the expressive function.
6
It works
by deploying the law's power to impart ideas through words and
symbols. It has two (related) aspects: Law's expressive abilities may
be used, first, to provide a voice in which citizens may speak and,
second, to alter the behavior of people the law addresses. The ERA
exemplifies both aspects. Its proponents had (among other things) two
kinds of expressive purposes in mind. They proposed it partly because
they wanted the law of their country-their law-to make a symbolic
statement about the relationship between men and women. And they
also believed that such symbolic statements can promote changes in
social sentiment which in tum may promote a reformation of social
behavior.
Finally, in the channelling function the law creates or (more
often) supports social institutions which are thought to serve desirable
ends. "Social institution" I intend broadly: "In its formal sociological
defmition, an institution is a pattern of expected action of individuals
or groups enforced by social sanctions, both positive and negative. "
7
Social institutions arise, Berger and Ludemann tell us, "whenever
there is a reciprocal typification of habitualized actions by types of
actors. "
8
Generally, the channelling function does not specifically
require people to use these social institutions, although it may offer
incentives and disincentives for their use. Primarily, rather, it is their
very presence, the social currency they have, and the governmental
support they receive which combine to make it seem reasonable and
even natural for people to use them. Thus people can be said to be
channelled into them. As Berger and Ludemann write,
tions . . . , by the very fact of their existence, control human conduct
by setting up predefined patterns of conduct, which channel it in one
direction as against the many other directions that would theoretically
be possible. "
9
Or as James Fitzjames Stephen wrote with characteris-
tic vigor and vividness, "The life of the great mass of men, to a great
extent the life of all men, is like a watercourse guided this way or
6. Family law's expressive function has recently attracted growing attention. Three
Cltemplary pieces are MARY ANN GLENDON, ABORTION AND DIVORCE IN WES1ERN LAW
(1987); Kalharine T. Bartlett, Re-Expressing Parenthood, 98 YALE L.J. 293 (1988); and Carol
Weisbrod, On the Expressive Functions of Family lAw, 22 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 991 (1989).
7. ROBERT N. BELLAH ET AL., THE GooD SOCIETY 10 (1991).
8. P.ETER L. BERGER & ThOMAS LUCKMANN, THE SOCIAL CONS1RUcnON OF REALITY:
A TREATISE IN TilE SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE S1 (1966).
9. /d. at 52.
http:l/scholarlycommons.Jaw.hofstra.edulhlr/vol20/iss3/ 1 4
Schneider: The Channeling Function in Fami ly Law
1992] Channelling Function 499
that by a system of dams, sluices, weirs, and embankments . . . . [I]t
is by these works-that is to say, by their various customs and insti-
tutions-that men's lives are regulated."
10
. Business law offers usefully clear examples of such institu-
tions-the corporation and the partnership. Consider the corporation.
People have long united to invest in and run businesses. To encour-
age such activity, governments give legal recognition to a particular
business form-the corporation. They also endow it with special ad-
vantages-particularly, limited liability unlimited life. By now,
this fonn has become familiar, natural, and comfortable. It is
habitualized, it is institutionalized.
I have used the example of business institutions because the
law's role in forming and supporting them and channelling people
into them is particularly evident. In addition, it is probably easier for
us to appreciate the channelling function in the relatively
uncontroversial context of business life. But how might family law be
said to support social institutions and to channel people into them?
Here we encounter some difficulty. It must always be hard to define
any social institution. "Society" has no voice in which to identify .and
describe its institutions. Lawmakers do not always speak explicitly
and exactly about social institutions, even though they may be much
concerned for them. Different people would define the same institu-
tion in different ways, and the same institution will affect different
people differently. What is more, institutional in a modem
society are elaborately complex: Any institution will have both nor-
mative and behavioral aspects, and behavior within institutions will
rarely live up to the institution's normative aspirations. One institution
may take many forms, forms which can, further, vary from place to
place and can change over time. A single institution can serve com-
peting functions.
11
Few if any institutions will be unambivalently
and unambiguously embraced, and the multiplicity of social goals
may interfere with the nurture of the most warmly embraced institu-
tion. An institution may encounter competing and even conflicting
institutions.
12
And, worse, there is a sense in which institutions do
10. JAMES FITZJAMES STEPHEN, LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY 63-64 (1967).
11. MAnd where functions are many, functions tend to conflict. That portion of the
which is geated to serve !he one is likely to lxl!her the performance of anolhcr. In
marriage the functions seem to have no end." Karl N. Llewellyn, Behind the lAw of Divorce:
I, 32 COLUM. L. REV. 1281, 1288 (1932).
12. The institution of marriage, for instance, may have to contend with competing and
possibly conflicting institutions like non-marital cohabitation and prostitution.
Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 20, Iss. 3 [1992], Art. 1
soo HOFSTRA LA.W REJIIEW [Vol. 20:495
not "exist," but are merely analytic constructs.
13
None of this, however, makes it pointless to talk about social
institutions. Institutions may be analytic constructs, but those con-
structs can still be useful attempts to describe patterns of attitudes and
behavior. That those patterns will always be complex and those at-
tempts will always be imprecise does not mean that the patterns are
not there or that the attempts will be pointless .
. One other point about the channelling function needs to be made
before we explore specific examples of its use in family law. In one
important (if limited) sense, the channelling function is normatively
neutral: It can be employed to serve all kinds of nonnative ends. It
has been put to many uses, it could be put to many more. Central to
any evaluation of a specific example of the channelling function will
be an assessment of the particular goals to which it has been put. To
illustrate the workings of the function in family law, I have selected
two institutions which I think the law can plausibly be said to use in
channelling tenns. But there are certainly other ways in which the
channelling function has been deployed in family law, and there may
well be ways in which it would be better deployed.
Having acknowledged the difficulty and asserted the importance
of my enterprise, I will now try to describe two broad social institu-
tions which I will use to illustrate the working of family law's chan-
nelling function.
14
These _two institutions are "marriage" and "parent-
hood." These are, obviously, quite broadly defined institutions, and
my descriptions of them are thus subject to all the difficulties I de-
scribed above. I have no doubt that both these institutions have some-
what different meanings for different people, that they have changed
over time and are still changing, and that they do not monopolize
intimate life in modem America. However, a legislator might plausi-
bly identify a core of ideas which have enough social support to
justify the term "institution" and which the legislator might conclude
the law should try to support, to shape, and to channel people into.
Our legislator might, then, posit a normative model of "marriage"
with several fundamental characteristics. It is monogamous, heterosex-
13. For a thoughtful and suggestive account of some of the often.analogous difficulties
of analyzing family law's expressive function, see Weisbrod, supra note 6.
14. A$ I Sll)', I usc these insthutions for illustrative purposes, not because I endorse
them in all their aspects. A$ I defme them, I fmd much to like in them. But I am not
arguing that these defmitions state all that we might want from those institutions, that they
might not be and have not been defmcd differently, or that all the means the law uses to
promote them are desirable.
http://scholarlycommons.Jaw.hofstra.edulhlr/vol20/iss3/ 1 6
Schneider: The Channeling Function in Fami ly Law
1992} Channelling Function 501
ual, and permanent. It rests on love. Husbands and wives are to treat
each other affectionately, considerately, and fairly. They should be
animated by mutual concern and willing to sacrifice for each other. In
short, they ought to assent to the old question: "Wilt thou love her,
comfort her, honour, and keep her in sickness and in health; and,
forsaking all o t h r s ~ keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall
live?"
15
Of course, as Karl Llewellyn warned, too much can be "thought
and written as if we had a pattern of ways that ma[k]e up mar-
riage:16 Of course, as Llewellyn knew, "'The' nonn is none too
unifonn."
17
But as he also knew, "major features are observed, are
'recognized,' are made the measure of the 'right.' Right in such mat-
ters is most powerfully felt: these are compacted patterns, backed by
unreasoning tradition, built around interests that lie deep and
close."
18
In the same way, our legislator might posit an institution of
"parenthood" with several key nonnative characteristics. Parents
should be married to each other. They are preferably the biological
father and mother of their child. They have authority over their chil-
dren and can make decisions for them. However
1
like spouses
7
parents
are expected to love their children and to be affectionate, considerate,
and fair. They should support and nurture their children during their
minority. They should assure them a stable home, particularly by
staying married to each other, so that the child lives with both par-
ents and knows the comforts of security.
15. The marriage institution once centrally specified gender roles. To an uncertain but
surely significant extent, those roleS retain a good deal of social power. However, I do not
include them as part of our legislator's channelling program for two reasons. First, they have
lost an important part of their social force,. Too many people wholly and explicitly reject
them. and too many more at least partially and implicitly do so. Second, the law now
professes to have rejected those roles. The Supreme Court has overturned gender distinctions
in family law, e.g., Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979), and has condemned them in a variety
of other situations, e.g., Fron.tiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) .. Further, a good deal
of legislative and judicial reform of family-law areas like child custody, alimony, and marital
property has attempted to establish gender-neutral rules. Legal efforts along these lines may
be incomplete, unsatisfactory, and even counter-productive, but they are substantial enough to
make it hard to see the maintenance of traditional gender roles as a plausible or, I would
suppose, desirable legislative goal.
16. Llewell>'llt supra note 11, at 1285. Or as Ruth Dixon puts the point: MMost cultures
have a certain notional family form that is regarded as the norm, but even when this is the
-most common fonn, there will inevitably be many variants." THE ROMAN FAMILY 11 (1992).
17. Llewellyn, supra note 11, at 1286.
18. Id.
Hofstra Law Review. Vol. 20, Iss. 3 [1992], Art. I
502 HOFSTRA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 20:495
Obviously, these two nonnative models are not and never were
descriptions of any universal empirical reality, and I will soon exam-
ine recent changes in social practice that might affect them. Nor are
they the only models the channelling function might be recruited to
serve. Nevertheless, they do describe ideals which have won and
retained substantial allegiance in American life. I will thus use these
models to illustrate how the channelling function can work. How,
then, might out legislator interpret the law as supporting these two
institutions and channelling people into them?
Our legislator might see family law as setting a framework of
rules, one of whose effects is to shape, sponsor, and sustain the mod-
el of marriage I described above: It writes standards for entry into
marriage, standards which prohibit polygamous, incestuous, and homo-
sexual unions. It seeks to encourage marital stability by inhibiting di-
vorce (although it pursues this goal much less vigorously than it once
did). It tries to improve marital behavior both directly and indirectly:
It imposes a few direct obligations during marriage, like the duty of
support. Less directly, it has invented special categories of property
(like estates by the entirety and rights of dower and curtesy) to reflect
and reinforce the special relationship of marriage. It indirectly sets
some standards for marital behavior through the law of divorce. Fault-
based divorce does so by describing behavior so egregious that it
justifies divorce. Marital-property law implicitly sets standards for the
financial conduct of spouses. Finally, prohibitions against non-marital
sexual activity and discouragements against quasi-marital arrangements
in principle confine sexual life to marriage. "What is all this," James
Fitzjames Stephen emphatically asked, "except the expression of the
strongest possible detennination on the part of the Legislature to rec-
ognize, maintain, and favour marriage in every possible manner as the
foundation of civilized society?"
19
Similarly, our legislator might see a framework of laws molding
and promoting the institution of parenthood. Laws criminalizing forni-
cation, cohabitation, adultery, and bigamy in principle limit parent-
hood to married couples, and those legal disadvantages that still at-
tach to illegitimacy make it wise to confine parenthood to marriage.
Laws restricting divorce make it likelier that a child will be raised by
both parents. The law buttresses parents' authority over children.
Parents may use reasonable force in disciplining their children. They
19. STEPHEN, supra note 10, at 156.
http://schol arlycommons.law .hofstra.edulhlr/ vol20/ iss3/ I
8
The Channeli ng Function in Fami ly Caw
1992) Channelling Function 503
may decide whether their children should have medical treatment.
They may choose their child's sc4ool. Patents of "children in need of
supervision" can summon up the state's coercive power. However, the
law also tries, directly and indirectly, to shape parental behavior. It
requires parents to support their children. It penalizes the "abuse" or
"neglect" of children and obliges many kinds of people to report
evidence of it. It obliges parents to send their children to school.
Custody law obliquely sets standards for parental behavior and em-
phasizes the centrality of children's interests. Finally, some states fur-
ther elaborate the relationship between parent and child by obliging
adult children to support their indigent parents.
These sketches suggest how the law can be seen as perfonning
the first task of the channelling function, namely, to create-or more
to recruit-social institutions and to mold and sustain them.
The function's second task is to channel people into institutions. It
can perform these two tasks in several ways. First, it does so simply
by recognizing and endorsing institutions, thus giving them some aura
of legitimacy and permanence. Recognition may be extended, for
instance, through fonnalized, routinized, ;md regulated entry and exit
to an institution, as with marriage: "By the authority vested in me by
the State of Michigan, I now pronounce you man and wife."
A second channelling technique is to reward participation in an
institution. Tax law, for instance, may offer advantages-like the
marital deduction-to married couples that it denies the unmarried.
Similarly, Social Security offers spouses benefits it refuses lovers.
These advantages are enhanced if private entities consult the legal
institution in allocating benefits, as when private employers offer
medical insurance only to "family members" as the law defines that
term. In a somewhat different vein, the law of alimony and marital
property offers spouses-but generally not "cohabitants" -protections
on divorce.
Third, the law can channel by disfavoring competing institutions.
Sometimes competitors are flatly outlawed, as by laws prohibiting
sodomy, bigamy, adultery, and prostitution. Bans on fornication and
cohabitation mean (in principle) that, to have sexual relations, one
must marry. Sometimes competing institutions are merely disadvan-
taged. For instance, the rule making contracts for meretricious consid-
eration unenforceable traditionally denied unmarried couples the law's
help in resolving some disputes. Similarly, non-parents are presump-
504 HOFSTRA LA. W REVIEW [Vol. 20:495
tively disadvantaged in custody disputes with parents.
2
Finally, re-
strictive divorce laws impede re-entry to the alternative institution of
singleness.
Fourth, in principle people can be channelled into an institution
by directly penalizing its non-use. One might, for instance, say that
school taxes penalize childlessness, since non-parents get a good deal
less out of those taxes than parents. However, the w e ~ e s s of this
example suggests the difficulty of finding really good instances in
American law of direct penalties for not marrying or not having chil-
dren.
By and large, then, the channelling function does not primarily
use direct legal coercion. People are not forced to marry. One can
contract out (fonnally or infonnally) of many of the rules underlying
marriage. One need not have children, and one is not forced to treat
them lovingly. Rather, the function fonns and reinforces institutions
which have significant social support and which, optimally, come to
seem so natural that people use them almost unreflectively. It relies
centrally but not exclusively on social approval of the institution, on
social rewards for its use, and on social disfavor of its alternatives.
Some aspects of it may be highly legalized, as divorce is. Some alter-
natives may, at least fonnally, be legally prohibited. The law may
buttress an institution here and harry its competitors there. But,
Berger and LucJcmann explain, "the primary social control is given in
the existence of an institution as such . . . . Additional control mech-
anisms are required only insofar as the processes of institutionaliza-
tion are less than completely successful. "
21
They suggest "institutions
are there, external to [the individual], persistent in their reality . . . .
They have coercive power over him, both in themselves, by the sheer
force of their facticity, and through the control mechanisms that are
usually attached to the most important of them.'m And as Llewellyn,
thinking more particularly about marriage, wrote, "One vital element
in the fact-pattern thus made right is (this needs repetition) its recog-
nition by the group . . . . [O]nce conceived, once accepted, the over-
simple norm-concept maintains itself stubbornly, despite all changes in
conditions; it becomes the socially given, right, ideal-type of
20. As the reader will have noticed, it can sometimes be hard to tell the difference
between channelling by advantaging an institution and channe.Uing by disadvantaging its
competitors.
21. BERG.ER & LUCKMANN, supra note 8. at 52.
22. ld. nt 57 (emphasis in original).
http://scholarlycommons.Jaw.hofstra.edulhlr/vol20/ iss3/ 1 10
1992) Channelling Function sos
' marriage': the connubium honestum of the vir honesrus."
23
In short,
as Philip Rieff observes, "[A] culture survives principally . . . by the
power of its institutions to bind and loose men in the conduct of their
affairs with reasons which sink so deep into the self that they become
common and implicitly understood .... "
24
Channelling's reliance
on social institutions, then, is both its strength and its weakness, its
harshness and its gentleness, its importance and its peril.
B. What Purposes Does the. Channelling Function Serve?
The channelling function, I have said, fosters social institutions
and channels people into them. But why might the state want to do
so? To answer that question, let us revisit the example of the corpo-
ration as a "channelling" institution. First, the corporation serves law's
three core functions. For example, it serves the protective function by
allowing people to invest in enterprises without risking their whole
fortunes, by protecting minority and by directing eco-
nomic activity into an institution whose public nature makes it easier
to regulate. The corporation serves the facilitative function by giving
people a convenient and efficient way of organizing themselves into
enterprises. It serves the arbitral function by providing mechanisms
for resolving disputes among entrepreneurs and for winding up their
affairs.
But the corporate form does more than promote law's core func-
tions. More centrally and obviously, it serves some broad social pur-
poses. Primarily, it promotes the accumulation of large agglomerations
of capital and the organization of many people into a single and pro-
ductive enterprise. fu other words, the corporate form makes possible
the extensive and complex economic institutions on which rest indus-
trialization, social wealth, and modernity. Less grandly, more specifi-
cally, and more subtly, the corporation serves what might be called
"efficiency" functions. For instance, it relieves prospective entrepre-
neurs of the need to figure out de novo how to organize their ven-
tures. Much of that work will already have been done by earlier gen-
erations and been embodied in the corporate form and in the law,
literature, and lore that surround it Because that form is neither
monolithic nor exclusive, entrepreneurs will have important choices to
make and considerable flexibility in making them. But the energy
23. Llewellyn, supra note 11, at 1286.
24. PHILIP RIEFP, 'niB ntiUMPH OF 1H TIIERAPEUTlC: USES OF FAITH AFTER FREuD 2
(1966).
Published by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law, 1992
II

EXHIBIT 50
()
FORD
\\'II 111 .. m
Ar!L' 111111.1 1111\IJIU llr.1111 t h1l.:
''''I lhuty,;tl ' l:1p.m l'lat..J I'"'' "K-'1
uth ""'lit rund nud anJ TutM knut \' 1n.tt1
Copvsh .:oob by WiUwn 1:'. h . l aucn R.
.1\llu 1\ rnmcd No p.ul otlha pU!Ibuston m) be nrrodu rd.
'' rtd lr 11 Lr.utouurd, n '') furm ill b tn)
ttt 11 1111 , 1111 hn. ... .,r)'tDI(, K'iondtn)l.,r tolturv.1'"
"''"'"''' ''' " frM'I l''fnll"l"n ,,fl).a.(orJ ltnhnll
lJ,. ..
r '"II r l nlltd Am&:"rbo.--;t
Ofl <K 1J fr rll
aaorney who .adJn.:ssed this issue ilgn.'ed ihiJl statt's could
sa.mi.: scx from civil mania:gc. and sever;l.] stales laws mak-
ing it dear that civil tnarriage was limited to one- man, one- won1an
This of defeats e11ded the initial gay-liber;t} movet'llt!lH for
sam(:-sr:.x Aclivists turnc:cl to othr:r i&Hlc:S, induding \'io-
job discrimination, ;lnd lhc AIDS
In 1981. S11n gay rights altorney Matt Coles and his. colleagues
pr()posr:d a Lnd sec:ulu institution (Qr tak rcCo!l,niticm of
rd:dionsbip.!; th..-t they c<tlh:d "domestic partn.:nhip." Start Lng with
in 1981-R), nHlnicipaliti&.:s in at ninctcr;.:n hav.:
registries where same-s1.;:x {nnd couples can
their d(')Jme:uic partnership. Suc:h a cledaraliut"' entitle..; the parlncrs to fringe
bendl.ts trmn loc:d govt:rnmcnlal (often) private employers and peT-
haps hospit011l "isitalion rights. ough l;.tr;k Baker this 35 a small
crumb .. most supported domestic partnf?rships bec&.mse they
rcJucedl rht' formal inequality of lesbian and couple-s; gay-radicals sup-
potted or in them because they reprc:.seHed a novel, mwnmtlrriagc
fumily form. Coles's w.as that the gay rights mo .... cmcnt would focus
on the achievable goal or domestic partnershLp fmm cities with
large LGHT populati ons;. the next sHp would he lo add more rights
heodit:s to such probably thJ:"(lllgh !.latt'!
And tht:n along cn111C D<:nllHlrk.
A.(rcr Verwwrk: Rc1tt!WCrl Vcbflte (I rlat (Srratcgjc:')
Tr;umplr of the GaJ-Lil1{!mls
By 1989? smnc-sex marriage seemed all but i.JS a goal of the
LGBT rights movement. [n May of that year, th<' Danish Parliament voted
to enact the Registered P:anners:hip Act, which accorde-d almo'St all sarne
rights amd duties of rnnrri11ge to [l:l:rtners (sec cho.,J>tcr
2). gay righrs lcndr.:rs s.l;.utc:d to nhink priorities. In the
autumn of 1989. the two top at Lambda Legal andl Educ:1
tion Fund, the leading LGBT litigation group, debated the hsue iin prtnt.
TrHn Stoddard, Lamb do! '$ txecutive director) took the pt,silion
th<Jt the of cgunl:ity lh(: s1.y rights movt:mentto
pretls for S<tmC-S('X Paul01 Ettdbrick, dircctnr, t<>ok
the g:ay radtcal pos.iaion that same- sex marriage would gay
with a institution thai nno:st g:.y men (espedall)r) lesbians
do not wanl to join. Th(: Stoddr.trd-Eudbrkk r.:viv.:d Lhr: 1Lbenl-
r3dical conv<:rsntion aboUl from the 1970s, and updated it witb
new 3rg.umr:nls.
1
.!
Pressing point of view Baker had propounded al-
most twenty years earlier, Stoddard crc.dit<.'d the radical critique of
and offered a response to th.e radicaJ norion of rransformarional
rruy be un3ttractive and evl!n :.lS it is currf!'ntly
structured and practicc:d, but c:nlargillK the concept to c:mbrac(' s:amc:-sc:x
couples would necessarily transform it into SQrnething new: As former
ACLU attorney Nan Hunter would later argue in detalt same-sex
would remove thl! last gendered of rnauiage law .and wqtl(d
cn:alc a modd in bw for a more- kind of inlC'rpcr.:>onn] rdation-
ship. (S11mc-sex marriage, in our 01lso automaticall)
the gcndcrcd rol.cs nssodated with patrhud1al marriage, where only the
husband \vorks the home. Even if one of the '""onen in 3 le$bi3n
m:wrriag< stay<d <Jt home to k.:r:p house and tak< carr: of the children. 1h..:
traditional Gl woman 's role,'' female partner working c>Utsidc: home
would be following the lTaditional
role . ... ) H unte:r and Swddard

suggt:sted lhat lived t:'Xperience, rnuhipllied by of couples,
would contribute to rth< feminist projr:t:t of undermining tile- s1:xis;t
of nurriagc.
1
J
for her part. radkttl cr,tique o( fmm:al equ:JI-
ity. Not only WH aecess 1!.o marriage not sufficient for the needs of most
LGBT people but it wQuld a practical matter harm mu:o.t and ge-n-
der minoriti.CS. mMriug..:. she: argued, ''would he pcrpctuaring the
of nurri'-"d n:kationship.s and IJf 'coupk.s' in ;md further
edipsing other relationships of This suggested tht coer-
dve puwcr ofliht!r-dll In tile Unitctl is. the norm, and
rhc>$C nc>t. joining lhar norm arc anci dcnigraH:d. Et1c:lbrick's
fc,u WtlS Shllc recognition of ffiiliTLO'lgc:s n<H only woulJ n:in
force" the normalization of marri::tge. bad in itsdf. but also would b<
mental to the interests of LGBT people wh.o do not want to marry. They
would be

\Vhilc lciJders. r.lc:b:.ued, h:sbian and couple-s voh:d with fccc,
thcy started a new march to the marriage bureau. Craig and
Patrick Gill. a Districl of Columbia couple, wanted to gel after
bre;Jkfhrough. anc.t they hr"ought a rtst case in Distrkt. A lrhough
Lambda Lc:g:;tl oilllld the ACLU fdc r.:ffort wa.." th!! Gay and
Lesbian Attorll(!"S (GA YLJ\ \V)r agreed Lo assi5t after tb<y fUed
their 1awsuh in December 1990. In May 1991, N inia Baehr and Gt'nora Dancel
and twl' other tiled a similar lr,wsuit in H:nv-3ii, also withnnt ACLU
or Lambda
su<:h .1.s academLc Ch ('Shire Calh(lun hnr<: rc:sponded lo
Ettdbrick that marriage Wo!l.lld normalize homosexuality more
20 Mflrr{age: For or Jm tr\
1
c.Jrse!
tlnm it would mu-riagc.
16
And this is lhc way rhc samcsl,; mar
riage- issue playe-d! out in the 1990s . In Bael1r v. Lewin h993). the 1-ln\,vaii
Suprente Court ruled that state refusill to issue marri:?tge licenses. ro saT:nc
sex t:tHmple$ is :1 that m be justitit'd by
compdling inb:r<"st. Tl'le Court lhc to tht tr.a1
so that the state could make out its case-but the: c.ouncry as a wholct wok!(;'
up to the possibility of gay

And the countl)' didlnt like that one hit. Americtns of various ethnkities,
rdjgions, ::md po]itical orientations. united in oppositton lu -::xlc:nding tbe
institution of to 1romosc..<t;uak Bctw..:cn and l;OO), forty-
tbree adopted s.latlHes or constitutional amendments bardr1g their
frnm sea me-sex marriat;cs in thdr
a f3mr of discrdion to to rC"cogni:zc
butCongress.<:nactcd the Defense Act (DOMA) in1996 to 111akc
doubly certain Lhe states would not to re-cognize such marriages. Moreft
DOMA rn::mda.ted more lhan eleven hundred federa l statutorv and
I
rcgulaiOI")' 1Hi11g the t crn'ls .nuri:rtge" ot .... spouse" could ne\er
include sam c:-sex coup 1 cs ma rricd Ll nd r.:r st;u e Ia w. H cad &ng off sn rn e-sex
marriage and ov(:rriding the traaJ judge's injunction in Btrd1r, HilW<lii in 1998
adopted a sute an'lendt'nent allowing the statt< to lirnit mar-
ri.ag(' 10 difftrent-srx
rhc bnckbsh ag ... ins.l gi.Jy marria.g,c pavc:d the w<LL}' for the tri-
umph of the gay.li.br:-r:Jl posiion within tha:: LGBT cornrnunicy. VirwaHy no
o ne in the filtus media or Ametrt('illt public life ass.ailed lladrr for
ing marriage; ri!S. the norm ]n thi:s country. Almust public: l,o
CtJndcmnr.:d it f<,r undermintng rnilrrritlgc: or
ality or condoning unnamrallifcstylcs. du: publk was
as a rdt:nndu.m on homnoscxuality. ga}'rildic:als were substantially
Ahh.ough theorists such as Ettelbrick s1ill nurriage a que-er
error. lhr: :H;Hlndtc!t in !$\lpport (_)f 8\lc:hr ttntl
ongoing claims of homo 4:qUaHty. The baddash nl.)l p..:rmm..:nlly silr..:nc..:J
bm it has imposed a united front upon LGST leaders in sUp
porr of the gay-liberal dcrnand for cquaUty.
For most of the .:entury. were :and
incont::d \rable to must \.Vhc::n Tracy
Knigln and Marioric Jones asked for u marriage license in 1970, Jefferson
Count}' Jame-s HaUahan was speechle-ss. So he asked for guid<rnce from

EXHIBIT 51
12 The Nation. june 24, 1996
Retying the Kn'ot
l
he right wing gets it: Same-sex marriage is a breathtakingly
subversive idea. So it's weirdly dissonant when gay neocons
and feminist lesbians publicly insist-the former with enthu-
siasm, the latter with same-sex marriage would
be a conservative move, confining sexual free radicals inside
some legal cellblock. It's almost as odd (although more under-
standable) when pro-marriage liberals ply the rhetoric of fair-
ness and love, as if no one will notice that for thousands of years
marriage has meant Boy+Girl=Babies. But same-sex inaniage
seems fair only if you accept a philosophy of max:rlage that,
although it's gained ground in the past several centuries, still
strikes many as radical: the idea 'that marriage (and therefore
sex) is justified not by reproduction but by love.
Sound like old news? Not if you're the Christian Coalition,
the Pope or the Orthodox rabbinate, or if you simply live in one
of many pre-industrial countries. Same-sex marriage will be a
direct hit against the religious righfs goal of re-enshrining biol-
ogy as destiny. Marriage is an institution that towers on our
social horizon, defining how we think about one another, for-
malizing contact with our families, neighborhoods, employers,
insurers, hospitals, governments. Allowing two people of the
same sex to marry shifts that institution's message.
That's why the family-values crowd has trained its guns on
us, from a new hate video called The Ultimate Target of the Gay
Agenda: Same Sex Marriages to the apocalyptically named De-
fense of Marriage Act. The right wing would much rather see
outre urban queers throwing drunken kisses off bar floats than
have two nice married girls move in next door, with or without
papoose, demonstrating to every neighborhood kid that a good
marriage is defmed from the inside out, that sodomy is a sin only
in the mind of the beholder.
Chilled by that coming shlft, antimarriage conservatives have
also been disingenuous in their arguments, which basically come
down to crying "tradition!" like a Tevye chorus. Even a quick
glance at social history shows what conservatives pretend isn't
so: Very little about marriage is historically consistent enough to
be "traditional." That it involves two people? Then forget the pa-
triarch Jacob, whose two wives and two concubines produced
the beads of the twelve tribes. That it involves a religious bless-
ing? Not early Christian marriages, before marriage was a sacra-
ment. That it is recognized by law? Forget centuries ofEuropean
prole "marriages" conducted outside the law, in which no prop-
erty was involved. That it's about love, not money? S9 much for
centuries of negotiation about medieval estates, bride-price, morn-
ing gift and dowry (not to mention bride-burnings in today's
India). Those who tsk away such variety, insisting that everyone
knows what marriage really is, miss the point. Marriage is-
marriage always has been-variations on a theme. Each era's
marriage institutionalizes the sexual bond in a way that makes
sense for that society, that economy, that class.
So what makes sense in ours? Or, to put it another way, what
is contemporary marriage for? That's the question underlying
the debate as and gay activists prepare for Hawaii's
Its answer has to fit our economic lives. In a G.N.P.
based on how well each of us plumbs our talents and desires in
decidi.Og what to make, buy or sell, we can hardly instruct those
same :iPnards to shut up about our sexual lives--as people could
in a pre-industrial society where job, home and religion were all
dicta;d by history. The right wants it both ways: Adam Smith's
and feudal sexual codes. If same-sex marriage be-
legal, that venerable institution will ever after stand for
sexual choice, for cutting the link between sex and diapers.
Ati, but it already does. Formally, U.S. marriage hasn't been
solely by reproduction since 1965, when the Supreme
Court;batted down the last laws forbidding birth control's sale
to mairied couples. In Margaret Sanger's era, contraception was
charged with "perversion of natural functions," "immorality"
and "fostering egotism and enervating self-indulgence." Dire
diseases were predicted for those who indulged. Those are. al-
most for word, the charges hurled by every critic of homo-
sexuality- and for. the same reasons. Once their ideologies are
economically outdated, what can conservatives invoke except
the t111eat of divine judgment?
Ali of which is why same-sex marriage is being considered
in every postindustrial country, and why it seems simply "fair"
to so!mal).y, including Hawaii's Supreme Court. That sense of
fairness also draws on the liberal idea that a pluralist democra-
cy's mstitutions should be capacious, that civic marriage should
be one-size-fits-all. But same-sex marriage does more than just
fit; itiannounces that marriage has changed shape.
As with any social change, there will be more consequences,
which look pretty progressive to me. There are practical bene-
fits: the ability to share insurance and pension benefits, care for
our partners, inherit automatically, protect our children from
desperate custody battles. And marriage will end a negative:
Our sexual lives can no longer be considered felonious, which
us in fights ranging from child custody to civil rights.
A more notable progressive shift is that, since same-sex cou-
ples will enter the existing institution, not some back-of-the-bus
version called "domestic partnership" or "queer marriage; mar-
riage, Jaw will have to become gender-blind. Once we can marry,
jurists will have to decide every marriage, divorce and custody
question (theoretically at least) for equal partners, neither having
historical authority. Our entrance might thus rock marriage
toward its egalitarian shore.
s'ome progressives, feminists and queer nationalists never-
theless complain that instead of demanding access to the institu-
tion !as it is, we should be dismantling marriage entirely. But
lasttltg social change evolves within and alters society's existing
institutions. No one will force same-sex couples to darken the
institution's doors; we'll merely gain the choices available to
pairs. None of this will alter a hard fact of con-
temporary life: Every commitment-to job, spouse, community,
reliltion-must be invented from the inside out. Making lesbians
and gay men more visible legally will insiist that there is no tra-
ditional escape: that our society survives not by rote but by heart.
E.J. GRAFF
E.J.: Graff is working on a book, What Is Marriage For?
. I

EXHIBIT 52
ETHICS IN THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN
Essays in the Morality
of Law and Politics
REVISED EDITION
JOSEPH RAZ
CLARENDON PRESS OXFORD
11li5 book has been printed digitally ami producecl in a standard design
in order to ensure its contilming avallobilily
OXFORD
\..IN1YHllSlTY l'R\I&S
Great Clarendon "ll'!<llr. Oxford 6DP
Oxford University l'ress i> u or lhe University of Oxford.
It furthers the Universlty"s ofuxcullcnce in research. scholarship.
and education by publishing worldwide in
oxford New York
Athens 1\uckl:md Hangkol< llogot. Bu'nM Airc> Cap rown
Clwnnai Oar Snl. nm Delhi Horcucc HonK Kong \!lanl>ul
K91l<atn l.tuntmr Mncll1d ceo City N;urol>l
P;uis sao Paulo 'hangh;J\ Sin11apurc Taipe Tokyu Toronto Wa w
with associated companies in llcrlin \bad an
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in crrtain other countries
Published in the United
by oxford University Press Inc .. New York
joseph Raz 1994
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
lJatabasc righr OKtilrd University Press (maker)
ltepdnred :tOOl
i\11 rlghb No part uflh\ pu\11! , llon may be repl'(l(lucc:d.
stored in t m. Clr in :n1y form or by ony
without Ute prior Jll:nnlsslon n writing of Olllbrll Unlvcr>lry Pn!S$.
or M pc:-nn\ncd by taw. or under !eml!i Olgl'l.'<!d wllh the nppnwri:ue
rcprogmphits right organlz, 11!)!\, linqu ries 'oncemlng reproduction
0\.11S\de the ufth' nbovc: should be th!O Rights lleparun<.'nl.
xrnrd Univc.rsll;y I'N>S. atlM addli:$S ubovc
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
ISBN o-19-826069-5
One
furth
startt
anotl
and 1
coun
diffic
bcfo1
been
torn
espo
I <
Imp!:
write
Freet
prot(
conti
SOffit

rega1
cons
ph as
ex pic
can;
lnclu
uae I
fnuni
vldu1
Tit
ving
; not
:e of
dto
:vant
)U(CI'
ecl-
. It is

too
ttions
vi ties
from
uable
thern,
nailer
tccess
1s can
ctivity
!quate
re are,
a rents.
a par-
le. As-
central

:ognizc
ns. But
:cess to
:>arent-
,ng and
:1 trans-
stering.
?SS [0.21
a society
and vice
a dose
Jrtunity to
point the
:h to draw
'Y provide
Dillies of Well-Being 23
1
This, it seems to me, is the main thcoreti<:al objection to a No-Extraneous-
Limirations-to-Access principle. The distinction between external and intrinsic
limitations on access, while serviceable for many purposes, is theoretically
inade4ua1e to our task.zs
The principle we should uphold is simply that every person should have
access to an adequate range of options to enable him to have a successful
life. Satisfaction of this principle does not recognize the distinction between
inherent and external limitation of access, and is not limited to eliminating
external limitation$. While, as noted, it is not hostile to all external limita-
tions, it may require a change in inherent limitations, i.e. transformation of
the goods one has access to. just as the Basic-Capacities Principle, i.e. the
principle about the capacities necessary for one to have a successful life,
is pa1t and parcel of a consideration of the nature of the valuable options
whkh should be availahlc for people in a society, so the Principle of
Adequate Access is not independent of but is inseparable from an argument
about which valuable options should be available In a society. When peo-
ple demand recognition of gay marriages, they usually mean to demand
access to an existing good. In fact they also ask for the transformation of
that good. For there can be no doubt that the recognition of gay marriages
will effect as great a transformation in the nature of marriage as that from
polygamous to monogamous or from arranged to unarranged marriage.
The case of gay marriages differs from the example considered above
(section 3) of the impossibility of a duty to reciprocate love. For whereas
those who desire that their love be reciprocated desire a spontaneous love
base<.! on liking and not on duty, those who ask for gay marriages to be
recognised ask that commiued unions of gay men or of lesbians be legally
and socially recognised on the same footing as committed unions of people
of differing genders. That goal is not at all impossible. It merely requires the
passing away of the current type of marriage, which is exdusive to people
of differing genders.
I Jere we can see the <.Iegree to which the approach I am advocating is
conservative, and the limits on that conservatism. In the background is the
thought that there are many valuable options, rmmy routes to a good life.
TI1c face that :my one society makes realization of only a small fraction of
them possible is inevitable. The fact that other societies have options not
sustainable in ours is no cause for moral concern. Likewise, the fact that
people living in one country at the same time do not have all the same
options available to them is no cause for moral concem. The only thing
" How .ul unc dmw prm lpled dlvill h mh rent cxlrln I llmtuaons on :m
Shout(\ srcro d. hc bnlln d from uchlcrlcs? h depends un what son of 1.. "01111 rill m rhc
:' "
11
t h Jf rhc 'nh:1111imn nl lmhiSII)' kn wn :rs L ch 10 bl:. '11u.: que ll un L
1 1
" " "
11
1c rlw l"obl m wh thcr dno "'''" p..-aking (laru:ers Is dunl't: , or ur
sorn unholy h)hrid. Tmdtl ion rmd p ' pi s (or chc (a.nur dc,<tl or s u h . laY
" ' rhc unly fH 101'$. No conceptual b<.:twc n wh.J t is inli ro: nl 10 the
wh:n Is alSlc co ft will olve till' problem.

EXHIBIT 53

EXHIBIT 54
Case Nos. 13-4178, 14-5003, 14-5006



v.


Defendants-Appellants,
_______________________________

and
Plaintiffs-Appellees/
Cross-Appellants,
v.
capacity as Court Clerk for Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma,

Defendant-Appellant/
Cross-Appellee.

Appeal from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah,

Appeal from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma,
________________________________
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ROBERT P. GEORGE, SHERIF GIRGIS, AND RYAN T.
ANDERSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL


BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ROBERT P. GEORGE, SHERIF GIRGIS, AND RYAN T.
ANDERSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL
__________________________________________

THE SMITH APPELLATE LAW FIRM
By: Michael F. Smith
1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Suite 1025
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 454-2860 (tel)
(202) 747-5630 (fax)
smith@smithpllc.com
Counsel for Amici Curiae Robert P. George,
Dated: February 10, 2014 Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ......................................................................... 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 2
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 4
I. At stake in Utahs marriage laws is the definition of marriage. ...................... 4
II. States have compelling reasons for affirming that marriage is a union
of man and woman........................................................................................... 7
III. The conjugal view explains the states interest in marriage. ........................... 9
IV. Redefining marriage would not extend its stabilizing norms, but
undermine them across society. .....................................................................14
A. If sexual complementarity is merely incidental, then so are
marital norms like permanence, monogamy, exclusivity, and
even sexual union. ...............................................................................14
B. Promoting the revisionist view makes conjugal union harder to
live out. ................................................................................................15
C. By obscuring the principled basis of the stabilizing norms of
marriage, redefining marriage would increase marital
instability, harming spouses and children. ..........................................17
D. Redefining marriage would obscure the special importance of
biological parents, and of mothers and fathers generally, to
childrens detriment. ............................................................................18
E. Many LGBT activists agreeeven embrace the resultthat
eliminating the norm of sexual complementarity will weaken
other norms of marriage. .....................................................................21
F. Preliminary social science also suggests that opposite- and
same-sex bonds tend to follow different norms. .................................23
ii

V. Beyond weakening marriage and its stability, enshrining the
revisionist view would burden rights of conscience. ....................................25
VI. Recognizing the marriages of infertile opposite-sex couples does not
undermine the States rationale for upholding the conjugal view of
marriage. ........................................................................................................27
A. Infertile conjugal unions are still true marriages ................................27
B. Recognizing infertile conjugal unions has none of the costs of
redefining marriage. ............................................................................28
C. Recognizing such unions has many of the benefits of
recognizing fertile unions. ...................................................................28
D. Recognizing such unions has at least one additional benefit. .............29
VII. Upholding Utahs marriage laws is consistent with Windsor. ......................29
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................32
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................33
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...............................................................................34

iii

Cases
Bob Jones University v. United States,
461 U.S. 574 (1983)....................................................................................... 25
Parker v. Hurley,
514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 26
United States v. Windsor,
133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) ................................................................... 4, 29, 30, 31
Other Authorities
Paul R. Amato, The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive,
Social, and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation, Future of
Children, Fall 2005, available at http://futureofchildren.org/
futureofchildren/publications/docs/15_02_05.pdf ........................................ 19
Gunnar Andersson, Turid Noack, Ane Seierstad & Harald Weedon-Fekjaer,
The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway & Sweden, 43
Demography 79 (2006) .................................................................................. 24
Three-Person Civil Union Sparks Controversy in Brazil, BBC News, Aug.
28, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19402508 ......... 21
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Same-Sex Marriage and State Anti-
Discrimination Laws (Washington, D.C. Jan. 2009), available at
http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Same-Sex-
Marriage-and-State-Anti-Discrimination-Laws-with-Appendices.pdf ......... 26
Jessica Bennett, Only You. And You. And You: Polyamory Relationships
with Multiple, Mutually Consenting PartnersHas a Coming-Out
Party, Newsweek, July 28, 2009, http://www.newsweek.com/
2009/07/28/only-you-and-you-and-you.html ................................................ 21
Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families
and Relationships, BeyondMarriage.org, July 26, 2006,
http://beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html ............................................. 21
iv

Lorraine Blackman et al., The Consequences of Marriage for African
Americans: A Comprehensive Literature Review (New York: Institute
for American Values 2005) ........................................................................... 19
Victoria A. Brownworth, Something Borrowed, Something Blue: Is
Marriage Right for Queers?, in I Do/I Dont: Queers on Marriage 53
(Greg Wharton & Ian Philips eds., San Francisco: Suspect Thoughts
Press 2004) ..................................................................................................... 22
Andrew J. Cherlin, The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and
Family in America Today (New York: Knopf 2009) .................................... 17
Alfred DeMaris, Distal and Proximal Influences on the Risk of Extramarital
Sex: A Prospective Study of Longer Duration Marriages, 46 J. Sex
Res. 597 (2009) .............................................................................................. 24
Bruce J. Ellis et al., Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk
for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?, 74 Child Dev. 801
(2003) ............................................................................................................. 19
TV Host Fired over Sean Avery Debate, ESPN.com, May 13, 2011,
http://sports.espn.go.com/newyork/nhl/news/story?id=6532954 .................. 26
Maggie Gallagher, Banned in Boston: The Coming Conflict between Same-
Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, Weekly Standard, May 15, 2006,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012
/191kgwgh.asp ............................................................................................... 26
Sherif Girgis et al., What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (2012) ...... 1, 7
Julie H. Hall & Frank D. Fincham, Psychological Distress: Precursor or
Consequence of Dating Infidelity, 35 Personality & Soc. Psychol.
Bull. 143 (2009) ............................................................................................. 24
Cynthia C. Harper & Sara S. McLanahan, Father Absence and Youth
Incarceration, 14 J. Res. on Adolescence 369 (2004) .................................. 19
Trevor A. Hart & Danielle R. Schwartz, Cognitive-Behavioral Erectile
Dysfunction Treatment for Gay Men, 17 Cognitive & Behav. Prac. 66
(2010) ............................................................................................................. 24
v

Kay S. Hymowitz, Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal
Families in a Post-Marital Age (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee 2006) ...................... 12
Scott James, Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret, N.Y.
Times, Jan. 28, 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.com/
2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?ref=us ............................................... 18, 23, 24
Ari Karpel, Monogamish, Advocate, July 7, 2011,
http://www.advocate.com/Print_Issue/Features/Monogamish/ .................... 22
Patrick Lee, Robert P. George, & Gerard V. Bradley, Marriage and
Procreation: Avoiding Bad Arguments, Public Discourse,
Witherspoon Institute, March 30, 2011,
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2637 ....................................... 16
Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What
Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
1994) .............................................................................................................. 19
Sara McLanahan, Elisabeth Donahue, & Ron Haskins, Introducing the Issue,
The Future of Children, Fall 2005, available at
http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/15_02_
01.pdf ............................................................................................................. 11
David P. McWhirter & Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How
Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Trade
1984) .............................................................................................................. 23
Kristin Anderson Moore, Susan M. Jekielek, & Carol Emig, Marriage from
a Childs Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children,
and What Can We Do about It?, Child Trends Research Brief
(June 2002), www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/
MarriageRB602.pdf. ...................................................................................... 11
Steven Nock, Marriage in Mens Lives (New York: Oxford University Press
1998) .............................................................................................................. 12
Mary Parke, Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?: What
Research Says about the Effects of Family Structure on Child Well-
Being, CLASP Policy Brief no. 3 (May 2003), available at
http://www.clasp.org/publications/Marriage_Brief3.pdf .............................. 11
vi

David Popenoe, Disturbing the Nest: Family Change and Decline in Modern
Societies (New York: A. de Gruyter 1988) ................................................... 13
David Popenoe, Life without Father: Compelling New Evidence That
Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children
and Society (New York: Free Press 1996) .................................................... 20
Joseph Raz, Autonomy and Pluralism, in The Morality of Freedom 393
(Oxford: Clarendon Press 1988) .................................................................... 16
Isabel V. Sawhill, Families at Risk, in Setting National Priorities: The 2000
Election and Beyond 97 (Henry J. Aaron & Robert D. Reischauer
eds., Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press 1999) .......................... 13
Benjamin Scafidi, The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing:
First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and for All Fifty States (New
York: Institute for American Values 2008),
http://www.americanvalues.org/search/item.php?id=52 ............................... 13
Michelangelo Signorile, Bridal Wave, OUT, December/January 1994 .................. 23
Marc D. Stern, Same-Sex Marriage and the Churches, in Same-Sex
Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts 1-57 (Douglas
Laycock, Anthony Picarello, & Robin Fretwell Wilson eds., Lanham,
Md.: Rowman & Littlefield 2008) ................................................................. 25
Mexico City Proposes Temporary Marriage Licenses, Telegraph, Sept. 30,
2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaand
thecaribbean/mexico/8798982/Mexico-City-proposes-temporary-
marriage-licences.html................................................................................... 22
Toronto School District Board Promotes Polygamy, Group Sex to Children,
BlazingCatFur, http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2012/09/tdsb-
promotes-polygamy-group-sex-to.html ......................................................... 22
W. Bradford Wilcox, The Evolution of Divorce, National Affairs, Fall 2009,
at 81, available at http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20091229_
Wilcox_Fall09.pdf. ........................................................................................ 12
vii

W. Bradford Wilcox, Reconcilable Differences: What Social Sciences Show
about the Complementarity of the Sexes and Parenting, Touchstone,
November 2005 ............................................................................................. 20
W. Bradford Wilcox & Jeffrey Dew, Is Love a Flimsy Foundation?
Soulmate versus Institutional Models of Marriage, 39 Soc. Sci. Res.
687 (2010) ...................................................................................................... 18
W. Bradford Wilcox, William J. Doherty, Helen Fisher et al., Why Marriage
Matters: Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences (New
York: Institute for American Values, 2d ed. 2005). ................................ 11, 19
James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened
Families (New York: Harper Collins 2002) .................................................. 10
Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles (Princeton, N.J.: The
Witherspoon Institute 2008), winst.org/wp-content/uploads/
WI_Marriage_and_the_Public_Good.pdf ............................................... 10, 13
Alan Wolfe, Whose Keeper? Social Science and Moral Obligation
(Berkeley: University of California Press 1989) ........................................... 13

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
1

2

Sherif Girgis (A.B., Princeton University; B.Phil., University of Oxford-
Rhodes Scholar) is a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at Princeton University and a
law student at Yale. Ryan T. Anderson (A.B., Princeton University, M.A.,
University of Notre Dame) is the Editor of Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the
Common Good, the on-line journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, N.J.,
and a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of Notre Dame. Robert
P. George (B.A., Swarthmore College; J.D., M.T.S., Harvard University; D.Phil.,
University of Oxford) is a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School and
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. Affiliations are for
identification purposes.
Amici have studied and published on the moral, political, and jurisprudential
implications of redefining marriage to eliminate the norm of sexual
complementarity and have expertise that would benefit this Court. Their article,
What Is Marriage? appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
Their book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, further develops
their philosophic defense of marriage as a conjugal union.

1
No partys counsel authored the brief in whole or in part, and no one other than
the amici curiae or their counsel contributed money that was intended to fund
preparing or submitting the brief.
2
This brief is filed with consent of all parties; thus no motion for leave to file is
required. See 1/24/14 Joint Notice of Consent; see also Fed. R. App. P. 29(a).
2

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This case is about what marriage is. Todays debates offer rival answers to
that question, two competing substantive visions of marriage. This Courts task is
not to judge the desirability of the State of Utahs definition, but only to decide
whether citizens and legislators may embody in law the belief in marriage as a
conjugal union, as they have historically done.
There are excellent reasons to think that marriage is a conjugal
relationshipthe type of union that only a man and woman can formrather than
just the sort of emotional union that any two (or more) adults can form. And
recognizing marriage as such serves crucial public interests at low social costs.
A societys marriage culture serves many public goods. But to thrive, it
requires a supporting framework of social norms. A main purpose of marriage law
in any society is to promote such norms. Sound marriage policy therefore serves
the common good.
Redefining civil marriage can cause corresponding social harms because it
changes the public understanding of what marriage is. It weakens the rational
foundation (and social practice) of the stabilizing marital norms that serve social
order: permanence, exclusivity, monogamy. And undermining marital norms will
damage the many critical goods that draw the law into regulating marriage:
3

Real marital fulfillment. To form a true marriage, one must freely choose it,
which requires at least a rough idea of what it is. Redefining marriage will harm
people (especially future generations) by distorting their idea of what marriage is.
It will teach that marriage is essentially about emotional fulfillment, without any
inherent connections to bodily union or procreation and family life. As people
internalize this view, their ability to realize genuine marital union will diminish.
Child and spousal well-being. Marriage tends to make husbands and wives
healthier, happier and wealthier. And it does this especially by promoting norms of
permanence, exclusivity and orientation to family life. As the redefinition of
marriage makes these norms harder to justify and live by, spouses will benefit less
from the advantages of stability.
Moreover, if marriage is redefined, no civil institution will reinforce the
notion that both mothers and fathers matter for child-rearing. In all these ways,
redefinition will weaken the motivation for spouses to stay together for their
children, or for couples to marry before conceiving. But children do best when
reared by their married biological mother and father, so the welfare and
correctional state will have to expand to fill the developmental vacuum.
Leading LGBT activists increasingly agree that redefining marriage would
undermine its norms.
4

Religious liberty. If the conjugal view of marriage is deemed irrational
(bigotry), freedom to promote it will be eroded. Individuals and institutions who
espouse it have been denied government licenses, or educational and professional
opportunities, for promoting (even publicizing) their views. The consequences for
observant Christians, Jews, Muslims and others are clear.
Moreover, none of these harms is caused by recognizing infertile (opposite-
sex) marriages, which cohere with the conjugal view. And finally, enshrining this
view of marriage in law is fully consistent with the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling in
United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).
Because there are good reasons for citizens and lawmakers to understand
marriage as a male-female unioneven bracketing the harms of redefining itthis
Court should uphold Utahs marriage laws as constitutional exercises of policy-
making power.
ARGUMENT
I. At stake in Utahs marriage laws is the definition of marriage.
What is misleadingly called the gay marriage debate is not about
homosexuality, but marriage. It is not about whom to treat as eligible to marry, but
about which understanding of the nature of marriage to enshrine legally. It marks a
pivotal stage in a decades-long struggle between two views of marriage.
5

The conjugal view of marriage has long informed our legal traditions.
Marriage so understood is a comprehensive union: Joining spouses in body as well
as in mind, it is begun by consent and sealed by sexual intercourse. So completed
in the acts by which new life is made, it is especially apt for and deepened by
procreation, and calls for that broad domestic sharing uniquely fit for family life.
Uniting spouses in these all-encompassing ways, it calls for all-encompassing
commitment: permanent and exclusive. Comprehensive union is valuable in itself,
but its link to childrens welfare is what justifies recognizing and regulating it.
A revisionist view has informed certain marriage policy changes of the last
several decades. It sees marriage as essentially an emotional union, accompanied,
if the partners wish, by consensual sexual activity and valuable while the emotion
lasts.
The revisionist view informs some opposite-sex as well as same-sex bonds,
and brooks no real difference between them: both involve intense emotional
bonding, so both can make a marriage. But comprehensive union is something
only a man and woman can form.
For this reason, enacting same-sex marriage, whether by legislative action or
judicial fiat, would not expand the institution of marriage, but redefine it. Finishing
what policies like no-fault divorce began, and thus entrenching them, it would
6

finally replace the conjugal view with the revisionist. This would multiply the
marriage revolutions cultural spoils, making them harder to recover.
There is therefore no direct line from the principle of equality, to redefining
marriage to abolish the norm of sexual complementarity. Equality requires treating
like cases alike. To know what counts as like cases, we have to know what
marriage is and how recognizing it serves the public interest.
And because any marriage policy enshrines some view of what marriage
isthe conjugal, revisionist, or anothernone is morally or politically neutral.
Each relies on controversial judgments. Rejecting either as unconstitutional would
require this Court to answer reasonably disputed moral and policy questions on
which the Constitution is silent.
Yet the Court is charged with judging not the soundness of either view of
marriage, but only whether the conjugal view is reasonable, and crucial for
important public interests. What we show is that citizens have excellent reasons to
affirm that view, and to expect redefining civil marriage to undermine public
interests. The first point alone is sufficient to show a crucial basis in the common
good for Utahs marriage laws; the second reinforces it.
7

II. States have compelling reasons for affirming that marriage is a union of
man and woman.
Any community is created by common actionby cooperative activity,
defined by common goods, in the context of commitment. The activities and goods
build up the bond and determine the commitment it requires.
For example, a scholarly community exists whenever people commit to
cooperate in activities ordered toward gaining knowledge. These activities and the
truths they uncover build up their bond and determine the sort of commitment (to
academic integrity) that scholars owe each other.
The kind of union created by marriage is comprehensive in just these ways:
in (a) how it unites persons, (b) what it unites them with respect to, and (c) how
extensive a commitment it demands.
It unites two people (a) in their most basic dimensions, in mind and body;
(b) with respect to procreation, family life, and its broad domestic sharing; and (c)
permanently and exclusively.
3

As to (a): The bodily union of two people is much like the union of organs in
an individual. Just as ones organs form a unity by coordinating for the biological
good of the whole (ones bodily life), so the bodies of a man and woman form a
unity by coordination (coitus) for a biological good (reproduction) of the couple as

3
Amici expand on this argument about marriage in Chapter 2, entitled
Comprehensive Union, of Sherif Girgis et al., What Is Marriage? Man and
Woman: A Defense (2012).
8

a whole. In choosing such biological coordination, spouses unite bodily, and do not
merely touch. Non-marital bonds are, by contrast, simply unions of heart and mind.
Second, marriage is oriented to procreation, family life, and thus a
comprehensive range of goods. Why? The kind of act that makes marital love is
also the one that makes new life: new participants in every type of good. So
marriage itself, the bond so embodied, would be fulfilled by family life, and by the
all-around domestic sharing uniquely apt for it. Ordinary friendshipsunions of
heart and mind through conversations and other activitiescan have more limited
and variable scope.
Third, in view of its comprehensiveness in these other senses, marriage
inherently calls for comprehensive commitment: permanence and exclusivity.
(Indeed, comprehensive union can be achieved only by two people, because no act
can organically unite three or more people bodily.)
Moreover, marriage is uniquely apt for having and rearing children, an
inherently open-ended task calling for unconditional commitment. So its norms
fittingly create the stability and harmony suitable for rearing children. That
stability is undermined by divorce and infidelity, which create fragmented and
often fatherless families.
Indeed, only the conjugal view explains why spouses should pledge sexual
exclusivity at all. If instead marriage is essentially an emotional union, this is
9

impossible to explain. After all, sex is just one of many pleasing activities that
foster tenderness, and some partners regard sexual openness as better for lasting
companionship. But the conjugal view is not arbitrary in picking out sexual activity
as central to exclusivity, since it distinguishes marriage by the type of cooperation,
defined by the common ends, that it involves: bodily union and its natural
fulfillment in family life.
While people in other bonds may pledge and live out permanent sexual
exclusivity as a matter of preference, only conjugal union objectively requires such
a commitment if it is to be realized fully. Only in conjugal marriage is there a
principled basis for these norms apart from what spouses happen to prefer. As we
show below (Part IV.E-F), this is borne out by reasoned reflection, revisionists
own arguments, recent policy proposals, and preliminary social science.
Because the conjugal view best explains the other norms of marriage,
citizens and lawmakers have excellent reasons to affirm it.
III. The conjugal view explains the states interest in marriage.
Why does the state recognize marriage but not other close bonds? It has an
interest in supporting the stabilizing norms of marriage because marriage is
uniquely apt for family life. Only male-female sexual relationships produce new
human beingswho have the best chance of reaching maturity and contributing
socially when reared by their own committed mother and father. But family
10

stability requires strong social norms guiding peoples choices toward their (and
others) long-term interests.
As the eminent social scientist James Q. Wilson wrote, Marriage is a
socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people to stay together and
care for children that the mere desire for children, and the sex that makes children
possible, does not solve.
4
The law addresses this problem by shaping how people
understand marriageand thus how they act toward and within it. It thus
vindicates childrens right to know their own mother and fathers committed love.
It also curbs negative externalities on innocent parties, as family fragmentation
imposes costs across society.
Studies that control for other factors, including poverty, show that children
reared in intact homes do best on the following indices:
5

Educational achievement: literacy and graduation rates
Emotional health: rates of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and
suicide

4
James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened
Families 41 (New York: Harper Collins 2002).
5
For the relevant studies, see Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles 9-19
(Princeton, N.J.: The Witherspoon Institute 2008), winst.org/wp-
content/uploads/WI_Marriage_and_the_Public_Good.pdf.
11

Familial and sexual development: strong sense of identity, timing of
onset of puberty, rates of teen and out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and
rates of sexual abuse
Child and adult behavior: rates of aggression, attention deficit
disorder, delinquency, and incarceration
Consider the conclusions of the left-leaning research institution Child
Trends:
[T]he family structure that helps children the most is a family headed
by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in
single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and
children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of
poor outcomes. . . . There is thus value for children in promoting
strong, stable marriages between biological parents. . . . [I]t is not
simply the presence of two parents, . . . [but] of two biological parents
that seems to support childrens development.
6

Several other literature reviews corroborate the importance of intact
households for children.
7

6
Kristin Anderson Moore, Susan M. Jekielek, & Carol Emig, Marriage from a
Childs Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can
We Do about It?, Child Trends Research Brief 1-2 (June 2002),
www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MarriageRB602.pdf.
7
See Sara McLanahan, Elisabeth Donahue, & Ron Haskins, Introducing the Issue,
Future of Children, Fall 2005, at 3-12, available at
http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/15_02_01.pdf; Mary
Parke, Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?: What Research Says
about the Effects of Family Structure on Child Well-Being, CLASP Policy Brief
no. 3 (May 2003), available at http://www.clasp.org/publications/
Marriage_Brief3.pdf; W. Bradford Wilcox et al., Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-
12

A second public benefit of marriage is its tendency to help spouses
financially, emotionally, physically, and socially. After marrying, for example,
men tend to spend more time at work, less time at bars, more time at religious
gatherings, less time in jail, and more time with family.
8
Yet as discussed below
(Part V), it is the conjugal view of marriage that makes sense of and reinforces
these stabilizing norms; attempting to spread them by replacing that understanding
of marriage with a competing vision is likely to have just the opposite effect.
Third, given the economic benefits of marriage, its decline most hurts the
least fortunate, as Kay Hymowitz argues in Marriage and Caste in America.
9
In
fact, a leading indicator of whether someone will know poverty or prosperity is
whether she knew growing up the love and security of her married mother and
father.
Finally, since a strong marriage culture is good for children, spouses, our
whole economy, and especially the poor, it also helps keep government limited.
Where marriages never form or easily end, the state expands to fill the domestic

Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences (New York: Institute for American
Values, 2d ed. 2005).
8
Steven Nock, Marriage in Mens Lives (New York: Oxford University Press
1998). Nock is discussing marriages in the traditional sense: the union of husband
and wife.
9
Kay S. Hymowitz, Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal
Families in a Post-Marital Age (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee 2006). See also W.
Bradford Wilcox, The Evolution of Divorce, National Affairs, Fall 2009, at 81, 88-
93, available at http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20091229_Wilcox_
Fall09.pdf.
13

vacuum by lawsuits to determine paternity, visitation rights, child support, and
alimony; and by increased policing and social services. Sociologists David
Popenoe and Alan Wolfes research on Scandinavian countries shows that as
marriage culture declines, the size and scope of state power and spending tend to
grow.
10

In fact, a study by the left-leaning Brookings Institution finds that $229
billion in welfare expenditures over a quarter century can be attributed to the
exacerbation of social ills by family breakdown: teen pregnancy, poverty, crime,
drug abuse, and health problems.
11
A 2008 study found that divorce and unwed
childbearing cost taxpayers at least $112 billion each year.
12

In short, several aspects of the common good depend on a strong marriage
culture.

10
David Popenoe, Disturbing the Nest: Family Change and Decline in Modern
Societies xiv-xv (New York: A. de Gruyter 1988); Alan Wolfe, Whose Keeper?
Social Science and Moral Obligation 132-42 (Berkeley: University of California
Press 1989).
11
Isabel V. Sawhill, Families at Risk, in Setting National Priorities: The 2000
Election and Beyond 97, 108 (Henry J. Aaron & Robert D. Reischauer eds.,
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press 1999); see also Marriage and the
Public Good, supra, at 15.
12
Benjamin Scafidi, The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing:
First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and for All Fifty States 5 (New York: Institute
for American Values 2008), http://www.americanvalues.org/search/
item.php?id=52 (emphasis in original).
14

IV. Redefining marriage would not extend its stabilizing norms, but
undermine them across society.
Redefining civil marriage will obscure the true nature of marriage and
undermine the principled basis of its norms, and, over time, peoples adherence to
them. This will harm spouses, children, and the larger community. The arguments
of amici here depend on three simple ideas:
1. Law tends to shape beliefs.
2. Beliefs shape behavior.
3. Beliefs and behavior affect human interests and human well-
being.
In discussing harms, amici do not propose changing the controlling
constitutional standard, under which marriage laws are valid if they rationally
advance legitimate ends. That standard does not require evidence that different
laws would cause more harm. The amici discuss harms here only because they
reinforce the sufficient reasons given above for enshrining the conjugal view.
A. If sexual complementarity is merely incidental, then so are
marital norms like permanence, monogamy, exclusivity, and even
sexual union.
Some argue that redefined marriage would only spread stability. But there is
nothing magical about the word marriage that promotes marital norms, however
applied. The law encourages these norms by promoting an understanding of
marriage that makes sense of them.
15

Yet marital norms make no sense as requirements of principle (as opposed
to preference), if marriage is just whatever same- and opposite-sex couples can
have in common, namely, intense emotional regard. There is no reason of principle
why emotional union should be permanent. Or limited to two persons, rather than
including larger ensembles. Or sexually exclusive, rather than open. Or sexual at
all, rather than integrated around other activities (say, where sex would remain
illegalas between relatives). Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by
its demands. Couples may live out these norms where temperament or taste
motivates them, but there is no reason of principle for them to do so, and no basis
for using the law to encourage them to do so.
In other words, if sexual complementarity is optional for marriage, present
only where preferred, then so is almost every other norm that sets marriage apart.
If laws defining marriage as a male-female union unjustly discriminate against
same-sex relationships because the latter can have loving emotional bonds, then
excluding people in polyamorous (multiple-partner) emotional bonds is equally
unjust. Sexual complementarity and other historic norms of marriage logically
stand or fall together.
B. Promoting the revisionist view makes conjugal union harder to
live out.
No one acts in a void. We all take cues from cultural norms, shaped by the
law. Prominent Oxford philosopher Joseph Raz, who does not share the conjugal
16

view, explains the inevitable and sweeping consequences of changing marriage
laws:
[O]ne thing can be said with certainty [about recent changes in
marriage law]. They will not be confined to adding new options to the
familiar heterosexual monogamous family. They will change the
character of that family. If these changes take root in our culture then
the familiar marriage relations will disappear. They will not disappear
suddenly. Rather they will be transformed into a somewhat different
social form, which responds to the fact that it is one of several forms
of bonding, and that bonding itself is much more easily and
commonly dissoluble. All these factors are already working their way
into the constitutive conventions which determine what is appropriate
and expected within a conventional marriage and transforming its
significance.
13

Redefining civil marriage would change its meaning for everyone. It would
not merely expand access to the institution of marriage as it has historically
existed. Legally recognized opposite-sex unions would increasingly be defined by
what they had in common with same-sex relationships.
In fact, such a change makes marriage itself (considered as a valuable form
of human association, not just as a legal status) harder to form. For one can realize
marriage only by choosing it, which requires having some idea of what it really is.
By altering the basic understanding of marriage, the revisionist proposal would

13
Joseph Raz, Autonomy and Pluralism, in The Morality of Freedom 393 (Oxford:
Clarendon Press 1988).
17

make people less capable of realizing this basic way of thriving.
14
People entering
into what the state calls marriage would increasingly be forming bonds that
merely resembled the real thing in certain ways, as a contractual relationship might
resemble a friendship. The revisionist view would distort their priorities, actions,
even motivations, in ways detrimental to true marriage.
C. By obscuring the principled basis of the stabilizing norms of
marriage, redefining marriage would increase marital instability,
harming spouses and children.
Permanence and exclusivitythe principled basis, and internal and social
motivations to live them outdepend on the conjugal view (Part III). By the same
token, these norms are undermined by the revisionist view (Part IV.A). Yet law
affects behavior. So as more people absorb the new laws message, we can expect
marriages to take on still more of emotions inconstancy.
15

Because there is no reason that emotional unionsany more than the
emotions that define them, or general friendshipshould be permanent or limited
to two, these norms of marriage would make less sense. People would thus feel
less bound to live by them whenever preference dictated otherwise. And being less
able to understand the value of marriage itself as a certain sort of union, even apart

14
Patrick Lee, Robert P. George, & Gerard V. Bradley, Marriage and Procreation:
Avoiding Bad Arguments, Public Discourse, Witherspoon Institute, March 30,
2011, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2637.
15
See also Andrew J. Cherlin, The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage
and Family in America Today (New York: Knopf 2009), for a discussion of the
link between the rise of expressive individualism and the divorce revolution.
18

from its emotional satisfactions, they would overlook reasons for marrying or
staying with a spouse as feelings waned, or waxed for others.
16

But children and spouses benefit in many concrete ways from marital
stability (Part IV). These interests, which justify recognizing marriage, also count
against redefining it.
D. Redefining marriage would obscure the special importance of
biological parents, and of mothers and fathers generally, to
childrens detriment.
Conjugal marriage laws communicate the message that a conjugal union is,
on the whole, the most appropriate environment for rearing children, as the best
available social science suggests.
Recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages would legally abolish that
ideal. No civil institution would reinforce the notion that men and women typically
have different strengths as parents. Indeed, our law, public schools, and media
would teach that mothers and fathers are fully interchangeable, and that only bigots
think otherwise (Part VI.C).
And here is the central problem with that: it would diminish the motivations
for husbands to remain with their wives and biological children, or for men and

16
See, e.g., W. Bradford Wilcox & Jeffrey Dew, Is Love a Flimsy Foundation?
Soulmate versus Institutional Models of Marriage, 39 Soc. Sci. Res. 687, 687-699
(2010). For research showing that same-sex unions tend far more often to eschew
sexual exclusivity, see Scott James, Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an
Open Secret, N.Y. Times, Jan. 28, 2010, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?ref=us.
19

women having children to marry first. Yet the resulting arrangementsparenting
by divorced or single parents, or cohabiting couples; and disruptions of any kind
are demonstrably worse for children. So even if studies showed no differences
between same- and opposite-sex adoptive parenting, redefining marriage would
destabilize marriage in ways that we know hurt children.
That said, there is evidence that mothers and fathers have different parenting
strengths. Girls growing up without fathers are likelier to suffer sexual abuse and
to have children as teenagers and out of wedlock.
17
Boys reared without their father
have higher rates of aggression, delinquency, and incarceration.
18

As Rutgers University sociologist David Popenoe concludes, social science
evidence suggests that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human
development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is []

17
Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What
Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1994); Bruce J.
Ellis et al., Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual
Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?, 74 Child Dev. 801, 801-21 (2003); Wilcox et
al., Why Marriage Matters, supra, at 17-18, 31-32; Lorraine Blackman et al., The
Consequences of Marriage for African Americans: A Comprehensive Literature
Review (New York: Institute for American Values 2005).
18
Paul R. Amato, The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive,
Social, and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation, Future of Children, Fall
2005, at 75, 75-96, available at http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/
publications/docs/15_02_05.pdf; Cynthia C. Harper & Sara S. McLanahan, Father
Absence and Youth Incarceration, 14 J. Res. on Adolescence 369-97 (2004).
20

irreplaceable.
19
He continues: The two sexes are different to the core, and each is
necessaryculturally and biologicallyfor the optimal development of a human
being.
20

In a summary of the best psychological, sociological, and biological
research to date, University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox finds that
men and women bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise, that children
benefit from having parents with distinct parenting styles, and that family
breakdown poses a serious threat to children and to the societies in which they
live.
21

In short: redefining civil marriage might well make it more socially
acceptable for fathers to leave their families, for unmarried parents to put off
firmer commitment, or for children to be created for a household without a mother
or father. But whatever the cause, there will be a cost as more children lack the
care of their own married mother and father.
22

19
David Popenoe, Life without Father: Compelling New Evidence That
Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society
146 (New York: Free Press 1996).
20
Id. at 197.
21
W. Bradford Wilcox, Reconcilable Differences: What Social Sciences Show
about the Complementarity of the Sexes and Parenting, Touchstone, November
2005, at 32, 36.
22
Of course, the question of which arrangements our policies should privilege is
normative; it cannot be settled by the cause-and-effect descriptions of social
science alone. But that point scarcely matters here, because it is impossible to
21

E. Many LGBT activists agreeeven embrace the resultthat
eliminating the norm of sexual complementarity will weaken
other norms of marriage.
The point that the revisionist view erodes the basis for permanence and
exclusivity in any relationship is increasingly confirmed by revisionists own
rhetoric and arguments, by the policies that they are increasingly led to embrace,
and even by preliminary social science.
Thus, in their statement Beyond Same-Sex Marriage, more than 300
LGBT and allied scholars and advocatesincluding prominent Ivy League
professorscall for recognizing sexual relationships involving more than two
partners.
23

And they do exist: Newsweek reports that there are more than five hundred
thousand multiple-partner households in the United States alone.
24
In Brazil, a
public notary has recognized a trio as a civil union.
25
Mexico City has considered

generalize from available studies purporting to find no differences between same-
sex and married biological parenting.
23
Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and
Relationships, BeyondMarriage.org, July 26, 2006, http://beyondmarriage.org/
full_statement.html.
24
Jessica Bennett, Only You. And You. And You: PolyamoryRelationships with
Multiple, Mutually Consenting PartnersHas a Coming-Out Party, Newsweek,
July 28, 2009, http://www.newsweek.com/2009/07/28/only-you-and-you-and-
you.html.
25
Three-Person Civil Union Sparks Controversy in Brazil, BBC News, Aug. 28,
2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19402508.
22

expressly temporary marriage licenses.
26
The Toronto District School Board has
taken to promoting polyamorous relationships among its students.
27

And exclusivity? Consider this candid piece in The Advocate, a gay-interest
newsmagazine:
[W]hat iffor oncethe sanctimonious crazies are right? Could the
gay male tradition of open relationships actually alter marriage as we
know it? And would that be such a bad thing?
28

Other revisionists have embraced the goal of weakening marriage in these
very terms. It is correct, says revisionist advocate Victoria Brownworth, to think
. . . that allowing same-sex couples to marry will weaken the institution of
marriage. . . . It most certainly will do so, and that will make marriage a far better
concept than it previously has been.
29
Michelangelo Signorile, a prominent
revisionist advocate, urges same-sex couples to seek legal recognition not as a
way of adhering to societys moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically

26
Mexico City Proposes Temporary Marriage Licenses, Telegraph, Sept. 30, 2011,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexic
o/8798982/Mexico-City-proposes-temporary-marriage-licences.html.
27
Toronto School District Board Promotes Polygamy, Group Sex to Children,
BlazingCatFur, http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2012/09/tdsb-promotes-
polygamy-group-sex-to.html.
28
Ari Karpel, Monogamish, Advocate, July 7, 2011, http://www.advocate.
com/Print_Issue/Features/Monogamish/.
29
Victoria A. Brownworth, Something Borrowed, Something Blue: Is Marriage
Right for Queers?, in I Do/I Dont: Queers on Marriage 53, 58-59 (Greg Wharton
& Ian Philips eds., San Francisco: Suspect Thoughts Press 2004).
23

alter an archaic institution
30
and thereby transform the notion of family
entirely.
31

Leading revisionist advocates increasingly agree that redefining marriage
would undermine its stabilizing norms.
F. Preliminary social science also suggests that opposite- and same-
sex bonds tend to follow different norms.
Preliminary social science also suggests that different norms tend to make
sense for opposite- and same-sex bonds. In the 1980s, David McWhirter and
Andrew Mattison set out to disprove popular beliefs about same-sex male partners
lack of adherence to sexual exclusivity. Of those they surveyed, whose
relationships had lasted from one to thirty-seven years, more than 60 percent had
originally expected sexual exclusivity, but not one couple stayed exclusive longer
than five years.
32

More recently, the New York Times reported on a San Francisco State
University study: [G]ay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite
the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and
courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that.
33

30
Michelangelo Signorile, Bridal Wave, OUT, December/January 1994, at 68, 161.
31
Id.
32
David P. McWhirter & Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How
Relationships Develop 252-53 (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Trade 1984).
33
James, Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret, supra.
24

One study even suggests that exclusivity affects mens satisfaction in
opposite-sex relationships more than in same-sex ones.
34
According to another,
sexually open gay relationships last longer.
35
By contrast, 99 percent of opposite-
sex spouses demand of each other and anticipate sexual exclusivity,
36
and
violations of it are the leading cause of divorce across 160 cultures and are one of
the most frequent reasons that couples seek marital therapy.
37

Relationship longevity, too, tends to vary. A study of same-sex civil
marriages in Norway and Sweden found that divorce risks are higher in same-sex
partnerships than opposite-sex marriages and . . . unions of lesbians are
considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men.
38

Early evidence thus suggests that different norms prevail among same- and
opposite-sex bonds.

34
Trevor A. Hart & Danielle R. Schwartz, Cognitive-Behavioral Erectile
Dysfunction Treatment for Gay Men, 17 Cognitive & Behav. Prac. 66, 66-76
(2010).
35
James, Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret, supra.
36
Alfred DeMaris, Distal and Proximal Influences on the Risk of Extramarital Sex:
A Prospective Study of Longer Duration Marriages, 46 J. Sex Res. 597, 597-607
(2009).
37
Julie H. Hall & Frank D. Fincham, Psychological Distress: Precursor or
Consequence of Dating Infidelity, 35 Personality & Soc. Psychol. Bull. 143-59
(2009).
38
Gunnar Andersson, Turid Noack, Ane Seierstad & Harald Weedon-Fekjaer, The
Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway & Sweden, 43 Demography 79,
95 (2006).
25

V. Beyond weakening marriage and its stability, enshrining the revisionist
view would burden rights of conscience.
Americans are impatient with those we regard as enemies of equality. Often
barred from respectable jobs, they enjoy little social tolerance. The First
Amendment does not keep us from revoking certain of their civil privileges or
suing them for acting on their views.
39

Yet the revisionist view depends on the idea that it is irrational to see
important differences between same- and opposite-sex relationships. By accepting
this idea, the state would deem conjugal marriage supporters champions of
invidious discrimination. This would undermine moral and religious freedom, and
parents rights to direct their childrens education.
From the wedding on through the honeymoon and into common life, couples
transact as a couple with countless people. Photographers, caterers, innkeepers,
adoption agency officials, private school administrators, counselors, foster-care
and adoption providers, and others will be forced to comply with the revisionist
view or lose their jobs, or licenses and government contracts.
40

39
For example, the Internal Revenue Service revoked the tax-exempt status of Bob
Jones University because of its racially discriminatory practices, and the Supreme
Court upheld this action as compatible with the universitys First Amendment
rights. Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983).
40
Marc D. Stern, Same-Sex Marriage and the Churches, in Same-Sex Marriage
and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts 1-57, 1, 11-14 (Douglas Laycock,
Anthony Picarello, & Robin Fretwell Wilson eds., Lanham, Md.: Rowman &
Littlefield 2008). This collection of essays includes the views of scholars on both
26

Thus, in Canada, Damian Goddard was fired from his job as a sportscaster
for expressing on Twitter support for conjugal marriage.
41
In Massachusetts,
Catholic Charities was forced to give up its adoption services rather than violate its
principles by placing children with same-sex cohabitants; Catholic Charities of the
Washington, D.C. archdiocese in 2010 for the same reason shut down its public
adoption and foster-care programs.
42
When public schools began teaching students
about same-sex marriage, precisely on the ground that it was now the law, a federal
Court of Appeals ruled that parents had no right to exempt their children.
43
The
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty reports that over 350 separate state anti-
discrimination provisions would likely be triggered by recognition of same-sex
marriage.
44

sides of the same-sex marriage question, who conclude that conflicts with religious
liberty are inevitable when marriage is extended to same-sex couples.
41
TV Host Fired over Sean Avery Debate, ESPN.com, May 13, 2011,
http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nhl/news/story?id=6532954.
42
Maggie Gallagher, Banned in Boston: The Coming Conflict between Same-Sex
Marriage and Religious Liberty, Weekly Standard, May 15, 2006,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.a
sp; Same-sex "marriage" law forces D.C. Catholic Charities to close its adoption
program, Catholic News Service, Feb. 17, 2010,
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/same-
sex_marriage_law_forces_d.c._catholic_charities_to_close_adoption_program/.
43
See, e.g., Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008).
44
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Same-Sex Marriage and State Anti-
Discrimination Laws 2 (Washington, D.C. Jan. 2009), available at
http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Same-Sex-Marriage-and-
State-Anti-Discrimination-Laws-with-Appendices.pdf.
27

If the people judge that the conjugal view of marriage is reasonable or even
compelling, they may also judge that state efforts to suppress it curb freedoms of
speech, religion, and conscience without justification.
VI. Recognizing the marriages of infertile opposite-sex couples does not
undermine the States rationale for upholding the conjugal view of
marriage.
It is a mistake to think that the conjugal view leaves no principled basis for
recognizing infertile couples unions but not same-sex couples.
After all, (1) an infertile man and woman can still form together a
comprehensive (bodily as well as emotional) union, which differs only in degree,
not type, from fertile ones before or after their first child. So recognizing such
unions has (2) none of the costs of recognizing same-sex bonds; (3) most of the
benefits of recognizing fertile ones; and (4) one additional benefit.
A. Infertile conjugal unions are still true marriages
To form a true marriage, a couple needs to establish and live out the (i)
comprehensive (i.e., mind-and-body) union that (ii) would be completed by, and be
apt for, procreation and domestic life and so (iii) inherently calls for permanent and
exclusive commitment.
Every male-female couple capable of consummating their commitment can
have all three features. With or without children, on the wedding night or years
28

later, these bonds are all comprehensive in the three senses specific to marriage,
with its distinctive value. No same-sex or multiple-partner union is.
B. Recognizing infertile conjugal unions has none of the costs of
redefining marriage.
Since infertile couples can form a true marriage, recognizing them has none
of the costs of recognizing same-sex, polyamorous, or other nonmarital unions. It
does not make it harder for people to realize the basic human good of marriage, for
it does not undermine the publics grasp of the nature of true marriage. Nor does it
undermine marital norms, which are grounded in that nature, or make fathers or
mothers seem superfluous. It prejudices no ones religious or moral freedom.
C. Recognizing such unions has many of the benefits of recognizing
fertile unions.
Many couples believed to be infertile end up having children, who are
served by their parents marriage; and trying to determine fertility would require
unjust invasions of privacy.
Furthermore, even an obviously infertile couple can for reasons of principle,
and not merely subjective preference, live out the features of true marriage, and so
contribute to a strong marriage culture. Their example makes couples who might
conceive likelier to form a marriage and abide by its norms. And that, in turn,
ensures that more children are reared by their married biological parents.
29

D. Recognizing such unions has at least one additional benefit.
Finally, recognizing only fertile marriages would suggest that marriage is
valuable only as a means to childrenand not good in itself, as it is. So
recognizing infertile marriages serves one purpose better than recognizing fertile
unions does: to teach the truth, itself crucial for marriage stability, that marriage
(conjugal union) is valuable in itself.
Thus, the more fully spouses (including infertile ones) live out the truth
about what marriage is, the more that truth will saturate our culture, so that more
families with children stay intact.
VII. Upholding Utahs marriage laws is consistent with Windsor.
State laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman suffer none
of the infirmities found in the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in
United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). In fact, that decisions logic and
holding affirm the States prerogative to define civil marriage.
As Windsor noted, [t]he definition of marriage is the foundation of the
States broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect
to the [p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital
responsibilities. Id. at 2691 (citations omitted). Indeed, it was DOMAs unusual
deviation from the usual tradition of . . . accepting state definitions of marriage
30

that provided strong evidence of unconstitutionality and especially require[d]
careful consideration. Id. at 2693.
Under that careful scrutiny, the Court struck down Section 2 of DOMA
(defining marriage for federal purposes as a male-female union) on State-
protective groundswhich are, of course, logically inapplicable against the States.
In particular, the Court observed that the State [of New York had] acted to
acknowledge a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity. Id. at 2692.
For the Court, the problem with DOMA was its attempt to injure the very class
New York [sought] to protect. Id. at 2693. It was [b]y doing so by targeting a
State-recognized domestic relationthat DOMA violated basic due process and
equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. Id. (emphasis
added). See also id. (DOMA impose[s] a disadvantage . . . upon all who enter into
same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.)
(emphasis added); id. at 2694 (faulting DOMA for diminishing the stability and
predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to
acknowledge and protect) (emphasis added); id. at 2695 (DOMA demean[s]
those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage.) (emphasis added). The
problem, in short, was DOMAs attempt to interfere with state sovereign choices
about who may be married. Id. at 2693.
31

Thus, the Windsor majoritys opinion and its holding are confined to
unions recognized as marriages under State law. Id. at 2696 (emphasis added); see
also id. (The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not
decide, the distinct question whether the States may limit marital status to male-
female bonds.) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (emphasis added); id. at 2709 ([S]tate
courts can distinguish todays case when the issue before them is state denial of
marital status to same-sex couples.) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
But Utahs laws do not undermine the States prerogative to define marriage
or, therefore, trigger the same careful consideration as DOMA. Nor do they
disadvantage relationships recognized by a State in its authority over domestic
relations. On the contrary, they are exercises of that authority. Nothing in Windsor
requires striking down Utahs marriage laws or scrutinizing them more closely.
Indeed, far from condemning Utahs right so to determine its marriage policy, the
logic of Windsor reinforces it.

32

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should uphold Utahs marriage laws as
constitutionally valid exercises of policy-making power.
THE SMITH APPELLATE LAW FIRM

/s/ Michael F. Smith
By: Michael F. Smith
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Suite 1025
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 454-2860 (tel)
(202) 747-5630 (fax)
smith@smithpllc.com
Counsel for Amici Curiae Robert P. George,
Dated: February 10, 2014 Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson

33

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Certificate of Compliance with Type-Volume Limitation,
Typeface Requirements, and Type Style Requirements.

1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B) and Fed. R. App. P. 29(d) because this brief contains 6,877 words,
excluding parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Word 2007 in
14-point Times New Roman.

Dated: February 10, 2014
s/ Michael F. Smith
Attorney for Robert P. George,
Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson

34


foregoing using the Court's CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such
filing to the following parties:

Case No. 13-4178:

David C. Codell

Kathryn Kendell


James E. Magleby
magleby@mgpclaw.com

parrish@mgpclaw.com

Peggy Ann Tomsic
tomsic@mgpclaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees
John J. Bursch
jbursch@wnj.com

Philip S. Lott
phillott@utah.gov

Stanford E. Purser
spurser@utah.gov

Gene C. Schaerr
gschaerr@gmail.com

Monte Neil Stewart
stewart@stm-law.com


Ralph E. Chamness
rchamness@slco.org

Darcy Marie Goddard
dgoddard@slco.org


35

Case Nos. 14-5003, 14-5006:

Don Gardner Holladay
dholladay@holladaychilton.com

James Edward Warner, III
jwarner@holladaychilton.com

Joseph Thai
thai@post.harvard.edu

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees/
Cross-Appellant

W. Scott Simpson
scott.simpson@usdoj.gov
Attorney for Defendant
Byron Jeffords Babione

James Andrew Campbell

David Austin Robert Nimocks
animocks@alliancedefendingfreedom.org

John David Luton
jluton@tulsacounty.org

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant /
Cross-Appellee

Kerry W. Kircher
kerry.kircher@mail.house.gov

Attorney for Defendant-Intervenor

/s/ Michael F. Smith
Michael F. Smith
February 10, 2014

36

I hereby certify that:
(1) all required privacy redactions have been made per 10th Cir. R. 25.5;
(2) if required to file additional hard copies, the ECF submission is an exact
copy of those documents;
(3) the digital submissions have been scanned for viruses with the most
recent version of a commercial virus scanning program, Norton 360, version
21.1.0.18 (last updated 2/10/14), and according to the program are free of viruses.

s/ Michael F. Smith
Michael F. Smith

Attorney for Robert P. George,
Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson


EXHIBIT 55

Case Nos. 13-4178, 14-5003, 14-5006

a
v.
Defendants-Appellants.
Court for the District of Utah,
and
Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
v.
capacity as Court Clerk for Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma,
Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma,

__________________________________________

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PROFESSORS ALAN J. HAWKINS AND JASON S.
CARROLL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL
__________________________________________

Lynn D. Wardle, Esq.
Brigham Young University Law School
Room 518
Provo, UT 84602
Telephone: (801) 422-2617
wardlel@law.byu.edu
Attorney for Professors Hawkins and Carroll

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................................................................... 1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 1
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 3
I. Marriage Is a Social Institution With Practical Benefits that Depend
on Its Social, Linguistic, and Legal Meaning; Altering that
Meaning will Necessarily Alter Those Benefits. .................................. 3
A. Marriage is a social institution that exists to encourage
important human behaviors for vital public ends ....................... 3
B. Because marriage is a social institution with a public
purpose and not only a vehicle for accommodating
private arrangements, altering its basic definition will
necessarily alter the social benefits it produces .......................... 6
II. Recent Legal Changes to the Institution of Marriage and to
Marriage-Related Expectations Confirm that Altering the
Meaning of Marriage Would Likely Have Unintended and
Negative Consequences for Children .................................................... 9
III. Redefining Marriage in Non-Gendered Terms Will Likely Harm
the Interests of Children by Diminishing the Relevance and
Value of Marriage and Fatherhood to Heterosexual Men. ..................16
A. Traditional, gendered marriage is the most important way
heterosexual men create their masculine identities.
Marriage forms and channels that masculinity into the
service of their children and society. Redefining marriage
to include same-sex couples would eliminate gender as a
crucial element of marriage and thus undermine
marriages power to shape and guide masculinity for
those beneficial ends .................................................................18

ii

B. Abandoning the gendered definition of marriage, thereby
weakening the connection of heterosexual men to
marriage and fatherhood, will harm the States interests
in maximizing the welfare of children ......................................23
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................28
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a) ......................................31


iii

CASES

Goodridge v. Dept of Pub. Health
798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003) ................................................................................ 9

Hernandez v. Robles
855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006) ...................................................................................... 6

Lewis v. Harris
908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006) ....................................................................................... 9

United States v. Windsor
133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) .......................................................................................8, 9

Williams v. North Carolina
317 U.S. 287 (1942) ............................................................................................... 5

OTHER AUTHORITIES

A.R. RADCLIFFE-BROWN, STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION IN PRIMITIVE SOCIETY
(1952) .................................................................................................................3, 4

ALLEN M. PARKMAN, GOOD INTENTIONS GONE AWRY: NO-FAULT DIVORCE AND
THE AMERICAN FAMILY (2000) ..................................................................... 10, 13

Andrew Cherlin, The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage, 66 J.
MARRIAGE FAM. 848 (2004) ...............................................................................23

ANDREW J. CHERLIN, THE MARRIAGE-GO-ROUND: THE STATE OF MARRIAGE AND
THE FAMILY IN AMERICA TODAY (2009) ....................................................... 13, 27

Barara Dafoe Whitehead, THE DIVORCE CULTURE: RETHINKING OUR
COMMITMENTS TO MARRIAGE AND FAMILY (1996) .............................................11

iv

Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, The Experts Story of Marriage 7 (A Council on
Families in Am. Working Paper for the Marriage in Am. Symposium, Working
Paper No. WP14, 1992) ......................................................................................... 4

Betsey Stevenson & Justin Wolfers, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce
Law and Family Distress, 121 Q.J. ECON. 267 (2006) ........................................10

Daniel Cere, The Conjugal Tradition in Postmodernity: The Closure of Public
Discourse?, Paper Presented at Re-visioning Marriage in Postmodern Culture
Conference, 4-5 (Dec. 2003) ..............................................................................7, 8

Donald Moir, A New Class of Disadvantaged Children, in IT TAKES TWO: THE
FAMILY IN LAW AND FINANCE 63, 67-68 (Douglas W. Allen & John Richards
eds., 1999) ............................................................................................................11

DOUGLASS NORTH, INSTITUTIONS, INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE, AND ECONOMIC
PERFORMANCE (1990) ............................................................................................ 1

E. MAVIS HETHERINGTON & JOHN KELLY, FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE: DIVORCE
RECONSIDERED (2002) .........................................................................................11

G. ROBINA QUALE, A HISTORY OF MARRIAGE SYSTEMS (1988) ............................... 6

JAMES Q. WILSON, THE MARRIAGE PROBLEM: HOW OUR CULTURE HAS WEAKENED
OUR FAMILIES (2002) ............................................................................................. 5

Jason S. Carroll & David C. Dollahite, Whos My Daddy? How the Legalization
of Same-Sex Partnerships Would Further the Rise of Ambiguous Fatherhood in
America, in WHATS THE HARM?: DOES LEGALIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
REALLY HARM INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES OR SOCIETY
(Lynn D. Wardle ed., 2008). ................................................................... 24, 25, 26

JUDITH S. WALLERSTEIN ET AL., THE UNEXPECTED LEGACY OF DIVORCE: THE 25
YEAR LANDMARK STUDY (2000) ............................................................ 10, 13, 14

v

KATHRYN EDIN & TIMOTHY J. NELSON, DOING THE BEST I CAN: FATHERHOOD IN
THE INNER CITY (2013) ........................................................................................22

KAY HYMOWITZ, ET AL, KNOT YET: THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF DELAYED
MARRIAGE IN AMERICA (2013) ............................................................................27

KRISTIN ANDERSON MOORE ET AL., CHILD TRENDS, MARRIAGE FROM A CHILDS
PERSPECTIVE: HOW DOES FAMILY STRUCTURE AFFECT CHILDREN AND WHAT
CAN WE DO ABOUT IT? (June 2002) ....................................................................24

LINDA J. WAITE ET AL., INSTITUTE FOR AM. VALUES, DOES DIVORCE MAKE PEOPLE
HAPPY? FINDINGS FROM A STUDY OF UNHAPPY MARRIAGES (2002) ...................11

Linda J. Waite et al., Marital Happiness and Marital Stability: Consequences for
Psychological Well-Being, 38 SOC. SCI. RES. 201 (2009) ............................ 12, 25

Maggie Gallagher, (How) Will Gay Marriage Weaken Marriage As a Social
Institution: A Reply to Andrew Koppelman, 2 U. ST. THOMAS L. J. 33 (2004) ..... 4

Matthew D. Bramlett & William D. Mosher, CDC, First Marriage Dissolution,
Divorce and Remarriage: United States, ADVANCE DATA NO. 323 (2001) ........14

Monte Neil Stewart, Judicial Redefinition of Marriage
21 CAN. J. FAM. L. 11 (2004) ................................................................................. 7

NOAH WEBSTER, AN AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1828) . 6

PAUL R. AMATO & ALAN BOOTH, A GENERATION AT RISK: GROWING UP IN AN ERA
OF FAMILY UPHEAVAL (1997) ................................................................. 11, 12, 25

Paul R. Amato & Bryndl Hohmann-Marriott, A Comparison of High- and Low-
Distress Marriages That End in Divorce, 69 J. MARRIAGE & FAM. (2007) ........11


vi

Paul R. Amato, The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social,
and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation, 15 FUTURE OF CHILDREN,
Fall 2005 ................................................................................................. 12, 13, 27

ROBERT GEORGE ET AL., WHAT IS MARRIAGE? MAN AND WOMAN: A DEFENSE
(2012) ..................................................................................................................... 8

Rose McDermott et al., Breaking Up Is Hard to Do, Unless Everyone Else Is
Doing It Too: Social Network Effects on Divorce in a Longitudinal Sample, 92
SOC. FORCES 491(2013) .......................................................................................14

SAMUEL JOHNSON, A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1755) .................. 6

Sara McLanahan, Diverging Destinies: How Children Are Faring Under The
Second Demographic Transition, 41 DEMOGRAPHY 607 (2004) .................. 18, 20

STEVEN L. NOCK, MARRIAGE IN MENS LIVES (1998) .............................................19

Victor Nee & Paul Ingram, Embeddedness and Beyond: Institutions, Exchange,
and Social Structure, in THE NEW INSTITUTIONALISM IN SOCIOLOGY (Mary C.
Brinton & Victor Nee eds., 1998) .......................................................................... 4

William J. Doherty et al., Responsible Fathering: An Overview and Conceptual
Framework, 60 J. MARRIAGE & FAM. 277 (1998) ...............................................20

WILLIAM J. DOHERTY, ET AL., INSTITUTE FOR AM. VALUES, WHY MARRIAGE
MATTERS: TWENTY-ONE CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SOCIAL SCIENCES (2002) ....... 5

WITHERSPOON INSTITUTE, MARRIAGE AND THE PUBLIC GOOD: TEN PRINCIPLES
(2006) ..................................................................................................................... 8

RULES

Fed. R. App. P. 29 ...................................................................................................... 1


vii

Fed. R. App. P. 32 ....................................................................................................31

1

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
1

Alan J. Hawkins and Jason S. Carroll are professors of Family Life at
Brigham Young University. Professor Hawkins earned his Ph.D. in Human
Development and Family Studies from Penn State University. Professor Carroll
earned his Ph.D. in Family Social Science from the University of Minnesota. They
have studied extensively and published widely on fatherhood, marital formation
and dissolution, interventions to strengthen marriages, and how marriage as a
social institution affects human behavior. Their expertise in these fields will assist
the Courts consideration of the issues presented by this case.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
There is no dispute among social scientists that social institutions profoundly
affect human behavior. They provide human relationships with meaning, norms,
and patterns, and in so doing encourage and guide conduct. Nobel Laureate
Douglass North has described institutions as the humanly devised constraints that
shape human interaction. DOUGLASS NORTH, INSTITUTIONS, INSTITUTIONAL
CHANGE, AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE 3 (1990). That is their function. And

1
No partys counsel authored this brief in whole or in part or contributed money
that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief, and no one other than
amicus or his counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or
submitting this brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 29(c)(5). All parties have consented to
the filing of this brief. The views expressed herein are those of the amici and not
necessarily those of Brigham Young University.

2

when the definitions and norms that constitute a social institution change, the
behaviors and interactions that the institution shapes also change.
Marriage is societys most enduring and essential institution. From ancient
times to the present, it has shaped and guided sexual, domestic, and familial
relations between men, women, and their children. As with any institution,
changing the basic definition and social understanding of marriagesuch as by
abandoning its gendered definitionwill change the behavior of men and women
in marriage and even affect whether they enter marriage in the first place. Whether
deemed good or bad, redefining marriage away from its historically gendered
purposes will have significant consequences.
We know this, as discussed below, not only as a matter of sound theory,
logic, and common sense but from experience with other changes to marriage and
marriage-related expectations. Specifically, the advent of no-fault divorce changed
the legal and social presumption of permanence in marriage. That change had
profound consequences. While affording adults greater autonomy and facilitating
an easier end to dangerous or unhealthy relationships, it also resulted in increased
numbers of divorces from low-conflict marriages, created a tangible sense of
fragility for all marriages, and left more children to be raised without one of their
parents, typically the father, with attendant adverse consequences.


3

Although it is far too early to know exactly how redefining marriage to
include same-sex couples will change marriage, Professor Hawkins and Professor
Carroll demonstrate that such a significant change will likely further weaken
heterosexual mens connection to marriage and their children. This, in turn, will
likely increase the risk that more children will be raised without the manifest
benefits of having their fathers married to their mothers and involved day to day in
their lives. These risks justify States in cautiously hesitating before redefining
marriage in non-gendered terms.
ARGUMENT
I. Marriage Is a Social Institution With Practical Benefits that Depend on
Its Social, Linguistic, and Legal Meaning; Altering that Meaning Will
Necessarily Alter Those Benefits.
A. Marriage is a social institution that exists to encourage important
human behaviors for vital public ends.
Social institutions exist primarily to guide and channel human behavior in
ways that benefit society. As Utah notes in its opening brief (at 53 n.15),
preeminent social anthropologist A. R. Radcliffe-Brown described social
institutions as a means for society to order the interactions of persons in social
relationships. A.R. RADCLIFFE-BROWN, STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION IN PRIMITIVE
SOCIETY 10-11 (1952). In social institutions, the conduct of persons in their
interactions with others is controlled by norms, rules, or patterns. Id. As a
consequence, a person [in a social institution] knows that he [or she] is expected

4

to behave according to these norms and that the other person should do the same.
Id.
Through such rules, norms, and expectationssome legal, others cultural
social institutions become constituted by a web of public meaning. See Victor Nee
& Paul Ingram, Embeddedness and Beyond: Institutions, Exchange, and Social
Structure, in THE NEW INSTITUTIONALISM IN SOCIOLOGY 19 (Mary C. Brinton &
Victor Nee eds., 1998) (An institution is a web of interrelated normsformal and
informalgoverning social relationships.). Social institutions, and the language
we use to describe them, in large measure define relationships and how we
understand them and act within them.
[L]anguageor more precisely, normative vocabularyis one of the
key cultural resources supporting and regulating any [social]
institution. Nothing is more essential to the integrity and strength of
an institution than a common set of understandings, a shared body of
opinions, about the meaning and purpose of the institution. And,
conversely, nothing is more damaging to the integrity of an institution
than an attack on this common set of understandings with the
consequent fracturing of meaning.
Maggie Gallagher, (How) Will Gay Marriage Weaken Marriage As a Social
Institution: A Reply to Andrew Koppelman, 2 U. ST. THOMAS L. J. 33, 52-53 (2004)
(quoting Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, The Experts Story of Marriage 7 (Council on
Families in Am. Working Paper No. WP14, 1992)).
Marriage is a vital institutionfew dispute that. See, e.g., WILLIAM J.
DOHERTY ET AL., INSTITUTE FOR AM. VALUES, WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS:

5

TWENTY-ONE CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 8-9 (2002) [hereinafter
DOHERTY, WHY MARRIAGE] (At least since the beginning of recorded history, in
all the flourishing varieties of human cultures documented by anthropologists,
marriage has been a universal human institution.). Courts have long recognized
the institutional nature of marriage. See, e.g., Williams v. North Carolina, 317
U.S. 287, 303 (1942) ([T]he marriage relation [is] an institution more basic in our
civilization than any other.).
Thus, although serving many private ends, marriages institutional nature
means that it is not merely a private arrangement. It exists to shape and guide
human behavior to serve public and social purposes. And those public purposes
have always centered on uniting a man and a woman to order their sexual behavior
and maximize the welfare of their children:
Marriage exists in virtually every known human society. . . . As a
virtually universal human idea, marriage is about the reproduction of
children, families, and society. . . . [M]arriage across societies is a
publicly acknowledged and supported sexual union which creates
kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women,
and the children that their sexual union may produce.
DOHERTY, WHY MARRIAGE, supra, at 8-9. That has been the social, linguistic, and
legal meaning of marriage from ancient times and continues in contemporary
society. See, e.g., JAMES Q. WILSON, THE MARRIAGE PROBLEM: HOW OUR
CULTURE HAS WEAKENED OUR FAMILIES 24 (2002) ([A] lasting, socially enforced
obligation between man and woman that authorizes sexual congress and the

6

supervision of children exists and has existed [i]n every community and for as
far back in time as we can probe); G. ROBINA QUALE, A HISTORY OF MARRIAGE
SYSTEMS 2 (1988) (Marriage, as the socially recognized linking of a specific man
to a specific woman and her offspring, can be found in all societies.); SAMUEL
JOHNSON, A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1755) (marriage is the act
of uniting a man and woman for life); NOAH WEBSTER, AN AMERICAN
DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1828) (same).
Indeed, until very recently, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone
who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be
marriages only between participants of different sex. Hernandez v. Robles, 855
N.E.2d 1, 8 (N.Y. 2006). And until a few years ago, the law universally reflected
and reinforced that historical, cultural, and linguistic understanding.
B. Because marriage is a social institution with a public purpose and
not only a vehicle for accommodating private arrangements,
altering its basic definition will necessarily alter the social benefits
it produces.
Abandoning marriages gendered definition and redefining it in non-
gendered terms would fundamentally alter its meaning and many of its the public
purposes. That necessarily follows from the very nature of marriage as a social
institution. As Professor Daniel Cere of McGill University has explained:
Definitions matter. They constitute and define authoritative public knowledge. . .
Changing the public meaning of an institution changes the institution. [The

7

change] inevitably shapes the social understandings, the practices, the goods, and
the social selves sustained and supported by that institution. Monte Neil Stewart,
Judicial Redefinition of Marriage, 21 CAN. J. FAM. L. 11, 76-77 (2004) (footnotes
omitted) (quoting Daniel Cere, The Conjugal Tradition in Postmodernity: The
Closure of Public Discourse?, Paper Presented at Re-visioning Marriage in
Postmodern Culture Conference, 4-5 (Dec. 2003)).
The current debate over marriage is frequently portrayed as a decision about
whether to expand or extend the boundaries of marriage to include same-sex
couples. This argument rests on the assumption that the basic nature of marriage
will remain largely unchanged by granting marriage status to same-sex
partnerships and that all this policy change would do is absorb same-sex
partnerships within the boundaries of marriage and extend the benefits of marriage
to a wider segment of society. Indeed, the very term same-sex marriage implies
that same-sex couples in long-term committed relationships are already a type of
marriage that should be appropriately recognized and labeled as such. But this
understanding is flawed in that it fails to recognize how recognizing same-sex
partnerships as marriages would signify a fundamental change in how marriage is
collectively understood and the primary social purposes for which it exists.
If marriage is redefined to mean the union of two people without regard to
gender, it will lose its inherent focus on children. Such a change, to be sure, would

8

afford a few more children in same-sex unions the opportunity to grow up in what
the law would deem a married household. But the law would then teach that
marriage is essentially an emotional union that has no inherent connection to
procreation and family life. ROBERT GEORGE ET AL., WHAT IS MARRIAGE? MAN
AND WOMAN: A DEFENSE 7 (2012); see United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675,
2715, 2718 (2013) (Alito, J., dissenting) (citing GEORGE ET AL., supra). In a formal
statement, seventy prominent academics from all relevant disciplines expressed
deep[ ] concerns about the institutional consequences of same-sex marriage for
marriage itself, concluding that [s]ame-sex marriage would further undercut the
idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage and undermine the
idea that children need both a mother and a father, further weakening the societal
norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget.
WITHERSPOON INSTITUTE, MARRIAGE AND THE PUBLIC GOOD: TEN PRINCIPLES 18-
19 (2006). Defining marriage as merely the union of two persons, in short, would
distill[] marriage down to its pure close relationship essence. Cere, supra, at 2.
Courts and jurists have likewise acknowledged the profound change in
social meaning that would follow a change in marriages basic definition:
We cannot escape the reality that the shared societal meaning of
marriagepassed down through the common law into our statutory
lawhas always been the union of a man and a woman. To alter that
meaning would render a profound change in the public consciousness
of a social institution of ancient origin.

9

Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196, 222 (N.J. 2006); see also Goodridge v. Dept of
Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 981 (Mass. 2003) (Sosman, J., dissenting) ([I]t is
surely pertinent to the inquiry to recognize that this proffered change affects not
just a load-bearing wall of our social structure but the very cornerstone of that
structure.).
II. Recent Legal Changes to the Institution of Marriage and to Marriage-
Related Expectations Confirm that Altering the Meaning of Marriage
Would Likely Have Unintended and Negative Consequences for
Children.
The conclusion that redefining marriage will materially alter the mix of
social benefits marriage provides is supported not only by sound socio-institutional
theory, logic, and common sense but by experience with other changes to marriage
and marriage-related expectations. Of course, no one can know the precise, long-
term consequences of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. It is
simply too soon and the ways it may affect marriage too complex to be understood
without considerably more time and extensive conceptual and empirical inquiry.
Justice Alito recently made this point:
Past changes in the understanding of marriage . . . have had far-
reaching consequences. But the process by which such consequences
come about is complex, involving the interaction of numerous factors,
and tends to occur over an extended period of time. We can expect
something similar to take place if same-sex marriage becomes widely
accepted. The long-term consequences of this change are not now
known and are unlikely to be ascertainable for some time to come.
Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2715 (Alito, J., dissenting); see also id. at 2715 n.5 (As

10

sociologists have documented, it sometimes takes decades to document the effects
of social changeslike the sharp rise in divorce rates following the advent of no-
fault divorceon children and society. (citing JUDITH S. WALLERSTEIN ET AL.,
THE UNEXPECTED LEGACY OF DIVORCE: THE 25 YEAR LANDMARK STUDY (2000)).
But cautionary lessons can be drawn from recent changes to marriage law
and marriage-related expectations. Perhaps the most relevant lesson comes from
an analysis of the impact of no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce had unintended
consequences that weakened marriage and fatherhood, and thus harmed children,
id. at 297; ALLEN M. PARKMAN, GOOD INTENTIONS GONE AWRY: NO-FAULT
DIVORCE AND THE AMERICAN FAMILY 91-150 (2000), and is a likely template for
the effects of same-sex marriage.
There are many important reasons for no-fault divorce laws. The fault-based
systems of the past undoubtedly created many problems and at times serious
injustices. Among its benefits, no-fault divorce affords adults greater autonomy,
WALLERSTEIN ET AL., supra, at 297, and facilitates the end of dangerous, Betsey
Stevenson & Justin Wolfers, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Law
and Family Distress, 121 Q.J. ECON. 267, 267 (2006), unhealthy, or necrotic
unions.
Reformers were optimistic that no-fault divorce would have no detrimental
effects on children. In fact, as Barbara Dafoe Whitehead has chronicled, many

11

early experts provided extensive and intricate rationales for how divorce would
benefit childrendivorce for the sake of the children. BARARA DAFOE
WHITEHEAD, THE DIVORCE CULTURE: RETHINKING OUR COMMITMENTS TO
MARRIAGE AND FAMILY 81 (1996); see also id. at 84-90 (discussing predictions of
how divorce would benefit children). Empirically, however, this early optimism
has proven short-sighted. See Donald Moir, A New Class of Disadvantaged
Children, in IT TAKES TWO: THE FAMILY IN LAW AND FINANCE 63, 67-68 (Douglas
W. Allen & John Richards eds., 1999). Reformers may have reasoned that
childrens exposure to harmful parental conflict would decrease and that their
parents would readily find greater happiness that would improve parenting. But
divorce often does not end parental conflict, E. MAVIS HETHERINGTON & JOHN
KELLY, FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE: DIVORCE RECONSIDERED 138 (2002), and the
evidence suggests that parenting quality declines with divorce, id. at 126-140.
Also, most divorces come from low-conflict marriages. PAUL R. AMATO & ALAN
BOOTH, A GENERATION AT RISK: GROWING UP IN AN ERA OF FAMILY UPHEAVAL
220 (1997); Paul R. Amato & Bryndl Hohmann-Marriott, A Comparison of High-
and Low-Distress Marriages That End in Divorce, 69 J. MARRIAGE & FAM. 261
(2007). And divorce does not lead reliably to greater personal happiness. LINDA J.
WAITE ET AL., INSTITUTE FOR AM. VALUES, DOES DIVORCE MAKE PEOPLE HAPPY?
FINDINGS FROM A STUDY OF UNHAPPY MARRIAGES 4 (2002).

12

So as scholars acquired sufficient data to adequately assess the empirical
realities of divorce, the evidence revealed decidedly less favorable outcomes, Paul
R. Amato, The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and
Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation, 15 FUTURE OF CHILDREN, Fall 2005,
at 75, 75. It is true that the children of chronic, high-conflict marriages actually do
better when that relationship ends, AMATO & BOOTH, supra, at 220, furthering
societal interests in childrens well-being. But this is not the typical divorce
scenario; as mentioned above, most divorces come from low-conflict marriages,
and these children do worse when their parents divorce compared to children
whose parents are able to sustain the marriage. Id. And most unhappy marriages
become happy again if given time, Linda J. Waite et al., Marital Happiness and
Marital Stability: Consequences for Psychological Well-Being, 38 SOC. SCI. RES.
201, 201 (2009) [hereinafter Waite, Marital Happiness], redounding to the further
benefit of their children.
Accordingly, the potential salutary benefits of no-fault divorce for one
subset of children and parents have been greatly diminished by the harms it
imposes on another and likely much larger subset of children and parents. A
prolonged period of greater instability is a primary contributor to these harms. For
most children (and adults), marital dissolution begins a prolonged process of
residential and relational instability, as families move and new romantic interests

13

move in and out of the household and many children lose contact with their fathers.
ANDREW J. CHERLIN, THE MARRIAGE-GO-ROUND: THE STATE OF MARRIAGE AND
THE FAMILY IN AMERICA TODAY 16-24 (2009) [hereinafter CHERLIN, MARRIAGE-
GO-ROUND]. While there is a long list of caveats, and while most children are
resilient, the fact remains that, on average, children whose parents divorce are at
significantly greater risk for a host of economic, behavioral, educational, social,
and psychological problems. Amato, supra, at 75.
Moreover, the impact of no-fault divorce must also be assessed at the
institutional level, not just the personal level. Scholars have debated the specific
effects of no-fault divorce on subsequent divorce and marriage rates. It certainly
contributed to a short-term increase in divorce in the 1970s, but evidence suggests
it has also contributed modestly to increased divorce rates above its long-term
historical trends. PARKMAN, supra, at 91 (summarizing research).
Psychologically, high rates of divorce have contributed greatly to a climate of
marital fragility, which may be influencing current declines in our overall marriage
rate as well as further increases in divorce rates. Judith Wallerstein concluded
from her 25-year study of the effects of divorce that changes to family life,
including the high incidence of divorce, have created new kinds of families in
which relationships are fragile and often unreliable. WALLERSTEIN ET AL., supra,
at 297. Nearly half of all marriages now end in divorce, Matthew D. Bramlett &

14

William D. Mosher, CDC, First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce and Remarriage:
United States, ADVANCE DATA NO. 323, at 5 (2001), making marriage seem like a
risky proposition for all. This discourages some from entering into marriage at all,
WALLERSTEIN ET AL., supra, at xvi, and keeps the specter of divorce ever-present
during times of marital discontent. Research also has found a contagion effect for
divorce, such that a divorce in ones social circle increases ones own risk of
divorce. Rose McDermott et al., Breaking Up Is Hard to Do, Unless Everyone
Else Is Doing It Too: Social Network Effects on Divorce in a Longitudinal Sample,
92 SOC. FORCES 491, 491 (2013).
The advent of no-fault divorce (with accompanying shorter waiting periods)
did not just make it procedurally easier to exit an unsatisfying relationship. It
changed the legal and social presumption of permanence in marriage. Intentionally
or not, no-fault divorce diminished the institutional and social expectation of
marital permanence. It changed the public meaning of marriage from a legally
binding life-long union that was expected to weather the inevitable
disappointments and challenges of romantic unions (for better or for worse), to a
union whose duration depended on the subjective choice of one spousefrom as
long as we both shall live has been replaced by as long as we both shall love.
Before no-fault divorce, our laws reinforced the ideal that divorce should not be a
ready option, although it may be a necessity. After no-fault divorce, our laws teach

15

that divorce is always a ready option, even if not a necessity.
The legal change of no-fault divorce has to some extent tipped the scales of
marriage in favor of adult emotional interests and personal choice over its
institutional, child-centered elements. It weakened permanence as a fundamental
public meaning of marriage and contributed to a generational shift in attitudes and
behaviors within individual marriages in ways that harmed overall child interests.
Permanence was not just an element of the legal definition of marriage; it was a
primary mechanism by which marriage produced its benefits for children (and
adults). The expectation of permanence provides a strong incentive for parents to
work through their problems to achieve a satisfying relationship; it encourages
parents to prioritize their childrens long-term needs above their own short-term
desires; it helps to harness two adults in the rearing of their children. Weakening
the expectation of permanence in the legal and cultural understanding of marriage
unexpectedly weakened each of these child-centered factors, on average harming
the wellbeing of children.
The no-fault divorce experience serves as a warning, especially with respect
to child welfare. The definition of the institution of marriageits legal rules and
norms and the social and personal meanings and expectations that flow from
themaffects the behavior of all couples within marriage. And that in turn can
have profound effects on the overall wellbeing of children, even if the immediate

16

rationale of the change is to benefit a specific subset of children and adults.
III. Redefining Marriage in Non-Gendered Terms Will Likely Harm the
Interests of Children by Diminishing the Relevance and Value of
Marriage and Fatherhood to Heterosexual Men.
As with early advocates for no-fault divorce, proponents of eliminating the
gendered definition and understanding of marriage confidently predict that such a
change will have no adverse consequences for heterosexual marriages or their
children. What could be the harm to marriage-related interests of allowing same-
sex couples to marry? Indeed, for the vast majority of people, the argument goes,
nothing would change: If you like your marriage, you can keep your marriage.
This recalls the optimistic early thinking about no-fault divorce. Yet some
humility is in order. It is unlikely that contemporary thinkers attempting to divine
the consequences of another major change to the legal definition of marriagethe
removal of gender as a defining pillarare more gifted at secular prophecy than
were thinkers in the early years of the no-fault divorce revolution. Indeed, in our
view, the no-fault divorce revolution provides the clearest precedent for rational
predictions about the effects of redefining marriage in genderless terms.
Just as the innovation of no-fault divorce benefited men and women in
irretrievably broken marriages, same-sex couples may benefit from being able to
marry and from the non-gendered understanding of marriage that such a
redefinition would create. And it is reasonable to assumealthough it is hardly a

17

certaintythat some existing children in same-sex couple households would also
benefit from marriage if it brings greater stability to their family. But as the
history of no-fault divorce suggests, there are strong reasons not to fully credit
such predictions. And importantly, one has to look beyond the effects within
same-sex families alone to accurately gauge the full impacts of a de-gendered
understanding of marriage.
Benign predictions about the effects of such a redefinition, moreover, are
based on the assumption that legalizing same-sex marriage would not be a
significant change in the core definition of marriage, or that, even if it is, such a
change will have little or no adverse consequences on marriage as an institution
and on those who depend on its current definition. But in fact, the legalization of
same-sex marriage would eliminate gender as a definitional pillar of the social
institution of marriage. That would not just expand or extend marriage to another
class of relationships leaving unchanged the basic institution for its traditional
members; it would effect a fundamental change in its meaning. And changing its
meaning most likely will change behavior. To deny this likelihood is intellectually
untenableit is to deny that meaning matters to social institutions, and that
marriage matters as a social institution.
How the new, de-gendered meaning of marriage will change attitudes
toward and behaviors within marriage cannot be known with precision. But based

18

on what is known about marriage as an institution and the roles it has long played
in society, we can make some highly reasonable projections. We focus here on
one in particular: that stripping marriage of its gendered meaning will likely
diminish the relevance and meaning of marriage and fatherhood to heterosexual
men, weakening their connection to marriage and to the children they father.
A. Traditional, gendered marriage is the most important way
heterosexual men create their masculine identities. Marriage
forms and channels that masculinity into the service of their
children and society. Redefining marriage to include same-sex
couples would eliminate gender as a crucial element of marriage
and thus undermine marriages power to shape and guide
masculinity for those beneficial ends.
Far from being a relic of history or a quaint custom that has outgrown its
usefulness in modern society, gender is a crucial component of not only the
definition of marriage but of how marriage produces its benefits for children and
society. In fact, it may be more crucial now than it has ever been because of
changes that have occurred in the meaning of marriage over the past five decades
that have dramatically weakened mens ties to their children and their childrens
mother. Sara McLanahan, Diverging Destinies: How Children Are Faring Under
The Second Demographic Transition, 41 DEMOGRAPHY 607, 607 (2004).
According to eminent family sociologist Steven L. Nock, marriage is a
primary means of shaping mens identities and behaviors (e.g., sexual, economic,
etc.) from self-centered in nature to child- and family-centered in orientation:

19

Historically, masculinity has implied three things about a man: he
should be the father of his wifes children, he should be the provider
for his wife and children, and he should protect his family.
Accordingly, the male who refused to provide for or protect his family
was not only a bad husband, he was somehow less of a man. In
marriage, men do those things that are culturally accepted as basic
elements of adult masculinity. . . . [M]arriage changes men because it
is the venue in which adult masculinity is developed and sustained.
STEVEN L. NOCK, MARRIAGE IN MENS LIVES 4 (1998). Moreover, Nock argues
that, by calling for behaviors of a certain type [socially valuable behaviors], the
expectations of normative marriage also reinforce and maintain [generative]
masculine identities. In this sense, normative marriage is a masculinity template. .
. . In their marriages, and by their marriages, men define and display themselves as
masculine. Id. at 58-59. When we ask why marriage appears to be beneficial to
men [and women and children], one possible answer is that the institution of
marriage, at least in its traditional form, is a socially approved mechanism for the
expression of [mature] masculinity. Id. at 59.
Marriage is the most important social mechanism we have to channel young
mens adult identity into other-oriented behaviors of sacrifice, generosity, and
protection for their own children and even for all children. Marriage is a
transformative act, but especially so for men, because of how it directs mens adult
identity into service to their families and to society
But fatherhood is more socially constructed and more contextually sensitive
than motherhood, according to a landmark report to the U.S. Department of Health

20

and Human Services, which was later published in a leading peer-reviewed journal.
William J. Doherty et al., Responsible Fathering: An Overview and Conceptual
Framework, 60 J. MARRIAGE & FAM. 277 (1998) [hereinafter Doherty, Responsible
Fathering]. Fatherhood is more problematic than motherhood because mens
commitment to and investment in parenting is far more difficult to achieve. Many
of the historical supports that have traditionally preserved mens involvement in
their childrens lives have been eroding for contemporary families. Historically
high rates of non-marital cohabitation, out-of-wedlock childbirth, and marital
divorce, McLanahan, supra, have dramatically altered the landscape of fathering,
leaving unprecedented numbers of children growing up with uncertain or non-
existent relationships with their fathers.
While these demographic trends have changed family life in general, they
have been particularly grim for father-child relationships, which are more sensitive
than mother-child relationships to contextual forces and supports. Doherty,
Responsible Fathering, supra, at 277. Accordingly, any signal that mens
contributions are not central to childrens well-being threatens to further decrease
the likelihood that they will channel their masculine identities into responsible
fathering. We believe the official de-gendering of marriage sends just such a
signal. A gender-free definition of marriage risks eliminating the achievement of
mature, other-centered masculinity (as opposed to immature, self-centered

21

masculinity) as a primary motivation for generative fathering.
Thus, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage is not just an extension or
expansion of marriages borders to accommodate a new kind of family form; it is a
fundamental change to the meaning of marriage and fatherhood. In our opinion, to
legally proclaim that gender is not an essential component of marriage undermines
in a profound, far-reaching, and official way the very mechanism that creates many
of the benefits that marriage produces. If marriage is redefined as two committed
partners regardless of their gender, then marriages connection to mens role as
fathers is necessarily ambiguous. A genderless meaning of marriage puts at risk
the cultural sense that marriage and fatherhood are central to defining mens
identities. It invites, even demands, new ways of understanding families that make
mens unique contributions to family life and their children entirely optional. It
deepens the destructive, decades-long cultural trend of questioning the necessity
and importance of fathers as nurturers, providers, and protectors within families,
which has weakened father-child bonds and familial ties.
In sum, if men are legally defined as optional to marriage and childrearing,
then marriage will likely struggle to maintain its primacy as a means for men to
establish their masculine identity in ways that serve children best. A gender-free
definition of marriagewhere gender is officially irrelevant to its structure and
meaningwill likely have less social power to draw heterosexual men into

22

marriage and thus less power to serve marriages vital child-welfare purposes.
And no doubt these potential effects, like many others, would be felt most keenly
and quickly by the children and families of the most disadvantaged men in our
societymen who already are struggling with a sense that they are of secondary
importance within their families and whose masculinity is already challenged by
their tenuous participation in our economic system. KATHRYN EDIN & TIMOTHY J.
NELSON, DOING THE BEST I CAN: FATHERHOOD IN THE INNER CITY 216-28 (2013).
To be sure, these risks associated with same-sex marriage may be difficult to
disentangle from negative effects from other strong social changes. After all, we
believe a de-gendered understanding of marriage is an additional force in a larger
trend that is uncoupling sexuality, marriage, and parenthood and making mens
connections to children weaker. Thus, it may be difficult to separate statistically
the potential effects of de-gendering marriage from the effects stemming from
powerful forces to which it is related, such as the sexual revolution, the divorce
revolution, and the single-parenting revolution. That these effects are intertwined
with the effects of other powerful forces, however, does not diminish their
importance or the harms they can impose on marriage.
Removing gender from the legal meaning of marriage will deepen the grand
social experiment of the past 50 years of deinstitutionalizing marriage and
fatherhood. Andrew Cherlin, The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage, 66

23

J. MARRIAGE FAM. 848, 848 (2004). And we fear its consequences will only add
to the problems this change in family life is producing.
B. Abandoning the gendered definition of marriage, thereby
weakening the connection of heterosexual men to marriage and
fatherhood, will harm the States interests in maximizing the
welfare of children.
We have demonstrated how abandoning the gendered definition of marriage
will tend to further alienate heterosexual men from marriage and fatherhood.
Although precise effects cannot be known with certainty at this early stage, that
alienation is likely to harm the States interests in securing the welfare of
childrenand specifically in maximizing the likelihood that children will be
reared by a father as well as a motherin at least four concrete and predicable
ways.
1. Fewer and shorter marriages. Redefining marriage in genderless
terms will undermine the States interest in encouraging heterosexual fathers to
marry the mothers of their children. If men no longer view marriage as central to
defining their adult identitiesif they see themselves as unnecessary to the
intrinsic meaning and purpose of marriage and thus view marriage as unrelated to
their sense of malenessthey will be less likely to marry, even when they become
fathers. Marriage, in other words, will simply be less relevant to men and thus less
attractive to them. In an already highly individualistic culture such as ours, men
will be more likely to seek to establish their adult identities through other means,

24

such as career and financial success, personal pursuits, and leisure activities and
non-marital sexual relationships. The children of such men will be far less likely
to be raised by their fathers as well as their mothers, and as a result will suffer. See
KRISTIN ANDERSON MOORE ET AL., CHILD TRENDS, MARRIAGE FROM A CHILDS
PERSPECTIVE: HOW DOES FAMILY STRUCTURE AFFECT CHILDREN AND WHAT CAN
WE DO ABOUT IT? 6 (June 2002), http://www.childtrends.org/files/Marriage
RB602.pdf (children born and raised without a married father and mother suffer
increased risks of poor outcomes).
Redefinition will also undermine the States interest in encouraging married
heterosexual fathers to remain married for the benefit of their children despite
marital difficulties. Until the current generation, the widely held (and now
empirically supported) belief that children needed their fathers was a central tenet
in social norms encouraging men to work through marital troubles with their wives
. . . . Jason S. Carroll & David C. Dollahite, Whos My Daddy? How the
Legalization of Same-Sex Partnerships Would Further the Rise of Ambiguous
Fatherhood in America, in WHATS THE HARM?: DOES LEGALIZING SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE REALLY HARM INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES OR SOCIETY 62 (Lynn D. Wardle
ed., 2008). This retreat from the ideal may be particularly devastating for [the
family involvement and parenting of] men who, according to research, are more
reliant on such social and relationship supports to foster their healthy involvement

25

in family life and parenting. Id. As we noted previously, research studies have
found that most divorces come from low-conflict marriages and that the children in
these families do worse when their parents divorce compared to children whose
parents are able to sustain the marriage. AMATO & BOOTH, supra, at 220. Also,
most unhappy marriages become happy again if given time, Waite, Marital
Happiness, supra, at 201, rebounding to the further benefit of their children. A
gendered definition of marriage and parenting emphasizes that fathers are
important and unique in the lives of their children. This perspective helps men see
that their children are stakeholders in their marriages and discourages divorce.
Same-sex marriage denies that men are essential to marriage and thus that fathers
are essential in the lives of their children, which will increase the likelihood that
fewer heterosexual fathers stay married for the sake of their children.
2. Less parenting by fathers. Abandoning the gendered definition of
marriage will also diminish the likelihood of men, even married men, being
responsible fathers, or being fathers at all. Indeed, it is likely that redefining
marriage
would support a retreat from fatherhood altogether among some
American men. One aspect of a self-defined parenting ideology in
society is the option of not being a parent at all. If fathering is not a
cultural ideal, the potential exists for an increase in men who live
outside marriage and parenthood altogether. Given the data on the
negative social consequences of a large number of unmarried men
(e.g., higher rates of crime and other anti-social behavior), we should
resist movement toward a parenting culture that would suggest that

26

men can be viewed as sperm donors whose only essential
parenting role is conception and then women can do it alone, either
as single parents or as a lesbian couple. The loss of a cultural ideal for
men to become responsible fathers could lead to increased numbers of
men and children who live in non-generative contexts.
Carroll & Dollahite, supra, at 62-63. This would harm the States interest in
encouraging the optimal mother-father, biological parenting model, resulting in
more children being raised without the benefits of a biological fatheror any
father at all.
3. More conception outside marriage rather than inside marriage. For
similar reasons, abandoning the gendered definition of marriage would make it
more likely that men will engage in sex outside marriage, and will thus produce
comparatively more children who will likely be raised by their mothers alone. For
many men, the current cultural expectation that they will be active fathers to any
children they help conceive serves as a natural deterrent to engaging in extra-
marital sex and thus risking the incursion of such an obligation. By weakening or
removing that cultural expectationi.e., by making the fathers role optional
redefining marriage in genderless terms will reduce that deterrent and, therefore,
likely increase the relative number of children conceived and born outside of
marriage, with no expectation that the father will be actively involved in rearing
them. In short, redefinition will likely increase the proportion of fatherless

27

children in two ways: by reducing the number of children born within marital
unions, and by increasing the number born outside of such unions.
Of course, current increases in non-marital childbirth rates reflect large
increases in the number of cohabiting couples having children, which is
increasingly being seen by many as another culturally viable form of family
formation. And, if young mothers and fathers were actually marrying each other a
year or two after the arrival of their first child and remaining together, non-marital
childbirth rates might not be much to worry about. But that is not whats
happening. Nearly 40 percent of cohabiting twenty-something parents who had a
baby between 2000 and 2005 split up by the time their child was fivethree times
the rate for twenty-something parents who were married when they had a
child. Cohabiting parents were also more than three times more likely than
married parents to move on to another cohabiting or marital relationship with a
new partner if their relationship did break up. KAY HYMOWITZ, ET AL., KNOT YET:
THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF DELAYED MARRIAGE IN AMERICA (2013), available at
http://nationalmarriageproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KnotYet-
FinalForWeb.pdf. Research paints a sobering picture of the effect these
disruptions have. Children suffer emotionally, academically, and financially when
they experience this type of relationship carousel. See CHERLIN, MARRIAGE-GO-
ROUND, supra; Amato, supra.

28

4. Less self-sacrificing by fathers. Finally, further alienating men from
marriage and fatherhood by redefining it to make their presence unnecessary would
likely diminish self-sacrificing behavior by men for their wives and children. If, as
we show above, a genderless definition of marriage undermines marriage and
fatherhood as a primary vehicle for adult identity-creation, then men will be less
likely to sacrifice their self-interests for the child-centric interests inherent in
traditional male-female marriage and fatherhood. When faced with choices
regarding career, housing and neighborhood decisions, long-term saving, child
educational needs, personal recreational activities, activities with friends, sexual
fidelity to spouse, alcohol and drug use, and a host of other decisions affecting the
welfare of their children, fathers will be more likely to choose their own selfish
interests over those of their wives and children. As child interests take a back seat,
the welfare of children is likely to suffer in a host of ways.
CONCLUSION
This Court should not make the mistake of believing that redefining
marriage to include same-sex couples is merely a matter of extending to such
couples the benefits of marriage. Social institutions are constituted by legal and
social meanings that shape and guide human behavior. Marriage, foremost among
our social institutions, has profound connections with child welfare and adult male

29

identity. Indeed, both are integrally related. We believe marriage cannot simply
be redefined in non-gendered terms without significant consequences for children.
Naturally, the risks associated with legalizing same-sex marriage may prove
difficult to statistically disentangle from the negative effects of other strong social
changes. In our view, a de-gendered understanding of marriage is an additional
force in a larger trend that is uncoupling sexuality, marriage, and parenthood and
making mens connections to children weaker. Thus, it may be difficult to
statistically separate the potential effects of de-gendering marriage from effects
stemming from powerful forces to which it is related: the sexual revolution, the
divorce revolution, and the single-parenting revolution. But the fact that de-
gendering effects are intertwined with the effects of other powerful forces does not
diminish their importance.
Much as no-fault divorce changed the presumed permanence of marriage,
creating unexpectedly adverse consequences for children, abandoning the gendered
definition of marriage threatens to further destabilize marriage as a key definer and
shaper of mature male identity. This, in turn, is likely to further alienate men from
marriage, resulting in harm to marriages vital role in advancing child welfare
and particularly in maximizing the likelihood that children, as much as possible,
will be reared by a father as well as a mother. While the precise effects of

30

redefining marriage cannot be known with statistical certainty, these risks are real
and cannot be ignored.
For these reasons, we urge the Court to reject arguments advocating the
judicial redefinition of marriage and reverse the district courts below.

s/ Lynn D. Wardle
Room 518
Provo, UT 84602
Telephone: (801) 422-2617
wardlel@law.byu.edu

Attorney for Professors Hawkins and
Carroll


31

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)
Certificate of Compliance With Type-Volume Limitation,
Typeface Requirements, and Type Style Requirements.

This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 6,874 words, excluding parts of the brief
exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Word 2007 in
14-point Times New Roman.
s/ Lynn D. Wardle
Room 518
Provo, UT 84602
Telephone: (801) 422-2617
wardlel@law.byu.edu

32

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system, which will send
notification of such filing to the following:
Case No. 13-4178:

David C. Codell

Kathryn Kendell


James E. Magleby
magleby@mgpclaw.com

parrish@mgpclaw.com

Peggy Ann Tomsic
tomsic@mgpclaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees

John J. Bursch
jbursch@wnj.com

Philip S. Lott
phillott@utah.gov

Stanford E. Purser
spurser@utah.gov

Gene C. Schaerr
gschaerr@gmail.com

Monte Neil Stewart
stewart@stm-law.com


Ralph E. Chamness
rchamness@slco.org

Darcy Marie Goddard
dgoddard@slco.org



33

Case Nos. 14-5003, 14-5006:
Don Gardner Holladay
dholladay@holladaychilton.com

James Edward Warner, III
jwarner@holladaychilton.com

Joseph Thai
thai@post.harvard.edu

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees/
Cross-Appellant

W. Scott Simpson
scott.simpson@usdoj.gov

Attorney for Defendant
Byron Jeffords Babione

James Andrew Campbell

David Austin Robert Nimocks
animocks@alliancedefendingfreedom.org

John David Luton
jluton@tulsacounty.org

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant/
Cross-Appellee

Kerry W. Kircher
kerry.kircher@mail.house.gov

Attorney for Defendant-Intervenor

s/ Lynn D. Wardle
Room 518
Provo, UT 84602
Telephone: (801) 422-2617
wardlel@law.byu.edu

34

I hereby certify that with respect to the foregoing:
(1) all required privacy redactions have been made per 10th Cir. R.
25.5;
(2) if required to file additional hard copies, the ECF submission is an
exact copy of those documents;
(3) the digital submissions have been scanned for viruses with the
most recent version of a commercial virus scanning program, Sophos,
Version 10.3, last updated on February 10, 2014, and according to the
program are free of viruses.
s/ Lynn D. Wardle
Room 518
Provo, UT 84602
Telephone: (801) 422-2617
wardlel@law.byu.edu


EXHIBIT 56
Marriage rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2011
2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1995 1990
Alabama 8.4 8.2 8.3 8.6 8.9 9.2 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.9 9.4 10.1 10.8 9.8 10.6
Alaska 7.8 8.0 7.8 8.4 8.5 8.2 8.2 8.5 8.1 8.3 8.1 8.9 8.6 9.0 10.2
Arizona 5.7 5.9 5.6 6.0 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.5 6.7 7.6 7.5 8.2 8.8 10.0
Arkansas 10.4 10.8 10.7 10.6 12.0 12.4 12.9 13.4 13.4 14.3 14.3 15.4 14.8 14.4 15.3
California
1
5.8 5.8 5.8 6.7 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.1 6.2 6.5 5.8 6.4 6.3 7.9
Colorado 7.0 6.9 6.9 7.4 7.1 7.2 7.6 7.4 7.8 8.0 8.2 8.3 8.2 9.0 9.8
Connecticut 5.5 5.6 5.9 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.5 5.7 5.4 5.7 5.8 6.6 7.9
Delaware 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.5 5.7 5.9 5.9 6.1 6.0 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.7 7.3 8.4
District of Columbia 8.7 7.6 4.7 4.1 4.2 4.0 4.1 5.2 5.1 5.1 6.2 4.9 6.6 6.1 8.2
Florida 7.4 7.3 7.5 8.0 8.5 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.4 9.3 8.9 8.7 9.9 10.9
Georgia 6.6 7.3 6.6 6.0 6.8 7.3 7.0 7.9 7.0 6.5 6.1 6.8 7.8 8.4 10.3
Hawaii 17.6 17.6 17.2 19.1 20.8 21.9 22.6 22.6 22.0 20.8 19.6 20.6 18.9 15.7 16.4
Idaho 8.6 8.8 8.9 9.5 10.0 10.1 10.5 10.8 10.9 11.0 11.2 10.8 12.1 13.1 13.9
Illinois 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.2 5.9 6.2 6.5 6.6 7.2 6.9 7.0 6.9 8.8
Indiana 6.8 6.3 7.9 8.0 7.0 7.0 6.9 7.8 7.1 7.9 7.9 7.9 8.1 8.6 9.6
Iowa 6.7 6.9 7.0 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.1 6.9 7.9 7.7 9.0
Kansas 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.8 7.0 6.9 7.3 7.5 8.3 7.1 8.5 9.2
Kentucky 7.5 7.4 7.6 7.9 7.8 8.4 8.7 8.8 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.8 10.9 12.2 13.5
Louisiana 6.4 6.9 7.1 6.8 7.5 --- 8.0 8.0 8.2 8.1 8.4 9.1 9.1 9.3 9.6
Maine 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.4 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.6 8.4 8.4 8.6 8.8 8.6 8.7 9.7
Maryland 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.5 6.6 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.5 7.5 8.4 9.7
Massachusetts 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.5 5.6 5.9 6.2 5.8 6.2 7.1 7.9
Michigan 5.7 5.5 5.4 5.6 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.8 7.3 8.2
Minnesota 5.6 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.8 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.8 6.8 7.0 7.7
Mississippi 4.9 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.7 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.5 6.9 7.8 7.9 9.4
Missouri 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.8 8.1 8.3 9.6
Montana 7.8 7.4 7.3 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.6 8.6
Nebraska 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.9 6.8 6.8 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.5 7.9 7.6 7.5 7.3 8.0
Nevada 36.9 38.3 40.3 42.3 48.6 52.1 57.4 62.1 63.9 67.4 69.6 72.2 82.3 85.2 99.0
New Hampshire 7.1 7.3 6.5 6.8 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.0 8.1 8.3 8.5 9.4 7.9 8.3 9.5
New J ersey 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.7 5.9 5.8 6.0 6.4 6.0 5.9 6.5 7.6
New Mexico 8.0 7.7 5.0 4.0 5.6 6.8 6.6 7.4 6.9 7.9 7.6 8.0 8.0 8.8 8.8
New York 6.9 6.5 6.5 6.6 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.8 7.3 7.6 7.1 7.3 8.0 8.6
North Carolina 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.9 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.7 7.4 8.2 8.5 8.4 7.8
North Dakota 6.7 6.5 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.1 6.8 6.5 7.2 6.6 7.1 7.5
Ohio 5.9 5.8 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.7 7.0 7.2 7.8 7.8 8.0 9.0
Oklahoma 6.9 7.2 6.9 7.1 7.3 7.3 7.3 6.5 --- --- --- --- 6.8 8.6 10.6
Oregon 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.3 7.3 8.1 7.2 7.1 7.5 7.6 7.6 8.1 8.9
Pennsylvania 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.7 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.2 7.1
Rhode Island 6.0 5.8 5.9 6.1 6.4 6.6 7.0 7.7 7.8 7.8 8.1 7.6 7.5 7.3 8.1
South Carolina 7.2 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.9 7.8 8.3 8.2 9.0 9.3 9.9 10.6 10.2 11.9 15.9
South Dakota 7.5 7.3 7.3 7.7 7.8 8.0 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8 8.9 9.4 9.1 9.9 11.1
Tennessee 9.0 8.8 8.4 9.4 10.1 10.6 10.9 11.4 11.9 13.1 13.5 15.5 14.7 15.5 13.9
Texas 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.1 8.4 9.1 9.4 9.1 9.9 10.5
Utah 8.6 8.5 8.4 9.0 9.6 9.2 9.8 9.9 10.2 10.4 10.2 10.8 9.6 10.7 11.2
Vermont 8.3 9.3 8.7 7.9 8.5 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.7 9.8 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.3 10.9
Virginia 6.8 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.6 8.8 8.8 9.2 10.2 11.4
Washington 6.1 6.0 6.0 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.9 7.2 7.7 9.5
West Virginia 7.2 6.7 6.7 7.1 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.5 8.1 7.9 8.7 7.5 6.1 7.2
Wisconsin 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.6 5.7 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.7 7.0 7.9
Wyoming 7.8 7.6 8.0 8.6 9.0 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.5 10.0 10.0 9.9 10.6 10.7
[Rates are based on provisional counts of marriages by state of occurrence. Rates are per 1,000 total population residing in area. Population
enumerated as of April 1 for 1990, 2000, and 2010 and estimated as of J uly 1 for all other years]
Source: CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System.
1
Marriage data includes nonlicensed marriages registered.
--- Data not available.
State
Note: Rates for 2001-2009 have been revised and are based on intercensal population estimates from the 2000 and 2010 censuses. Populations
for 2010 rates are based on the 2010 census.
Marriage rate

EXHIBIT 57
Divorce rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2011
2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1995 1990
Alabama 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.7 6.0 6.1
Alaska 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 3.9 4.6 4.3 3.9 5.0 5.0 5.5
Arizona 3.9 3.5 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.8 4.0 4.6 4.6 6.2 6.9
Arkansas 5.3 5.7 5.7 5.5 5.9 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.0 6.2 6.2 6.4 6.2 6.3 6.9
California --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4.3
Colorado 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 --- 5.5
Connecticut 3.1 2.9 3.0 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.0 2.9 3.2
Delaware 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.9 3.5 3.9 3.9 4.5 5.0 4.4
District of Columbia 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.7 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.9 3.2 3.6 3.2 4.5
Florida 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.5 6.3
Georgia --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3.2 2.5 3.1 3.3 4.1 5.1 5.5
Hawaii --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3.7 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.6 4.6
Idaho 4.9 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.5 5.4 5.8 6.5
Illinois 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.8
Indiana --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Iowa 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.9
Kansas 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.4 4.1 5.0
Kentucky 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.0 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.5 5.9 5.8
Louisiana --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3.4 3.3 --- --- --- --- ---
Maine 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.7 5.0 5.1 4.4 4.3
Maryland 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.4
Massachusetts 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.8
Michigan 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.8 4.1 4.3
Minnesota --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.5
Mississippi 4.0 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.8 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8 5.5
Missouri 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.4 5.0 5.1
Montana 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.4 4.5 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.2 2.8 4.8 5.1
Nebraska 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.8 4.0
Nevada 5.6 5.9 6.6 6.4 6.4 6.7 7.4 6.3 7.3 7.1 6.3 9.9 7.8 7.8 11.4
New Hampshire 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.9 3.8 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.8 5.1 4.2 4.7
New J ersey 2.9 3.0 2.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
New Mexico 3.3 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.6 5.2 4.4 4.9 5.1 4.6 6.6 4.9
New York 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.1 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.2
North Carolina 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.6 5.0 5.1
North Dakota 2.7 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.4 4.4 3.4 3.6
Ohio 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.9 4.3 4.7
Oklahoma 5.2 5.2 4.8 5.3 5.2 5.3 5.6 4.9 --- --- --- --- --- 6.6 7.7
Oregon 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.7 5.5
Pennsylvania 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.3 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.3
Rhode Island 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 2.9 2.7 3.6 3.7
South Carolina 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.9 4.5
South Dakota 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.2 2.8 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 3.7
Tennessee 4.3 4.2 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.9 5.8 6.2 6.5
Texas 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.6 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.8 5.2 5.5
Utah 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.0 4.4 5.1
Vermont 3.6 3.8 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.4 4.7 4.5
Virginia 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4
Washington 4.1 4.2 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.6 5.0 5.4 5.9
West Virginia 5.2 5.1 5.1 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.2 5.3
Wisconsin 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.6
Wyoming 4.8 5.1 5.1 4.9 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.8 5.7 6.6 6.6
[Rates are based on provisional counts of divorces by state of occurrence. Rates are per 1,000 total population residing in area. Population
enumerated as of April 1 for 1990, 2000, and 2010 and estimated as of J uly 1 for all other years]
Note: Rates for 2001-2009 have been revised and are based on intercensal population estimates from the 2000 and 2010 censuses. Populations
for 2010 rates are based on the 2010 census.
Source: CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System.
State
--- Data not available.
1
Includes annulments. Includes divorce petitions filed or legal separations for some counties or States.
Divorce rate
1

EXHIBIT 58
National Marriage and Divorce Rate Trends
Provisional number of marriages and marriage rate: United States, 2000-2011
Year Marriages Population Rate per 1,000 total population
2011 2,118,000 311,591,917 6.8
2010 2,096,000 308,745,538 6.8
2009 2,080,000 306,771,529 6.8
2008 2,157,000 304,093,966 7.1
2007 2,197,000 301,231,207 7.3
2006 2,193,000 294,077,247 7.5
2005 2,249,000 295,516,599 7.6
2004 2,279,000 292,805,298 7.8
2003 2,245,000 290,107,933 7.7
2002 2,290,000 287,625,193 8.0
2001 2,326,000 284,968,955 8.2
2000 2,315,000 281,421,906 8.2
Excludes data for Louisiana.
Note: Rates for 2001-2009 have been revised and are based on intercensal population
estimates from the 2000 and 2010 censuses. Populations for 2010 rates are based on the 2010
census.
Source: CDC/NCHS National Vital Statistics System.
Provisional number of divorces and annulments and rate: United States, 2000-2011
Year Divorces & annulments Population Rate per 1,000 total population
2011 877,000 246,273,366 3.6
2010 872,000 244,122,529 3.6
2009 840,000 242,610,561 3.5
2008 844,000 240,545,163 3.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Page 1 of 2 NVSS - National Marriage and Divorce Rate Trends
5/29/2014 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm
Page last updated: February 19, 2013
Page last reviewed: February 19, 2013
Content source: CDC/National Center for Health Statistics
Page maintained by: Office of Information Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Rd. Atlanta, GA
30333, USA
800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TTY: (888) 232-6348 - Contact CDCINFO
Year Divorces & annulments Population Rate per 1,000 total population
2007 856,000 238,352,850 3.6
2006 872,000 236,094,277 3.7
2005 847,000 233,495,163 3.6
2004 879,000 236,402,656 3.7
2003 927,000 243,902,090 3.8
2002 955,000 243,108,303 3.9
2001 940,000 236,416,762 4.0
2000 944,000 233,550,143 4.0
Excludes data for California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, and Minnesota.
Excludes data for California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, and Louisiana.
Excludes data for California, Hawaii, Indiana, and Oklahoma.
Excludes data for California, Indiana, and Oklahoma.
Excludes data for California, Indiana, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.
Note: Rates for 2001-2009 have been revised and are based on intercensal population
estimates from the 2000 and 2010 censuses. Populations for 2010 rates are based on the 2010
census.
Source: CDC/NCHS National Vital Statistics System.
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
Page 2 of 2 NVSS - National Marriage and Divorce Rate Trends
5/29/2014 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm

EXHIBIT 59
The Taxpayer Costs of
Divorce and Unwed Childbearing
First-Ever Estimates for the Nation
and All Fifty States
A Report to the Nation
Benjamin Scafidi, Principal Investigator
Institute for Marriage and Public Policy
Georgia Family Council
Families Northwest
On the cover: Man and Woman Splitting Dollar by
Todd Davidson, Stock Illustration RF, Getty
Images.
2008, Georgia Family Council and Institute for
American Values. No reproduction of the materi-
als contained herein is permitted without the
written permission of the Institute for American
Values.
ISBN: 1-931764-14-X
New York, New York 10023
Tel: (212) 246-3942
Fax: (212) 541-6665
M
OST OF THE PUBLIC DEBATE over marriage focuses on the role of marriage as
a social, moral, or religious institution. But marriage is also an economic
institution, a powerful creator of human and social capital. Increases in
divorce and unwed childbearing have broad economic implications, including
larger expenditures for the federal and state governments. This is the first-ever
report that attempts to measure the taxpayer costs of family fragmentation for
U.S. taxpayers in all fifty states. Among its findings: Even programs that result in
very small decreases in divorce and unwed childbearing could yield big savings
for taxpayers.
The reports principal investigator is Benjamin Scafidi, an economist in the
J. Whitney Bunting School of Business at Georgia College & State University. The
co-sponsoring organizations are the Institute for American Values, the Institute for
Marriage and Public Policy, Georgia Family Council, and Families Northwest.
The co-sponsoring organizations are grateful to Chuck Stetson and Mr. and Mrs.
John Fetz for their generous financial support of the project. The principal investi-
gator is grateful to Deanie Waddell for her expert research assistance.
Page 3
Project Advisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
I. Why Should Government Care about Marriage? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
II. How Might Marriage Affect Taxpayers? Empirical Literature Review . . . . . . .9
How Much Does Marriage Reduce Poverty? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Does Family Fragmentation Increase Crime? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
III. Is the Methodology Used in This Estimate Reasonable? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
What Costs Are Associated with Means-Tested Government Programs? . . .13
What Costs Are Associated with the Justice System? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
How Are Foregone Tax Revenues Estimated? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
IV. What Is the Total Estimated Cost of Family Fragmentation? . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
V. What Are the Policy Implications? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Appendix A: Testing the Analysis: Is the Estimate of $112 Billion
Too High or Too Low? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Appendix B: Explaining the Methodology for State-Specific Costs . . . . . . . . . . .31
Tables
Table 1: U.S. Children Residing in Two-Parent Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Table 2: Percent of U.S. Children in a Single-Parent Household that Has... .7
Table 3: Persons and Children Lifted out of Poverty via Marriage . . . . . . .14
Table 4: Household Income and Usage of Food Stamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Table 5: Household Income and Usage of Cash Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Table 6: Household Income and Usage of Medicaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Table 7: Estimated Costs of Family Fragmentation for U.S. Taxpayers . . . .18
Table A.1: Sub-Calculations of State and Federal Taxpayer Costs . . . . . . .32
Notes to Table A.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Table A.2: Sub-Calculations for EITC and Justice System Estimates . . . . . .35
Table A.3: Total Poverty and Family Structure by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Table A.4: Child Poverty and Family Structure by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Table A.5: Estimates of State and Local Taxpayer Costs of
Family Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Contents
The Taxpayer Costs of
Divorce and Unwed Childbearing
First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All Fifty States
Page 4
Project Advisors
Project advisors provided expert review but are not authors of the report. Affiliations
are listed for identification purposes only. Any errors or omissions in this report are
the responsibility of the principal investigator and not of the project advisors.
James Alm
Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University
Obie Clayton
Morehouse College
Ron Haskins
The Brookings Institution
Brett Katzman
Kennesaw State University
Robert Lerman
Urban Institute
Theodora Ooms
Center for Law and Social Policy
Roger Tutterow
Mercer University
Matt Weidinger
U.S. House Ways and Means Committee
W. Bradford Wilcox
University of Virginia
About Benjamin Scafidi
Ben Scafidi is an associate professor in the J. Whitney Bunting School of Business
at Georgia College & State University. His research has focused on education and
urban policy. Previously he served as the Education Policy Advisor for Georgia
Governor Sonny Perdue and served on the staff of both of Georgia Governor Roy
Barnes Education Reform Study Commissions. He received his Ph.D. in Economics
from the University of Virginia and his bachelors degree in Economics from the
University of Notre Dame. Ben was born and raised in Richmond, Virginia. Ben and
Lori Scafidi and their four children reside in Milledgeville, Georgia.
Page 5
Executive Summary
T
HIS STUDY PROVIDES THE FIRST RIGOROUS ESTIMATE of the costs to U.S. taxpayers
of high rates of divorce and unmarried childbearing both at the national and
state levels.
Why should legislators and policymakers care about marriage? Public debate on
marriage in this country has focused on the social costs of family fragmentation
(that is, divorce and unwed childbearing), and research suggests that these are
indeed extensive. But marriage is more than a moral or social institution; it is also
an economic one, a generator of social and human capital, especially when it
comes to children.
Research on family structure suggests a variety of mechanisms, or processes,
through which marriage may reduce the need for costly social programs. In this
study, we adopt the simplifying and extremely cautious assumption that all of the
taxpayer costs of divorce and unmarried childbearing stem from the effects that
family fragmentation has on poverty, a causal mechanism that is well-accepted and
has been reasonably well-quantified in the literature.
Based on the methodology, we estimate that family fragmentation costs U.S. tax-
payers at least $112 billion each and every year, or more than $1 trillion each
decade. In appendix B, we also offer estimates for the costs of family fragmenta-
tion for each state.
These costs arise from increased taxpayer expenditures for antipoverty, criminal jus-
tice, and education programs, and through lower levels of taxes paid by individuals
who, as adults, earn less because of reduced opportunities as a result of having been
more likely to grow up in poverty.
The $112 billion figure represents a lower-bound or minimum estimate. Given the
cautious assumptions used throughout this analysis, we can be confident that cur-
rent high rates of family fragmentation cost taxpayers at least $112 billion per year.
The estimate of $112 billion per year is the total figure incurred at the federal, state,
and local levels. Of these taxpayer costs, $70.1 billion are at the federal level, $33.3
billion are at the state level, and $8.5 billion are at the local level. Taxpayers in
California incur the highest state and local costs at $4.8 billion, while taxpayers in
Wyoming have the lowest state and local costs at $61 million.
If, as research suggests is likely, marriage has additional benefits to children, adults,
and communities, and if those benefits are in areas other than increased income lev-
els, then the actual taxpayer costs of divorce and unwed childbearing are likely
much higher.
Page 6
How should policymakers, state legislators, and others respond to the large taxpayer
costs of family fragmentation? We note that even very small increases in stable mar-
riage rates as a result of government programs or community efforts to strengthen
marriage would result in very large savings for taxpayers. If the federal marriage
initiative, for example, succeeds in reducing family fragmentation by just 1 percent,
U.S. taxpayers will save an estimated $1.1 billion each and every year.
Because of the modest price tags associated with most federal and state marriage-
strengthening programs, and the large taxpayer costs associated with divorce and
unwed childbearing, even modest success rates would be cost-effective. Texas, for
example, recently appropriated $15 million over two years for marriage education
and other programs to increase stable marriage rates. If this program succeeds in
increasing stably married families by just three-tenths of 1 percent, it will be cost-
effective in its returns to Texas taxpayers.
This report is organized as follows: Section I explains why policymakers may have
an interest in supporting marriage. Sections II and III explain the methods used to
estimate the taxpayer cost of family fragmentation by using evidence about the rela-
tionship between family breakdown and poverty. Section IV reveals the national
estimate of the taxpayer cost. Estimated costs for individual states are found in
appendix B.
Finally, a note to social scientists: Few structural estimates exist of the relationships
needed to estimate the taxpayer costs of family fragmentation. Therefore, we have
used indirect estimates based on the assumption that marriage has no independent
effects on adults or children other than the effect of marriage on poverty.

EXHIBIT 60
WHAT IS MARRIAGE?
Man and Woman: A Defense
SHERIF GIRGIS
RYAN T. ANDERSON
ROBERT P. GEORGE
i
1
I
I
1
.
What Is Marriage?
Man and Woman: A Defense

Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson,
and Robert P. George
ENCOUNTER BOOKS
New York London
zo12 by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,
or otherwise, without the prior written permission of
Encounter Books, 900 Broadway, Suite 6or,
New York, New York rooo3.
First American edition published in zo12 by Encounter Books,
an activity of Encounter for Culture and Education, Inc.,
a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation.
Encounter Books website address: www.encounterbooks.com
Manufactured in the United States and printed on
acid-free paper. The paper used in this publication meets
the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISO Z3948-1992
(R 1997) (Permanence of Paper).
FIRST AMERICAN EDITION
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG!NG-IN-PllliLICATION DATA
Girgis, Sherif, 1986-
What is marriage? :man and woman: a defense I
by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George.
p. em.
ISBN 978-1-59403-622.-4 (hbk.: a}k. paper)- ISBN 978-1-59403-623-I (ebook)
r. Civil marriage z. Marriage law. 3 Marriage.
I. George, Robert P. II. Anderson, Ryan T., 1981- Ill. Title.
HQroo1.G57 2.012
306.8r-dc23
2.012.00762.1
The extract from the poem "Epithalamion," by Sir Edmund Spenser,
has been reproduced from The Oxford Book of English Verse, 12JO-T900,
edited by A. T. Quiller-Couch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19oo).
PRODUCED BY WILSTED & TAYLOR PUBLISHING SERVICES
Designer and compositor Yvonne Tsang
Proofreader Melody Lacina
INTRODUCTION J
ciations, the media, religious communities, and living rooms
across the country. It is hard to think of a more salient cultural
conflict.
Same-sex civil marriage finds overwhelming support among
intellectuals, journalists, and entertainers, indeed nearly all of
our cultural elite. Overall, however, the American people re-
main unconvinced of its merits. In thirty-two states where the
issue has been put to the people in a referendum-including lib-
eral states such as California, Wisconsin, and Maine-the con-
jugal view of marriage has prevailed. In most of these states, the
people have enacted that view constitutionally. Another twelve
states have passed statutes doing the same. All told, the people
of forty-four states have affirmed the conjugal view of marriage
by direct voting or through their representatives.
In six states and the District of Coll}mbia, civil marriage has
been redefined to include same-sex relationships. In Massachu-
setts, Connecticut, and Iowa, this happened by judicial decree;
in Vermont, New Hampshire, Washington, D.C., New York,
and Maryland by legislation. (As of this writing, Washington
State has also passed a same-sex civil marriage bill, to take ef-
fect only if upheld in a 20I2 referendum.) However this piece-
meal battle continues, the record so far explodes the idea that
this debate is over, that blind forces of history have somehow
fixed a revisionist victory.
While most victories for same-sex civil marriage have come
from the bench, courts have upheld conjugal marriage laws
more often than not: at least ten state and federal courts have
done so in the last decade. But a few pending cases might be the
most consequential. One centers on the federal Defense of Mar-
riage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a union of man
and woman for federal purposes and allows states to choose
whether to recognize same-sex marriages contracted elsewhere.
Passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by President
Clinton in r996, DOMA was declared unconstitutional in 2oro
by a federal district court judge in Massachusetts and in 20I2
by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. As of this writing, the
II
6 WHAT IS MARRIAGE?
case has been appealed to the Supreme Court. President Obama,
having judged parts of DOMA unconstitutional, has instructed
his Department of Justice not to defend it.
Perhaps the most prominent judicial battle is Hollingsworth
v. Perry. In 2008, after the California Supreme Court had de-
clared California's conjugal marriage law unconstitutional,
California voters amended their state constitution to declare
marriage a male-female union, leaving intact civil-union laws
that granted same-sex relationships all the legal benefits of mar-
riage. In August 20io, a federal court declared Proposition 8
a violation of rights to equal protection and due process un-
der the U.S. Constitution; in 2.012, a three-judge panel on the
Ninth Circuit affirmed. Perry has been appealed to the Supreme
Court. There, just five justices might well decide marriage pol-
icy for the nation, drawing all these battles to an undemocrati-
cally abrupt close. By the Court's standards, marriage laws are
constitutional if they have a rational basis. Showing that con-
jugal marriage laws are indeed rationally grounded is a central
purpose of this book. But we hope that it serves mainly as grist
for democratic deliberation.
WHAT WE WILL SHOW
Our essential claims may be put succinctly. There is a distinct
form of personal union and corresponding way of life, histori-
cally called marriage, whose basic features do not depend on
the preferences of individuals or cultures. Marriage is, of its es-
sence, a comprehensive union: a union of will (by consent) and
body (by sexual union); inherently ordered to procreation and
thus the broad sharing of family life; and calling for permanent
and exclusive commitment, whatever the spouses' preferences. It
has long been and remains a personal and social reality, sought
and prized by individuals, couples, and whole societies. But it is
also a moral reality: a human good with an objective structure,
which it is inherently good for us to live out.
rna,
:ted
Jrth
de-
nal,
}are
aws
:Iar-
>n 8
un-
the

Jol-
ati-
are
)U-
ral

ct

s-
d
d
lt
t
t
s
INTRODUCTION 7
Marriages have always been the main and most effective
means of rearing healthy, happy, and well-integrated children.
The health and order of society depend on the rearing of healthy,
happy, and well-integrated children. That is why law, though it
may take no notice of ordinary friendships, should recognize
and support marriages.
There can thus be no right for nonmarital relationships to
be recognized as marriages. There can indeed be much harm, if
recognizing them would obscure the shape, and so weaken the
special norms, of an institution on which social order depends.
So it is not the conferral of benefits on same-sex relationships it-
self but redefining marriage in the tmblic mind that bodes ill for
the common good. Indeed, societies mindful of this fact need
deprive no same-sex-attracted people of practical goods, social
equality, or personal fulfillment.
0 0 \)
Here, then, is the heart of our argument against redefinition.
If the law defines marriage to include same-sex partners, many
will come to misunderstand marriage. They will not see it as es-
sentially comprehensive, or thus (among other things) as ordered
to procreation and family life-but as es;;entially an emotional
union. For reasons to be explained, they will therefore tend not
to understand or respect the objective norms of permanence or
sexual exclusivity that shape it. Nor, in the end, will they see
why the terms of marriage should not depend altogether on the
will of the parties, be they two or ten in number, as the terms
of friendships and contracts do. That is, to the extent that mar-
riage is misunderstood, it will be harder to see the point of its
norms, to live by them, and to urge them on others. And this,
besides making any remaining restrictions on marriage arbi-
trary, will damage the many cultural and political goods that
get the state involved in marriage in the first place. We list them
in summary form here to orient readers. Each will be discussed,
8 WHAT IS MARRIAGE?
and its connection to marriage policy defended, in subsequent
chapters of this book.
Real marital fulfillment. No one deliberates or acts in a vac-
uum. We all take cues from cultural norms, which are shaped
by the law. To form a true marriage, one must freely choose it.
And to choose marriage, one must have at least a rough, intui-
tive idea of what it is. The revisionist proposal would harm peo-
ple (especially future generations) by warping their idea of what
marriage is. It would teach that marriage is about emotional
union and cohabitation, without any inherent connections to
bodily union or family life. As people internalized this view,
their ability to realize genuine marital union would diminish.
This would be bad in itself, since marital union is good in itself.
It would be the subtlest but also the primary harm of redefini-
tion; other harms would be the effects of misconstruing mar-
riage, and so not living it out and supporting it.
Spousal well-being. Marriage tends to make spouses health-
ier, happier, and wealthier than they would otherwise be. But
what does this is marriage, especially through its distinctive
norms of permanence, exclusivity, and orientation to family life.
As the state's redefinition of marriage makes these norms harder
to understand, cherish, justify, and live by, spouses will benefit
less from the psychological and material advantages of marital
stability.
Child well-being. If same-sex relationships are recognized as
marriages, not only will the norms that keep marriage stable be
undermined, but the notion that men and women bring differ-
ent gifts to parenting will not be reinforced by any civil institu-
tion. Redefining marriage would thus soften the social pressures
and lower the incentives-already diminished these last few de-
cades-for husbands to stay with their wives and children, or
for men and women to marry before having children. All this
would harm children's development into happy, productive, up-
right adults.
Friendship. Misunderstandings about marriage will also
speed our society's drought of deep friendship, with special harm
in subsequent
: acts in a vac-
ch are shaped
eely choose it.
t rough, intui-
uld harm peo-
r idea of what
:mt emotional
onnections to
~ e this view,
uld diminish.
good in itself.
n of redefini-
tstruing mar-
ouses health-
wise be. But
~ s distinctive
o family life.
torms harder
; will benefit
:s of marital
:cognized as
1ge stable be
>ring differ-
:ivil institu-
al pressures
last few de-
:hildren, or
!n. All this
luctive, up-
will also
1ecial harm
INTRODUCTION 9
to the unmarried. The state will have defined marriage mainly
by degree or intensity-as offering the most of what makes any
relationship valuable: shared emotion and experience. It will
rhus become less acceptable to seek (and harder to find) emo-
tional and spiritual intimacy in nonmarital friendships. These
will come to be seen not as different from marriage (and thus
distinctively appealing), but simply as less. Only the conjugal
view gives marriage a definite orientation to bodily union and
family life. Only the conjugal view preserves a richly populated
horizon with space for many types of communion, each with its
own scale of depth and specific forms of presence and care.
Religious liberty. As the conjugal view comes to be seen as
irrational, people's freedom to express and live by it will be
curbed. Thus, for example, several states have forced Catholic
Charities to give up its adoption services or place children with
same-sex partners, against Catholic principles. Some conjugal
marriage supporters have been fired for publicizing their views.
If civil marriage is redefined, believing what virtually every hu-
man society once believed about marriage-that it is a male-
female union-will be seen increasingly as a malicious preju-
dice, to be driven to the margins of culture.
Limited government. The state is (or should be) a support-
ing actor in our lives, not a protagonist. It exists to create the
conditions under which we and our freely formed communities
can thrive. The most important free community, on which all
others depend, is marriage; and the conditions for its thriving
include both the accommodations for couples and the pressures
on them to stay together that marriage law provides. Redefining
civil marriage will further erode marital norms, thrusting the
state even more deeply into leading roles for which it is poorly
suited: parent and discipliner to the orphaned, provider to the
neglected, and arbiter of disputes over custody, paternity, and
visitations. As the family weakens, our welfare and correctional
bureaucracies grow.
These, in brief, are our main claims, to be elaborated and
defended. To opinion leaders, we offer this book as a resource
ro \l!{HAT IS MARRIAGE?
to draw on, or a challenge to meet; and to teachers and students
of every persuasion, we offer it as material for analysis, defense,
and critique. We offer it to religious bodies considering whether
to reform 'or defend their traditions' teachings on marriage. Fi-
nally, since marriage is a good that must be chosen to be real-
ized-and must be roughly understood to be chosen-we offer
it to current and future spouses, and to all who witness and
support their vows.
WHAT OUR ARGUMENT IS NOT
Before we continue, we should clarify what our argument is
not. First, it is in the end not about homosexuality. We do not
address the morality of homosexual acts or their heterosexual
counterparts. We will show that one can' defend the conjugal
view of marriage while bracketing this moral question and that
the conjugal view can be wholeheartedly embraced without
denigrating same-sex-attracted people, or ignoring their needs,
or assuming that their desires could change. After all, the con-
jugal view is serenely embraced by many thoughtful people who
are same-sex-attracted.
4
Again, this is fundamentally a debate
about what marriage is, not about homosexuality.
Second, our argument makes no appeal to divine revelation
or religious authority. We think it right and proper to make
religious arguments for or against a marriage policy (or policies
on capital punishment, say, or immigration), but we offer no
religious arguments here.
There is simple and decisive evidence that the conjugal view
is not peculiar to religion, or to any religious tradition. Ancient
thinkers who had no contact with religions such as Judaism or
Christianity-including Xenophanes, Socrates, Plato, Aristo-
tle, Musonius Rufus, and Plutarch-reached remarkably simi-
lar views of marriage. To be sure, the world's major religions
have also historically seen marriage as a conjugal relationship,
shaped by its social role in binding men to women and both
to the children born of their union. But this suggests only that
44 WHAT IS MARRIAGE?
these alternatives to married biological parentingP To make
marriages more stable is to give more children the best chance
to become upright and productive members of society. Note the
importance of the link between marriage and children in both
stages of our argument: just as it provides a powerful reason to
hold the conjugal view of marriage, so it provides the central
reason to make marriage a matter of public concern.
But this link is no idiosyncrasy of our view. It is amply con-
firmed in our law. Long before same-sex civil marriages were
envisioned, courts declared that marriage "is the foundation of
the family and of society, without which there would be nei-
ther civilization nor progress."
13
They recalled that "virtually
every Supreme court case recognizing as fundamental the right
to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institu-
tion's inextricable link to procreation."
14
In their account, not
just ours, "the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature
and society, is procreation";
15
"the procreation of children un-
der the shield and sanction of the law" is one of the "two princi-
pal ends of marriage."
16
In fact, "marriage exists as a protected
legal institution primarily because of societal values associated
with the propagation of the human race."L
7
Examples can be
multiplied ad nauseam.JS
A second public benefit of marriage is that it tends to help
spouses financially, emotionally, physically, and socially. As the
late University of Virginia sociologist Steven Nock showed, it
is not that people who are better off are most likely to marry,
but that marriage makes people better off. More than signal
maturity, marriage can promote it. Thus men, after their wed-
ding, tend to spend more time at work, less time at bars, more
time at religious gatherings, less time in jail, and more time with
familyY
The shape of marriage as a permanent and exclusive union
ordered to family life helps explain these benefits. Permanently
committed to a relationship whose norms are shaped by its apt-
ness for family life, husbands and wives gain emotional insur-
ance against life's temporary setbacks. Exclusively committed,
ng.U To make
he best chance
ciety. Note the
1ildren in both
erful reason to
des the central
:ern.
t is amply con-
narriages were
~ foundation of
would be nei-
that "virtually
1ental the right
on the institu-
ir account, not
laws of nature
Jf children un-
b.e "two princi-
, as a protected
lues associated
amples can be
t tends to help
;ocially. As the
ock showed, it
ikely to marry,
)re than signal
fter their wed-
~ at bars, more
nore time with
:xclusive union
s. Permanently
tped by its apt-
uotional insur-
~ y committed,
THE STATE AND MARRIAGE 45
they leave the sexual marketplace and thus escape its heightened
risks. Dedicated to their children and each other, they enjoy the
benefits of a sharpened sense of purpose. More vigorously sow-
ing in work, they reap more abundantly its fruits. So the state's
interest in productivity and social order creates an interest in
marriage.
20
Third, these two benefits of marriage-child and spousal
well-being-support the conclusion of a study led by Professor
W. Bradford Wilcox as part of the University of Virginia's Na-
tional Marriage Project: "The core message ... is that the wealth
of nations depends in no small part on the health of the fam-
ily."21 The same study suggests that marriage and fertility trends
"play an underappreciated and important role in fostering long-
term economic growth, the viability of the welfare state, the size
and quality of the workforce, and the health of large sectors of
the modern economy."
22
These are legitimate state interests if
anything is; so too, then, is marriage.
Fourth, given its economic benefits, it is no surprise that the
decline of marriage most hurts the least well-off. As Kay Hy-
mowitz argues in Marriage and Caste in America, the decline
of the marriage culture has hurt lower-income communities and
African Americans the most.
23
In fact, a leading indicator of
whether someone will know poverty or prosperity is whether
she knew growing up the love and security of her married
mother and father.
Finally, since a strong marriage culture is good for children,
spouses, indeed our whole economy, and especially the poor,
it also serves the cause of limited government. Most obviously,
where marriages never form or easily break down, the state ex-
pands to fill the domestic vacuum by lawsuits to determine pa-
ternity, visitation rights, child support, and alimony.
But the less immediate effects are even more extensive. As
absentee fathers and out-of-wedlock births become common, a
train of social pathologies follows, and with it greater demand
for policing and state-provided social services. Sociologists Da-
vid Popenoe and Alan Wolfe's research on Scandinavian coun-
tries shows that as marriage culture declines, the size and scope
of state power and spending grow.
24
In fact, a study by the Left-leaning Brookings Institution
finds that $229 billion in welfare expenditures between 1970
and 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage
culture and the resulting exacerbation of social ills: teen preg-
nancy, poverty, crime, drug abuse, and health problems.U A
2008 study found that divorce and unwed childbearing cost
taxpayers $rr2 billion each year.
26
And Utah State University
scholar David Schramm has estimated that divorce alone costs
local, state, and federal government $33 billion each year.
27
Thus, although some libertarians would give marriage no
more legal status than we give baptisms and bar mitzvahs,
28
privatizing marriage would be a catastrophe for limited gov-
ernment. Almost every human interest that might justify state
action-health, security, educational development, social order
-would also justify legally regulating marriage. A state that
will not support marriage is like a doctor who will not en-
courage a healthy diet and exercise. Each passes over what is
basic and paramount in a misplaced zeal for supplements and
remedies.
IS MARRIAGE ENDLESSLY MALLEABLE?
We can now address the arguments of those on the Left who
think marriage malleable to no end (call them "constructiv-
ists")Y Marriage is for them whatever we decide to make it.
There are no criteria that your relationship must meet to be a
marriage-to realize the value specific to marriage as a human
good. There is only the vast and gradual spectrum of more and
less affectionate relations, plus our (and every) society's peculiar
habit of carving out an arbitrary region on the far end of that
spectrum for special social and legal treatment.
30
Hence there
is no "right answer" for the state's marriage policy, any more
than for the national bird: different proposals are just more or
less preferable.
31
e size and scope
:ings Institution
s between 1970
of the marriage
l ills: teen preg-
1 problemsY A
1ildbearing cost
State University
orce alone costs
each yearY
ive marriage no
bar mitzvahs,
28
for limited gov-
ght justify state
ent, social order
ge. A state that
ho will not en-
;es over what is
upplements and
I m the Left who
m "constructiv-
cide to make it.
1st meet to be a
iage as a human
um of more and
ociety's peculiar
far end of that
t.
30
Hence there
>Oiicy, any more
are just more or
Constructivism faces several problems, as we will show.
First, it is often motivated by the fallacy, easy to dispel, that
because social practices are partly constructed, they must be
entirely constructed. Second, it can make no sense of major
philosophical and legal traditions. Third, it also contradicts the
spirit of common revisionist arguments, and would imply that
many revisionists' views are, by their own lights, as radically
unjust as they consider ours to be. Finally, even if constructiv-
ism were true, it would provide no good basis for the revision-
ist view.
Can a Social Practice Have Necessary Features?
For Professor Andrew Koppelman of Northwestern, our claim
that a social practice like marriage could have necessary fea-
tures that we did not choose to give it is "barely comprehen-
sible."32 Could chess, for example, have features that cannot be
traced to sheer choice or custom? Why marriage, then?
For all its excellences, everything about chess is conventional.
But marriage is a basic aspect of human well-being-valuable
for people in itself, without our deciding to make it so, and in a
way that other goods cannot substitute for.
33
So when we say that, for example, permanent commitment
is a necessary feature of marriage, we just mean that there is a
distinctive human good that you can fully realize only through
a vow of permanence (among other things). This is compatible
with the obvious fact that many other features of marriage-
like its legal benefits-vary widely across cultures and even cou-
ples. Moreover, to agree that goods have some objective features
in this sense, one need not believe in God, just in some constants
of human nature-at least across some time span.
Consider, by analogy, friendship. It clearly takes different
forms across history, but no one is fooled by this into think-
ing that it does not retain an objective core, fixed by our social
nature. True friendship requires mutual and mutually acknowl-
edged good will and cooperation. Lacking that, a relationship
between two people simply lacks the distinctive value of friend-
;
ship; they owe each other none of the special consideration that
friends do.
Thus also for marriage. The average 1990s American mar-
riage and its r89os counterpart surely have different emotional
profiles, divisions of labor, and economic purposes and impli-
cations. Largely rejected in the West today, polygamy and ar-
ranged marriage have existed in many cultures. A British royal
wedding looks very different from a Navajo wedding (and in-
deed, from a nonroyal British wedding, though not from certain
New York weddings).
But none of this should unsettle proponents of the conjugal
view. None of it disproves what reflection reveals: Marriage has
an objective core, fixed by our nature as embodied, sexually re-
productive (hence complementary) beings; and to deviate from
it is to miss a crucial part of this basic human good.
First, some cross-cultural differences in marriage practice do
not go to its objective core. Parties to arranged marriages, for
example, may still consent to whomever they are assigned, as
required for true marriage. The conjugal view neither forbids
nor requires any presumption of intense feeling, or a certain
economic purpose to marriage.
Second, the conjugal view is not even disproven by cultures
that omit what it sees as central. No moral truth of much speci-
ficity has enjoyed universal assent-not the wrong of seeking
innocent blood, nor the value of freedom from slavery, nor any-
thing else. That makes them no less true.
It is natural rather to think that the most basic ethical prin-
ciples would be most widely held; while those derived from
more basic principles would meet with patchier understanding
and assent, since we reach them by applying other principles.
From this angle, the historical record is unsurprising, given
the truth of the conjugal view. What it considers most basic to
marriage-like bodily union and connection to family life-are
nearly universal in marriage practice. And what it and our argu-
ment treat as grounded in these basics-permanent, exclusive
. I : - t.r !J.....! .._ t_.! '' -----. -
consideration that
)S American mar-
iffcrent emotional
rposes and impli-
polygamy and ar-
es. A British royal
wedding (and in-
h not from certain
ts of the conjugal
Marriage has
ldied, sexually re-
d to deviate from
good.
rriage practice do
;ed marriages, for
'f are assigned, as
w neither forbids
ling, or a certain
rovcn by cultures
tth of much speci-
wrong of seeking
1 slavery, nor any-
?asic ethical prin-
ose derived from
ier understanding
: other principles.
tsurprising, given
lers most basic to
o family life-are
1t it and our argu-
nanent, exclusive
commitment-is less represented. Hence the presence of polyg-
amy in many cultures, contrasted with the nearly perfect human
consensus on sexual complementarity in
Philosophical and Legal Traditions
It might seem audacious of us to suggest that our view of the
essential core of marriage is available to reasoned reflection. If
so, we are just the latest in a line of audacious persons, a line
that stretches back through millennia. The view that we pro-
pose has been developing for as long as there has been sustained
reflection on marriage. Important philosophical and legal tra-
ditions have long distinguished friendships of all kinds from
those special relationships that extend two people's union along
the bodily dimension of their being and that are uniquely apt
for, and enriched by, reproduction and childrearing. The three
great philosophers of antiquity-Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle
-as well as Xenophanes and Stoics such as Musonius Rufus
defended this view-in some cases, amid highly homoerotic
cultures. Especially clear is Plutarch's statement in Erotikos of
marriage as a special kind of friendship uniquely embodied in
coitus (which he, too, calls a "renewal" of marriage). He also
expressly affirms in his Life of Solon that intercourse with an
infertile spouse realizes the good of marriage-something that
these other ancient thinkers took for granted, even as they (like
Plutarch) denied that other sexual acts could do the same.
34
For hundreds of years at common law, moreover, while infer-
tility was no ground for declaring a marriage void, only coitus
was recognized as consummating (completing) a marriage. No
other sexual act between man and woman could. What could
make sense of these two practices?
*Unlike a union that involves coitus, children, and permanent commitment
but not (say) exclusivity, the partnerships of two men or three women lacks even
what is most basic to marriage. So such partnerships cannot even be seen as im-
perfect participations in the good of marriage; they are not true marriages at all.
ly syndi-
~ e advo-
multiple
:of both
:edom to
seem of-
' support
on both
tey agree
"disagree
s welfare,
=the com-
marriage,
critics are
act of our
1atwe are
~ ~
What's the Harm?
HAVING COMPARED THE CONJUGAL AND REVISIONIST
views of marriage and seen the benefits of recognizing marriage
at all, some simply ask, What's the harm? Their appeal to prac-
ticality runs something like this:
Suppose your view is coherent and even superior to the al-
ternative as an account of the good of marriage. So what?
Why not let a few thousand same-sex partners get a cer-
tificate and a certain legal status? No one would actually
be worse off. How would gay civil marriage affect your
lives, liberties, or opportunities, or your own marriages?
1
We said in the Introduction that this debate is not about ho-
mosexuality, but about marriage. Accordingly, in chapter 6, we
will show how the conjugal view respects same-sex-attracted
people's equal dignity and basic needs. Here we show how the
revisionist proposal would harm the institution of marriage and
much else besides.
53
Our argument depends on three simple ideas:
I. Law tends to shape beliefs.
2. Beliefs shape behavior.
3. Beliefs and behavior affect human interests and
human well-being.
Taking these truths for granted/ we argue that an unsound law
of marriage will breed mistaken views-not just of marriage,
but of parenting, common moral and religious beliefs, even
friendship-that will harm the human interests affected by each
of these.
WEAKENING MARRIAGE:
MAKING IT HARDER TO REALIZE
No one acts in a void. We all take cues from cultural norms,
shaped by the law. For the law affects our ideas of what is rea-
sonable and appropriate. It does so by what it prohibits-you
might think less of drinking if it were banned, or more of mari-
juana use if it were allowed-but also by what it approves. State
subsidies for heavy metal promote a different view of musical
merit than state sponsorship of chamber music. A school board
curriculum of quack science and chauvinistic history will im-
part a different message about knowledge than one with more
rigorous standards.
Of this point, revisionists hardly need convincing. They find
civil unions insufficient even when these offer same-sex unions
all the legal benefits of marriage. There is only one way to ex-
plain this: Revisionists agree that it matters what California
or the United States calls a marriage, because this affects how
Californians or Americans come to think of marriage.
Prominent Oxford philosopher Joseph Raz, no friend of the
conjugal view, agrees:
[O]ne thing can be said with certainty [about recent
changes in marriage law]. They will not be confined to
WHAT'S THE HARM? 55
adding new options to the familiar heterosexual mo-
nogamous family. They will change the character of that
family. If these changes take root in our culture then the
familiar marriage relations will disappear. They will not
disappear suddenly. Rather they will be transformed into
a somewhat different social form, which responds to the
fact that it is one of several forms of bonding, and that
bonding itself is much more easily and commonly dis-
soluble. All these factors are already working their way
into the constitutive conventions which determine what is
appropriate and expected within a conventional marriage
and transforming its significance.
3
Redefining civil marriage would change its meaning for
everyone. Legally wedded opposite-sex unions would increas-
ingly be defined by what they had in common with same-sex
relationships.
This wouldn't just shift opinion polls and tax burdens. Mar-
riage, the human good, would be harder to achieve. For you can
realize marriage only by choosing it, for which you need at least
a rough, intuitive idea of what it really is. By warping people's
view of marriage, revisionist policy would make them less able
to realize this basic way of thriving-much as a man confused
about what friendship requires will have trouble being a friend.
4
People forming what the state called "marriage" would increas-
ingly be forming bonds that merely resembled the real thing
in certain ways, as a contractual relationship might resemble a
friendship. The revisionist view would distort their priorities,
actions, and motivations, to the harm of true marriage/' But it's
wrong-and counterproductive-to obscure basic goods as a
means to social ends (see chapter 6, dignitary harm).
"The revisionist proposal would teach that marriage is most cemrally about
emotional union. But emotional union cannot stand on its own. People really unite
by sharing a good, but feelings are inherently private realities, which can be si-
multaneous but not really shared. People unite by consent, but feelings cannot be
central to a vow, for we have no direct control over them.
Obscuring the good of marriage to make it harder to live out
is thus the first harm of redefinition: other harms are the effects
of misunderstanding, and failing to live out, true marriage.
WEAKENING MARRIAGE AND EXPANDING
GOVERNMENT: ERODING MARITAL NORMS
Redefining marriage will also harm the material interests of
couples and children. As more people absorb the new law's les-
son that marriage is fundamentally about emotions, marriages
will increasingly take on emotion's tyrannical inconstancy.
5
Be-
cause there is no reason that emotional unions-any more than
the emotions that define them, or friendships generally-should
be permanent or Limited to two, these norms of marriage would
make less sense. People would thus feel less bound to live by
In other words, what the revisionist proposal would obscure-and make it
harder for us to live by-is the fact that marriage is first a matter of will and ac-
tion: two people's consent to cooperate in ways specific to marital love, especially
in bodily union of the sort made possible by sexual-reproductive complementarity,
and the domestic sharing of family life to which it tends. Urgent desire and ecstatic
delight, while often important motivations, arc a valuable bloom on marriage:
indicative of health and appealing in themselves, but seasonal at best. Spouses are
not any less married after fifty years than on day five-or after a long day on the
job than on a libidinous Saturday morning.
With the revisionist's inversion of priorities, singles deciding whom to marry
might rely more on elusive emotional signals of compatibility than more prosaic
indicators of fitness for marriage, such as fitness for parenting. Once married, they
might increasingly carry out marital actions-sex, household cooperation, and so
on-for the sake of maintaining individual (if reciprocal) satisfactions. But if cho-
sen for the wrong reasons, even such marriage-like actions won't really build up
true marriage-any more than giving a "gift" for personal gain builds up genuine
friendship.
Finally, such nonmarital motivations might eventually change actions.
Spouses might treat family life-which uniquely extends marriage-as less cen-
tral: perhaps helpful, but perhaps a hindrance to the emotional union now treated
as what marriage is really all about. And they might make their commitment more
conditional on romantic attachment, impairing marital union from the utterance
of "I do." These shifts would be harmful not just fur their effects on social order.
They would be bad in themselves, for they would impede couples from living out
and building up something good in itself: true marriage.
WHAT'S THE HARM? J7
them whenever they simply preferred to live otherwise. And, be-
ing less able to understand the value of marriage itself as a cer-
tain sort of union, even apart from its emotional satisfactions,
they would miss the reasons they had for marrying or staying
with a spouse as feelings waned, or waxed for others.
6
It might seem far-fetched to predict that two values as cher-
ished as permanence and exclusivity would wane. But we all
value them so strongly in part because our culture has long em-
braced an ethic that supports them. As this ethic and related
sentiments fade, so will support for these norms as objective
standards rather than optional preferences.
As we document below, even leading revisionists now argue
that if sexual complementarity is optional, so are permanence
and exclusivity. This is not because the slope from same-sex
unions to expressly temporary
7
and polyamorous ones is slip-
pery, but because most revisionist arguments level the ground
between them: If marriage is primarily about emotional union,
why privilege two-person unions, or permanently committed
ones? What is it about emotional union, valuable as it can be,
that requires these limits?
As these norms weaken, so will the emotional and mate-
rial security that marriage gives spouses. Because children fare
best on most indicators of health and well-being when reared
by their wedded biological parents, the same erosion of marital
norms would adversely affect children's health, education, and
general formation. The poorest and most vulnerable among us
would likely be hit the hardest. And the state would balloon:
to adjudicate breakup and custody issues, to meet the needs of
spouses and children affected by divorce, and to contain and
feebly correct the challenges these children face (see chapter 3).
Of course, marriage policy could go bad-and already
has-in many ways, especially by the introduction of no-fault
divorce laws, which make marriage contracts easier to break
than contracts of any other sort. Many prominent opponents
of the revisionist view-for example, Maggie Gallagher, David
Blankenhorn, the U.S. Catholic bishops-also opposed other
J8 WHAT IS MARRIAGE?
legal changes that harmed conjugal marriage.
8
For that matter,
we oppose no-fault divorce laws. We are focusing here on the is-
sue of same-sex civil marriage not because it alone matters, but
because it is the focus of a live debate whose results have impor-
tant consequences. Underlying people's adherence to the marital
norms already in decline, after all, are the deep (if implicit) con-
nections in their minds between marriage, bodily union, and
children. Redefining marriage as revisionists propose would not
just wear down but sever these ties, making it immeasurably
harder to reverse other damaging recent trends and restore the
social benefits of a healthy marriage culture.
MAKING MOTHER OR FATHER SUPERFLUOUS
Conjugal marriage laws reinforce the idea that the uniOn of
husband and wife is, on the whole, the most appropriate envi-
ronment for rearing children-an ideal supported by the best
available social science.* Recognizing same-sex relationships as
marriages would legally abolish that ideal. No civil institution
would reinforce the notion that men and women typically have
different strengths as parents; that boys and girls tend to benefit
from fathers and mothers in different ways.
To the extent that some continued to see marriage as apt for
family life, they would come to think-indeed, our law, public
schools, and media would teach them, and variously penalize
them for denying-that it matters not, even as a rule, whether
children are reared by both their mother and their father, or by
a parent of each sex at all. But as the connection between mar-
riage and parenting is obscured, as we think it would be eventu-
ally, no arrangement would be proposed as ideal.
And here is the central problem with either result: it would
diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to
*The need for adoption (and its immense value) where the ideal is practically
impossible is no argument for redefining civil marriage, a unified structure of in-
centives meant precisely to reinforce the ideal-to minimize the need for alterna-
tive, case-by-case provisions.
rer
ha'
paJ
ter
be1
we
hu
rna
ers
res
Gi
ha
grc
thf
lin
gis
evi
IS I
of
tin
m::
no
tw
cu
hu
sit
sa1
l.tter,
1e ts-
, but
tpor-
trital
con-
and
i not
:ably

n of
!nVl-
best
lS as
ttion
h. ave
nefit
tfor
tblic
tlize
ther
r by
nar-
ntu-
mld
s to
cally
>fin-

WHAT'S THE HARM? 59
remain with their wives and children, or for men and women
having children to marry first. Yet the resulting arrangements-
parenting by divorced or single parents, or cohabiting couples
-are demonstrably worse for children, as we have seen in chap-
ter 3. So even if it turned out that studies showed no differences
between same- and opposite-sex parenting, redefining marriage
would undermine marital stability in ways that we know do
hurt children.
That said, in addition to the data on child outcomes sum-
marized in chapter 3, there is significant evidence that moth-
ers and fathers have different parenting strengths-that their
respective absences impede child development in different ways.
Girls, for example, are likelier to suffer sexual abuse and to
have children as teenagers and out of wedlock if they do not
grow up with their father.
9
For their part, boys reared without
their father tend to have much higher rates of aggression, de-
linquency, and incarceration.
10
As Rutgers University sociolo-
gist David Popenoe concludes, "The burden of social science
evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting
is important for human development and that the contribution
of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable."
11
He con-
tinues: "[W]e should disavow the notion that 'mommies can
make good daddies,' just as we should disavow the popular
notion ... that 'daddies can make good mommies.' ... The
two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary-
culturally and biologically-for the optimal development of a
human being."
12
In a summary of the relevant science, Univer-
sity of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox finds much the
same:
Let me now conclude our review of the social scientific lit-
erature on sex and parenting by spelling out what should
be obvious to all. The best psychological, sociological,
and biological research to date now suggests that-on
average-men and women bring different gifts to the
parenting enterprise, that children benefit from having
"
Go WHAT IS MARRIAGE?
parents with distinct parenting styles, and that family
breakdown poses a serious threat to children and to the
societies in which they live.
13
Of course, the question of which arrangements our policies
should privilege is normative; it cannot be settled by the cause-
and-effect descriptions of social science alone. But that point
scarcely matters here, because it is impossible to generalize from
the available studies purporting to find no differences between
same-sex and married biological parenting outcomes.
Not one study of same-sex parenting meets the standard of re-
search to which top-quality social science aspires: large, random,
and representative samples observed longitudinally. Only one-
studying only rates of primary-school progress-is even just large
and representative.
14
Several that are most frequently cited in
the media actually compare same-sex parenting outcomes with
single-, step-, or other parenting arrangements already shown to
be suboptimal.
15
Few test for more than one or two indicators
of well-being. Most resort to "snowball sampling," in which
subjects recruit their friends and acquaintances for the study.
16
With this technique, "those who have many interrelationships
with ... a large number of other individuals" are strongly over-
representedY
As a resLJlt, psychologist Abbie Goldberg notes, studies of
same-sex parent households have focused on "white, middle-
class persons who are relatively 'out' in the gay community
and who are living in urban areas." They have overlooked
"working-class sexual minorities, racial or ethnic sexual mi-
norities, [and] sexual minorities who live in rural or isolated
geographical areas."
18
Yet such favorably biased samples of
same-sex parents are often compared to representative (and thus
more mixed) opposite-sex parent samples.
19
As Loren Marks ob-
serves in a literature review of all fifty-nine studies on which the
American Psychological Association relied in declaring no dif-
ferences between same- and opposite-sex parenting, "The avail-
able data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience
that family
nand to the
1ts our policies
~ d by the cause-
But that point
generalize from
:reoces between
omes.
~ s t n d r d of re
:large, random,
lly. Only one-
is even just large
1uently cited in
outcomes with
ready shown to
two indicators
ing," in which
for the study.
16
terrelationships
~ strongly over-
)tes, studies of
white, middle-
.ay community
lVe overlooked
nic sexual mi-
lral or isolated
ed samples of
. :ative (and thus
)ten Marks ob-
:s on which the
daring no dif-
ng, "The avail-
lll convenience
, - .4 - _......, ,_ ..__ - ~ L
WHA"J"'STHEHARM? 6I
samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim
either way .... Such a statement would not be grounded in
science. To make a generalizable claim, representative, large-
sample studies are needed-many of them."
20
By contrast, consider the findings of a recent study in this
area that was based on a large, random, and nationally repre-
sentative sample, regarding outcomes in adulthood of various
family structures. Compared to children of parents at least one
of whom had had a gay or lesbian relationship, those reared by
their married biological parents were found to have fared bet-
ter on dozens of indicators, and worse on noneY In a critique
noting some of the study's limitations, Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity Professor Paul Amato maintained that the study's meth-
odological advantages still make it "probably the best that we
can hope for, at least in the near future."
22
Furthermore, the scientific literature on child well-being and
same-sex parenting includes very little, reliable or otherwise,
on children reared by two men. Prominent same-sex parenting
scholars Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey, in a 2010 literature
review, admitted that they "located no studies of planned gay
fathers that included child outcome measures and only one that
compared gay male with lesbian or heterosexual adoptive par-
enting."23
The upshot is what revisionists William Meezan and Jon
athan Rauch concede in a review of the parenting literature:
"What the evidence does not provide, because of the meth-
odological difficulties we outlined, is much knowledge about
whether th.ose studied are typical or atypica I of the general pop-
ulation of children raised by gay and lesbian couples."
24
Ultimately, however, we have two reasons to expect that
same-sex parenting is generally less effective. First, every alter-
native to married biological parenting that has been examined
in high-quality studies has consistently been shown less effec-
tive: this is true of single- and stepparenting as well as parenting
by cohabiting couples.
25
As Princeton and Wisconsin sociolo-
gists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur found, based on four
t
longitudinal studies of nationally representative samples includ-
ing 2o,ooo subjects, "Children who grow up in a household
with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than
children who grow up in a household with both of their biologi-
cal parents ... regardless of whether the resident parent remar-
ries."26 This point reinforces the idea that the state's primary
interest is in upholding marital norms to keep biological parents
together, and not simply in promoting two-parent households.
Second, again, reliable studies suggest that mothers and fathers
foster-and their absences impede-child development in dif-
ferent ways.
In short, then: redefining civil marriage might make it more
socially acceptable for fathers to leave their families, for unmar-
ried parents to put off firmer public commitment, or for children
to be created for a household without a mother or father. But
whatever the cause, there will be a cost to depriving children of
the love and knowledge of their married mother and father.
Finally, to state the obvious: None of these points about par-
enting implies that men and women in same-sex relationships
have weaker devotion, or less capacity for affection. After all, it
is no insult to heroic single parents to point to data showing that
parenting by mother and father together is more effective. What
are compared in all cases are the outcomes of various parenting
combinations, not individual parents.
THREATENING MORAL AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
The harms of redefining civil marriage would extend beyond
couples and their children, to anyone who holds the conjugal
VieW.
We Americans are not patient with those we regard as ene-
mies of equality. People whose social attitudes and views remind
us of Jim Crow, Chinese exclusion laws, and disenfranchised
women experience none of the social tolerance and civility that
most of us are happy to extend across vast moral and political
gulfs. They are polite society's exiles, barred from the public
les includ-
household
rage, than
:ir biologi-
c:nt remar-
's primary
:al parents
:mseholds.
nd fathers
ent in dif-
ke it more
or unmar-
)r children
:ather. But
:hildren of
father.
about par-
ationships
\fter all, it
:Jwing that
tive. What
; parenting
JM
nd beyond
.e conjugal
l
lrd as ene-
~ w remind
.franchised
:ivility that
1d political
the public
WHAT'S THE HARM? 63
square and even respectable jobs. The First Amendment keeps
us from jailing them, but not from revoking certain civil privi-
leges or bringing civil claims against them for living by their
viewsP
The revisionist view depends on the idea that there are no
important differences between same- and opposite-sex relation-
ships. By endorsing it, the state would imply that the conjugal
view makes arbitrary distinctions. Conjugal marriage support-
ers would become, in the state's eyes, champions of invidious
discrimination. This idea would lead to violations of the rights
of conscience and religious freedom, and of parents' rights to
direct their children's education.
The First Amendment might well keep clergy from being
forced to celebrate same-sex weddings, but their lay coreligion-
ists will not enjoy similar protections, nor will their educational
and social-service institutions long escape discrimination in
licensing and government contracting. From the wedding on
through the honeymoon and into common life, couples trans-
act as a couple with countless people. Photographers; caterers,
innkeepers, adoption agency officials, parochial school admin-
istrators, counselors, foster-care and adoption providers, and
others will be forced to comply with the revisionist view or lose
their jobs.
We are not scaremongering: we are taking revisionists at
their word. If support for conjugal marriage really is like rac-
ism, we need only ask how civil society treats racists. We mar-
ginalize and stigmatize them. Thus, in a rare departure from
professional norms, a prominent law firm in April 2orr re-
neged on its commitment to defend the Defense of Marriage
Act for the House of Representatives. In Canada, Damian God-
dard was fired from his job as a sportscaster for expressing on
Twitter support for conjugal marriage.
28
A Georgia counselor
contracted by the Centers for Disease Control was fired after
an investigation into her religiously motivated decision to re-
fer someone in a same-sex relationship to another counselor.
29
A ministry in New Jersey lost its tax-exempt status for deny-
t
ing a lesbian couple use of its facility for a same-sex wedding.
30
A photographer was prosecuted by the New Mexico Human
Rights Commission for declining to photograph a same-sex
commitment ceremony.
31
The courts are already eroding freedoms in this area, as
champions of the rights of conscience have shown.
32
In Mas-
sachusetts, Catholic Charities was forced to give up its adoption
services rather than violate its principles by placing children
with same-sex cohabitants.
33
When public schools began teach-
ing students about same-sex civil marriage, precisely on the
ground that it was now the law of the commonwealth, a Court
of Appeals ruled that parents had no right to exempt their stu-
dents.
34
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty reports that over
"350 separate state anti-discrimination provisions would likely
be triggered by recognition of same-sex marriage."
35
Because of the mutual influence of law and culture, more-
over, emerging legal trends are mirrored by social ones. The
dismissal of the conjugal view as bigotry has become so deeply
entrenched among revisionists that a Washington Post story
drew denunciations and cries of journalistic bias for even imply-
ing that one conjugal view advocate was "sane" and "thought-
ful."36 Outraged readers compared the profile to a hypothetical
puff piece on a Ku Klux Klan memberY A New York Times
columnist has called conjugal marriage proponents (including
one of us by name) "bigots."
38
Organizations pushing the legal
redefinition of marriage label themselves as champions of "hu-
man rights" and opponents of "hate."
39
We agree, of course, that it is within the state's due powers to
restrict invidious discrimination-racist, sexist, or otherwise-
and that society may marginalize noxious views by marginal-
izing their champions. But it had better be right that these views
are false and harmful. If they are not noxious but suppressed
anyway, then it is society that hurts the common good, by curb-
ing freedoms of speech, religion, and conscience for nothing
more than ideological uniformity.
u ~
w
tic
Bt
pr
Sll
ab
en
c
th
hi
0\
se
"'
fr
pr
th
nc
~
lii
IV
oJ
n
c
SC
ac
fr
li
a
rr
~
WHAT'S THE HARM? 65
UNDERMINING FRIENDSHIP
We often hear arguments for and against the idea that redefini-
tion would weaken marriage and threaten religious freedom.
But it is a point lost on both sides of this debate that the social
prevalence of the revisionist view would make things harder on
single people: As marriage is defined simply as the most valu-
able or only kind of deep communion, it becomes harder to find
emotional and spiritual intimacy in nonmarital friendships.
Consider in this connection Atlantic blogger Ta-Nehisi
Coates's admission that he had until recently never considered
the possibility of deep nonromantic friendship. Reading about
historical examples of it "actually opened up some portion of my
own imagination-the possibility of feeling passionate, but not
sexual, about someone who I wasn't related to," he confessed.
"'Passion' isn't a word that often enters into the description [of]
friendships these days. And yet [it's] present in the writings of
previous generations"-when people recognized marriage as
the paradigm of one type of intimacy among others, and did
not simply equate intimacy with marriage.
But the revisionist view tends to do just that. Revisionists
cannot define marriage in terms of real bodily union or family
life, so they tend to define it instead by its degree or intensity.
Marriage is simply your closest relationship, offering the most
of the one basic currency of intimacy: shared emotion and expe-
rience. As a federal judge recently put it in a case striking down
California's conjugal marriage law, " 'marriage' is the name that
society gives to the relationship that matters most between two
adults."
40
The more we absorb this assumption, the less we value deep
friendship in its own right. Self-disclosure, unembarrassed re-
liance, self-forgetfulness, extravagant expressions of affection,
and other features of companionship come to seem gauche-or
even feel like unwelcome impositions-outside romance and
marriage.
41
We come to see friendships as mere rest stops on the
way back to family life. It becomes harder to share experiences
with our friend that we could just as well have shared with our
spouse, without seeming to detract from our marriage.
The conjugal view, by contrast, gives marriage a definite
shape, as ordered to true bodily union and thus to family life. If
the revisionist view sees single people as just settling for less, the
conjugal view leaves room for different forms of communion,
each with its own distinctive scale and form of companionship
and support. It keeps from making marriage totalizing: it clari-
fies what we owe our spouses in marital love; what we owe it
to them not to share with others; and what we could share now
with them, now with others, without any compromise of our
marnage.
The conjugal view's restoration could thus help us recover
the companionate value of friendship: that bond which King
David called "more wonderful to me than the love of women,"
which Augustine described as "two souls in one body";
42
a bond
all the sweeter for being chosen, but no less demanding for those
who know its depths.
THE "CONSERVATIVE" OBJECTION
We have seen that redefining civil marriage would affect how
we conduct our sexual relationships, how we parent, how we
treat conscientious dissent, and how we deal with our friends.
Such changes in thought and action would affect people's inter-
ests-not just those of children, but of spouses, the unmarried,
religious believers of various traditions, and others.
It remains for us to address a common objection to part of
this argument. Some say that adopting the revisionist view, far
from destabilizing the institution of marriage, would actually
strengthen it, by imposing traditional marital norms-conser-
vative values-on more relationships.
This point is usually offered as a stand-alone argument for
same-sex civil marriage. But note its limits: It does not show the
revisionist view of marriage to be true or the conjugal view false
(much less inconsistent or bigoted). Untouched are our claims
t
e

s
0
t<
VI
d
m
sa
re
vith our
definite
y life. If
less, the
nun10n,
ionship
it clari-
~ owe it
tre now
of our
recover
h King
Jmen,"
a bond
r those
:t how
JWWe
~ i e n d s
inter-
trried,
art of
w, far
tually
Jnser-
nt for
wthe
'false
laims
WHAT'S THE HARM? 67
that fathers matter as well as mothers, and that revisionism
threatens this ideal. The point does not allay concerns about
moral and religious freedom, or the diminution of friendship.
In fact, it does not even rebut our argument that marital norms
would come to make less sense in a revisionist world.
In other words, those who make this allegedly conservative
claim a:re suggesting only that it would be good if we used the
law to reshape same-sex unions according to the traditional
norms of marriage, whatever the point or likelihood of getting
them to take and keep the desired shape. But even stripped to its
modest core, the objection fails.
It fails because it assumes that the state can effectively en-
courage adherence to norms in relationships where those norms
have no deep rational basis-no reason for partners to stay to-
gether and exclusive, even if desire wanders or wanes or attach-
ment erodes. Laws that restrict people's freedom for no deep
purpose are not likely to last, much less to influence behavior.
43
But redefining civil marriage would not just be idle in this re-
spect; it would be counterproductive. Over time, people tend to
abide less by any given norms, the less those norms make sense.
To say it again, if marriage is understood as an essentially emo-
tional union, then marital norms, especially permanence and
exclusivity, will make less sense. But whatever the morality of
flouting these norms in other relationships, they do, in opposite-
sex relationships, serve the interests that hook the state into rec-
ognizing and supporting marriages in the first place.
So those who champion the conservative objection are right
to think that redefining civil marriage would produce a con-
vergence-but it would be a convergence in exactly the wrong
direction. Rather than imposing traditional norms on same-sex
relationships, abolishing the conjugal view would tend to erode
the basis for those norms in any relationship.
This is not an abstract matter. If the conjugal conception of
marriage were right, what would you expect the sociology of
same-sex romantic unions to be like? In the absence of strong
reasons to abide by marital norms, you would expect to see less
regard for those norms in both practice and theory. On both
counts, you would be right.
Consider the norm of monogamy. Judith Stacey-a promi-
nent New York University professor who is in no way regarded as
a fringe figure, in testifying before Congress against the Defense
of Marriage Act-expressed hope that the revisionist view's tri-
umph would give marriage "varied, creative, and adaptive con-
tours ... [leading some to] question the dyadic limitations of
Western marriage and seek . . . small group marriages."
44
In
their statement "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage," more than three
hundred "LGBT and allied" scholars and advocates-including
prominent Ivy League professors-call for legally recognizing
sexual relationships involving more than two partners.
45
Uni-
versity of Calgary Professor Elizabeth Brake thinks that justice
requires us to use legal recognition to "denormalize[] hetero-
sexual monogamy as a way of life" and correct for "past dis-
crimination against homosexuals, bisexuals, polygamists, and
care networks."
46
What about the connection to family life? Andrew Sullivan,
a self-styled proponent of the conservative case for same-sex
civil marriage, says that marriage has become "primarily a
way in which two adults affirm their emotional commitment to
one another."
47
E.J. Graff celebrates the fact that recognizing
same-sex unions would change the "institution's message" so
that it would "ever after stand for sexual choice, for cutting the
link between sex and diapers."
48
Enacting same-sex civil mar-
riage "does more than just fit; it announces that marriage has
changed shape."
49
And exclusivity? Mr. Sullivan, who has extolled the "spiri-
tuality" of "anonymous sex," also thinks that the "openness"
of same-sex unions could enhance the bonds of husbands and
WIVeS:
Same-sex unions often incorporate the virtues of friend-
ship more effectively than traditional marriages; and at
times, among gay male relationships, the openness of the
-
WHAT'S THE HARM? 69
contract makes it more likely to survive than many het-
erosexual bonds .... [T]here is more likely to be greater
understanding of the need for extramarital outlets be-
tween two men than between a man and a woman ....
[S]omething of the gay relationship's necessary honesty,
its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help
strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.
50
"Openness" and "flexibility" here are Sullivan's euphemisms
for sexual infidelity. Similarly, in a New York Times Magazine
profile, same-sex civil marriage activist Dan Savage encourages
spouses to adopt "a more flexible attitude" about allowing each
other to seek sex outside their marriage. A piece in The Advo-
cate, a gay-interest newsmagazine, supports our point still more
candidly:
Anti-equality right-wingers have long insisted that allow-
ing gays to marry will destroy the sanctity of "traditional
marriage," and, of course, the logical, liberal party-line
response has long been "No, it won't." But what if-for
once-the sanctimonious crazies are right? Could the
gay male tradition of open relationships actually alter
marriage as we know it? And would that be such a bad
thing?
51
As the article's blurb reads, "We often protest when homo-
phobes insist that same sex marriage will change marriage for
straight people too. But in some ways, they're right."
52
Again, these are not our words, but those of leading support-
ers of same-sex civil marriage. If you believe in permanence and
exclusivity but would redefine civil marriage, take note.
In fact, some revisionists have embraced the goal of weaken-
ing the institution of marriage in these very terms. "[Former
President George W.] Bush is correct," says revisionist advocate
Victoria Brownworth, " ... when he states that allowing same-
sex couples to marry will weaken the institution of marriage.
... It most certainly will do so, and that will make marriage a
far better concept than it previously has been."
53
Professor El-
len Willis, another revisionist, celebrates the fact that "confer-
ring the legitimacy of marriage on homosexual relations will
introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very
heart."
54
Michelangelo Signorile, a prominent gay activist, urges peo-
ple in same-sex relationships to "demand the right to marry not
as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to de-
bunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."
55
They
should "fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then,
once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely,
because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can
undertake ... is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely."
56
And the Western world's limited experience so far suggests
that these ideas play out in policy. Since countries have begun
recognizing same-sex unions, officials have proposed bills, made
administrative decisions, or allowed lawsuits challenging nearly
every other traditional norm: Mexico City has considered ex-
pressly temporary marriage licenses.
57
A federal judge in Utah
has allowed a legal challenge to anti-bigamy laws as violations
of religious liberty and infringements of equality.
58
A public no-
tary in Brazil has recognized a triad as a civil union, saying in
almost so many words that the redefinition of marriage required
it: "(T]he move reflected the fact that the idea of a 'family' had
changed .... 'For better or worse, it doesn't matter, but what
we considered a family before isn't necessarily what we would
consider a family today.' "
59
Some revisionists, like Jonathan Rauch, sincerely hope to
preserve traditional marital norms.
60
But the prediction that
they would be weakened is backed up not only by reflection on
what these norms are grounded in, along with surveys of revi-
sionist arguments, rhetoric, and the progression of their policy
proposals, but also by preliminary social science.
In the 198os, Professors David McWhirter and Andrew
Mattison, themselves in a romantic relationship, set out to dis-
s
S.
p
b
"
rr.
di
fit
"'
lee
pll
Ev
op
l l ~
Ac
[ga
me
agr
exf
exc
mg
free
me
sen
tion
pro1
exp1
men
in tel
thes
stak
rriage a
ssor El-
'confer-
ms will
its very
es peo-
rry not
to de-
'5 They
i then,
)letely,
~ n can
rely.''56
ggests
begun
made
nearly
~ ex-
Utah
1tions
tc no-
ngin
uired
'had
what
rould
>e to
that
non
revt-
)licy
rew
dis-
WHAT'S THE HARM? 7I
prove popular beliefs about gay partners' lack of adherence to
sexual exclusivity. Of those that they surveyed, whose relation-
ships had lasted from one to thirty-seven years, more than 6o
percent had begun the relationship expecting sexual exclusivity,
but not one couple stayed sexually exclusive longer than five
years.
61
McWhirter and Mattison concluded that, by the end,
"[t]he expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for
male couples and the exception for heterosexuals."
62
Far from
disproving popular beliefs, they confirmed them.
The New York Times more recently reported on a study
finding that exclusivity was not the norm among gay partners:
" 'With straight people, it's called affairs or cheating,' said Col-
leen Hoff, the study's principal investigator, 'but with gay peo-
ple it does not have such negative connotations.' "
63
In fact, the difference touches more than just expectations.
Evidence suggests that exclusivity affects men's satisfaction in
opposite-sex relationships more than in same-sex ones. Accord-
ing to one study, sexually "open" gay relationships last longer.
64
According to another, "no differences were found between
[gay] couples who were sexually monogamous and nonmonoga-
mous on measures of relationship satisfaction and relationship
agreement."
65
By contrast, 99 percent of opposite-sex couples
expect-that is, demand of each other and anticipate-sexual
exclusivity in their marriage,
66
and violations of it are "the lead-
ing cause of divorce across r6o cultures and are one of the most
frequent reasons that couples seek marital therapy."
67
Some offer evolutionary explanations for these differences:
in opposite-sex couples, where children regularly result, fidelity
serves the interests of children by keeping their parents' atten-
tion and resources from being diverted. It represents a com-
promise between women's generally higher interest in sex that
expresses affection (and men's interest in not investing in other
men's children) on the one hand, and men's generally higher
interest in sexual variety on the other.
68
Whether one embraces
these explanations, or the ethical reflection on the goods at
stake that we offer above, or both of these accounts as mutually
reinforcing, it is easy to see how the status of exclusivity would
differ for same- and opposite-sex relationships.
On the questions of number of partner and relationship
longevity, we must avoid stereotypes, which exaggerate un-
fairly, but also consider o ial data in light of what we argue
about the weaker rational basis for permanence and monogamy
outside oppo ite-sex relationships. A 1990s U.K. urvey of more
than five thou and men found d1at the median numbers of part-
ners over the previous five years for men with exclusively het-
erosexual inclinations was two, with bisexual inclinations was
seven, and with exclusively homosexual inclinations was ten.
69
A U.S. survey found that the average number of sexual partners
since the age of eighteen for men who identified as homosex-
ual or bisexual was over two and a half times as many as the
average for heterosexual men.
70
And a study of same-sex civil
marriages in Norway and Sweden found that "divorce risks are
higher in same-sex partnerships than opposite-sex marriages
and ... unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more
dynamic, than unions of gay men."
71
Finally, as we argued above, preliminary evidence suggests
that even same-sex civil marriage cannot impose, by sheer social
pressure, norms that make less sense as general requirements for
same-sex relationships. The New York Times reported on a San
Francisco State University study: "[G]ay nuptials are portrayed
by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of mat-
rimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spot-
light, many gay couples are doing just that."
72
So there is no reason to believe, and abundant reason to
doubt, that redefining civil marriage would make people more
likely to abide by its norms. Instead, it would further undermine
people's grasp of the principled basis for those norms. Nothing
more than a weak wall of sentiment would remain to hold back
the tide of harmful social change.
'
0
p
lS
In
tl:
w
In
Rc
gn
th;
t ~
wb
beJ

EXHIBIT 61
i MAPP Res ear ch Br i ef
Institute for Marriage and Public Policy Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2007

POST OFFICE BOX 1231 MANASSAS, VIRGINIA 20108
PHONE: (202) 216-9430 WWW.IMAPP.ORG
DOES DIVORCE LAW AFFECT THE DIVORCE RATE?
A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH, 1995-2006
By Prof. Douglas W. Allen and Maggie Gallagher
Douglas Allen is a professor of economics at Simon Fraser University.
Maggie Gallagher is President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy
Executive Summary:
Did the introduction of no- divorce law
affect the divorce rate? This study looks at
all the empirical research since 1995 that
examines the impact of no-fault divorce laws
on divorce rates both in the United States
and in other nations, 24 studies in all, and
concludes:
*o-fault divorce did increase the
divorce rate. Seventeen of 24 recent
empirical studies find that the introduction
of no-fault divorce laws increased the
divorce rate, by one estimate as much as 88
percent. More typically, studies estimate no-
fault divorce increased divorce rates on the
order of 10 percent.
*Divorce law, however, is not the major
cause of the increase in divorce over the
last 50 years. Clearly many other factors
besides divorce law influence the divorce
rate.
*The effect of no-fault divorce laws on
the overall divorce rate appears to fade
with time; couples respond to the increased
divorce risk from no-fault divorce law by
delaying or forgoing marriages at higher
risk of divorce, and states adopt related
legal reforms that mitigate some of no-
faults consequences.
*For couples of a given match quality,
no-fault divorce may have resulted in a
permanent increase in divorce risk. Studies
which take into consideration age at
marriage tend to show a permanent increase
in divorce risk after no-fault divorce.
The idea that family law has no independent
effect on family behaviors is difficult to
reconcile with either economic theory or
existing empirical research. Family
scholars, policymakers, legislators, and
media need to consider and take seriously
the complex ways in which family law
affects the likelihood that couples and
children will enjoy the benefits of stable
marriage.

Introduction
Between 1960 and 1980, the U.S.
divorce rate roughly doubled.
1
During the
same time period, most American states
adopted some version of no-fault divorce.
2

Specifically, 35 states expanded no-fault to
include not only the grounds for divorce but
consideration of fault in alimony and the
distribution of property.
3

The reforms keep coming. In the past
decade, more than 15 American states have
considered divorce law reform. Louisiana
iMAPP Research Brief

- 2 -
recently expanded its waiting period for no-
fault divorces that affect minor children.
4

New Jersey this year shortened the waiting
period for no-fault divorce to six months.
5

The Chief Judge of New Yorks highest
court has called for a similar move to no-
fault divorce in that state,
6
while the
prestigious American Law Institute
recommends eliminating all vestiges of
fault in family law, including the
distribution of property and the
determination of alimony.
7

In the shadow of these changes both
here and abroad, the scholarly and the public
policy debate about the consequences of no-
fault divorce for children and families
continues. More than 40 studiesin the
United States, Canada, Europe, and
Australiahave empirically examined the
question of whether or not no-fault divorce
laws increase the divorce rate, including 24
studies in the last decade. What does the
latest research tell us about the empirical
impact of no-fault divorce on divorce rates?
This study looks at all the available
empirical research since 1995 that examines
the impact of divorce law on divorce rates
both in the United States and in other
nations. This research has been published in
economic, family, and legal journals, or as
working papers. In addition to searching
academic databases, we examined
bibliographies of published research and
made inquiries among scholars to locate
relevant empirical research.
In recent years scholars have also asked
how divorce law affects other family
behaviors including marriage rates,
unpartnered births, womens labor force
participation, family violence, and suicide.
We have included this broader research in a
separate appendix, for the ease of scholars
and policymakers interested in other family
outcomes that may be affected by divorce
laws.
The empirical no-fault divorce literature
is a complicated response to what appears to
be a simple question. With hope, this brief
will organize most of it.
I. Defining Terms: What Is o-Fault
Divorce and Why Would it Matter?
No-fault divorce is not a single,
simple piece of legislation. The term refers
to a cluster of family law changes that took
place in the United States, Canada, and
many other Western nations in the late
Sixties to mid-Eighties. Divorce law
regulates grounds for divorce, property
distribution, and alimony, and a given state
or other legal regime may move towards
no-fault principles in any or all of these
areas. Such changes include: adding new no-
fault grounds for divorce (e.g. irretrievable
breakdown) that do not require a party to
allege any particular fault; reducing waiting
periods for no-fault divorce (such as
divorces based on living separate and apart);
removing fault from consideration in the
awarding of alimony and/or the distribution
of property upon divorce; and/or eliminating
fault grounds entirely from divorce law.
Under the older fault system, faultless
divorces could be informally obtained by a
couple, but only by mutual consent; that is, a
couple who wished to divorce for no
particular legally acceptable reason could
agree in advance to present to the court an
uncontested fault ground, and obtain a
divorce. Therefore, the most significant
practical legal change created by no-fault
divorce in grounds was that it licensed
unilateral divorce: for the first time, one
spouse could successfully petition for
divorce over the objections of his or her
spouse, without alleging any grounds.
8
No
longer would the spouse who wants a
divorce have to negotiate with his or her
spouse to get it. In addition, some, but not
all, jurisdictions introduced no-fault
principles into the distribution of property
and/or alimony upon divorce.
There are two theoretical reasons no-
fault divorce might increase the divorce rate.
First, some argue it made divorce less costly
for the initiating party because often there

- 3 -
were changes in the financial and emotional
consequences of divorce that came along
with no-fault divorce. That is, concomitant
changes in terms of property settlement,
maintenance (alimony), or child custody
often improved the welfare of the divorce
initiator. Thus, if bad behavior doesnt result
in a less financially rewarding divorce
settlement, the argument goes, we might
expect there to be more bad behavior by
spouses and therefore more divorce.
Second, the change from mutual consent
divorce to unilateral divorce might change
the ability of spouses to prevent a divorce
through bargaining. Under the old fault
system the party least wanting a divorce had
to be paid to consent to one. Under the no-
fault system this party must pay the other to
stay. The outcome in either case is unlikely
to be the same.
9
If one spouse is unable to
convince the divorce instigator to stay, then
more divorce is likely.
II. Empirical Difficulties in the o-
Fault Debate
Reaching a scholarly consensus about
the consequences of divorce law has proved
complicated for many reasons. In the first
place, studying family law is complex
because family law is complex. As we
indicated above, no-fault divorce is not
one specific discrete legal change but a
bundle of changes in legal rules affecting
grounds, property division, and alimony
rules upon divorce, which different
jurisdictions move toward in different ways.
Canada has a version of no-fault divorce;
so do England, South Carolina, California
and New Jersey (to name just a few states).
But the laws in each of these jurisdictions
are not identical.
Moreover, in nations like Canada the
grounds for divorce are federal law, while
property division is governed by provincial
law. In Europe, most (but not all) family law
systems are national. Studying the effects of
no-fault divorce on divorce rates is easier in
nations that have national family laws,
because migratory divorce is less of a
problem, and because basic questions (such
as when the legal change took place) are less
contested.
Yet to date, the majority of research
looking at how no-fault divorce affects the
divorce rate have investigated legal changes
in the United States, where the legal
definitions are most varied and complicated
from state to state and where the change in
law before and after no-fault was much
smaller than in Canada and much of Europe.
In the United States, scholars have not
always agreed even on the basics, such as
what cluster of legal changes constitutes a
no-fault divorce law, and when a
particular state has moved to a no-fault
divorce system.
North Carolina, for example, always had
separation as a ground for divorce. Should
separation be considered a mutual or
unilateral ground (i.e., a fault or a no-
fault ground)? Did the judicial
interpretation of separation change over
time? And should separation grounds be
classified by scholars as exactly the same
type of no-fault law as irretrievable
breakdown or irreconcilable differences?
Moreover, formal legal rules and
informal interpretation of legal rules may
differ across jurisdictions, leading to
different outcomes from what appear to be
the same formal rules. When mental
cruelty grounds are liberally interpreted by
courts, is that just the same in terms of its
effects as formally enacting irretrievable
breakdown as a ground for divorce?
Scholars have varied on whether and when
to classify states such as North Carolina
(and many others) as adopting no-fault
divorce.
Some states added no-fault grounds to
existing fault grounds, while others
eliminated all fault grounds. Some states
changed fault provisions in alimony,
property, and custody rules, while others did
not, at least not at the same time or in the
same way. Estimates of the effects of no-

- 4 -
fault divorce on the divorce rate have proved
highly sensitive to these kinds of problems.
Different disciplines (economists,
family specialists, demographers, and legal
scholars) have focused on different aspects
of the question, and scholars in one field are
often unaware of the parallel analyses going
on in the other disciplines.
Finally, investigating the consequences
of no-fault divorce on the divorce rate has
also proved complicated because human
behavior is fluid and dynamic; when legal
rules change, men and women respond in a
variety of complex and sometimes
contradictory ways that can be difficult to
disentangle.
III. ew Empirical Research: 1995-2006
Despite these difficulties there are signs
of an emerging consensus about the effects
of divorce law on the divorce rate. Our
search process yielded 24 studies in the last
decade that fit the criteria: new empirical
research into how no-fault divorce affected
the divorce rate. A careful review of these
studies suggests the following:
o-fault divorce laws did increase the
divorce rate. Seventeen of 24 recent
empirical studies find that the introduction
of no-fault divorce laws increased the
divorce rate. The size of the increase
attributed to legal change varies
considerably in the research literature. One
of the higher estimates (Kidd (1995)) found
no-fault divorce boosted divorce rates as
much as 88 percent. More typically, studies
estimate no-fault divorce increased divorce
rates on the order of 5 to 30 percent (e.g.,
Drewianka (2006), Friedberg (1998), Gruber
(2004), Iverson (2005), Matouschek and
Rasul (2006), Reilly and Evenhouse (1997),
Rogers et al. (1997)).
Divorce law, however, is not the major
cause of the increase in divorce over the last
50 years. Studies which find that no-fault
divorce increased the divorce rate typically
estimate the size of this effect as only a
modest fraction of the increase in the
divorce rate since 1960. Clearly many other
factors besides divorce law influence the
divorce rate.
The effect of no-fault divorce laws on
the overall divorce rate appears to fade with
time. A number of recent studies (e.g.,
Drewianka (2006), Matouschek and Rasul
(2006), Mechoulan (2006), Reilly and
Evenhouse (1997), Wolfers (2006)) found
that the increase in the overall divorce rate
under no-fault, while sustained for a number
of years, eventually fades and the divorce
rate moves back to trend.
Why? The increases in the divorce rate
are sustained for too long (about a decade)
to be produced by faster divorce processing
times.
10
The emerging consensus among law
and economics scholars is that unilateral
divorce influences the divorce rate in three
ways: First, there is an increase in the
divorce rate among existing couples, who
married before the divorce law changed.
Second, no-fault divorce laws produce
substantial new selection effects for couples
entering into marriage, in ways that mitigate
the overall divorce rate. Finally, over time
the state has patched various legal
loopholes that allowed for transfers of
wealth and encouraged unilateral divorce.
The first, direct, effect is straight-
forward. When the no-fault laws were
enacted it caught existing couples by
surprise. The no-fault provisions were a
windfall for many married individuals.
Some winners were able to abandon their
marriages and take much of the marital
wealth with them, leaving behind many
losers.
There were two subtle effects of this.
First, the incentives to marry changed and
this changed the pool of married couples. As
the law retreats from enforcing marriage
contracts, some couples respond by
searching longer, delaying marriage and
(sometimes) avoiding it altogether. Others
might jump into marriage quickly, knowing
that if the marriage fails it is easy out.
Thus the lowering of divorce rates from the

- 5 -
peak in the early 1980s may be partially
explained by more better-matched, more
intrinsically stable couples choosing to
marry.
11

Second, the high divorce rates of the 70s
and 80s were partially driven by failures in
old elements of family law to match the new
no-fault provisions. When no-fault laws
were first introduced, inadequate marital
property laws allowed one spouse (mostly
husbands) to leave the family and take
marriage assets with them. In both Canada
and the United States, courts and legislatures
quickly moved to patch the leak. Other
issues followed in the areas of definition of
property, child support guidelines, custody
changes, and the like. In most cases, the
legal change tried to prevent a spouse from
unilaterally improving their own welfare at
the expense of the rest of the family. In
doing this these subsequent laws reduced the
incentive to divorce, and the divorce rate
receded a bit.
For individual couples, the increase in
divorce risk under unilateral divorce may be
permanent. We note that some studies that
control for age at marriage (e.g., Andersson
(1997); Kidd (1995); Reilly and Evenhouse
(1997) (PSID sample); but see also Sweezy
and Tiefenthaler (1996)) have found that no-
fault divorce causes a permanent increase in
the divorce risk. Stability in the overall
divorce rate may disguise the increased
divorce risk that unilateral divorce laws pose
for individual couples of a given match
quality. Couples who marry under unilateral
divorce laws may face a permanent increase
in divorce risk relative to similarly well-
matched couples who married under the
older, stricter mutual consent divorce law
regimes. We note recent evidence suggests
the lower divorce rates are confined in this
country to couples with at least a college
education; less educated couples have faced
a continuing rise in divorce risk into the
1990s.
12
More research is needed to tease
out with confidence the selection effects
from any underlying increase in divorce risk
for individual couples.
If these emerging theories on the double
effects of unilateral divorce are confirmed, it
also suggests an important new area for
future research: Are permissive divorce laws
partly responsible for the simultaneous large
increase in nonmarital childbearing that
occurred in recent time periods? The social
effects of unilateral divorce depend in part
on the answer to this question. For if
unilateral divorce merely discourages
divorce-prone couples from marrying, most
would find this a social good. But if as a
result of permissive divorce laws, younger,
more at-risk couples increasingly choose not
to marry at all (and thus have more children
outside of marriage in cohabiting or dating
relationships), studies that look only at the
effects of divorce law on divorce rates may
be underestimating its influence on rates of
family fragmentation generally.
IV. Some Specific International and U.S.
Studies of ote
An interested reader going through the
summary of research listed in the appendix
might come away with the impression that
nothing is settled. However, not all research
is created equal. In this section we
summarize the most important and
significant research.
International studies
There have only been a handful of
divorce rate studies in countries other than
the United States. These include Canada
(Allen (1998)), England (Binner and Dnes
(2001)), Portugal (Coehlo and Garoupa
(2006)), Sweden (Livia (2001)), and Great
Britain (Smith (1997)). All of these cases
differ from the United States in that the
grounds for divorce are national. This means
the entire country switched from fault to no-
fault at the same time, and therefore the only
test that can be conducted is to look at
divorce rates before and after the legal
switch. These studies have some natural
advantages. First, the issue of migratory
divorce (or people escaping more restrictive
divorce laws in their state by petitioning for
divorce in more permissive states) is

- 6 -
eliminated, or greatly mitigated. Second, the
legal change is clear: not only what the law
changed to, but what it changed from.
The down side of these international
studies is that they can only test for changes
over time, and it may be impossible to
control for other changes that are highly
correlated with the legal change.
The international studies generally find
a large and statistically significant positive
effect of no-fault divorce on the divorce rate.
For example, Binner and Dnes find that no-
fault divorce increased the divorce rate in
Great Britain by 0.8 divorces per 1000
people. Considering the average divorce rate
is 1.84 divorces per 1000 people in a given
year, this is quite a substantial effect (about
a 43% increase).
U.S. Studies
13

Friedberg and Wolfers
Much of the debate over no-fault
divorce and divorce rates seemed to be over
with the publication of Friedbergs (1998)
seminal work in the American Economics
Review. This paper created a panel data set
of every divorce in the United States from
1968 to 1988. It used sophisticated
econometric techniques to control for state
endogeneity and changes in behavior over
time. She tested for different legal
classifications, and performed a series of
robustness tests. In the end she found that
no-fault divorce laws led to a 6% higher
divorce rate and that they accounted for
about 17% of the increase in divorces over
the time period studied. She also found that
the change was permanent, and exogenous.
Differences between states and changes over
time, however, accounted for most of the
divorce trends. She concluded: The results
above make it clear that unobserved
covariates and unobservable divorce
propensities which may include for
instance, social attitudes, religious beliefs,
and family size are the main determinants
of divorce. [p. 616, 1998]
Friedbergs study stood as the high-
water mark of the no-fault divorce literature
until the arrival of Wolfers (2006).
Furthermore, it was corroborated by a
number of other papers examining other
aspects of no-fault divorce.
14

Justin Wolfers paper is an extension of
Friedberg. He uses the same basic data set
over a longer period of time, replicates her
results, and then respecifies all of her state
trend variables. Wolfers point, which has
been made by theorists for the past several
years, is that exogenous changes to laws are
followed by endogenous changes in
behavior. As divorce laws change, people
might be more or less careful in choosing a
spouse. They might marry sooner or later.
Laws protecting marital property put at risk
by no-fault might be changed. When these
things are adjusted for, Wolfers finds that
the divorce rate still increases (although the
effect is not as large as with Friedberg), but
the increase only lasts for about 10 years. As
Wolfers acknowledges, though, his test is
not really a test of no-fault divorce per se,
but rather a test of the set of legal changes
that took place over the past 30 years. Taken
together, divorce rates were higher
throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, but
then they leveled out and may have fallen
after that (although not to 1960 levels).
The most important contribution of the
Wolfers study, along with other papers on
behavior within the household, is the idea
that the effect of no-fault divorce laws on
the divorce rate depends on the environment
one is divorced in. Although Wolfers thinks
internal marriage bargaining best explains
the small long-run effect of the law, an
alternative and complementary explanation
is found in other legal changes. As
mentioned, other legal changes followed no-
fault laws that help prevent some of the most
egregious cases of wealth transfers brought
on by divorce.
V. Conclusions
Does the divorce law affect the divorce
rate? Yes. Divorce law is not the primary

- 7 -
cause of increases in divorce rate, but it is a
contributing factor. Estimates vary, but the
best evidence suggests no-fault divorce
increases the divorce rate on the order of 10
percent.
These changes are caused by a low cost
of divorcing that allows one party to
unilaterally break the marriage vows. The
effect of no-fault divorce laws on the
divorce rate is critically conditional on the
legal, social, and cultural environment. Thus
the same legal change can have different
effects across jurisdictions, and over time
the effect probably dissipates. Some of the
other legal changes in the past 30 years (in
child support, custody, and marital property)
may have mitigated the consequences of no-
fault divorce. New research is needed to
establish the side effects of weaker marital
contracts on rates of cohabitation and non-
marital births.
The premise of many family law
scholarsthat legal change is only a
response to underlying cultural shifts and
never an independent causeis difficult to
reconcile with either economic theory or
existing empirical research.
Changing divorce law can affect the
divorce rate, and likely the rate of unmarried
childbearing and cohabitation as well.
Family scholars, policymakers, legislators,
and media need to consider and take
seriously the complex ways in which family
law affects real families and real children.

Suggested Citation:
Douglas Allen and Maggie Gallagher, Does
Divorce Law Affect the Divorce Rate?
iMAPP Research Brief 1(1) July 2007.
(Manassas, VA: Institute for Marriage and
Public Policy).
Endnotes

1
A U.S. Census Bureau report shows the annual
divorce rate per 1,000 married women rose from
16 per 1000 for the period 1960-62, to 40 per
1000 for the period 1978-1980. U.S. Bureau of
the Census (1992), Current Population Reports,
Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the
1990s, P23-180: 2 (Table A). Looking at cohort
data, the National Survey of Family Growth
found that 14% of first marriages entered
between 1955 and 1959 ended in divorce within
10 years, compared to 31% of first marriages
entered from 1975-1979. National Center for
Health Statistics (July 2002), Cohabitation,
Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the
United States, Vital and Health Statistics 23 (22):
27. The overall divorce rate appears to have
peaked around 1980, but the modest decline
since that time appears to be driven by a
bifurcation in divorce risk, with highly educated
couples experiencing dramatic drops in divorce
risk, while divorce rates among Americans with
less than college degrees continue to rise. Steven
P. Martin, 2006. Trends in Marital Dissolution
by Womens Education in the United States.
Demographic Research 15:537560.
2
No-fault divorce is now available in every state,
with all but a handful permitting such divorce
unilaterally, not requiring consent of the other
spouse.
3
20 states have adopted complete no-fault rules
for spousal support and property distribution
following divorce. An additional 15 states have
adopted no-fault rules for either spousal support
or property distribution. American Law Institute,
Whether Marital Misconduct should be
Considered in Property Allocations and Awards
of Compensatory Payments, Reporters Notes,
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY
DISSOLUTION: ANALYSIS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (2002); see also Lynn
Wardle, Beyond Fault and No-Fault in the
Reform of Marital Dissolution Law, in
Reconceiving the Family: Critique on the
American Law Institute's Principles of the Law
of Family Dissolution (Robin Fretwell Wilson,
ed., Cambridge University Press, 2006).
4
La. Civ. Code Art. 103.1 (2007).
5
N.J. P.L. 2007, c.6.

- 8 -

6
Danny Hakim, Panel Asks New York to Join
the Era of No-Fault Divorce, The ew York
Times, Feb. 7, 2006 at A1.
7
American Law Institute, Whether Marital
Misconduct should be Considered in Property
Allocations and Awards of Compensatory
Payments, Summary and Conclusion,
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY
DISSOLUTION: ANALYSIS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (2002).
8
Of course such a mutual agreement to present
divorce grounds could be considered a collusive
fraud on the court, albeit one that was
indetectable to outsiders and widely tolerated at
the time.
9
The famous Coase theorem in economics states
that in the absence of transaction (bargaining)
costs, a switch from mutual to unilateral divorce
should not affect the divorce rate (because under
the old fault system, the spouse who wished to
divorce should simply offer to increase the
compensation to the other spouse in order to
achieve his or her goal). But as many point out,
divorce is never costless. Hence, under real-
world conditions of high-transaction costs,
economic theory predicts the move to unilateral
no-fault rules should increase inefficient
divorces (i.e., cases in which a spouse leaves a
marriage because it makes them as an individual
better off, even if the rest of the family is made
worse off). An important point, often missed by
those simply trying to estimate an empirical
reaction to the law, is that there is no economic
reason for no-fault divorce by itself to have any
effect on any behavior. It is only when combined
with other laws, family circumstances, or social
customs, that the switch may provide an
incentive for some spouses to terminate their
marriage when it is not in the best joint interests
of the couple to do so.
10
This finding is different from the idea, popular
among family law scholars in the 1970s, that the
increase in divorce rate observed after no-fault
divorce was spuriousa statistical artifact of
speeding up divorce processing times such that
divorces in say, 1970 and 1971, were both
suddenly processed in 1971. Faster processing
times under no-fault would produce a statistical
bump in the divorce rate but no real increase in
the underlying divorce risk. Recent studies, by
contrast, suggest that no-fault divorce did result

in a sustained increase in divorce risk for
existing married couples, but that over time, the
effects are cancelled out, or masked, as couples
at greater risk of divorce increasingly decline to
marry at all.
11
Only a few studies have begun to look at this
marriage effect and the results are preliminary.
12
Steven P. Martin, 2006. Trends in Marital
Dissolution by Womens Education in the United
States. Demographic Research 15:537560.
13
The U.S. studies can be divided into three
periods. The first wave of papers from 1970-
1985 were characterized by small samples and
simple test design. The second wave mostly
consisted of Peters (1986) seminal study using a
large individual data set, and rebuttals to her
work by Allen (1992) and Parkman (1992). The
third wave is made up of the sophisticated papers
after Friedberg (1998).
14
For example Gruber (2004), Johnson and
Mazingo (2000).

- 9 -

APPEDIX
Does Divorce Law Affect the Divorce Rate?
Empirical Research 1995-2006

STUDIES SHOWIG O-FAULT DIVORCE AFFECTS THE DIVORCE RATE

1. Allen, Douglas W. (1998). No-Fault Divorce in Canada: Its Cause and Effect. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 37: 129-149.
Background: In 1968, Canada created no-fault grounds for divorce. (Prior to this change,
adultery was the only grounds for divorce in 8 provinces, while Quebec and
Newfoundland permitted divorce only by a private act of the parliaments senate.) In
1985, Canada introduced a second major legal change, reducing the number of fault
grounds for marriage from 15 to one (marital breakdown) and reducing the separation
period for a no-fault divorce from 3-5 years to just one year.
This study analyzes two different samples to test the effect of both the 1968 and 1985
divorce law changes on the overall divorce rate. The first consists of Canadian women
who had been married only once, and who had married prior to 1968, drawn from the
1984 Family History Survey (a supplement to the 1984 Labor Force Survey conducted by
Statistics Canada). The second sample consists of a panel of every Canadian divorce from
1950-1992 created using data from Census of Canada.
Results: First, after analyzing data from the 1984 Family History survey, this study
concludes: a movement to the nofault period increased the probability of divorce,
conditional on the length of marriage by 1.09 percent. This result is statistically
significant, and is consistent with the recent U.S. findings that no-fault divorce increases
the divorce rate. (p. 144) The author concludes: The variable indicates that a particular
type of divorce increased, namely, inefficient divorces, where one spouse used the new
law to the disadvantage of his or her partner. (p. 145) A second analysis using Census
data on divorce from 1950 to 1992 concludes: As with the Family History Survey, this
indicates that both changes in divorce law increased the number of inefficient divorces.
This holds even when provincial effects and inter-temporal provincial effects are
controlled for. (p. 147)
2. Andersson, Gunnar (1997). The Impact of Children on Divorce Risks of Swedish
Women. European Journal of Population 13(2): 109-45.
Background: In 1974, procedures of divorce in Sweden were simplified so that no
specific reason for divorce need be alleged; waiting periods were eliminated for childless
couples and reduced to six months for couples with children. This study looks at formal
divorces occurring after first marriages formed between 1968 and 1994 in Sweden taken
from the Statistics Sweden Fertility Register.
Results: While the main purpose of the study was to study the impact on children from
divorce risks, the paper also suggests that the general picture of Swedish divorce-risk
trends shows a strong increase in 1974, mostly among childless women, in response to a
reform of the divorce legislation. (p. 109) However, the authors also suggest the finding
of a sustained increase in divorce risk is partly a result of controlling for age at marriage,
which increased over the period: the increase in divorce risksmainly appears because

- 10 -
we have removed the effect of an ongoing transition of married women in our data set
towards ages at marriage that are associated with lower divorce risks, i.e., towards higher
ages. (p. 121)
3. Binner, Jane M. & Antony W. Dnes (2001). Marriage, Divorce, and Legal Change: New
Evidence from England and Wales. Economic Inquiry, 39(2): 298-306.
Background: In 1969, the British Parliament passed the Divorce Reform Act of 1969,
which added no-fault grounds alongside fault grounds for divorce. This study uses long-
run time-series analysis and short-run error-correction models to determine impact of the
introduction of unilateral divorce on the divorce rate, after accounting for other possible
explanations, including male to female earnings ratios and postdivorce welfare benefits.
The study analyzes data on all marriages in England and Wales from 1948-1996,
including marriage and divorce rates created using annual data from the Office for
National Statistics and the Office of Population Census and Surveys. (p. 305)
Results: [U]nilateral divorce raised the divorce rate by more than 0.8 divorces per
thousand people, a substantial impact relative to the average divorce rate of 1.84 over the
period.We therefore find a permanent impact from the easing of divorce law in the
1970s. (p. 303) and We can conclude that the law increased divorce by making it easier
to divorce. (p. 304) The study observed no impact on marriage rates, however, which the
authors interpret as perhaps reflecting the canceling out of two trends. First, making
divorce easier reduces the irreversibility of marriage and possibly makes it more
attractive to some people. Second, observing a rising divorce rate may make others
cynically aware that marriage may not last and cause them to avoid it (e.g., by
cohabitation). (p. 303)
4. Brinig, Margaret F. & F.H. Buckley (1998). No-Fault Laws and At-Fault People.
International Review of Law and Economics, 18: 325-340.
Background: This study defines no-fault divorce states in the U.S. as those in which
fault is irrelevant at both dissolution and at financial settlement. (p. 326). The study
codes 17 states as unilateral divorce regimes. It uses a fixed-effects model to analyze
annual per capita divorce rates from 1980-1991 in 49 states (excluding Nevada as an
outlier) from Census data, isolating no-fault divorce law reform from other demographic
and social factors that might also explain the variation in divorce rates across states and
across time including two state-level measures of economic wellbeing (unemployment
rate and employment growth), and four social predictors of divorce rates: Date of entry
into the U.S. union (a proximate measure of region, i.e., westernness, of states), the
proportion of the population living in metro areas, the amount of life insurance issued as
a proportion of state income (a proxy for risk averseness), and the proportion of
Catholics.
Results: Our principal finding is that divorce levels are positively and significantly
correlated with state laws that do not penalize marital misbehavior at the time of
divorce. (p. 331) Our study of divorce rates from 1988 to 1991 provides the strongest
evidence to date that no-fault divorce laws are associated with higher divorce levels. Prior
studies failed to detect a significant no-fault predictor of long-term divorce rates because
they defined no fault solely in terms of the dissolution of the marriage and ignored the
financial penalty that a court might impose on at at-fault party.(p. 340) However, the
authors also caution our results are suggestive only.Divorce levels likely will be lower
in societies that stigmatize divorce. Such societies are also less likely to enact no-fault

- 11 -
divorce laws. The legal predictor thus might serve as a proxy for more fundamental social
norms. (p. 340).
5. Coelho, Clarisse & uno Garoupa (2006). Do Divorce Law Reforms Matter for Divorce
Rates? Evidence from Portugal. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 3(3): 525-542.
Background: In 1975, Portugal approved a new divorce law that extended no-fault
divorce by mutual agreement to Catholic marriages (for which legal divorce had
previously not been available). In 1995, Portugal permitted couples to receive a mutual
consent divorce by a simple administrative procedure if the couple had no children or
after child custody has been adjudicated by a judge. This study tests the impact of both
these legal changes on Portuguese divorce rates, using a time-series econometric model,
using data from 1960 to 2002 for divorce and marriage rates in Portugal (from the
Instituto Nacional de Estatstica de Portugal).
Results: After controlling for economic growth (per capita GDP), secularization
(measured by the out-of-wedlock birth rate and the proportion of Catholic rather than
civil marriages), and infant mortality (a proxy for technological progress), the study finds
that the 1975 Divorce Law (which introduced no-fault regime to Catholic marriages) had
significant positive impact on the divorce rate, but the 1995 Code of Civil Registration
(which permitted mutual consent divorce by civil registration for childless couples or
after custody issues are adjudicated) did not. [O]ur most important finding is that a
major reform of divorce law such as the one in 1975 had a significant positive effect on
the divorce rate, but a less substantial change such as the one in 1995 does not seem to be
statistically important. (p. 535, 539)
6. Drewianka, Scott (2006). Divorce Law and Family Formation. (forthcoming in the
Journal of Population Economics) paper available at http://www.uwm.edu/~sdrewian/
DivorceLawAndFamilyFormation.pdf.
Background: This study measures the effects of both no-fault and unilateral divorce laws
on state-level rates of divorce, marriage, fertility, and legitimacy in 49 states (excluding
Nevada). It follows Jonathan Gruber (2004) codings of no-fault and unilateral divorce. It
uses crude divorce rates, or divorces per 1000 population.
Results: [T]here was little to indicate that either no-fault or unilateral divorce had any
effect on marriage rates. As in the existing literature, there was some indication that
unilateral divorce causes a modest increase in divorce rates, at least during the first five
or ten years after the law passes, but no-fault divorce does not seem to have any
meaningful effect on divorce rates. (p. 15) More specifically, [U]nilateral divorce laws
lead to 24 additional divorces each year per 10,000 people in a state (610 percent of the
mean over this period)Howeverwe find that the effect only lasts for 68 years. (p.
11)
The study also found effects on fertility: [U]nilateral divorce seems to increase marital
birth rates and decrease non-marital birth rates, and both of those effects seem to grow
the longer the law is in effect. (p. 15) The study concludes: [C]hanges in divorce law
were not a major cause of changing family structure. (p. 2)
7. Friedberg, Leora (1998). Did Unilateral Divorce Raise Divorce Rates? Evidence from
Panel Data. The American Economic Review, 88(3): 608-627.
Background: This study assembles a panel of state-level divorce rates between 1968-
1988 from data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. Friedberg compares
legal regimes in three ways: unilateral no-fault divorce versus mutual consent divorce

- 12 -
states, unilateral divorce states with waiting periods before divorce versus unilateral
divorce states without separation requirements or waiting periods, and states where
marital fault may be considered in property settlements at divorce versus states with no-
fault property distribution laws.
Results: The estimates suggest that the divorce rate would have been about 6 percent
lower in 1988 if no type of unilateral divorce had been adopted in those states that
switched to unilateral divorce after 1968. The move towards unilateral divorce accounted
for 17 percent of the increase in divorce rates between 1968 and 1988. (p. 608).
Furthermore: [T]he effect of unilateral divorce on divorce behavior was permanent, not
temporary. (p. 608.)
[T]he type of unilateral divorce a state adopted mattered. The strictest unilateral divorce,
without separation requirements or fault considerations in property division, raised the
divorce rate by 0.549 per thousand people11.9 percent of the average of 4.6 during the
sample periodSeparation requirements proved more of a constraint on divorce behavior
than fault-based property division did. (p. 620)
8. Gruber, Jonathan (2004). Is Making Divorce Easier Bad for Children? The Long-Run
Implications of Unilateral Divorce. Journal of Labor Economics, 22(4): 799-833.
Background: This study estimates the impact of unilateral divorce laws on the incidence
of divorce. It also examines the impact of living under unilateral divorce regimes and
later life outcomes for children, including adult suicide. Only states which do not require
separation periods for unilateral no-fault divorces are coded as unilateral divorce states.
Results: [U]nilateral divorce regulations do significantly increase the incidence of
divorce. Adults who were exposed to unilateral divorce regulations as children are less
well educated, have lower family incomes, marry earlier but separate more often, and
have higher odds of adult suicide. (p. 799) Specifically: I find that there is a very
sizable and significant impact of unilateral divorce regulations on the likelihood of being
divorced. For women, unilateral divorce being in place raises the odds of divorce
by11.6%. For men the increase is11.6%. The results are even stronger when state-
specific trends are included. (p. 812) Gruber also finds a very large impact on the odds
of living with a never-married mother or father; however, both results are insignificant
when trends are included. (p. 814) On the other hand, the rise in unilateral regulation
can explain less than 10% of the overall rise in the stock of divorced women. (p. 814)
9. Iverson, Torben et al. (2005). Divorce and the Gender Division of Labor in Comparative
Perspective, Social Politics 12(2): 216-242.
Background: This study compares divorce rates in developed countries that have either
unilateral or mutual consent divorce laws with developed countries that have high
barriers to divorce (such as Ireland, Italy, and Spain); these high legal barriers to
divorce include fault systems, long mandatory waiting periods, and additional judicial
hurdles. (p. 233) Divorce rates are the number of divorces per 100 marriages, with data
from 18 countries in the OECD every five years between 1970 to 1995. Other potential
explanatory variables explored include relative wages of women, size of the public
sector, and skill specificity (the mean of vocational training intensity and firm tenure
rate).
Results: [T]he restrictiveness of divorce legislation does appear to reduce the rate at
which people divorce. Going from a legal system with easy unilateral no-fault divorce
(such as Sweden) to one with fault and long mandatory separation periods (such as Spain)

- 13 -
is associated with 13 fewer divorces per 100 marriages in the short run and more than 20
in the long run. (p. 234)
10. Johnson, John H., IV & Christopher J. Mazingo (2000). The Economic Consequences
of Unilateral Divorce for Children. Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper
Collection: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=236227.
Background: This study examines (among other outcomes) the effect of having lived as
a child in a unilateral divorce state on the likelihood that childs parents had divorced.
The authors mainly employ the law coding used by Brinig and Buckley (1998) (also
used by Friedberg), but also test our results with law coding from Ellman and Lohr
(1998). Our results are insensitive to the legal classification we use. (p. 5) For each child
under age 17, the authors construct the number of years they lived in a unilateral divorce
state and current age, and evaluate it affect on the likelihood that that childs parents had
divorced.
Results: [A]n extra year of exposure to unilateral divorce increases the probability that a
childs parents are divorced by 5/10th of a percentage point or about a three-percent
increase in the divorce rate. (p. 16) (The study also found that increased childhood
exposure to unilateral divorce laws reduced wages and schooling for women.) [W]hile
we confirm that unilateral divorce increased divorce rates, we also provide evidence that
bargaining power within the household was a key factor in affecting children. Many
previous studies treat these channels as being mutually exclusive. (p. 21)
11. Kidd, Michael P. (1995). The Impact of Legislation on Divorce: A Hazard Function
Approach. Applied Economics 27(1): 125-130.
Background: In 1975, Australia adopted the Federal Family Law Act of 1975, which
altered the grounds for divorce from proof of misconduct by one party to irretrievable
breakdown. This study uses a hazard model of the divorce rate to estimate the probability
of leaving a given marriage before and after 1975, which allows the authors to estimate
the effect of the introduction of no-fault on marriages of varying duration. Data is taken
from 8,608 females aged less than 55 who had married at least once by 1982 from the
Australian Bureau of Family Statistics Family Survey, a nationally representative sample.
Control variables included age, age at first marriage, years of education, whether there
was a child born prior to the marriage, country of birth, length of residency in Australia,
and employment status.
Results: [N]o-fault divorce legislation appear to have had a positive impact upon the
divorce rate in Australia. (p. 129) These results imply the legislation increased the
hazard rate [i.e. divorce] by between 45 and 88%. (p. 129)
12. Matouschek, iko & Imran Rasul (2006). The Economies of the Marriage Contract:
Theories and Evidence. (Forthcoming, 2007, in the Journal of Law and Economics), working
paper available at http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpimr/research/marriage%20contract.pdf.
Background: The study constructs and tests three models of why legal marriage may
matter, compared to the alternative of cohabitation: legal marriage as a preference for
social custom, legal marriage as a commitment device, and legal marriage as a signal of
true and permanent love. In the process, the authors empirically test the idea that
unilateral divorce may affect the divorce rate in two ways: by increasing the incentive of
existing couples to divorce and by changing the composition of couples who choose to
marry in the first place.

- 14 -
Using individual marriage and divorce certificate data from the U.S., the study
constructed year-of-divorce, duration-of-marriage, and state-specific divorce propensities
for all marriages that occurred in 33 states after 1968 and divorced before 1995, including
19 states that adopted unilateral divorce in some year. This dataset represents the universe
of all marriages in small states and a representative sample of marriages in larger states.
Because there is disagreement on the dates in which various states adopted unilateral
divorce (due to varying definitions of unilateral divorce), the authors tested alternative
codings of unilateral divorce, using Gruber (2004) who codes as unilateral divorce states
those states that permit no-fault divorce without significant waiting periods, and Ellman
and Lohr (1998) who code unilateral divorce as the date in which a state adopted either
irretrievable breakdown or incompatibility as a grounds of divorce. Authors report results
were similar using either coding system.
This study compares divorce risk between (a) states that adopted unilateral divorce and
those that did not; (b) between couples married before the introduction of unilateral
divorce and those who married after the state adopted unilateral divorce; and (c) couples
who married between one and four years after the adoption of unilateral divorce and
those who married at least five years afterwards. (By investigating the divorce
propensities of marriages of different durations within the same state and year of divorce,
the authors seek to control for unobserved state specific trends, such as social attitudes or
labor market conditions, that may affect both the adoption of unilateral divorce and
marriage and divorce risk.)
Results: [A]fter the introduction of unilateral divorce, the propensity to divorce at any
given marital duration increases by 4.08 divorces per 1000 marriages[T]he implied
effect of unilateral divorce is to increase the divorce propensity, averaged across
marriages of all durations, by 18.5%. (p. 26) However this increase is not sustained over
time because less well-matched couples respond to the reduced effectiveness of marriage
as a legal commitment device by failing to marry, which reduces the divorce rate over
time. [W]hen the costs of exiting marriage fall, only higher match quality couples are
willing to marry. This reduces the divorce rate in the long run as these better matched
couples form a greater share of all married couples (p. 28) Thus, for cohorts of
married couples that live under unilateral divorce for up to 10 years, the propensity to
divorce increases. However for marriages that experience living under unilateral divorce
for more than 10 years, the propensity to divorce falls. (p. 29) Our findings give
support to those who argue that divorce costs can be too low and that when they are too
low, the very purpose of the marriage contract is undermined. (p. 5)
13. Mechoulan, Stphane (2006). Divorce Laws and the Structure of the American Family,
Journal of Legal Studies 35(1): 143-174.
Background: The study uses cross-sectional micro data of recently married U.S. white
women interviewed between 1971 and 1990, taken from the June Supplements of the
Current Population Survey (CPS). Divorce and marriage rates are from Vital Statistics
(National Center for Health Statistics 1950-2000) and the Statistical Abstract of the
United States (U.S. Census Bureau 1999). The study define[s] as having no-fault
grounds only those states that have enacted specific no-fault statutes. (p. 150) Regarding
property division, the study notes: many states barred the consideration of fault in asset
division and spousal support settlements. With regard to property regimes, this work
focuses on that no-fault dimension. (p. 151)

- 15 -
Results: Creating no-fault grounds for divorce did not appear to increase the divorce rate,
but moving from fault to no-fault in the distribution of marital property did appear to
increase divorce rates. [F]or those women who married under a fault regime for
property, a change to a no-fault regime was responsible for a significant increase in
divorce oddsOn the other hand, we see that adding no-fault grounds to the statutes
(whether supplementing fault grounds or supplanting them) seems to be irrelevant. (p.
160) Comparing the divorce patterns of women who married before and after the legal
changes, the impact of a no-fault for grounds regime is to decrease age at first marriage,
although not statistically significantly, while the effect of no-fault for property is to
significantly delay marriage, (p. 163) suggesting reduced risk of divorce through better
matching. The main conclusion of the paper is that this better sorting decreased the
probability of divorce by about as much as the institution of no-fault divorce increased
it[U]nder no-fault for property laws on average women marry when they are
significantly older than are women in fault states. (p. 165)
14. akonezny, Paul A., et al. (1995). The Effect of No-Fault Divorce Law on the Divorce
Rate Across the 50 States and Its Relation to Income, Education, and Religiosity. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 57(2): 477-488.
Background: This study investigates the effect of no-fault divorce on a states average
divorce rate in the first three years after its adoption, controlling for state median family
income, education (the proportion of people age 25 or older who have four year college
degrees or more), and three measures of religion: the proportion of the state that was
Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, or United Methodist. The definition of a switch to
no-fault divorce was not provided, although Table 1 lists the date at which states are
held to have adopted no-fault divorce.
15

Results: After controlling for religiosity, income, education, and period effects, the study
finds that [T]he switch from fault divorce law to no-fault divorce law led to a
measurable increase in the divorce rate. (p. 485) (The effect size was .91, a large effect
size as defined by meta-analysis standards. (p. 485)) Neither the proportion of college
graduates nor religious denomination had any effect, but higher state median income
appeared to increase the impact of legal change on the divorce rate: [N]o-fault divorce
had a greater impact on high-income familiesthan on low-income families. (p. 484)
Two important results emerge from the current study. First, the enactment of no-fault
divorce law had a clear positive influence on divorce ratesSecond, median family
income had a small but significant positive relation to the post-no-fault divorce rate when
the effects of the pre-no-fault divorce rate were statistically controlled. (p. 487)
15. Reilly, Siobhn & Eirik Evenhouse (1997). Divorce Laws and Divorce Rates: Evidence
from Panel Data, working paper.
Background: This study uses twenty-five years of state-level panel data on the divorce
rate (1963-1987) reported by the U.S. National Center for Vital Statistics, and twenty
years of data on individuals taken from the 1989 Panel Study of Income Dynamics
(PSID) [Wave 22], consisting of 6,505 ever-married individuals who were married during
at least one year after 1968 (the start of the study), representing 7,034 marriages (of
which 1,058 ended in divorce or separation during the survey period). Marriages that
lasted two years or less were excluded. Following Peters (1986),
16
the authors classify a
state as permitting unilateral divorce if it (a) allows for a no-fault divorce and (b) the
waiting or separation period for such a divorce is less than one year.

- 16 -
Results: For the state panel sample, the studys results suggest that other things equal,
unilateral divorce law corresponds to an increase of in [sic] the states divorce rate of 1.5
per thousand residents, a 36 percent increase over the overall average of 4.2 per
thousand. (p. 14-15) However, the study observes that this almost certainly overstates
the effects of unilateral divorce. Controlling time-varying state effects, the states 1969
divorce rate and the growth in the states divorce rate between 1963 and 1969, suggests
that the law is associated with an 8 percent rise in the divorce rate. (p. 16-17)
Comparing no-fault with unilateral divorce laws suggests that [n]o-fault laws are
indeed associated with a rise in the divorce race, but it is the unilateral aspect of some of
them that causes the effect. (p. 17) Ultimately, [t]hese simple regressions suggest that
(a) unilateral divorce has a rather modest impact on divorce rates, on the order of 5 to 8
percent; (b) the effect is short-livedand (c) it is sensitive to the misclassification of
state laws. (p. 18)
Using data on the hazard of divorce from the PSID: Controlling for age at marriage,
duration of marriage, presence of children, income variables, and trend, unilateral divorce
appeared to be associated with a 17 percent increase in divorce propensity (p.23): This is
a large effect relative to the effects of other variables: Its impact on the odds of divorce is
five times that of having married a year younger, three times that of the local
unemployment rate, nearly three times that of another year of marriage, and more than
two times that of another ten to fourteen thousand dollars in annual income. (p. 23-24)
Unilateral divorce also appears to affect couples who married prior to 1968 more than
couples married afterwards and to increase the odds of divorce more for marriages with
children at home than marriages without minor children. (p. 25-26)
In summary: State-level data suggest that the switch from mutual consent to unilateral
divorce did raise states divorce rates, particularly in the two or three years after the new
laws were introduced, but that the longer-term effect was a mere 0.2 divorces more per
1000 residents, a 5 percent increase. Individual-level data from the PSID yield ambiguous
results: Estimates of the impact of unilateral divorce on an individuals annual divorce
hazard range from zero to 35 percent. The sample is small enough, however, that results
should be interpreted with caution. (p. 31)
16. Rodgers, Joseph Lee, et al. (1997). The Effect of No-Fault Divorce Legislation on
Divorce Rates: A Response to a Reconsideration. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59(4):
1026-1030.
17

Background: This study expands on the findings of an earlier study (Nakonezny, Paul
A., et al. (1995)) as a response to a subsequent critique (Glenn (1997)) of that study. The
original study used as its data the state divorce rate, measured as the number of divorces
(including annulments) per 1000 individuals for each of the 50 states for the three
consecutive years before the enactment and after the enactment of no-fault divorce law
for each state, data from Vital Statistics of the United States (National Center for Health
Statistics, 1987, 1989; United States Bureau of the Census, 1950-1990). The current
study added to this original data file the divorce rates 10 years prior to the
implementation of the no-fault law [for each state]. (p. 1028)
Results: There was an increase in the divorce rate across the 10 years in 44 of the 50
states, as expected. In 34 states, the 10-year divorce trend underestimated the actual
average of the 3 years following the enactment of no-fault divorce law, suggesting a net
effect of the law itself. In 16 states, the net effect was negative, suggesting a lower
divorce rate than the 10-year linear trend would have predicted. (pg. 1028) The study
finds that around 30% of the raw change [in the divorce rate] that we reported in our

- 17 -
original article [Nakonezny, Paul A., et al. (1995)] was due to no-fault laws, and around
70% was due to the prevailing divorce pattern. (pg. 1028) That translates into around
57,000 extra divorces per year in the whole U.S. that are directly attributable to the
implementation of no-fault divorce law. (p. 1028)
17. Wolfers, Justin (2006). Did Unilateral Divorce Laws Raise Divorce Rates? A
Reconciliation and New Results. American Economic Review 96(5): 1802-1820.
Background: To reexamine the results of Friedberg (1998), which found that unilateral
divorce laws have caused one-sixth of the divorce rate increase since the late 1960s, the
current study extends Friedbergs data sample back from 1968 to 1956 so as to allow for
a better identification of pre-existing state-specific trends, controlling for state and year
fixed effects, state-specific time trends, and quadratic state-specific time trends. (p. 1807-
1808) To check these effects on the flow of new divorces against the effects of unilateral
divorce laws on the stock of divorcees, the current study then replicates the results of
Gruber (2000), which examined the effects of divorce laws on the pool of those
individuals divorced at a given point in time; to account for divorcees who remarry, the
current study also analyzes the effects of divorce laws on the ever-divorced population.
Results: A clear finding from this analysis is that the divorce rate exhibits interesting
dynamics in response to a change in legal regimeThe data broadly indicate that divorce
law reform led to an immediate spike in the divorce rate that dissipates over time. After a
decade, no effect can be discernedIt should be clear that unilateral divorce laws explain
very little of the rise in the aggregate divorce rate. (p. 1816-1817)

STUDIES SHOWIG O EFFECT FROM CHAGE I DIVORCE LAW
1. Ellman, Ira Mark & Sharon L. Lohr (1998). Dissolving the Relationship Between
Divorce Laws and Divorce Rates. International Review of Law and Economics, 18: 341-359.
Background: First, the study critiques conclusions of Nakonezny et al. (1995) and Brinig
and Buckley (1998) that unilateral divorce raised the divorce rate. Then it presents its
own analysis of available data for all states excluding Nevada and Louisiana, to see
whether there were any changes in divorce rates after the enactment of a no-fault divorce
law for grounds, property, or alimony, or, whether there were divorce rate changes after a
change in case law that made a state effectively no-fault for property and alimony. (p.
349) After divorce rates for different states were plotted over time, they used an
intervention analysis where an ARIMA model is fit to a time series (the divorce rate
for a state from 19601992), with additional terms included to measure the possible
effect(s) of an intervention (changes in divorce law). (p. 353) Each state was analyzed
separately: This allowed us to estimate and to remove the general trend in divorce rates
for a region from each time series, with only a small loss in efficiency. (pg. 353) There
were four regions (west, north central, south, and northeast); each was treated separately.
We then weighted the data points for the other states so that neighboring states that
changed their divorce laws would not exert undue influence on the analysis. Using the
weighted data, we employed the Super Smoother to estimate the regional trend in divorce
rates. The smoothed trend line nonparametrically accounts for other factors such as
unemployment, religious affiliations, or female participation in the work force, that might
be thought to influence divorce rates. (p. 353-354)
Results: Regarding the two papers the current study examines (Nakonezny et al. (1995)
and Brinig and Buckley (1998)), the study shows that the conclusions of both papers
rely on flawed statistical analysis, (p. 345) and Ellman and Lohr urge that the empirical

- 18 -
results of these two papers be disregarded. (p. 345) The analysis of Nakonezny et al. is
flawed because they ignored the fact that over 60% of the states adopted no-fault divorce
grounds between 1970 and 1973years of increasing divorce rates nationwideThus, a
simple before and after comparison does not work. (p. 345-346) The Brinig and Buckley
(1998) analysis is flawed because their NO-FAULT variable cannot estimate the effect
of no-fault laws or practice. (p. 347) Regarding its own empirical analysis, the authors
conclude that there is no evidence that divorce laws affect trends in divorce rates. (p.
343) Our analyses indicate that (1) for states changing their divorce laws in the early
1970s, the divorce rates began rising before changes in law, and (2) for states changing
their laws after 1975, there is no evidence that the effect of the divorce law change was
anything other than transitory. (p. 358). In fact, [w]e find it far more plausible to
conclude that divorce rates and divorce laws share causal influences. (p. 358)
2. Glenn, orval D. (1997). A Reconsideration of the Effect of No-Fault Divorce on Divorce
Rates. Journal of Marriage the Family, 59(4): 1023-1025.
18

Background: This study compares mean divorce rates for states classified by timing of
no-fault adoption (pre-boom, early boom, late boom, post-boom); comparing mean crude
divorce rates three years before and three years after adoption of no-fault divorce;
regressing mean divorce rate on year by when, relative to the divorce boom, states
adopted no-fault divorce; and regressing mean divorce rate on year states adopted no-
fault divorce during the divorce boom, with mean rate for states that had not adopted no-
fault divorce controlled. (p. 1024) Divorce rates for all states from 1962-1980, excluding
Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, and Vermont due to
missing data, taken from Vital Statistics of the United States.
Results: The current study begins by examining the results of Nakonezny et al. (1995),
claiming that studys analysis confounds the effects of other influences on divorce with
any effects of the change to no-fault divorce. (p. 1023) Glenn concludes that all states
display a similar increase in divorce rate regardless of when they adopted no-fault laws,
and the legal change had very little effect on divorce rates. The study shows that although
states that adopted no-fault before the divorce boom did have the highest divorce rates,
they also had the highest initial rates and the lowest percentage increase, leading the
author to surmise that higher divorce rates led to an earlier move to no-fault, instead of
the opposite. Similarly, states that adopted no-fault after the divorce boom had the lowest
divorce rates but also had the lowest initial rates, which may have resulted in the late
adoption. Furthermore, in the states that adopted no-fault provisions at times other than
during the divorce boom, the mean divorce rate was no higher in the 3 years after
adoption than in the 3 years before adoption. (p. 1023) [S]tates that had not yet adopted
no-fault divorce and that did not do so during the subsequent 3 years can be used as a
control group for each state that adopted no-fault divorce during the divorce boom, (p.
1024) with the following results: The percentage changes of the means for the adopter
states and the control group states are so similar that they are essentially the same. (p.
1025) These findings indicate that the adoption of no-fault divorce had little direct,
immediate effect on divorce rates. (p. 1025)
3. Glenn, orval D. (1999). Further Discussion of the Effects of No-Fault Divorce on
Divorce Rates. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61: 800-802.
19

Background: In this response to Rodgers, Joseph Lee, et al. (1997), Glenn compared the
mean divorce rate from 1961-1974 with the projected mean rate from 1972-74 in the 7
states that implemented no-fault divorce in 1971 (which had the highest mean positive

- 19 -
effect on divorce rates in Rodgers-Shull-Nakonezny analysis) and the 13 states that
implemented no-fault divorce after 1974.
This study finds that during the divorce boom, states without no-fault had similar rates of
increase to those with no-fault, and states that adopted no-fault after 1975 saw decreases
in divorce rate. Furthermore, there is scant unambiguous evidence for any effect of no-
fault divorce in 19721974 in the states that implemented no-fault divorce in 1971. It
seems clear that the Rodgers-Nakonezny-Shull method greatly overestimates the positive
effects on divorce rates of the implementation of no-fault divorce in the seven states that
made the change in 1971. (p. 802) Ultimately, the current study shows that the method
used in Rodgers, Joseph Lee, et al. (1997) made linear projections from nonlinear
trends, (p. 800) and confounds any effects of implementation of no-fault divorce with
the effects of other influences that brought about the divorce boom of the 1960s and
1970s and that led to a leveling off of divorce rates after the late 1970s. (p. 800)
4. Gray, Jeffrey S. (1998). Divorce-Law Changes, Household Bargaining, and Married
Womens Labor Supply. The American Economic Review, 88(3): 628-642.
Background: State laws were classified on whether they had adopted unilateral divorce
(with separation requirements if any of less than one year) between 1970 and 1974, and
also classified based on the marital property distribution regime: equitable distribution,
common law, or community property. Census data from 1960, 1970, and 1980 were used
to create a primary sample including married women ages 18 to 55 with husbands
present. Because Census data does not include hours worked, a second sample was
constructed from the Current Population Survey (CPS).
Results: The study finds that, controlling for socioeconomic variables, unilateral divorce
laws have little impact on state divorce rates. (pg. 634) Furthermore, unilateral divorce
has no significant impact on married womens labor-force participation unless the
underlying marital-property laws in each state are consideredOnce these property laws
are controlled forthe labor-supply behavior of wives does appear to respond to their
states adopting unilateral-divorce statutes. (p. 629)
5. Olah, Livia Sz (2001). Policy Changes and Family Stability: The Swedish Case.
International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 15: 118-134.
Background: This study investigates Swedish trends in family disruption for both
consensual unions and legal marriages, investigating whether there is increased
individual risk of family disruption in three time periods associated with three separate
legal changes: (1) 1964-1973, when divorce was possible on both fault and no-fault
grounds; (2) 1974 to mid-1983, when all fault grounds were eliminated and waiting
periods were shortened and simplified; and (3) mid-19831993, when joint custody was
introduced as the general rule when unions dissolved. Data on the likelihood of union
dissolution from 1,869 women (of whom 20.5 percent experienced the disruption of their
union before the sixteenth birthday of their first child), was taken from the Swedish
Family and Working Life Survey of 1992/93, conducted by Statistics Sweden. The
working sample for the present study comprises women who have reported one or more
coresidential unions and have given birth to at least one child in such a union. Individuals
excluded include: those of a non-Nordic origin, those whose first child was an adopted
child, or whose partner had a child from a previous relationship, those whose union ended
in the same month when they had their first child, or those whose first child died.
Controls include religiosity, age at first birth of the respondent, age at union formation,
educational attainment, and employment status.

- 20 -
Results: The study found neither divorce law change appeared to increase family
disruption risk: [T]he introduction of one of the most liberal divorce laws of the world
had relatively little effect on union disruption among families with children as the risks of
family dissolution were very similar in the first and second policy periods (ie [sic] 1964
73, and 1974mid-1983). This suggests the lack of long-term effects of the no-fault
divorce law on family dissolution behavior (p. 124) However, the study did find that
the introduction of joint custody for children after family breakup as a main rule seems to
increase family disruption, primarily among consensual (i.e. unmarried cohabiting)
unions. Although the no-fault divorce law had hardly any long-term effect on family
stability in Sweden, joint custody and fathers use of parental leave seem to be
important. (p. 118) In the third policy period (mid-19831993) the risk of union
dissolution was 30% higher than in previous decades. (p. 124)
6. Smith, Ian (1997). Explaining the Growth of Divorce in Great Britain. Scottish Journal of
Political Economy 44(5): 519-544.
Background: Between 1964 and 1985, ten important changes in divorce law and
procedures took place in England (and Wales) and/or Scotland. This study uses this
difference in timing to investigate the consequences of seven of these divorce law
changes on the divorce rate. For example: The 1969 Divorce Reform Act in England and
Wales introduced irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as the sole grounds for
divorce, although the breakdown had to be proved by showing one of five possible facts:
adultery, unreasonable behavior, desertion, living separately for two years with mutual
consent to the divorce, living separately for five years without mutual consent. (The
authors note the long waiting period for unilateral no-fault divorce means the British
data do not provide a good testbed for addressing the no-fault controversy and little
weight can be placed on them as input to that specific American debate. (p. 523)) A
similar law was not adopted in Scotland until 1976.
20
In 1983, the Scots introduced two
procedural innovations, (1) so-called do it yourself divorces for couples separated at
least two years and where both parties consent to the application and there are no children
of the marriage under age 16 and no alimony claims are being made upon one another
(simplified divorces now account for one-third of all Scottish divorces), and (2) Scottish
law also began permitting divorce cases to be heard in local courts, rather than
exclusively in Edinburgh.
21

Important legal changes regarding property division upon divorce include The Succession
Act of 1964, which permitted Scottish judges to award a maintenance allowance to a wife
on divorce. In 1970, in England and Wales, courts were given the power to dispose of
matrimonial property, especially the family home. Scottish courts did not receive this
power until the Family Law (Scotland) Act of 1985, which introduced a principle of
equal sharing of all marital property, including the marital home. In 1984, the English
Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act limited maintenance (alimony) to a temporary
and transitional period. The 1985 Scottish law similarly limited maintenance to a limited
transitional period.
The study also looked at changes in real and relative wages, fertility control (defined as
diffusion of knowledge about the contraceptive pill), and value of welfare benefits, as
possible confounding factors in the rise in divorce.
Results: For neither England & Wales nor Scotland can any long run legal effects [of
permissive legal reform] be detectedIn contrast to the absence of significant long run
effects, the strictly short run impacts of legal and procedural innovations are powerful
and statistically significant. (p. 540) [T]he analysis failed to detect any increase in the

- 21 -
number of divorces arising from the introduction of no-fault separation grounds. If
anything, it is not extensions to the judicial grounds for divorce which have contributed
to rising divorce rates but rather diminishing transactions costs and court settlement rules
that improve the post-divorce financial position of womenIn particular, it was found
that the introduction of a relatively low cost Simplified Procedure in Scotland in 1983
appears to have permanently narrowed the differential between Scottish and English
divorce rates. (p. 541)
7. Sweezy, Kate & Jill Tiefenthaler (1996). Do State-Level Variables Affect Divorce Rates?
Review of Social Economy 54: 47-65.
Background: Using data on 32,369 women over age 15 who are or have been married
from the Fertility, Birth Expectations, and Marital History supplement to the 1990
Current Population Survey, this study looked at the effects of two legal variables on
divorce risk: whether states have an equitable distribution versus community property
law and whether states have a waiting period before divorce. A multivariate hazard model
is used for an event history analysis. State-level controls include AFDC payments,
proportion of population who attends church, and the percent of population who are
Christian fundamentalist. Controls for personal variables include age at marriage,
premarital pregnancy, previous divorce, earnings, region of country, urban residency, and
race.
Results: [T]he length of the waiting period and the property distribution laws of a state
have no effect on the incidence of divorce. (pg. 62) These results reject notions that
liberal divorce laws and generous AFDC payments encourage the breakup of families but
support the hypothesis that social norms do influence individual behavior. (p. 47)

APPEDIX B:
DIVORCE LAW REFORM AD OTHER FAMILY OUTCOMES

A. Wives Labor Force Participation

Chiappori et al. (2002). Marriage Market, Divorce Legislation, and Household Labor Supply.
Journal of Political Economy 110: 37-72.
Background: This study examines how divorce law affects husbands and wives labor
force participation, analyzing 1,618 households in which both spouses work and are
between 30 and 60 years of age, data taken from wave 23 (1988) of the University of
Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), a nationally representative
longitudinal study of nearly 8,000 U.S. families. A composite measure of divorce law
regimes most favorable to women is constructed out of four features: mutual consent
versus unilateral divorce, community property versus common-law property division,
enforcement of support orders, and spousal rights in professional degrees and licenses.
As of 1989, most states (42) had adopted unilateral-divorce laws. Among these states, as
many as 24 allowed unilateral divorce only after a lengthy separation that lasted between
six months and five years. We follow Peters (1986)
22
and Gray (1998) and define them as
mutual-consent states. Property division refers to state marital property systems, which
can be either community property or common law.
23
(p. 58) Mutual consent divorce,
community property, stronger support enforcement, and spousal rights in professional

- 22 -
degrees and licenses are treated as more favorable to wives. The divorce law index is
created out of these four indicators. Controls include income, age, education, race, city
size, religion, and number of children.
Results: According to our estimates, a one-percentage-point increase in the index,
which reflects the adoption of a divorce law deemed favorable to women, reduces wives
labor supply by approximately 46 hours, whereas it increases husbands labor supply by
81 hours over a year. (p. 62)
Gray, Jeffrey S. (1998). Divorce-Law Changes, Household Bargaining, and Married Womens
Labor Supply. The American Economic Review, 88(3): 628-642.
Background: State laws were classified on whether they had adopted unilateral divorce
(with separation requirements if any of less than one year) between 1970 and 1974, and
also classified based on the marital property distribution regime: equitable distribution,
common law, or community property. Census data from 1960, 1970, and 1980 were used
to create a primary sample including married women ages 18 to 55 with husbands
present. Because Census data does not include hours worked, a second sample was
constructed from the Current Population Survey (CPS).
Results: The study finds that, controlling for socioeconomic variables, unilateral divorce
laws have little impact on state divorce rates. (pg. 634) Furthermore, unilateral divorce
has no significant impact on married womens labor-force participation unless the
underlying marital-property laws in each state are consideredOnce these property laws
are controlled forthe labor-supply behavior of wives does appear to respond to their
states adopting unilateral-divorce statutes. (p. 629)
Parkman, Allen M. (1998). Why Are Married Women Working So Hard? International Review
of Law and Economics, 18: 41-49.
Background: 172 married women and 159 married men, data from the Time Use
Longitudinal Panel Study, 19751981. The sample was restricted to fault divorce states
and the no-fault divorce states that had adopted no-fault divorce grounds by 1978.
Observations from the states that switched from fault to no-fault divorce between 1978
and 1981 were eliminated from the sample.
Regression analyses were conducted to determine the causes of changes in number of
hours worked by married men and women. Dependent variables used in these regressions
were the minutes per week spent in four activities: regular work, housework, child care,
and leisure, plus total work, that is the sum of regular work and housework. The
independent variables consisted of variables associated with labor force participation:
age, family assets, religion, number and age of children, race, education, spouses
earnings, whether the family lived in a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA),
and regional variables for the western, north, central, and southern United States. The
influence of no-fault divorce was introduced by a dummy variable for states that in 1978
permitted unilateral divorce within 2 years. (pg. 47-48)
Results: The study finds that living in a no-fault divorce state tends to increase the
employment of married women. (p. 48) Furthermore, the decrease in housework was not
statistically significant, and the sum of any decrease in housework and childcare did not
equal the increase in regular work, so that the introduction of no-fault divorce has
increased the [total] hours worked by married women. (p. 41) [L]iving in a no-fault
divorce state results in married women having 4.5 hours less leisure time [per week] and
approximately the same amount of additional time devoted to work. These results support

- 23 -
the hypothesis that married women in no-fault divorce states have been forced to take
steps to protect themselves from the potentially adverse effects of no-fault divorce. (p.
48) (The study also found that living in a no-fault divorce state did not affect the number
of hours worked by married men.) The study concludes that the increase in employment
by married women under no-fault divorce laws is motivated by a desire for personal
insurance against the potential costs of divorce rather than by an increase in their familys
welfare. However, to continue to make their marriage attractive to their husband, they
have to continue to provide a substantial number of hours of domestic work. The result
has been an increase in the total number of hours worked by married women. (p. 49)
Stevenson, Betsey (2007). The Impact of Divorce Laws on Marriage-Specific Capital. Journal of
Labor Economics 25(1): 75-94.
Background: This study investigates how changes in divorce laws affect marital
behavior through altering couples incentives to make investments in their marriage. To
reduce selection effects out of marriage as a result of legal change, the study looks at
newlyweds in the first two years of marriage, taken from the 1970 and 1980 Census.
Spousal behaviors investigated include female labor force participation, full-time labor
market work by both spouses, one spouse supporting the others education, children born
during the marriage, and home ownership. This study uses Gruber (2004) coding of states
having unilateral divorce (although the author notes Results presented are robust to
following the coding for unilateral divorce used in Friedberg (1998). (p. 82) States are
coded as having adopted no-fault divorce following Ellman and Lohr (1998), and the
property regimes upon divorce follow Gray (1998). The study includes controls for
gender, state and year fixed effects, own age, race, education, metropolitan status,
spouses age, spouses race, and spouses education.
Results: [N]ewlywed couples in states that allow unilateral divorce are about 10% less
likely to be supporting a spouse through school. They are 8% more likely to have both
spouses employed in the labor force full time and are 5% more likely to have a wife in
the labor force. Finally, they are about 6% less likely to have a child. (p. 77)
The empirical evidence demonstrates that a switch to unilateral divorce reduces couples
willingness to make substantial investments early in their marriage. Couples are less
likely to have children in the first 2 years, are less likely to support each other
sequentially through school, and are more likely to have two full-time workers in the
labor force and greater female labor force participation. Some of these investments may
simply be being postponed, while others may never be made. Furthermore, these results
are largely invariant to the laws governing property division. The exception is home
ownership, where the removal of fault in property settlements appears to encourage home
ownership in the early years of a marriage. (p. 92-93)

B. Divorce Law and Family Violence
Dee, Thomas (2003). Until Death Do You Part: The Effects of Unilateral Divorce on Spousal
Homicides. Economic Inquiry 41(1): 163-82.
Background: This study investigates how unilateral divorce laws affect spousal
homicide rates. State legal regimes are divided into six categories: unilateral divorce,
unilateral divorce with separation requirements (waiting periods), unilateral divorce with
one of three forms of marital property distribution (equitable distribution, community
property, and common law), and states without unilateral divorce. Spousal homicide

- 24 -
counts for husbands and wives are taken from FBI Uniform Crime Reports for all 50
states and the District of Columbia between 1968 and 1978. Results are run both with and
without controls for state fixed effects. Other controls include state unemployment and
real personal income per capita, AFDC expenditures per recipient, intensity of crime
enforcement (as measured by per person number of state and local law enforcement
officers and presence of the death penalty), the numbers of stranger homicides, and state
gun control laws.
Results: [T]he widespread adoption of unilateral divorce laws had relatively small and
statistically insignificant [sic] on the number of wives murdered by their
husbands[T]he introduction of unilateral divorce laws led to a statistically significant
increase of roughly 21% in the number of husbands killed by their wives. Notably, the
increases in spousal homicides of husbands were concentrated in the states with marital
property laws that favored husbands. (p. 181). The author notes his study results are
quite different from those of Stevenson and Wolfers (2000)
24
(p. 177) and suggests
these possible reasons: Stevenson and Wolfers use a much longer time period, use
homicide rates instead of homicides numbers, and do not distinguish unilateral divorce
regimes with separation requirements from pure unilateral divorce regimes. I replicated
their data set[and] found that their results were sensitive to the use of homicide rates
instead of counts as well as to their representation of the state laws. (p. 177)
Ellman, Ira Mark & Sharon Lohr (1997). Marriage as Contract, Opportunistic Violence,
and Other Bad Arguments for Fault Divorce. University of Illinois Law Review, 1997(3): 719-72.
Background: State divorce regimes are divided into three categories, no-fault (22 states),
limited fault (6 states), and fault (22 states), based on the ease with which trial courts may
consider marital misconduct in awarding alimony. Two measures of spousal homicide
rates for all 50 states for the years 1987 through 1992 were taken from the FBIs Uniform
Crime Reporting Program (average number of spousal homicides per 100,000 married
couples per year from 1985-92, and the average number of homicides of wives by their
husbands per 100,000 married couples per year from 1985-92). A measure of wife assault
rate (calculated as the percentage of couples in a state in which at least one physical
assault of the wife by her partner had been reported as occurring in the previous 12
months) was taken from Murray Straus (1994) State-to-State Differences in Social
Inequality and Social Bonds in Relation to Assaults on Wives in the United States,
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25(1): 7-24, which computed the rate of wife
assault for each state from the 1985 National Family Violence Survey, a national
probability sample of 6002 households. Controls included region, income per capita, the
violent crime rate, and the proportion of state population that is black.
Results: There isno statistically significant relation between fault/no-fault category
and spousal homicide. (pg. 766) The study found no statistically significant association
for wife assaults.
Stevenson, Betsey & Justin Wolfers (2006). Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce
Laws and Family Distress. Quarterly Journal of Economics 121(1): 267-288.
Background: This paper exploits the variation occurring from the different timing of
divorce law reforms across the United States to evaluate how unilateral divorce changed
family violence and whether the option provided by unilateral divorce reduced suicide
and spousal homicide. (pg. 269) Data are drawn from state panel data on suicide rates
(constructed from the National Center for Health Statistics), reports of domestic violence
(data from Straus and Gelles Family Violence Surveys in 1976 and again in 1985), and

- 25 -
spousal homicides (data from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports) from 1964 through to
1996 in 37 states that adopted some form of unilateral divorce (using Leora Friedbergs
coding) during this time period. The other 14 stateswho had either not yet adopted
unilateral divorce at the time of the study or had adopted some variant of unilateral
divorce earlierare included as controls.
Results: Examining state panel data on suicide, domestic violence, and murder, we find
a striking decline in female suicide and domestic violence rates arising from the advent of
unilateral divorce. Total female suicide declined by around 20 percent in the long run in
states that adopted unilateral divorceThere is no discernable effect on male
suicideData on conflict resolution reveal large declines in domestic violence
committed by, and against, both men and women in states that adopted unilateral divorce.
Furthermore, we find suggestive evidence of a decline in females murdered by intimates,
although these results are not as convincing. As with suicide, there is no discernable
effect on males murdered, although this reflects the imprecision and volatility of our
estimates. (pg. 286-287)
Regarding suicides, after controlling for the ratio of male-to-female employment rates,
state income per capita and unemployment, the maximum AFDC payment for a family of
four, the share of the state population on the welfare rolls, the availability of abortion, and
the racial and age composition of the state, the study shows that there is a large and
statistically significant reduction in the female suicide rate following the change to
unilateral divorce. Further, this effect grows over time with the full effects of unilateral
divorce on female suicide occurring fifteen to twenty years following the adoption of
unilateral divorce. Averaging the effects over the twenty years following reform suggests
an aggregate decline of 8 percent10 percent in female suicide and a long-run decline that
is much larger. For male suicides [the study] reveals no discernible effect. (pg. 276)
Regarding domestic violence, after controlling for state fixed effects; respondents age,
race and gender; the educational attainment and current labor force status of both
husband and wife; the maximum AFDC rate for a family of four; the natural log of state
personal income per capita; the unemployment rate; the female-to-male employment rate;
age composition variables indicating the share of states populations aged 14-19 and then
ten-year cohorts beginning with age 20 up to a variable for 90+; and the share of the
states population that is black, white and other, the study shows that [c]omparing these
declines in violence rates with their base rates, domestic violence appears to have
declined by somewhere between a quarter and a half between 1976 and 1985 in those
states that reformed their divorce laws. (pg. 282-283)
Regarding intimate homicide of women by men, the study shows a large and significant
decline in intimate femicide following the adoption of unilateral divorce for all three
definitions of intimate homicide, with results suggesting declines on the order of
around 10 percent. (pg. 283) This estimate is robust to adding a rich set of controls,
including a death penalty indicator; the Donahue and Levitt Effective Abortion Rate; the
state incarceration rate, once lagged; the AFDC rate for a family of four; the natural log
of state personal income per capita; the unemployment rate; the female-to-male
employment rate; age composition variables indicating the share of states populations
aged 14-19, and then ten-year cohorts beginning with age 20 up to a variable for 90+; and
the share of the states population that is black, white, and other. The study adds,
however, that the timing evidence is somewhat worrying, and the reader is left to judge
whether the decline in homicide predated the law change to an extent that undermines our
results. (pg. 285)

- 26 -

C. Divorce Law and Other Family Formation Behavior

Alesina, Alberto & Paola Giuliano (July 2006). Divorce, Fertility and the Value of Marriage.
available at http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/giuliano/papers/
AGdivorce_April07_final.pdf (previously Divorce, Fertility and the Shot Gun Marriage,
National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper 12375).
Background: This study analyzes marriage and birth certificate data from the National
Vital Statistics System of the National Center for Health Statistics to determine the
impact of unilateral no-fault divorce laws on marriage and fertility behavior. For birth
certificates, the study uses public use micro data on every birth certificate in the United
States from 1968 through 1999 to mothers aged 10 and older, and marriage data covers
the years 1956 through 1995. Additional data is collected from the Current Population
Survey (labor market, education levels) and Census 1980 5% state sample (fertility rates
in first 2 years of marriage). Specifically, the authors test whether changes in state
divorce laws (using state law classifications from Gruber (2004)) impact marital and
nonmarital fertility rates, as well as marriage rates, while controlling for various factors
including income, unemployment rates, female labor participation, education, and
abortion. The authors also consider data (where available) from prior years to determine
whether the fertility changes preceded the legal change.
Results: Both with and without controls for a variety of state-specific variables, this
study finds that the adoption of unilateral no-fault divorce laws is associated with a
decline in the fertility rates in adopting states. The effect is significant at the 1 percent
level and the implied decline in fertility is about 3 percentage points. (p. 6)
Based on the research of Wolfers (2006), the study also considers the effect of time,
finding that [t]here is a large and significant reduction in fertility rate following the
introduction of [unilateral] divorce and the effect is constant over time and does not
disappear until 15 years after the introduction of [unilateral] divorce. (p. 8-9)
More specifically, the decline in overall fertility rates reflects a drop in out-of-wedlock
births, while marital fertility remains roughly constant. All our specifications show a
significant decline in out-of-wedlock ratio following the adoption of unilateral divorce,
with an elasticity of the order of 6%. . . . The impact of unilateral divorce laws on the out-
of-wedlock rate is always significant at the 1% level, with or without the inclusion of
state-specific trends, whereas the impact on the marital rate is always insignificant. (p.
10) In summary: out of wed lock fertility goes down significantly when divorce
becomes easier. Marital fertility is unaffected. (p. 11)
To test the hypothesis that women are more likely to choose marriage to have children
when the exit options are more readily available, the study considered 5% sample data
from the 1980 Census, finding that fertility is higher in the first two years of marriage
for women living in states with unilateral divorce, although the coefficient is significant
only at the 10 percent level. (p.13) The study also finds that, controlling for education
and labor market status, the number of never married women declines with the
introduction of unilateral divorce. Our estimates imply an elasticity of around 4%. (p.
12) Explaining their findings, the authors conclude:
The theory and empirics on the effect of divorce laws on marital stability
and fertility typically emphasized what we have labeled a dilution

- 27 -
effect, namely a reduction in the value of marriage that should imply
fewer marriages and lower marital fertility, and by implication
potentially higher out-of-wedlock fertility. We emphasized another effect
which we labeled a commitment effect. As divorce becomes easier,
people feel less locked in when they marry. So when women consider
having children (or are already pregnant) they are more willing to try
marriage. Therefore out of wedlock fertility declines and marriage rates
go up.
The welfare implications of our results are of course very hard to
evaluate. Reduction of out of wedlock fertility may be a social good, but
society may pay for it with an increase in bad marriages and more
divorces. (p. 13)
Ekert-Jaffe, Olivia & Shoshana Grossbard (2006). Does Community Property Discourage
Unpartnered Births? July 24, 2006 draft was presented at a seminar at the Department of
Economics, Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus, Denmark, on September 27, 2006.
(July 24, 2006 draft at: http://www.hha.dk/nat/workshop/2006/sg2709.pdf. A previous draft was
presented at the European Society for Population Economics, Verona, June 2006.)
Background: This study analyzes retrospective data from 31,449 women who gave birth
to their first child between 1963 and 1992 in 12 countries (Western European countries
plus Canada, U.S. and New Zealand) in order to test whether rules of property division at
dissolution increase or decrease the likelihood of unpartnered births. Mothers who have
partnered births in this study may be either married or cohabiting. Legal regimes were
divided into three categories according to the degree of protection offered to women who
earn less than their partner: low degree of community in property (New Zealand before
1977, Canadas Common Law provinces, the U.S.A., and Austria); medium degree of
community in property (France and Belgium (Flanders only), the former West Germany,
Finland, Quebec, the Canadian province of Ontario since 1985, Italy and Spain after they
legalized divorce); and high degree of community in property (Norway and Sweden). The
data is drawn from the Family Fertility Surveys, conducted for the U.N. Economic
Commission for Europe.
Results: After taking into account the childs year of birth, the mothers age, the mothers
age at birth, whether the mothers parents had divorced, the mothers religiosity, family
size, and the mothers work and study status, this study concludes the likelihood of an
unpartnered birth was higher in countries that offer women who depend on male earnings
less access to joint property upon relationship dissolution. [T]he lower the degree of
community in a countrys divorce laws, the higher womens likelihood of having an
unpartnered birth. (p. 28) Women in countries with low levels of community property
are more likely to have unpartnered births than women in countries with medium levels
of community property. Women in countries with medium levels of community property
are more likely to have unpartnered births than women in countries with high levels of
community property. Most unlikely to give birth without a partner were women in
countries where divorce was illegal, a finding significant at the highest level. (p. 28)
Legal regime had less of an impact on unpartnered births among teenagers, women past
age 29 and children of divorce (all of whom were more likely to have unpartnered births);
Legal regime had a greater impact on women who attend religious services at least once a
week.

- 28 -
Allen, Douglas W., Krishna Pendakur & Wing Suen (2006). No-Fault Divorce and the
Compression of Marriage Ages. Economic Inquiry 44:3 (July): 547 ff.
Background: This study uses marriage records collected by the National Center for
Health Statistics, accounting for all first marriages of men and women between 1970 and
1995. States which switched to no-fault divorce during this period are compared to states
whose laws did not change in this period. States divorce laws are classified using
Friedbergs (1998) definitions of no-fault and strong no-fault states and also Brinig and
Buckleys (1998) alternative classification of strong no-fault states. (The main
difference being: Friedberg classifies a state as having a strong no-fault divorce system if
fault is ignored in both grounds and property distribution, while Brinig and Buckleys
classification as strong no-fault requires that the state also excludes fault in
consideration of alimony.)
Results: Our main prediction, that the spread of the marriage age distribution should
decline with the introduction of no-fault divorce, is broadly corroborated by the data.
Controlling for state-specific effects on the age at first-marriage distribution and for
national-level trends over time, we find that the introduction of no-fault divorce is
associated with a 1% to 5% decrease in the standard deviation of the log at first
marriage.Controlling for state-specific effects and for national-level trends, we find a
small increase of about 0.3% to 0.7% in the age at first marriage. Given average ages at
first marriage of 25, this suggests that no-fault divorce is associated with 1 to 2 months
more marital search with an associated small loss in welfare. (p. 548)
Rasul, Imran (2003). The Impact of Divorce Laws on Marriage, working paper, University of
Chicago.
Background: In theory, unilateral divorce laws might affect unmarried peoples
likelihood of entering legal marriages in either direction: either by making marriage more
attractive (by lowering its cost of exit) or by reducing its usefulness as a commitment
device, compared to cohabitation. This study uses state-level panel data from 1960 to
2000 to investigate the impact of unilateral divorce laws and more equal distribution of
property laws on marriage rates. Crude marriages rates (the number of marriages per
1000 adults age 15 to 65) were constructed from Vital Statistics data. Vital Statistics data
and data from the March CPS were combined to derive rates of marriage per 1000 single
adults (age 15 to 65). Thirdly, marriage certificates and March CPS data are used to
construct cohort specific marriage propensities, calculated by age, gender, race, and
marriage number.
This study uses Friedbergs (1998) coding of unilateral divorce law states (and also in the
appendix experiments with using alternate definitions of unilateral divorce, including
codings used by Gruber (2000), Johnson and Mazingo (2000), and Ellman and Lohr
(1998), which the author states produced similar results). Equitable property law is an
umbrella term the author uses to describe states that moved to more equal distribution of
property following divorce through one or more of a number of distinct legal steps
including moving from title-based common law marital property regimes to equitable
property and/or the ending of the use of marital fault in the distribution of assets. (The
author thanks Saku Aura and Jonathan Gruber for providing the coding of property laws
but provides little further detail.)
Results: On the effect of unilateral divorce laws: After the adoption of unilateral
divorce, marriage rates declined significantly and permanently in adopting states. The
effect of unilateral divorceaccounts for 10% of the overall decline in the marriage rate.

- 29 -
The impact of unilateral divorce in reducing the rate of marriages per 1000 singlesa
closer measure of the propensity to marryis twice as largeThe greatest quantitative
impact is among whites, and those marrying for a second time. (p. 26-27) On property
division laws, States which also introduced an equitable distribution of property in
divorce have further significant reductions in marriage rates. (p. 27)

15
A critique of this studys methodology by Norval Glenn in the pages of The Journal of Marriage and the
Family (Glenn, Norval D. (1997). A Reconsideration of the Effect of No-Fault Divorce on Divorce Rates
[paper #2 under Studies Showing No Effect from Change in Divorce Law) lead to a series of exchanges
between Glenn and Joseph Lee Rodgers, Paul A. Nakonezny and Robert D. Schull in that same journal,
consisting of Rodgers, Joseph Lee., et al. (1997). The Effect of No-Fault Divorce Legislation on Divorce
Rates: A Response to a Reconsideration [paper #16 under Studies Showing No-Fault Divorce Affects the
Divorce Rate]; Glenn, Norval D. (1999). Further Discussion of the Effects of No-Fault Divorce on Divorce
Rates [paper #3 under Studies Showing No Effect]; and Rodgers, Joseph Lee, et al. (1999) Did No-Fault
Divorce Legislation Matter? Definitely Yes and Sometimes No.
16
Peters, H. Elizabeth. Marriage and Divorce: Informational Constraints and Private Contracting
American Economic Review 76 (June 1986): 437-54.
17
See footnote 15.
18
See footnote 15.
19
See footnote 15.
20
Other potentially important legal changes include the adoption in England and Wales of a special
procedure at the end of 1973 for quickly processing divorce petitions of married couples without children
who sought divorce by mutual consent by signed affidavit (without a court hearing). In 1975, this easier
procedural option was extended to all uncontested divorces by childless married couples (except those who
alleged unreasonable behavior), and in 1977 divorce by affidavit was extended to all uncontested
divorces, including those with children. Similar procedural changes permitting divorce without court
hearing were adopted in Scotland in April 1978 (and by 1980, 92 percent of Scottish Divorces used this
procedure).
21
In 1984, England lowered the time from marriage at which a divorce petition may be heard from three
years to one year from the date of the marriage. Scotland has no such time bar.
22
See footnote 16.
23
Arizona, Mississippi, and Nevada are community property states which require equitable rather than
equal distribution of property upon dissolution and the authors code these states as common-law regimes.
(See footnote 24, page 58)
24
Stevenson, B., and J. Wolfers. Til Death Do Us Part: Effects of Divorce Laws on Suicide, Domestic
Violence and Spousal Murder. Manuscript, October 2000. (p. 182) [This is an earlier draft of Stevenson &
Wolfers (2006)]

EXHIBIT 62
No-Fault Divorce
and the
American Family
ALLEN M. PARKMAN
ROWMAN & LITILEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC.
Published in the United States of America
by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
4720 Boston Way, Lanham, Maryland 20706
http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com
12 Hid's Copse Road
Cumnor Hill, Oxford OX2 911, England
Copyright 2000 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available
Parkman, Allen M.
Good intentions gone awry : no-fault divorce and the American family I Allen M. Parkman.
p. em.
ISBN 0-8476-9868-8 (cl. : alk. paper) -ISBN 0-8476-9869-6 (pbk. : alk. paper)
l. No-fault divorce-United States. 2. No-fault divorce-Economic aspects-United
States. 3. Divorce-United States. 4. Family-United States. I. Title.
HQ834.P37 2000
306.89'0973 21-dc 21 99-045669
Qr"' The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American
National Standard for Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ANSIINISO Z39.48-1992.
5
The Impact of
No-Fault Divorce
In the period since World War II, U.S. society has undergone dramatic changes.
The introduction of no-fault grounds for divorce has played a significant, and often
unrecognized, role in those changes. Of particular importance has been the re-
duction in the stability of marriage. The rising divorce rate and pressure for sim-
pler procedures for dissolving marriages led to no-fault divorce. The introduction
of no-fault divorce, in turn, has had feedback effects that have made a major
contribution to the changes.
The role of no-fault divorce in the changes that we have observed since World
War II is the subject of this chapter. Individuals alter their prior decisions when
their tastes and preferences shift or when the costs or the benefits associated with
activities change. Tastes and preferences tend to change only slowly, and the
following discussion focuses on the more rapid shift in incentives due to changes
in the costs and the benefits of activities. Because no-faull divorce reduced the
net benefits of making a long-term commitment to a spouse, it influenced many
ofthe trends in U.S. society since 1970. People have done things that they would
not have done if the divorce laws had not changed. Many of these effects are
subtle. The discussion will include changes in the divorce rate, the condition of
divorced spouses and their children, the incentive to marry, the incentive for
married women to work outside the home and to continue their education, the
quality of life for intact families, and the definition of property subject to division
at divorce. We will see that not only did people change their behavior, but often
they found themselves worse off than under fault divor<::e. An ine, capable con-
91
92
Good Intentions Gone Awry
elusion is that no-fault divorce has reduced the quality of family life for many
people relative to the position they would be in if the divorce laws encouraged a
long-term commitment to marriage.
THE DIVORCE RATE
The stability of marriage in the United States has declined dramatically since World
War II. The annual divorce rate for married women (see table 5.1
1
) rose from
10.3 per 1,000 in 1950 to 19.8 per 1,000 in 1995 after peaking at 22.8 per 1,000
in 1979.
1
The divorce rate doubled between 1965 and 1975. Whether the increase
in the divorce rate caused no-fault divorce or whether the causation ran in the
opposite direction has been the source of some debate. Certainly, new laws can
alter human behavior, but the laws themselve often reflect legi lator 'attempts
to respond to changes in basic forces. Both effect may have been
present with no-fault divorce.
2
Becau e the clivorce rate was increasing before the
introduction of no-fault divorce, it is difficuiL toe cape lbe conclu ion thal some
TableS.! Divorce Rates and Related Data
Divorce Rate
Ratio
(per thousand) Average Women's! Births
for Married Hourly Men's (per thousand
Year Women Earnings" Earnings
6
population)
1950 10.3 $5.34
24.1
1955 9.3 6.15 .639 25.0
1960 9.2 6.79 .603 23.7
1965 10.6 7.52 .599 19.4
1970 14.9 8.03 .600 18.4
1975 20.3 8.12 .588 14.6
1980 22.6 7.78 .594 15.9
1985 21.7 7.77 .646 15.8
1990 20.9 7.52 .682 16.7
1995 19.8 7.39 .717 14.9
1998
7.75
14.6
'1982 dollars.
hWeekly wage ratios, full-time workers.
Sources: Divorce rate, average earnings, and births from Statistical Abstract of the United States
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, various years), and National Center for Health
Statistics, "Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths for November 1998," National Vital Statistics
Report 47, no. 17 (March 17, 1999). Men's and women's earnings for 1995-1985 are from Claudia
Goldin, Understanding the GendeJ" Gap ( ew York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 60-61, and
those for 1990 and 1995 are from Fmncinc D. Blau, "Trends in the Well-Being of American Women,
1970-95," Joumal of Economic Literature 36, no. 1 (March 1998): 129.
The Impact of No-Fault Divorce 93
causation went from the increase in the divorce rate to the introduction of no
fault divorce laws.
3
That is not to say that the introduction of no-fault divorce
Jaws had no feedback effect
The increase in the demand for simpler divorce procedures was caused by
marriage becoming a less attractive institution for some adults. People marry
because they expect to be better off in that state than in the single state. They
divorce if this expectation turns out to be false. This can occur when ti1ere is either
an unexpected reduction in the gains from marriage or an unexpected decline in
the predictability of outcomes during rna1Tiage- both of which happened after
World War ll. The effect of these changes on divorce was not broadly recognized
at the time.
The Reduction in the Gains from Marriage
Marriage is an attractive institution for both spouses as long as both expect to be
better off married than single. A significant share of the benefits of marriage, in
comrast to the benefits of dating or living together, flows from an increase in the
specialization of labor during marriage that is often associated with children. People
become more efficient by focusing their energies on one or on a limited range of
activities. This speciali zation results in people having too much of some goods
and too litUe of others and, therefore, becomes more attractive when there are
opportunities for trade. During marriage, the husband traditionally increased his
specialization in the production of earnings, whereas the wife increased her spe-
cialization in activities in the home. Through an exchange of their outputs during
marriage, both spouses were better off.
When women were confronted with low wages and limited employment op-
portunities, marriage with increased specialization in household production was
a rational choice for essentially all adult women. Conditions changed when wages
and opportunities available to women increased. After adjustment for inflation, in
1982 dollars, the average hourly real wage rose from $5.34 in 1950 to $8.12 in
1975 and then fell gradually over the next 20 years, before recently recovering
slightly" (see table 5.1.). The real wage can be used to convert the time spent
working at home into purchasi ng power- the ability to buy a larger house or more
restaurant meals. Higher wages therefore create an incentive for families to de-
cide that the value of the goods that the people who would otherwise work at
home can generate through outside employment exceeds the value of at least some
commodities that these people can produce in the home. In fact, the labor-force-
p_articipation rate (LFPR) of white women twenty years and older rose from 32.7
percent in 1954 to 42.2 percent in 1970, when Califomia introduced no-fault
divorce.
5
rt continued to increase to 60 percent in 1998. This trend is even more
dramatic for married women for which the LFPR rose from 24 percent in 1950 to
94 Good Intentions Gone Awry
62 percent in 1997.
6
Particularly noteworthy has been the increase in the labor
force participation of married women with young children. The rate for married
women with children under six years of age rose from 18.6 percent in 1960 to
62.6 percent in 1997.
When both spouses increase the amount of time during which they work out-
side the home, the specialization of labor during marriage is usually reduced. Based
on data from 1975 and 1976, Janice Peskin reported that women not otherwise
employed provided 42.6 hours per week of household services; women who were
employed full time outside the home provided 20.1 hours.
7
Women working full
time outside the home worked less in the home than women not otherwise em-
ployed, but the hours worked outside the home by these women did not result in
a corresponding reduction in their work at home. Victor Fuchs observed the work
habits of women in 1960 and 1986 and noted a similar pattern over time. He found
that women worked less at home as they increased the hours they worked outside
the home,
8
but overall they ended up working 7 percent more hours in 1986 than
in 1960. Between 1960 and 1986, married women reduced their annual hours of
housework by 200 hours, but men only increased their annual hours of house-
work by 3 hours. Although the specialization between men and women during
marriage has decreased, there has been an increase in the specialization among
women. Some of the responsibility for household services has shifted to other
women, who have increased their specialization by being employed in tradition-
ally domestic activities such as day care or cleaning services.
9
An unexpected result of this decrease in the specialization between husbands
and wives can be a decline in the gains from marriage. This is especially true
because higher wages for women reduce the incentive for couples to have chil-
dren. A rise in the wages available to women increases the cost of children be-
cause the mother has to leave the labor force to deliver the child. In addition, at
least one parent usually has to limit his or her employment to help in the raising
of the child. This has traditionally been the mother because the wages available
to women tend to be less than those available to men. For example, during the
period before the introduction of no-fault divorce laws, the average wage of women
was approximately 60 percent of the average wage of men.
10
Still, as illustrated
in table 5.1, as women's wages rose, the fertility rate fell. Between 1950 and 1970,
the number of births per thousand population fell from 24.1 to 18.4
11
and contin-
ued to fall to 14.6 in 1975, when the maturation of the baby boom generation
started to reverse the trend. In the 1990s, the birth rate started to decline again.
The desire for children historically has been a primary reason that people marry;
as the demand for children fell, so did the gains from marriage.
The higher wages and broader employment opportunities available to women
had both a direct and an indirect effect on gains from marriage. The direct effect
came from higher wages raising the opportunity cost of either spouse working at
The Impact of No-Fault Divorce 95
home. The upshot was an increase in the percentage of married women working
outside the home and a corresponding decrease in their specialization in domestic
activities. There is also an indirect effect on the incentive to specialize in domes-
tic production from higher wages decreasing the demand for children. With fewer
children, there is less to be gained from either spouse working in the home.
A reduction in the gains from marriage should not necessarily affect the di-
vorce rate. If the reduction is anticipated, it should lead to fewer but equally stable
marriages. The divorce rate increases when the change in the gains from mar-
riage is unexpected. Marriage traditionally has been a long-term arrangement, and
the higher wages and broader range of employment opportunities that became
available to women after World War II were not contemplated at the time of many
marriages. As married women entered the labor force in response to the unex-
pected employment opportunities, they reduced their specialization in household
production. Because many couples had not anticipated this change when they
married, their marriages became vulnerable, with a resulting increase in the num-
ber of married people who wanted a divorce.
The Predictability of Outcomes during Marriage
Rapid changes in society in the postwar period also affected the predictability of
the outcomes that people experienced during marriage. Higher wages and the
growth of the service sector after World War II led to more women being em-
ployed and to wives becoming less financially dependant on their husbands. The
increased availability of contraceptives changed sexual habits. At the same time,
the fertility rate continued to fall. Few of these changes were anticipated.
People enter marriage with a set of expectations that are the basis of the deci-
sion to marry. If the expectations are realized, the marriage is likely to continue;
but when actual events during marriage differ from the expectations, the marriage
becomes vulnerable. For example, a woman may marry because she feels that her
employment possibilities are limited and a marriage proposal has come from an
acceptable man. If she later discovers that attractive jobs are available for women,
she may decide that she is better off divorced and employed than married to this
person. This is especially likely to occur if her husband married with the expec-
tation that his wife would be a homemaker and a mother.
The reduction in the gains from marriage and the predictability of outcomes
during marriage made marriage a less-attractive institution for many people-some
of whom were already married. In some cases, the reaction to these changes was
a desire for a divorce. The fault grounds for divorce made divorce difficult, though
not impossible; the increased desire for divorce was accompanied by an increase
in the demand for simpler procedures for dissolving marriages.

EXHIBIT 63
H
o
m
o
s
e
x
u
a
J
j
t
i
e
s
A
S
t
u
d
y
o
f
D
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
m
o
n
g
M
e
n
A
n
d
W
o
m
e
n
A
l
a
n
P
.
B
e
l
l
/
M
a
r
t
i
n
S
.
W
e
i
n
b
e
r
g
S
i
m
o
n
a
n
d
S
c
t
l
u
s
E
e
r
N
e
w
Y
o
r
k
.
.
C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
1
9
7
8
b
y
A
l
a
n
P
.
B
o
l
l
a
n
d
M
a
c
h
i
s
S
.
W
:
m
b
r
g
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
s
i
n
c
h
u
h
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
i
g
h
t
o
f
e
e
p
r
u
d
u
c
t
i
o
o
i n
w
h
o
l
e
o
r
i t s
p
a
r
t
i
n
a
n
y
f
t
s
n
n
l
o
b
l
i
s
h
e
s
l
h
y
S
i
m
o
s
t
o
u
s
t
S
c
h
u
s
t
e
r
A
D
i
n
i
n
i
o
n
o
f
G
o
l
f
&
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
i
m
o
n
&
S
c
h
u
s
t
e
r
l
i
s
t
i
l
d
i
n
g
R
o
c
k
e
f
t
h
l
e
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
1
2
3
0
A
v
e
n
u
e
o
f
s
l
i
t
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
s
N
e
w
Y
o
t
k
,
N
o
w
Y
o
r
k
1
0
0
2
0
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
I
r
v
i
u
g
P
e
i
k
i
o
s
M
a
o
t
,
f
a
c
l
a
t
e
d
i n
t
h
e
U
s
t
i
l
e
d
S
t
a
l
e
s
o
f
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I
t t
l
o
h
l
i
s
h
s
e
d
i
n
a
s
s
a
a
i
a
t
i
i
s
n
w
i
t
h
M
i
t
c
h
e
l
l
I
h
e
a
c
t
e
y
t
t
t
t
,
l
i
s
h
s
r
s
1
,
t
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
o
f
C
o
t
t
y
r
o
s
s
C
u
t
a
l
o
g
i
a
e
i n
P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
D
a
t
a
B
e
l
l
,
A
l
a
n
P
.
.
9
3
2
I
l
o
i
t
t
o
s
e
n
t
r
a
l
i
h
i
e
s
t
t
e
p
o
r
i
o
f
a
s
t
u
d
y
c
a
s
I
o
b
y
t
h
e
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
f
o
r
S
a
x
R
e
s
e
a
t
c
h
.
t
e
b
l
i
n
g
e
a
p
i
s
y
:
p
.
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
l
o
d
e
n
.
l
l
o
r
n
o
s
c
v
u
a
l
i
t
y
U
n
i
t
n
d
S
t
a
t
e
s
.
1
.
W
e
i
s
t
b
e
r
g
,
M
a
r
l
i
n
S
.
,
j
o
i
n
t
a
a
i
l
s
o
r
.
I
I
.
I
n
d
i
a
t
t
a
.
U
t
s
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
.
t
i
i
v
t
s
t
s
s
t
n
f
o
r
S
e
x
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
.
I
t
t
.
I
s
t
l
e
.
9
I
1
Q
7
6
2
9
3
1
1
4
5
S
I
l
l
.
4
t
5
7
t
r
a
7
J
7
8
-
7
3
9
0
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
A
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
q
m
o
n
l
s
1
3
t
S
t
t
N
O
6
7
t
-
2
4
2
t
2
-
l
P
a
r
t
I
I
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
I
o
n
1
9
R
a
l
t
o
n
&
e
-
I
M
e
t
h
o
d
s
o
f
I
n
v
e
s
i
t
g
a
l
i
o
n
2
6
.
h
t
a
,
l
v
S
i
t
e
2
7
/
.
S
s
t
s
i
t
p
l
/
s
s
y
t
p
u
n
r
s
/
t
t
t
e
.
s
:
R
e
c
i
e
l
t
t
t
i
g
I
I
o
i
t
n
.
s
s
a
n
s
t
a
l
R
e
s
l
t
s
a
t
t
d
e
t
s
t
s
2
9
I
R
c
c
r
s
t
i
t
n
t
c
s
t
t
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
3
0
I
R
e
c
r
t
t
l
t
t
t
i
e
n
t
I
o
o
l
1
3
/
S
i
r
e
s
c
i
O
u
t
r
S
a
t
s
t
y
l
e
s
3
4
1
1
h
i
n
t
t
,
s
e
a
o
s
s
l
I
f
e
s
p
o
t
t
u
l
e
i
t
s
:
D
e
t
n
s
s
g
t
a
p
l
t
t
c
C
l
i
a
r
a
c
t
e
t
i
s
t
i
e
s
3
5
/
U
s
e
S
s
i
l
e
e
t
i
t
s
t
t
o
f
I
l
e
t
e
r
o
s
e
x
o
a
l
R
e
s
1s
o
i
i
d
e
t
t
t
s
3
7
1
I
l
e
t
o
r
u
t
s
e
a
u
i
R
e
s
p
o
o
s
l
e
s
t
l
s
:
l
)
e
t
i
t
o
g
r
a
1s
l
s
i
c
C
i
t
a
c
t
t
t
e
i
t
t
t
c
s
3
8
I
l
i
t
s
n
/
s
s
i
S
s
I
t
r
s
l
t
,
l
I
)
s
i
s
I
s
j
s
s
s
t
t
4
0
/
I
s
,
s
r
r
s
s
s
s
,
s
s
t
,
s
.
r
,
u
r
s
l
s
s
r
r
.
i
I D
I
t
t
l
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
t
s
4
2
/
i
o
s
t
i
t
i
t
e
t
-
v
s
e
w
C
u
,
n
t
a
c
t
s
4
4
/
E
s
/
s
s
o
s
,
r
q
s
l
s
s
n
1
5
5
, s
e
s
/
o
r
,
.
,
4
5
I
/
?
r
l
s
s
t
I
j
1
s
t
s
u
s
a
!
l
,
s
/
i
d
/
t
r
4
5
/
.
S
t
s
,
t
r
s
s
i
s
i
l
/
5
0
5
s
s
/
s
u
n
s
d
l
i
P
a
r
t
I
I
/
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
S
e
x
u
a
l
E
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
4
9
T
h
e
H
c
m
o
s
e
x
u
a
/
-
H
e
t
e
r
n
s
e
x
u
a
/
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m
5
3
/
r
s
t
s
k
s
s
t
2s
I
!
r
s
t
:
K
i
s
t
s
e
y
l
0
a
t
s
n
g
s
:
l
h
e
l
t
s
s
v
i
o
r
s
5
4
1
K
i
t
a
s
e
y
R
a
t
s
t
t
g
s
:
F
e
e
l
i
n
g
s
5
6
/
K
i
n
s
e
y
R
a
t
i
n
g
s
:
B
e
l
i
t
u
v
i
o
r
s
t t t s
, i
F
e
e
l
i
n
g
s
5
0
/
S
s
t
u
i
t
n
t
a
r
y
5
7
/
1
s
s
t
d
k
t
s
:
l
!
s
n
t
s
s
s
t
t
:
K
i
n
s
e
y
R
a
l
i
t
s
y
x
:
B
e
l
t
s
u
v
i
o
t
s
5
7
1
K
i
s
t
s
e
y
I
l
a
I
i
n
g
s
:
F
e
e
l
i
t
t
g
s
5
9
/
K
i
e
.
s
e
y
R
a
t
i
n
g
s
:
H
e
l
t
a
v
i
o
r
s
a
n
d
F
c
e
l
i
i
t
g
s
5
9
/
S
t
t
t
s
t
t
t
t
a
s
y
6
(
1
1
(
1
s
r
r
,
i
c
c
6
1
1
.
.
T
A
B
L
E
5
/
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
x
u
a
l
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
T
A
B
L
E
6
/
C
r
u
i
s
i
n
g
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
o
f
H
S
e
x
u
a
l
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
I
n
P
a
s
t
Y
e
a
r
I
I
:
N
o
t
a
l
i
l
l
O
n
c
e
o
r
a
f
e
w
t
i
m
e
s
2
:
E
v
e
r
y
o
t
h
e
r
m
o
n
t
h
3
:
O
n
c
e
a
m
o
n
t
h
4
:
2
3
l
i
n
i
e
s
a
m
o
n
t
h
5
:
O
n
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
(
i
:
2
]
l
i
m
e
s
a
w
e
e
k
7
:
4
6
t
i
m
e
s
a
w
e
e
k
8
:
7
t
i
m
e
s
a
w
e
e
k
o
r
m
o
r
e
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
. 1
1
7
t
3
1
1
M
W
H
M
. 0
1
1
I
. t
t
5
C
r
u
i
s
i
n
g
I
n
P
a
s
t
Y
e
a
r
0
:
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
1
.
O
n
c
e
a
m
o
n
t
h
o
r
l
e
s
s
2
:
A
f
e
w
t
i
m
e
s
a
m
o
n
t
h
3
:
O
n
c
e
o
r
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
4
:
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
I
t
6
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
(
(
4
D
H
M
W
H
M
.
0
4
.
0
3
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
c
e
o
f
C
r
u
i
s
i
n
g
a
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
L
o
c
a
l
e
s
I
n
P
a
s
t
Y
e
a
r
E
v
e
r
C
r
u
i
s
e
d
a
t
B
a
r
s
?
0
:
N
o
I
:
Y
e
s
P
i
l
o
t
W
H
M
B
H
M
W
H
F
B
i
l
E
S
t
u
d
y
(
N
=
5
7
3
)
l
N
l
i
t
)
(
N
2
2
9
)
)
N
6
4
)
1
6
s
-
4
%
9
3
%
3
i
2
1
2
2
1
2
8
2
0
2
7
3
5
2
8
I
S
I
5
5
2
3
I
0
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
0
4
B
t
t
F
W
I
4
F
0
4
P
i
l
o
t
W
H
M
B
H
M
W
I
I
F
E
l
-
I
F
S
t
u
d
y
(
N
-
5
7
4
)
(
N
I
I
I
)
(
N
2
2
8
)
(
N
=
6
4
)
(
N
4
5
9
)
3
%
(
f
-
f
9
%
3
I
(
i
3
1
5
7
3
T
O
(
7
3
2
0
2
2
1
7
2
0
3
0
4
2
1
9
3
6
9
4
7
4
3
%
(
1
%
9
4
1
3
1
)
I )
(
4
1
5
9
2
(
1
3
9
3
3
i
i
I
I
6
6
I
.
2
1
h
D
c
z
t
i
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
1
4
1
3
i
1
F
W
I
I
F
.
1
4
.
2
3
I
0
2
(
N
=
5
7
4
)
t
N
l
i
t
)
(
N
=
2
2
9
)
(
N
6
-
I
)
3
4
%
2
4
%
8
3
5
1
8
4
%
6
6
7
6
1
7
6
W
1
,
I
t
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
7
D
e
i
t
i
u
g
r
a
p
l
i
i
c
s
. 1
(
4
f
l
H
M
V
i
H
M
.
0
7
. 0
1
l
l
i
t
F
A
l
I
F
1
)
4
.
0
1
E
v
e
r
C
r
u
I
s
e
d
a
t
B
a
t
h
s
?
(
N
S
7
4
(
(
N
1
I
I
)
0
:
N
o
4
6
%
5
2
1
:
Y
e
s
5
4
4
7
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
1
t
J
l
t
M
W
t
l
I
s
t
. 0
1
(
1
3
E
v
e
r
C
r
u
i
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
?
(
N
5
7
3
)
I
N
i
I
I
)
(
N
2
2
9
)
(
N
(
v
I
)
0
:
N
o
5
l
.
(
3
6
%
1
0
1
0
f
f
9
2
%
i
:
Y
e
s
4
8
6
3
I
t
9
I
,
/
1
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
. 0
1
)
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
2
I
t
t
l
M
W
H
M
. 0
(
1
. 1
)
3
t
I
i
I
F
W
H
F
.
0
6
. 1
)
4
E
v
e
r
C
r
u
i
s
e
d
a
t
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
P
a
r
t
i
e
s
?
(
N
=
5
7
4
)
(
N
I
I
I
)
(
N
2
2
9
)
(
N
=
6
4
1
0
:
N
o
5
6
S
f
4
7
%
9
2
5
1
8
4
%
I
:
Y
e
s
4
4
. 5
3
1
)
1
6
!
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
. 0
. 5
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
2
B
H
M
W
F
I
M
.
0
5
. 1
1
2
1
3
l
4
F
W
H
F
.
0
3
.
0
4
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
/
2
9
9
.
2
9
8
/
H
o
m
o
s
e
x
u
a
l
i
l
i
e
s
.
P
i
l
o
t
W
H
M
O
H
M
W
H
P
B
H
F
S
t
u
d
y
i
f
C
r
u
i
s
e
d
i
t
s
a
S
p
e
c
i
f
I
c
L
o
c
a
t
e
i
n
P
a
s
t
Y
e
a
r
:
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
o
f
C
r
u
i
s
i
n
g
T
h
e
r
e
H
o
w
O
f
t
e
n
C
r
u
i
s
e
d
a
t
B
a
r
g
?
(
N
=
3
7
8
)
(
N
S
4
)
(
N
=
3
9
)
(
N
=
1
0
)
1
2
:
O
n
c
e
a
m
o
n
t
h
o
r
l
e
s
s
3
2
%
2
1
%
6
1
%
5
0
%
3
:
A
f
e
w
t
i
m
e
s
a
m
o
n
t
h
1
5
8
1
3
1
0
I
:
O
n
c
e
o
r
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
4
2
3
9
2
6
4
0
5
:
M
o
r
e
t
i
t
a
n
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
1
2
1
3
1
)
i
!
!
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
6
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
7
1
1
D
M
W
i
-
t
M
.
0
6
.
0
7
1
3
1
-
I
F
W
H
F
.
0
8
.
1
8
H
o
w
O
f
t
e
n
C
r
u
i
s
e
d
a
t
B
a
t
h
s
?
1
2
:
O
n
c
e
a
m
o
n
t
h
o
r
l
e
s
s
3
:
A
f
e
w
t
i
m
e
s
a
m
o
n
t
h
4
:
O
n
c
e
o
r
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
5
:
M
o
r
e
t
i
t
a
n
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
I
?
/
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
0
U
i
-
I
M
W
1
I
M
.
0
!
.
1
3
H
o
w
O
t
t
e
n
C
r
u
i
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
?
(
N
=
2
8
t
)
(
N
7
t
)
(
N
l
)
(
N
=
5
)
1
2
:
O
n
c
e
a
m
o
n
t
h
o
r
l
e
s
s
4
5
%
3
7
%
0
%
2
0
%
3
:
A
f
e
w
t
i
m
e
s
i s
m
o
n
t
h
1
6
i
t
( 1
2
(
1
4
:
O
n
c
e
o
r
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
i
9
2
2
S
t
4
0
5
:
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
2
0
3
0
(
5
1
2
0
!
!
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
2
D
e
n
s
o
g
r
a
p
t
i
i
c
s
.
7
2
B
i
-
i
M
W
i
-
I
M
.
0
3
.
1
9
i
i
f
t
t
i
_
W
i
l
P
.
7
4
.
2
2
H
o
w
O
f
t
e
n
C
r
u
i
s
e
d
a
t
P
r
i
s
a
t
e
P
a
r
t
I
e
s
?
2
:
O
,
t
c
c
a
m
o
n
t
h
o
r
l
e
s
S
3
:
A
f
e
w
l
i
m
e
s
a
m
o
o
n
l
i
t
4
:
O
n
c
e
o
r
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
5
:
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
(
N
=
2
5
0
)
(
N
5
9
)
)
N
1
9
)
(
N
=
t
O
)
7
)
1
%
7
t
%
9
0
%
6
o
c
(
6
i
9
5
2
0
6
8
5
2
)
1
0
2
0
0
l
i
-
i
I
,
R
i
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
0
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
3
3
B
t
t
M
W
H
M
.
0
1
.
0
0
U
H
F
W
h
I
P
.
4
2
.
2
6
T
A
B
L
E
6
(
C
o
n
t
i
r
,
u
e
d
)
T
A
B
L
E
6
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
.
P
i
l
o
t
W
H
M
O
H
M
W
H
F
0
1
W
S
t
u
d
y
E
v
e
r
C
r
u
t
a
e
d
i
n
P
a
r
k
s
?
(
N
5
7
3
)
(
N
I
i
!
)
(
N
=
2
2
9
)
(
N
=
6
4
)
I
i :
N
o
7
0
%
6
4
%
1
0
0
%
9
7
%
l
:
Y
c
s
3
0
3
6
0
3
.
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
3
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
2
)
0
I
i
M
W
H
M
.
0
3
. 4
)
0
B
I
I
F
W
H
F
.
0
3
.
0
!
E
v
e
r
C
r
u
i
s
e
d
o
n
B
e
a
c
h
e
s
?
(
N
=
5
7
3
)
(
N
=
i
l
l
)
(
N
2
2
9
)
(
N
=
6
4
)
I
t :
N
o
7
0
%
7
4
%
9
9
%
9
7
%
t
:
Y
e
s
3
0
2
6
I
3
i
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
8
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
2
l
l
i
1
M
W
H
M
.
0
9
.
0
6
B
i
-
O
F
W
H
F
.
0
2
.
0
1
E
v
e
r
C
r
u
i
s
e
d
i
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
t
R
o
o
m
s
?
(
N
=
5
7
4
)
(
N
=
l
t
t
)
(
N
2
2
9
)
(
N
=
6
4
)
I
t :
N
o
7
8
%
8
1
%
1
0
0
%
0
0
%
I
:
Y
e
s
2
2
1
9
0
0
I
?
I
,
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
0
l
3
t
I
M
W
1
I
M
.
0
2
.
0
2
E
v
e
r
C
r
u
i
s
e
d
i
n
M
o
v
i
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
s
?
(
N
=
5
7
4
)
)
N
I
t
I
)
)
N
2
2
9
)
(
N
=
6
4
)
0
:
N
o
8
5
%
8
2
%
1
0
0
7
6
9
7
%
I
:
Y
e
s
i
S
1
8
0
3
!
.
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
. 0
1
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
t
s
i
c
s
O
h
I
3
H
M
W
H
M
l
i
t
.
0
2
1
3
1
1
F
W
H
P
.
0
3
.
0
2
i
i
t
C
r
u
i
s
e
d
I
n
P
a
s
t
Y
e
a
r
:
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
o
f
C
r
u
i
s
i
n
g
-
(
N
4
8
4
)
(
N
9
6
)
(
N
=
4
0
)
(
1
4
=
1
1
)
C
i :
O
n
c
e
a
m
o
n
t
h
o
r
l
e
s
s
2
5
%
2
5
%
6
8
%
4
5
%
t
:
A
f
e
w
t
i
m
e
s
a
m
O
n
t
h
2
3
3
!
2
0
2
7
2
:
O
n
c
e
o
r
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
3
4
1
8
7
2
7
3
:
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
1
8
2
6
5
0
i
c
i
L
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
1
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
7
1
3
K
M
W
h
I
M
.
0
1
.
0
2
f
l
t
l
F
W
I
I
F
.
1
0
.
1
5
(
N
=
3
0
9
)
1
4
=
5
3
)
6
4
%
7
4
%
2
1
1
5
1
4
I
I
I
0
3
0
0
/
H
o
m
o
s
e
x
u
a
h
i
l
i
e
s
A
o
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
I
3
0
1
H
o
w
O
f
t
e
n
C
r
u
i
s
e
d
i
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
t
R
o
o
m
s
?
1
2
:
O
j
i
c
e
a
m
o
n
t
h
o
r
l
e
s
s
5
:
A
f
e
w
t
i
m
e
s
a
m
o
n
t
h
4
:
O
n
c
e
o
r
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
5
:
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
I
?
I
-
l
o
w
O
f
t
e
n
C
t
u
i
s
e
d
I
n
M
o
v
i
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
s
?
2
:
O
n
c
e
a
m
o
n
t
h
o
r
l
e
s
s
3
:
A
f
e
w
t
i
m
e
s
a
t
t
t
o
n
l
i
i
4
:
O
n
c
e
o
r
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
5
:
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
1
?
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
3
I
I
H
M
W
I
i
M
. 1
1
5
(
N
=
t
2
8
)
(
N
=
2
1
)
4
9
%
5
2
%
t
h
9
2
3
2
9
2
i
i
)
h (
N
-
8
J
)
(
N
=
2
0
)
(
N
=
t
o
)
6
9
%
7
0
%
0
%
4
5
1
0
0
1
6
2
5
1
3
I
0
0
(
N
2
)
5
0
%
0
1
0
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
0
B
t
I
F
W
t
I
F
.
0
0
i
f
C
r
u
i
s
e
d
i
n
P
a
s
t
Y
e
a
r
:
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
r
u
i
s
i
n
g
T
i
m
e
S
p
e
n
t
I
n
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
L
o
c
a
l
e
s
C
r
u
i
s
i
n
g
T
i
m
e
a
t
B
a
r
s
0
:
N
o
e
e
o
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
3
2
:
L
e
s
s
t
i
s
a
n
o
n
e
t
t
s
i
s
d
o
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
3
3
1
0
0
:
O
n
e
-
t
h
i
r
d
o
f
t
h
e
h
u
e
o
s
m
o
r
e
I
0
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
. 0
1
i
3
F
f
M
W
[
I
M
.
0
1
C
r
u
I
s
i
n
g
T
i
m
e
a
t
B
a
t
h
s
0
:
N
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
3
2
:
L
e
s
s
t
l
m
s
n
s
s
s
s
e
t h
s
i r
m
l
o
f
t
h
t
e
l
i
n
t
e
3
3
1
0
0
:
O
n
e
-
t
h
i
r
d
o
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
D
e
n
m
o
g
r
a
p
t
s
i
c
s
. 1
1
6
i
3
1
1
M
W
I
I
M
.
0
7
.
8
7
C
r
u
i
s
i
n
g
T
i
m
e
a
t
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
P
a
r
t
i
e
s
I
I
:
N
o
n
e
o
h
l
i
e
t
i
m
e
1
3
2
:
L
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
o
n
e
-
h
i
r
d
o
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
4
8
3
3
1
1
)
0
:
O
n
e
-
t
h
i
r
d
o
f
t
u
e
t
i
m
e
o
r
m
o
o
r
e
4
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
1
B
H
M
W
1
I
M
.
0
2
4
5
5
2
2
4
5
3
3
3
5
9
5
3
5
p
!
I
D
e
s
t
t
c
s
g
r
a
t
s
h
i
i
c
s
.
0
0
.
2
5
h
S
t
4
i
r
_
W
H
F
i
s
2
0
)
1
3
)
N
4
8
5
i
(
N
9
6
)
3
6
0
5
4
5
%
-
1
9
4
)
l
)
c
n
s
m
s
g
i
i
p
l
s
i
c
s
. 1
1
4
t
t
l
l
F
W
1
I
F
3
t
(
(
5
5
2
3
4
5
6
2
5
4
5
T
A
B
L
E
6
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
d
)
T
A
B
L
E
6
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
P
i
l
o
t
W
H
M
O
H
M
W
H
F
B
H
F
S
i
u
d
y
H
o
w
O
f
t
e
n
C
r
u
i
s
e
d
I
n
P
a
r
k
s
?
(
N
=
i
7
0
)
(
N
4
0
)
(
N
=
1
)
(
N
2
)
1
2
:
O
n
c
e
a
m
o
n
t
h
o
r
l
e
s
s
5
7
%
5
7
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
3
:
A
f
e
w
t
i
m
e
s
a
m
o
n
t
h
1
6
1
3
0
( 1
4
:
O
s
t
e
e
o
r
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
i
l
l
2
3
t
O
l
l
0
5
:
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
9
7
0
0
i
_
p
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
2
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
1
. 1
1
0
B
t
i
M
V
i
t
M
.
0
2
.
0
!
B
H
F
V
H
F
1
.
0
)
)
H
o
w
O
)
t
e
n
C
r
u
i
s
e
d
o
n
B
e
a
c
h
e
s
?
l
N
=
I
6
9
)
(
N
=
2
9
)
(
N
-
=
2
)
I
N
=
2
)
O
n
c
e
a
m
o
n
t
h
o
r
l
e
s
s
7
0
%
7
9
%
5
0
%
1
0
(
1
%
A
f
e
w
t
l
a
t
e
s
a
m
o
n
t
h
h
O
1
4
5
0
0
O
i
t
c
e
s
r
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
1
8
3
0
0
M
o
r
e
s
h
a
e
t
w
i
c
e
a
w
e
e
k
3
3
0
1
1
i
_
D
c
n
s
o
g
r
m
s
p
h
s
i
c
s
.
0
4
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
1
. 1
8
)
I
S
H
M
W
H
M
.
0
5
.
l
4
f
l
l
-
I
F
W
H
F
[
.
0
0
P
i
l
o
t
W
H
M
O
H
M
W
H
F
B
H
F
S
t
u
d
y
(
N
4
8
5
)
(
N
-
=
9
h
s
)
(
N
4
0
h
(
N
h
I
i
2
2
)
5
2
%
2
%
9
%
D
e
n
s
o
g
r
a
p
i
s
i
c
s
.
0
0
1
3
1
-
t
M
W
i
-
t
M
. 1
8
)
.
1
3
I . .
1
4
I
t
(
0
I
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
. 1
)
9
1
)
I
I
M
W
i
-
I
M
.
0
9
1
.
4
3
C
r
u
i
s
i
n
g
T
i
m
e
o
n
t
h
e
S
i
r
e
e
t
(
N
4
)
4
h
(
N
=
-
9
6
1
(
N
=
4
0
)
(
N
l
b
0
:
N
o
i
s
e
m
s
f
t
h
e
t
i
n
s
e
4
2
0m
-
2
1
s
%
9
6
0
)
5
5
%
1
3
2
:
L
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
o
n
e
t
h
i
r
d
o
f
t i m
e
i
S
l
e
4
5
5
5
2
3
6
3
3
1
0
0
:
O
n
e
-
t
h
i
r
d
o
f
l
h
s
e
t
i
m
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
1
4
9
( 1
9
i
!
1
I
t
.
0
1
3
0
2
I
H
o
m
o
s
e
x
u
a
l
i
h
i
n
n
1
N
4
1
)
3
h
(
N
=
9
6
)
(
N
4
0
)
(
N
=
I
t
)
4
1
1
0
)
1
9
0
5
5
2
%
3
%
-
I
,
I ?
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
3
.
5
8
-
B
t
l
i
l
_
.
W
1
I
l
1
.
1
9
I
.
7
3
-
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
/
3
0
3
C
r
u
I
s
i
n
g
T
i
m
e
o
n
B
e
a
c
h
e
s
0
:
N
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
1
3
2
:
L
c
s
s
t
i
t
a
n
o
n
e
-
t
h
i
r
d
o
f
t
h
e
l
i
m
e
3
3
1
1
)
0
:
O
n
e
-
l
t
n
r
d
o
l
t
h
e
l
i
m
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
3
!
?
6
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
0
6
l
t
F
t
M
W
[
l
M
.
0
8
2
.
0
9
C
r
u
i
s
i
n
g
T
i
m
e
I
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
t
R
o
o
m
s
(
N
=
4
8
5
)
(
N
9
6
)
0
:
N
o
n
e
o
f
t
i
r
e
l
i
m
e
7
4
%
7
8
%
1
3
2
:
L
e
s
s
t
i
t
a
n
o
n
e
-
t
h
i
r
d
o
f
t
i
l
e
t
i
m
e
2
2
2
2
3
3
1
0
0
:
O
n
e
-
t
h
i
r
d
o
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
o
r
n
i
o
r
e
4
0
1
?
6
T
A
B
L
E
6
(
C
o
n
f
i
n
u
o
d
)
W
h
e
n
C
r
u
i
s
i
n
g
.
D
o
e
s
R
M
o
r
e
O
f
t
e
n
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
o
r
W
a
t
t
t
a
r
t
h
e
O
t
h
e
r
t
o
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
?
0
:
R
u
s
u
a
l
l
y
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
t
t
e
s
I
:
H
s
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
.
s
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
w
a
i
l
s
2
:
R
u
s
u
a
l
l
y
w
a
i
t
s
t
o
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
d
l
3
i
I
M
W
I
I
M
1
2
.
7
1
I
N
=
4
8
4
)
(
N
9
6
l
(
N
4
0
)
(
N
=
I
D
2
8
%
1
9
%
4
3
%
2
7
%
3
1
3
2
2
3
4
6
W
h
e
r
e
D
o
e
s
S
e
x
U
s
u
a
l
l
g
T
a
k
e
P
l
a
c
e
?
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
S
o
i
t
i
e
w
i
t
e
r
e
e
l
s
e
)
i
1
3
t
1
M
W
I
I
M
6
.
5
7
H
o
w
M
u
c
h
T
i
m
e
I
s
U
s
u
a
l
l
y
S
p
e
n
t
w
I
t
h
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
?
0
2
:
A
n
h
o
u
r
o
r
l
e
s
s
3
:
O
t
t
e
o
r
t
w
o
h
o
u
i
s
4
:
S
e
v
e
r
a
l
h
o
u
r
s
5
:
A
l
l
n
i
g
h
t
I
i :
A
l
l
w
e
e
k
e
n
d
I
f
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
I
I
3
1
-
1
M
W
t
i
M
.
1
2
D
e
i
t
r
o
g
r
a
p
l
i
i
c
s
.
I
l
l
I
I
I
-
I
F
-
W
l
I
P
I
I
I
.
0
3
T
A
B
L
E
6
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
P
i
l
o
t
W
H
M
B
H
M
W
H
F
B
H
F
S
t
u
d
y
C
r
u
i
s
i
n
g
T
i
m
e
t
o
P
a
r
k
s
(
N
=
4
8
4
)
(
N
9
6
)
(
N
4
0
)
(
N
I
i
i
0
:
N
o
n
e
o
f
t
t
t
e
t
i
m
e
6
5
%
5
8
%
9
7
%
8
2
%
1
3
2
:
L
e
s
s
t
I
t
a
n
o
n
e
-
l
l
r
i
r
i
t
o
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
3
1
4
2
3
I
t
t
3
3
1
0
0
:
O
n
e
-
t
h
i
r
d
o
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
4
I )
0
0
-
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
1
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
l
t
i
c
s
.
0
5
B
H
M
W
I
1
M
.
0
1
.
7
4
U
F
I
F
W
H
F
.
0
7
.
6
9
P
I
l
o
t
W
H
M
B
H
M
W
I
-
I
F
B
H
F
S
t
u
d
y
I
N
-
4
8
4
)
(
N
9
t
5
)
(
N
=
4
0
1
(
N
t
l
)
6
5
%
7
)
3
%
9
5
%
8
2
%
3
2
3
0
5
1
8
0
0
0
1
?
6
D
e
n
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
9
B
1
I
F
W
H
F
.
1
1
.
7
1
4
1
4
9
3
5
2
7
j
I
l
i
e
r
t
t
o
g
r
a
l
l
h
i
c
s
. 1
1
1
D
e
t
n
o
g
r
a
p
l
t
i
c
s
.
0
7
E
I
I
I
M
W
I
I
M
.
0
1
. 1
1
7
B
F
I
F
W
F
I
F
.
0
7
.
0
4
W
h
y
U
s
e
T
h
i
s
C
r
u
i
s
i
n
g
S
t
y
l
e
?
1
(
N
3
2
9
)
l
N
6
4
I
(
N
2
%
)
(
N
=
i
S
)
I
t
e
i
t
d
l
o
b
e
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
8
2
t
1
0
1
4
%
7
1
0
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
m
i
g
h
t
l
o
t
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
I
i
5
7
7
t
t
j
u
s
t
w
o
r
k
s
b
e
s
t
5
1
4
2
5
5
0
I
s
i
t
s
t
o
o
s
l
t
y
t
o
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
2
1
1
7
2
5
1
7
i
h
e
y
m
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
a
m
e
d
o
w
n
2
0
2
7
1
4
1
1
S
a
f
e
r
t
o
w
a
i
t
f
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
1
4
2
5
7
0
W
a
i
t
t
t
o
t
i
e
s
u
r
e
i
t
s
m
u
t
t
i
t
I
5
2
0
1
7
O
t
h
e
r
r
e
a
s
o
n
s
1
7
2
7
1
4
1
7
1
5
1
1
i
2
_
W
I
4
F
6
.
2
%
D
e
r
t
i
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
i
c
s
.
0
2
l
l
l
l
M
W
I
I
M
.
0
2
.
0
4
C
r
u
i
s
i
n
g
T
i
m
e
I
n
M
o
v
i
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
s
N
4
8
5
i
(
N
9
6
i
(
N
4
0
1
(
N
=
I
l
l
0
:
N
o
t
t
e
o
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
0
3
%
7
9
1
0
9
7
%
8
2
%
1
3
2
:
L
e
s
s
t
i
t
a
n
o
n
e
-
t
h
i
r
d
o
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
1
6
2
1
I
I
i
l
l
3
3
1
1
8
1
:
O
v
e
-
t
h
i
r
d
o
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
I
i i
2
0
I
?
i
D
e
n
t
o
g
i
p
t
t
i
c
s
. 1
1
1
1
3
1
1
M
W
I
I
M
I
I
)
.
9
8
i
i
I
D
c
n
t
o
g
r
a
p
l
t
i
c
s
.
0
3
1
I
I
I
F
W
H
1
I
S
i
.
4
5
(
N
4
8
i
)
(
N
9
6
l
I
N
=
3
5
)
(
N
=
I
i
)
4
9
1
0
-
1
8
%
5
4
%
2
7
1
0
2
9
4
1
)
2
9
3
6
2
2
1
2
1
7
3
0
l
1
I
-
i
1
1
W
I
I
F
2
.
t
l
7
(
N
=
4
8
1
1
(
N
9
6
)
I
N
=
3
3
1
(
N
=
I
I
)
2
1
%
7
%
3
1
0
0
%
5
1
6
9
1
)
2
0
1
2
3
0
4
1
6
2
6
2
9
1
2
4
2
4
t
o
0
3
0
4
I
H
o
r
n
o
s
e
x
u
a
l
i
l
i
e
s
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
I
3
0
5
T
A
B
L
E
6
(
C
o
n
h
i
r
i
u
e
d
)
P
i
l
o
t
W
H
M
B
I
-
I
M
W
H
F
B
H
F
S
t
u
d
y
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
o
f
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
W
o
r
r
i
e
s
W
h
i
l
e
C
r
u
i
s
i
n
g
B
e
i
n
g
R
e
t
u
s
e
d
b
y
P
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
(
N
=
4
l
l
6
)
(
N
9
6
)
(
N
=
3
8
)
(
N
I
t
)
0
:
N
e
v
e
r
w
o
r
r
y
7
%
2
1
%
2
1
%
1
8
%
I
:
R
a
r
e
l
y
w
o
r
r
y
2
4
2
6
8
l
B
2
:
S
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
w
o
r
r
y
2
9
3
5
2
6
2
7
3
:
O
f
t
e
n
w
o
r
r
y
2
9
1
8
3
4
3
6
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
!
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
1
B
I
I
M
W
H
M
.
0
2
.
1
0
1
]
)
I
F
W
I
I
F
. 0
1
1
.
3
2
h
a
v
i
n
g
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
W
a
n
t
I
s
D
o
S
e
x
u
a
l
T
h
i
n
g
s
R
D
o
e
s
n
t
W
a
n
t
t
o
D
o
(
N
=
4
8
6
)
(
N
=
9
8
)
(
N
3
9
)
(
N
=
-
t
t
)
0
:
N
e
v
e
r
w
o
r
r
y
2
4
%
2
5
%
6
1
%
5
4
%
I
:
R
a
r
e
l
y
w
o
r
r
y
4
1
1
4
2
2
6
2
7
2
:
S
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
w
o
r
r
y
2
3
2
6
1
3
1
8
3
:
O
f
t
e
n
w
o
r
r
y
. 1
6
0
0
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
0
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
. 1
1
1
t
i
H
M
W
I
t
M
.
0
0
D
t
I
F
.
W
1
-
1
F
.
1
0
H
a
v
i
n
g
D
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
y
C
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
n
g
(
N
=
4
8
6
)
(
N
=
9
6
)
(
N
=
3
9
)
(
N
=
I
I
)
0
:
N
e
v
e
r
w
o
r
r
y
2
5
%
3
4
%
3
6
%
2
7
%
I
:
R
a
r
e
l
y
w
o
t
r
y
3
2
4
4
2
6
1
8
2
:
S
o
m
e
t
i
m
c
u
w
o
r
r
y
2
0
1
5
2
6
4
5
3
O
f
t
e
n
w
o
r
r
y
1
4
7
1
3
9
D
e
n
i
o
g
r
a
p
l
i
i
c
s
.
0
!
D
c
i
n
o
g
r
a
p
l
a
c
s
.
0
5
B
[
i
h
l
W
l
-
I
M
.
0
3
. 2
3
D
l
i
F
W
l
I
F
.
0
5
.
6
5
C
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
V
e
n
e
r
e
a
l
D
i
s
e
a
s
e
(
N
=
4
1
1
6
)
(
N
=
9
6
)
(
N
3
9
l
(
N
=
I
l
l
)
N
4
5
8
l
0
:
N
e
v
e
r
w
o
r
r
y
3
4
%
2
5
%
7
4
%
5
4
%
9
%
I
:
R
a
r
e
l
y
w
o
r
r
y
3
4
3
6
I
i
2
7
2
6
2
:
S
o
i
n
c
t
i
n
i
c
w
o
r
r
y
2
2
2
1
1
0
8
3
2
3
:
(
I
f
t
e
i
t
w
o
r
r
y
I
I
8
3
( 1
3
3
i
?
!
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
4
.
9
6
l
l
t
i
F
W
H
F
. 1
1
5
.
9
8
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
I
n
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
S
e
x
u
a
l
l
y
0
:
N
e
v
e
r
w
o
r
r
y
I
:
R
a
r
e
l
y
W
o
r
r
y
2
:
S
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
w
o
r
r
y
3
:
O
f
t
e
n
w
o
r
r
y
(
N
=
4
8
6
)
I
N
=
9
6
)
(
N
3
9
)
(
N
=
I
I
)
3
5
%
4
5
%
4
6
%
2
7
%
4
1
4
4
2
1
r
6
4
2
0
0
5
9
4
I
1
3
0
I
)
1
,
I
J
c
t
n
o
g
t
t
p
l
t
s
c
s
.
I
I
t
3
y
I
F
W
i
-
f
t
5
.
1
3
.
1
5
(
N
=
4
8
6
)
(
N
=
9
6
)
(
N
=
3
9
)
(
N
=
I
I
)
(
N
4
5
8
)
3
9
%
5
2
%
9
2
,
r
6
4
%
9
%
4
2
3
1
5
2
7
2
2
1
5
8
3
9
3
4
4
1
)
I
i
0
3
5
- / ,
!
(
_
(
!
D
e
n
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
6
.
1
3
1
1
6
1
F
W
I
-
I
F
.
1
3
.
1
6
(
N
=
4
8
h
1
(
N
=
9
6
)
(
N
=
3
9
1
(
N
=
l
I
)
(
N
=
4
5
8
)
4
4
(
o
8
7
%
8
2
5
!
7
3
%
2
5
%
3
2
1
8
1
3
2
7
2
5
3
9
3
0
2
6
9
6
3
0
7
3
I
!
L
5
(
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
3
.
1
0
I
I
H
P
.
-
t
V
I
t
F
.
0
4
.
0
5
H
a
v
i
n
g
O
n
e
s
H
o
m
o
s
e
x
u
a
l
i
t
y
P
u
b
l
i
c
l
y
E
x
p
o
s
e
d
(
N
4
S
6
l
(
N
=
9
6
)
1
N
=
3
l
l
(
N
=
I
I
)
(
N
=
4
5
8
)
0
:
N
e
v
e
r
w
o
r
r
y
5
1
%
7
1
%
6
7
%
5
4
%
1
9
%
I
:
R
a
r
e
l
y
w
o
r
r
y
3
6
2
2
2
1
)
1
8
1
9
2
:
S
o
t
t
t
e
l
i
n
r
e
s
w
o
r
r
y
0
I i
0
I
l
l
2
7
3
:
O
f
t
e
n
w
o
r
r
y
4
I
1
9
4
4
T
h
B
L
E
6
(
C
o
n
l
i
n
u
e
d
)
P
i
l
o
t
W
H
M
B
H
M
W
H
F
B
H
F
S
t
u
d
y
I
?
5
D
e
t
n
o
g
r
a
p
l
t
i
c
s
.
0
1
I
I
H
M
W
H
M
.
0
2
1
.
B
e
i
n
g
R
o
b
b
e
d
o
r
R
o
l
l
e
d
0
:
N
e
s
e
c
w
o
r
r
y
I
:
R
a
r
e
l
y
w
o
r
r
y
2
:
S
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
w
o
r
r
y
3
:
O
f
t
e
n
w
o
r
r
y
I
?
D
c
n
t
o
g
r
i
n
I
t
i
c
s
. 1
3
4
I
l
l
l
M
W
l
-
t
M
.
0
4
B
e
i
n
g
C
a
u
g
h
t
b
y
t
h
e
P
o
l
i
c
e
0
:
N
e
v
e
r
w
o
r
r
y
I
:
R
a
r
e
l
y
w
o
r
r
y
2
:
S
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
w
o
r
r
y
3
:
O
h
l
e
n
w
o
r
r
y
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
. 1
1
8
l
i
t
I
M
W
H
M
.
0
8
D
e
n
t
o
g
r
a
p
l
t
i
c
s
. 1
)
1
t
l
l
1
N
l
.
V
l
t
h
I
. 1
1
1
/ 1
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
1
1
5
D
I
I
M
W
I
I
M
.
0
6
3
0
6
/
H
o
m
o
s
e
v
u
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
. 1
1
2
.
1
0
I
i
I
I
F
W
I
I
F
.
0
6
H
I
,
.
1
9
p
<
. 0
5
.
p
<
.
0
l
.
c
c
p
<
.
O
O
l
.
F
i
s
t
o
o
s
m
a
l
l
F
o
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
e
c
v
n
s
p
s
t
e
;
d
i
l
r
e
i
e
n
c
e
i s
s
a
t
s
i
g
n
i
l
i
c
a
n
t
.
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
c
o
u
l
d
g
i
v
e
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
o
n
e
a
n
s
w
e
r
t
o
t
h
i
s
q
o
n
s
t
i
u
n
,
s
o
c
o
l
u
m
n
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
s
o
m
y
a
d
d
o
p
T
o
m
a
r
e
t
h
a
n
O
y
;
t
h
i
s
i
n
f
l
a
t
e
s
l
i
t
e
c
h
i
s
q
n
a
r
e
,
b
u
t
n
a
t
s
a
h
s
t
a
a
t
i
a
t
t
y
.
F
a
r
t I m
e
F
e
m
a
l
e
s
,
t
i
l
e
c
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
n
p
e
c
t
e
d
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
r
u
l
e
f
a
r
c
h
i
. s
q
m
i
i
m
r
e
i
s
n
o
l
(
n
e
t
:
c
o
l
l
a
p
s
i
n
g
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
w
u
n
i
d
o
b
s
c
u
r
e
o
a
r
a
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
F
o
c
u
s
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
/
3
0
7
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
t
H
o
m
o
s
e
x
u
a
l
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
E
v
e
r
0
:
2
:
3
-
4
3
:
5
9
4
:
1
1
3
1
4
5
:
1
5
2
4
6
:
2
5
4
9
7
:
5
0
9
9
8
:
1
0
0
2
4
9
9
:
2
5
(
1
4
9
9
I
0
:
5
0
0
9
9
9
I
I
:
i
0
0
0
o
r
n
r
n
r
e
I
?
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
0
9
i
3
1
t
M
W
H
M
.
0
9
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
R
a
c
e
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
0
:
N
o
n
e
(
3
:
(
-
f
a
I
l
o
r
l
e
s
s
4
6
:
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
h
a
l
f
P
I
l
o
t
W
H
M
8
M
M
W
[
t
P
B
H
F
S
t
u
d
y
(
N
=
6
4
)
(
N
=
4
5
8
)
1
4
i
9
f
3
0
3
9
4
(
6
5
i
i
8
8
1
2
2
2
1
)
2
(
3
0
(
4
0
Z
i i
I
?
6
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
4
1
3
H
F
W
H
F
.
0
5
.
1
7
(
N
=
5
7
4
)
(
N
=
.
t
i
l
)
(
(
-
4
=
2
2
7
)
2
2
%
2
%
7
2
%
7
8
3
1
2
7
0
6
7
I
(
N
=
5
7
4
)
(
N
=
i
l
l
)
(
N
=
2
2
5
)
(
N
M
I
(
N
=
4
5
8
1
1
%
5
%
6
2
%
5
6
%
6
%
2
0
4
3
3
2
3
8
2
6
7
9
5
1
6
6
6
8
1
?
6
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
2
B
i
l
F
W
H
F
.
0
2
.
1
3
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
W
h
o
m
R
H
a
d
S
e
x
D
e
i
t
y
O
n
c
e
0
;
N
o
n
e
1
3
;
I
-
f
a
l
l
o
r
l
e
s
s
4
t i :
M
o
r
e
I
l
i
a
c
h
a
l
f
1
1
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
4
1
i
H
M
V
l
4
M
.
0
9
,
4
6
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
W
h
o
m
R
D
i
d
N
o
t
S
e
e
S
o
c
i
a
l
l
y
A
g
a
i
n
0
:
N
o
n
e
1
3
:
I
-
t
a
l
l
o
r
l
e
s
s
(
6
:
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
h
a
l
f
R
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
4
I
J
I
I
M
W
I
I
M
.
0
5
(
9
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
W
h
o
m
R
W
o
u
l
d
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
S
o
c
i
a
l
l
y
0
:
N
o
n
e
1
3
:
t
t
a
l
f
o
r
i
e
s
s
4
6
:
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
h
a
l
f
P
i
l
o
t
W
H
M
8
K
M
W
H
F
B
H
F
S
t
u
d
y
(
N
5
7
2
1
(
N
=
i
l
l
(
(
N
=
2
2
5
)
1
%
4
%
3
8
%
2
9
5
9
S
I
7
0
3
8
1
2
(
N
=
5
7
2
)
1
N
=
i
l
l
)
(
N
=
2
2
6
,
(
N
=
6
4
1
2
%
6
%
5
4
%
4
5
%
3
7
. 1
8
3
1
4
1
6
1
4
6
i
S
4
D
e
n
i
o
g
r
a
p
l
r
i
c
s
i
l
l
B
1
4
F
W
i
I
P
i
l
l
T
A
B
L
E
7
/
S
e
x
u
a
l
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
I
p
s
T
A
B
L
E
7
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
(
N
=
5
7
4
)
(
N
=
I
I
I
)
(
N
=
2
2
7
)
0
%
0
%
3
%
0
0
9
I
2
1
5
2
4
3
1
3
5
1
6
3
6
1
0
8
6
8
9
8
5
i
s
i
s
i
7
I
i
5
1
4
0
2
9
i
S
I
I
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
f
o
r
W
h
o
m
R
H
a
d
S
o
m
e
A
t
t
e
c
t
i
o
r
i
(
N
=
5
7
3
)
(
N
=
I
I
i
)
(
N
=
2
2
6
)
(
N
M
I
(
N
4
5
6
)
0
:
N
o
n
e
2
%
2
5
6
1
%
3
(
2
%
(
3
:
H
a
l
f
o
r
l
e
s
s
7
1
6
6
1
8
3
6
7
8
4
6
:
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
i
n
t
l
2
7
3
2
8
1
(
i
i
2
(
1
!
s
i
s
D
e
n
r
o
g
r
a
p
l
s
i
c
s
. 1
1
2
D
e
n
o
g
r
a
p
l
i
i
c
s
.
0
4
B
l
-
l
l
s
l
W
H
M
.
0
2
.
9
0
1
3
1
- I
F
W
H
F
.
0
7
.
3
6
(
N
=
8
s
1
)
4
1
%
5
5
(
N
=
4
5
8
)
4
0
. 5
7
(
N
=
6
-
l
)
2
2
%
4
8
3
(
1
I
!
i
i S
D
e
n
s
u
g
r
o
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
4
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
m
s
.
0
1
l
s
i
-
i
M
W
I
I
M
I
i
i
.
4
7
D
t
i
F
W
l
I
F
2
8
.
8
9
P
r
o
p
o
r
l
i
o
n
o
f
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
W
h
o
W
e
r
e
S
t
r
a
n
g
e
r
s
0
:
N
o
n
e
1
3
;
I
-
l
o
l
l
o
r
l
e
s
s
4
6
:
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
h
a
l
f
i s
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
1
D
l
-
i
F
W
H
F
.
0
2
(
4
I
D
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
. 0
1
f
l
i
-
i
M
W
I
M
.
0
5
.
4
2
-
. 7
1
8
(
N
6
4
>
(
N
=
4
3
7
)
1
(
5
6
2
%
3
.
4
9
7
6
4
(
N
=
5
7
4
)
(
N
=
(
i
l
l
I
N
=
2
2
5
)
5
6
2
%
1
S
f
2
3
(
2
4
7
6
8
6
9
5
.
i
s
.
i
L
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
3
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
0
D
H
h
t
W
i
t
M
.
0
4
i
l
i
1
1
W
I
I
F
.
0
0
.
0
3
3
0
8
/
1
-
l
o
m
o
s
e
x
u
a
l
i
l
i
e
s
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
/
3
0
9
.
T
A
B
L
E
7
(
C
a
n
h
i
n
u
e
c
I
)
P
i
l
o
t
W
H
M
B
H
M
W
H
F
B
H
F
S
t
u
d
y
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
l
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
W
h
o
W
e
c
e
Y
o
u
n
g
e
r
T
h
a
n
R
I
N
=
5
7
3
)
(
1
4
=
I
I
(
N
=
2
2
5
1
(
1
4
=
6
4
3
(
N
4
5
5
)
8
:
N
o
n
e
s
5
5
%
I
1
5
5
1
-
8
5
i
1
3
:
H
a
l
f
o
r
l
e
s
s
5
5
6
2
5
5
9
7
(
4
6
:
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
t
a
l
l
3
9
2
3
3
0
2
5
2
1
1
l
i
1
8
I
,
D
e
m
o
g
r
i
s
p
l
t
i
c
s
.
l
)
D
e
m
o
l
i
r
a
p
i
t
i
c
s
.
0
l
J
l
-
I
M
W
l
I
r
.
4
(
9
I
I
B
h
l
F
W
H
F
I
l
l
. 6
8
,
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
W
h
o
W
e
r
e
1
6
o
r
Y
o
u
n
g
e
r
(
W
h
e
n
R
w
a
s
2
1
o
r
O
l
d
e
r
)
(
1
4
=
5
6
5
)
(
N
=
1
(
1
6
1
(
N
=
2
2
4
)
I
N
=
6
4
l
0
:
N
o
n
e
7
5
%
1
(
6
%
9
7
%
9
4
%
1
3
:
H
a
l
f
o
r
l
e
s
s
2
5
1
4
3
6
4
6
:
M
o
r
e
l
l
t
n
n
h
a
l
f
0
I
I
I
I
0
8
8
l
?
)
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
1
l
S
i
i
M
W
l
l
M
0
4
.
0
8
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
W
h
o
m
B
P
a
i
d
f
o
r
S
e
x
(
N
=
5
7
4
l
I
N
=
1
1
1
1
(
N
=
2
2
5
)
(
N
=
1
,
4
)
(
N
4
5
0
)
0
:
N
o
s
e
7
2
5
4
.
1
(
4
5
1
-
1
(
1
1
1
%
9
4
%
8
)
5
4
I
)
:
H
e
l
l
o
,
l
e
s
s
2
7
(
5
I I
6
8
4
l i :
M
o
i
e
I
h
u
h
j
a
i
l
I
I
I
I
(
I
I
T
A
B
L
E
7
(
C
o
n
f
i
n
u
e
d
)
P
i
l
o
t
W
H
M
B
u
M
W
H
P
B
H
F
S
t
u
d
y
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
l
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
W
h
o
W
e
r
e
W
i
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
G
i
v
e
T
h
e
i
r
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
e
a
n
d
l
o
r
P
h
o
n
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
s
(
1
4
=
5
7
4
)
(
N
=
l
I
I
)
(
N
=
2
2
6
)
(
N
6
4
l
(
I
:
N
o
n
e
2
%
0
%
3
%
6
%
1
3
:
H
a
I
l
o
r
l
e
s
s
3
5
3
0
5
6
4
6
:
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
h
a
l
f
6
3
7
0
9
2
8
1
1
_
i
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
l
o
c
s
.
1
5
D
e
m
o
r
a
p
l
t
i
c
s
.
0
1
B
H
M
W
H
M
.
1
5
.
0
6
I
3
H
F
W
I
I
F
.
0
1
.
1
7
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
W
h
o
T
o
l
d
a
F
a
i
r
A
m
o
u
n
t
A
b
o
u
t
T
h
e
m
s
e
l
v
e
s
(
1
4
=
5
7
4
1
(
N
=
I
l
l
)
(
N
=
2
2
5
)
(
1
4
=
6
4
)
0
:
N
o
n
e
i
%
0
%
1
5
%
5
%
3
:
f
l
a
I
l
c
a
r
l
e
s
s
4
8
4
8
9
9
4
6
;
M
o
r
e
t
I
t
a
n
h
a
l
f
5
1
5
2
9
0
8
6
i
!
?
i
i
!
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
9
D
e
n
t
o
g
r
a
p
l
i
(
c
s
. 1
1
0
f
l
i
-
I
M
W
I
I
M
. 1
1
9
.
2
0
1
3
H
F
W
H
F
. 1
1
2
.
1
9
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
I
o
n
o
f
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
W
h
o
m
R
T
o
l
d
a
F
a
I
r
A
m
o
u
n
t
A
b
o
u
t
S
e
l
f
(
1
4
=
5
7
4
)
3
1
4
=
1
1
1
)
(
1
4
=
2
2
6
)
(
N
=
6
4
)
0
:
N
o
n
e
2
%
3
%
1
5
1
-
5
%
1
3
:
1
4
a
1
1
o
r
l
e
s
s
6
3
6
3
2
5
4
1
4
6
:
M
o
r
e
t
I
t
a
n
h
a
l
f
3
5
3
4
7
4
5
5
J
i
.
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
6
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
2
1
3
1
1
M
W
I
I
M
.
0
6
i
l
I
I
I
I
F
W
H
F
.
0
6
.
4
8
-
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
I
o
n
o
f
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
W
h
o
W
e
r
e
O
l
d
e
r
T
h
a
n
A
1
1
4
=
5
7
2
)
(
1
4
=
1
1
1
)
)
N
2
2
6
)
(
N
.
=
6
4
)
(
N
4
5
6
)
I
)
:
N
o
n
e
6
%
3
5
1
-
(
3
%
9
5
1
-
4
%
3
:
I
l
u
l
l
o
r
l
e
s
s
6
5
4
3
5
3
4
7
5
4
4
6
:
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
h
a
l
f
2
9
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
2
B
.
s
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
1
7
D
e
n
t
o
g
r
a
p
l
t
i
c
s
.
1
2
B
l
-
l
M
W
I
I
M
.
1
8
.
2
3
B
l
-
l
F
W
H
F
.
1
2
.
9
7
l
i
e
n
i
o
g
i
a
p
l
c
i
c
s
I
l
l
l
l
l
h
l
s
l
(
V
i
i
t
i
i
I
I
I
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
W
h
o
P
a
i
d
A
f
o
r
S
e
x
0
:
N
o
n
e
1
3
;
l
-
l
;
t
l
f
o
r
l
e
s
s
4
l i :
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
h
a
l
f
I
,
.
2
6
I
,
D
e
n
t
o
g
r
a
p
i
c
i
e
s
. 1
1
1
1
.
5
l
I
)
i
l
F
i
V
l
I
F
. 1
1
1
I
N
=
5
7
4
)
)
N
=
l
l
I
I
(
N
=
2
2
5
l
7
5
%
6
2
%
l
O
W
S
2
5
3
7
I
I
I
I
I
I I
D
e
i
c
t
u
g
m
-
c
i
1m
i
m
c
c
s
. 1
)
1
l
3
i
I
F
W
l
t
F
.
1
0
I
N
-
6
4
)
(
1
4
=
4
5
8
1
8
8
5
7
9
5
4
2
2
0
I I
I
,
. 1
1
8
3
5
0
/
H
o
m
o
s
e
n
u
a
l
i
l
i
e
s
.
o
1
/
1
(
I
I
,
t
3
c
m
o
g
r
a
p
l
m
i
c
s
.
0
7
D
e
n
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
. 1
1
1
l
3
l
t
M
W
l
l
h
t
. 1
1
7
. 1
1
0
i
t
[
l
l
S
V
I
I
F
.
0
4
i
l
l
A
p
p
e
n
d
c
s
C
/
3
1
1
T
A
B
L
E
7
(
C
o
n
h
i
n
u
e
d
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
H
o
m
o
s
e
x
u
a
l
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
I
n
P
a
s
t
Y
e
a
r
0
:
N
o
n
e
I
:
1
2
P
i
l
o
t
W
H
M
B
H
M
W
H
F
B
H
F
S
t
u
d
y
(
N
=
5
7
2
)
(
N
=
l
l
0
)
(
N
.
2
2
1
4
1
(
N
=
6
1
)
(
N
4
S
8
)
3
%
1
5
%
8
%
6
%
0
%
8
0
6
3
5
3
7
0
2
[
6
2
3
3
1
2
4
7
I
I
[
5
2
2
5
3
2
1
2
2
7
2
1
1
3
3
2
8
2
8
3
2
1
1
2
2
5
f
l
.
L
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
3
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
0
I
I
F
I
M
W
I
I
M
.
0
3
.
0
3
t
i
l
t
F
W
I
I
F
.
1
0
.
0
7
P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
I
n
S
e
x
u
a
l
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
5
(
N
5
5
5
)
(
N
9
9
)
(
N
2
9
4
)
(
N
5
6
)
M
a
s
c
u
l
i
n
e
2
7
%
2
6
7e
6
2
%
F
e
m
i
n
i
n
e
1
3
4
G
e
n
i
t
a
l
i
a
2
9
1
1
1
0
0
B
u
t
t
o
c
k
s
6
1 1
3
I
I
F
a
c
c
,
h
a
i
r
,
e
y
e
s
3
5
4
6
4
2
4
5
A
g
e
2
5
9
5
o
B
o
d
y
h
a
i
r
2
2
1
0
3
7
M
u
s
c
i
t
l
a
t
u
r
e
2
4
9
9
4
B
r
e
a
s
t
s
0
0
2
9
4
5
C
h
e
s
t
3
I
0
( 1
H
i
i
s
s
I
i i
3
3
I
l
e
i
g
l
i
l
2
6
3
7
2
3
2
5
B
o
d
y
t
y
p
e
,
f
r
a
m
e
6
9
7
2
1
, 1
)
5
2
1
3
1
1
M
W
l
l
M
3
2
.
8
1
0
I
l
F
V
l
I
F
2
7
.
0
2
N
u
m
b
e
r
a
t
A
t
t
a
i
r
s
E
v
e
r
(
N
5
7
2
)
(
N
I
l
l
)
(
N
=
2
2
9
)
(
N
=
6
4
)
(
N
4
5
8
)
0
:
0
9
%
7
%
4
%
2
%
8
%
-
2
7
2
3
I
I
)
1
7
1
5
2
:
2
6
I
I
I
2
1
2
3
2
4
3
:
3
2
4
)
2
2
2
3
1
9
2
0
4
:
4
2
3
3
)
)
2
4
1
0
5
:
5
1 1
6
1
)
9
8
c
c
.
9
7
:
6
6
3
2
9
1
6
1
5
1
)
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
t
c
s
.
0
2
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
7
1
3
1
I
M
W
I
I
M
.
0
2
.
0
5
I
I
F
I
F
W
F
I
F
.
0
8
.
1
9
T
A
B
L
E
7
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
P
I
l
o
t
W
H
M
B
H
M
W
H
F
-
B
l
i
p
S
t
u
d
y
B
s
A
g
e
a
t
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
a
t
F
i
r
s
t
A
f
f
a
i
r
(
N
=
5
2
1
j
(
N
=
1
1
l
2
)
(
N
2
2
0
)
(
N
=
6
3
0
:
9
o
r
y
o
u
n
g
e
r
3
2
%
4
3
%
4
t
Y
r
4
3
%
I
.
2
0
2
3
3
3
4
4
)
7
6
. 1
2
2
:
2
4
o
r
o
l
d
c
r
3
f
i
7
2
4
2
5
(
M
e
a
n
a
g
e
)
(
2
3
)
(
2
)
)
(
2
2
)
(
2
2
)
I
I
I
,
F
?
I
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
l
t
t
c
s
.
4
4
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
.
0
7
B
H
M
W
I
I
M
.
2
4
. 0
2
I
I
I
I
F
W
I
l
D
0
7
.
0
2
B
s
A
g
e
C
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
w
i
t
h
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
a
t
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
f
F
I
r
s
t
A
f
f
a
i
r
(
N
5
2
0
;
(
2
9
=
0
2
)
)
N
=
2
2
0
)
I
N
6
3
)
0
:
R
w
a
s
y
o
u
n
g
e
r
6
0
%
7
4
%
1
, 0
2
3
.
5
9
%
I
:
S
a
m
e
a
g
e
I
S
5
4
7
7
2
:
I
i
w
a
s
o
l
d
e
r
2
5
1
7
2
3
2
4
i
!
.
1
D
e
r
n
o
g
t
a
p
t
,
,
c
s
. 0
1
)
D
c
n
u
s
g
t
a
j
,
I
t
i
c
s
. 2
)
2
I
J
H
M
W
l
I
y
l
.
0
8
.
0
2
I
l
I
l
l
u
_
W
U
F
.
0
3
. 0
3
D
i
s
c
r
e
p
a
n
c
y
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
A
g
e
s
a
t
B
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
a
t
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
a
t
F
i
r
s
t
A
f
f
a
i
r
)
N
=
5
2
0
}
(
N
0
3
)
)
N
=
2
2
0
1
I
N
=
6
3
i
0
:
N
a
d
i
s
c
r
e
p
a
n
c
y
S
i r
)
.
9
%
7
%
7
%
2
2
2
1
3
5
2
3
2
4
2
)
)
2
4
)
2
2
2
2
2
6
5
2
7
6
2
7
1
2
3
/
?
_
I
j
(
.
)
D
e
m
o
1
)
,
m
p
i m
m
c
s
.
0
0
I
)
e
s
i
o
g
r
u
p
)
,
i
c
s
.
0
2
O
t
I
N
I
W
i
l
y
l
.
0
1
7
7
:
t
I
i
l
I
-
W
I
I
F
.
0
2
3
0
D
i
d
B
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
L
i
v
e
T
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
(
F
i
r
s
t
A
f
f
a
i
r
)
?
)
N
5
2
I
)
1
N
0
3
1
)
N
2
2
0
)
)
N
=
5
3
)
0
:
N
o
4
7
%
4
2
%
7
5
%
,
5
9
I
:
Y
e
s
5
2
5
8
( m
5
4
1
!
?
D
e
i m
, m
m
g
r
, m
p
l ,
c
s
. 0
)
4
D
e
m
t
,
g
t
a
p
h
m
c
s
.
0
2
t
i
l
l
h
1
)
V
t
1
N
l
. 1
8
)
. 0
2
l
)
1
I
F
W
j
t
F
. 1
4
5
.
3
0
2
:
3
5
3
:
6
1
0
4
:
1
1
1
9
5
:
2
0
5
0
6
7
:
5
2
o
r
m
o
r
e
2
:
1
2
y
e
a
r
s
2
:
3
5
y
e
a
r
s
3
:
6
-
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
4
:
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
t
,
1
) 1
y
e
:
l
l
S
.
3
1
2
I
H
o
m
o
s
e
x
u
a
l
i
l
i
e
s
c
A
p
(
.
t
e
n
(
i
:
x
(
1
/
1
1
1
.

EXHIBIT 64
How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex
relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study
Mark Regnerus
Department of Sociology and Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station A1700, Austin, TX 78712-0118, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 February 2012
Revised 29 February 2012
Accepted 12 March 2012
Keywords:
Same-sex parenting
Family structure
Young adulthood
Sampling concerns
a b s t r a c t
The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a social-science data-collection project that
elded a survey to a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 1839) who
were raised in different types of family arrangements. In this debut article of the NFSS, I
compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic rela-
tionship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when com-
pared with six other family-of-origin types. The results reveal numerous, consistent
differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship
and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents. The results are typically
robust in multivariate contexts as well, suggesting far greater diversity in lesbian-parent
household experiences than convenience-sample studies of lesbian families have revealed.
The NFSS proves to be an illuminating, versatile dataset that can assist family scholars in
understanding the long reach of family structure and transitions.
1. Introduction
The well-being of children has long been in the center of public policy debates about marriage and family matters in the
United States. That trend continues as state legislatures, voters, and the judiciary considers the legal boundaries of marriage.
Social science data remains one of the few sources of information useful in legal debates surrounding marriage and adoption
rights, and has been valued both by same-sex marriage supporters and opponents. Underneath the politics about marriage
and child development are concerns about family structures possible effects on children: the number of parents present and
active in childrens lives, their genetic relationship to the children, parents marital status, their gender distinctions or sim-
ilarities, and the number of transitions in household composition. In this introduction to the New Family Structures Study
(NFSS), I compare how young adults from a variety of different family backgrounds fare on 40 different social, emotional,
and relational outcomes. In particular, I focus on how respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship with
another womanor their father did so with another mancompare with still-intact, two-parent heterosexual married fam-
ilies using nationally-representative data collected from a large probability sample of American young adults.
Social scientists of family transitions have until recently commonly noted the elevated stability and social benets of the
two-parent (heterosexual) married household, when contrasted to single mothers, cohabiting couples, adoptive parents, and
ex-spouses sharing custody (Brown, 2004; Manning et al., 2004; McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994). In 2002, Child Trendsa
well-regarded nonpartisan research organizationdetailed the importance for childrens development of growing up in the
presence of two biological parents (their emphasis; Moore et al., 2002, p. 2). Unmarried motherhood, divorce, cohabitation,
and step-parenting were widely perceived to fall short in signicant developmental domains (like education, behavior prob-
lems, and emotional well-being), due in no small part to the comparative fragility and instability of such relationships.
0049-089X/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.009
E-mail address: regnerus@prc.utexas.edu
Social Science Research 41 (2012) 752770
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Social Science Research
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ ssr esear ch
In their 2001 American Sociological Review article reviewing ndings on sexual orientation and parenting, however, soci-
ologists Judith Stacey and Tim Biblarz began noting that while there are some differences in outcomes between children in
same-sex and heterosexual unions, there were not as many as family sociologists might expect, and differences need not
necessarily be perceived as decits. Since that time the conventional wisdom emerging from comparative studies of
same-sex parenting is that there are very few differences of note in the child outcomes of gay and lesbian parents (Tasker,
2005; Wainright and Patterson, 2006; Rosenfeld, 2010). Moreover, a variety of possible advantages of having a lesbian couple
as parents have emerged in recent studies (Crowl et al., 2008; Biblarz and Stacey, 2010; Gartrell and Bos, 2010; MacCallum
and Golombok, 2004). The scholarly discourse concerning gay and lesbian parenting, then, has increasingly posed a challenge
to previous assumptions about the supposed benets of being raised in biologically-intact, two-parent heterosexual
households.
1.1. Sampling concerns in previous surveys
Concern has arisen, however, about the methodological quality of many studies focusing on same-sex parents. In partic-
ular, most are based on non-random, non-representative data often employing small samples that do not allow for gener-
alization to the larger population of gay and lesbian families (Nock, 2001; Perrin and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects
of Child and Family Health, 2002; Redding, 2008). For instance, many published studies on the children of same-sex parents
collect data from snowball or convenience samples (e.g., Bos et al., 2007; Brewaeys et al., 1997; Fulcher et al., 2008; Sirota,
2009; Vanfraussen et al., 2003). One notable example of this is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, analyses of
which were prominently featured in the media in 2011 (e.g., Hufngton Post, 2011). The NLLFS employs a convenience sam-
ple, recruited entirely by self-selection from announcements posted at lesbian events, in womens bookstores, and in les-
bian newspapers in Boston, Washington, and San Francisco. While I do not wish to downplay the signicance of such a
longitudinal studyit is itself quite a featthis sampling approach is a problem when the goal (or in this case, the practical
result and conventional use of its ndings) is to generalize to a population. All such samples are biased, often in unknown
ways. As a formal sampling method, snowball sampling is known to have some serious problems, one expert asserts (Snij-
ders, 1992, p. 59). Indeed, such samples are likely biased toward inclusion of those who have many interrelationships with,
or are coupled to, a large number of other individuals (Berg, 1988, p. 531). But apart from the knowledge of individuals
inclusion probability, unbiased estimation is not possible.
Further, as Nock (2001) entreated, consider the convenience sample recruited from within organizations devoted to
seeking rights for gays and lesbians, like the NLLFS sampling strategy. Suppose, for example, that the respondents have
higher levels of education than comparable lesbians who do not frequent such events or bookstores, or who live else-
where. If such a sample is used for research purposes, then anything that is correlated with educational attainmentlike
better health, more deliberative parenting, and greater access to social capital and educational opportunities for children
will be biased. Any claims about a population based on a group that does not represent it will be distorted, since its sam-
ple of lesbian parents is less diverse (given what is known about it) than a representative sample would reveal (Baumle
et al., 2009).
To compound the problem, results from nonprobability samplesfrom which meaningful statistics cannot be generated
are regularly compared with population-level samples of heterosexual parents, which no doubt are comprised of a blend of
higher and lower quality parents. For example, Gartrell et al. (2011a,b) inquired about the sexual orientation and behavior of
adolescents by comparing data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) with those in the snowball sample of
youth in the NLLFS. Comparing a population-based sample (the NSFG) to a select sample of youth from same-sex parents
does not provide the statistical condence demanded of good social science. Until now, this has been a primary way in which
scholars have collected and evaluated data on same-sex parents. This is not to suggest that snowball samples are inherently
problematic as data-collection techniques, only that they are not adequate for making useful comparisons with samples that
are entirely different with regard to selection characteristics. Snowball and various other types of convenience sampling are
simply not widely generalizable or comparable to the population of interest as a whole. While researchers themselves com-
monly note this important limitation, it is often entirely lost in the translation and transmission of ndings by the media to
the public.
1.2. Are there notable differences?
The no differences paradigm suggests that children from same-sex families display no notable disadvantages when
compared to children from other family forms. This suggestion has increasingly come to include even comparisons with
intact biological, two-parent families, the form most associated with stability and developmental benets for children
(McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994; Moore et al., 2002).
Answering questions about notable between-group differences has nevertheless typically depended on with whom com-
parisons are being made, what outcomes the researchers explored, and whether the outcomes evaluated are considered sub-
stantial or supercial, or portents of future risk. Some outcomeslike sexual behavior, gender roles, and democratic
parenting, for examplehave come to be valued differently in American society over time.
For the sake of brevityand to give ample space here to describing the NFSSI will avoid spending too much time
describing previous studies, many of whose methodological challenges are addressed by the NFSS. Several review articles,
M. Regnerus / Social Science Research 41 (2012) 752770 753
and at least one book, have sought to provide a more thorough assessment of the literature (Anderssen et al., 2002; Biblarz
and Stacey, 2010; Goldberg, 2010; Patterson, 2000; Stacey and Biblarz, 2001a). Sufce it to say that versions of the phrase
no differences have been employed in a wide variety of studies, reports, depositions, books, and articles since 2000 (e.g.,
Crowl et al., 2008; Movement Advancement Project, 2011; Rosenfeld, 2010; Tasker, 2005; Stacey and Biblarz, 2001a,b;
Veldorale-Brogan and Cooley, 2011; Wainright et al., 2004).
Much early research on gay parents typically compared the child development outcomes of divorced lesbian mothers
with those of divorced heterosexual mothers (Patterson, 1997). This was also the strategy employed by psychologist Fiona
Tasker (2005), who compared lesbian mothers with single, divorced heterosexual mothers and found no systematic differ-
ences between the quality of family relationships therein. Wainright et al. (2004), using 44 cases in the nationally-repre-
sentative Add Health data, reported that teenagers living with female same-sex parents displayed comparable self-
esteem, psychological adjustment, academic achievement, delinquency, substance use, and family relationship quality to
44 demographically matched cases of adolescents with opposite-sex parents, suggesting that here too the comparisons
were not likely made with respondents from stable, biologically-intact, married families.
However, small sample sizes can contribute to no differences conclusions. It is not surprising that statistically-signi-
cant differences would not emerge in studies employing as few as 18 or 33 or 44 cases of respondents with same-sex parents,
respectively (Fulcher et al., 2008; Golombok et al., 2003; Wainright and Patterson, 2006). Even analyzing matched samples,
as a variety of studies have done, fails to mitigate the challenge of locating statistically-signicant differences when the sam-
ple size is small. This is a concern in all of social science, but one that is doubly important when there may be motivation to
conrm the null hypothesis (that is, that there are in fact no statistically-signicant differences between groups). Therefore,
one important issue in such studies is the simple matter of if there is enough statistical power to detect meaningful differ-
ences should they exist. Rosenfeld (2010) is the rst scholar to employ a large, random sample of the population in order to
compare outcomes among children of same-sex parents with those of heterosexual married parents. He concludedafter
controlling for parents education and income and electing to limit the sample to households exhibiting at least 5 years of
co-residential stabilitythat there were no statistically-signicant differences between the two groups in a pair of measures
assessing childrens progress through primary school.
Sex-related outcomes have more consistently revealed distinctions, although the tone of concern about them has dimin-
ished over time. For example, while the daughters of lesbian mothers are now widely understood to be more apt to explore
same-sex sexual identity and behavior, concern about this nding has faded as scholars and the general public have become
more accepting of GLB identities (Goldberg, 2010). Tasker and Golombok (1997) noted that girls raised by lesbian mothers
reported a higher number of sexual partners in young adulthood than daughters of heterosexual mothers. Boys with lesbian
mothers, on the other hand, appear to display the opposite trendfewer partners than the sons of heterosexual mothers.
More recently, however, the tone about no differences has shifted some toward the assertion of differences, and that
same-sex parents appear to be more competent than heterosexual parents (Biblarz and Stacey, 2010; Crowl et al., 2008).
Even their romantic relationships may be better: a comparative study of Vermont gay civil unions and heterosexual mar-
riages revealed that same-sex couples report higher relationship quality, compatibility, and intimacy, and less conict than
did married heterosexual couples (Balsam et al., 2008). Biblarz and Staceys (2010) review article on gender and parenting
asserts that,
based strictly on the published science, one could argue that two women parent better on average than a woman and a
man, or at least than a woman and man with a traditional division of labor. Lesbian coparents seem to outperform com-
parable married heterosexual, biological parents on several measures, even while being denied the substantial privileges
of marriage (p. 17).
Even here, however, the authors note that lesbian parents face a somewhat greater risk of splitting up, due, they sug-
gest, to their asymmetrical biological and legal statuses and their high standards of equality (2010, p. 17).
Another meta-analysis asserts that non-heterosexual parents, on average, enjoy signicantly better relationships with
their children than do heterosexual parents, together with no differences in the domains of cognitive development, psycho-
logical adjustment, gender identity, and sexual partner preference (Crowl et al., 2008).
However, the meta-analysis reinforces the profound importance of who is doing the reportingnearly always volunteers
for small studies on a group whose claims about documentable parenting successes are very relevant in recent legislative
and judicial debates over rights and legal statuses. Tasker (2010, p. 36) suggests caution:
Parental self-report, of course, may be biased. It is plausible to argue that, in a prejudiced social climate, lesbian and gay
parents may have more at stake in presenting a positive picture. . ..Future studies need to consider using additional
sophisticated measures to rule out potential biases. . .
Sufce it to say that the pace at which the overall academic discourse surrounding gay and lesbian parents comparative
competence has shiftedfrom slightly-less adept to virtually identical to more adeptis notable, and rapid. By comparison,
studies of adoptiona common method by which many same-sex couples (but more heterosexual ones) become parents
have repeatedly and consistently revealed important and wide-ranging differences, on average, between adopted children
and biological ones. In fact, these differences have been so pervasive and consistent that adoption experts now emphasize
that acknowledgement of difference is critical for both parents and clinicians when working with adopted children and
754 M. Regnerus / Social Science Research 41 (2012) 752770
teens (Miller et al., 2000). This ought to give social scientists studying gay parenting outcomes pause, especially in light of
concerns noted above about small sample sizes and the absence of a comparable recent, documented improvement in out-
comes from youth in adopted families and stepfamilies.
Far more, too, is known about the children of lesbian mothers than about those of gay fathers (Biblarz and Stacey, 2010;
Patterson, 2006; Veldorale-Brogan and Cooley, 2011). Biblarz and Stacey (2010, p. 17) note that while gay-male families re-
main understudied, their daunting routes to parenthood seem likely to select more for strengths than limitations. Others
are not so optimistic. One veteran of a study of the daughters of gay fathers warns scholars to avoid overlooking the family
dynamics of emergent gay parents, who likely outnumber planned ones: Children born into heterosexually organized
marriages where fathers come out as gay or bisexual also face having to deal with maternal bitterness, marital conict, pos-
sible divorce, custody issues, and fathers absence (Sirota, 2009, p. 291).
Regardless of sampling strategy, scholars also know much less about the lives of young-adult children of gay and lesbian
parents, or how their experiences and accomplishments as adults compare with others who experienced different sorts of
household arrangements during their youth. Most contemporary studies of gay parenting processes have focused on the
presentwhat is going on inside the household when children are still under parental care (Tasker, 2005; Bos and Sandfort,
2010; Brewaeys et al., 1997). Moreover, such research tends to emphasize parent-reported outcomes like parental divisions of
labor, parentchild closeness, daily interaction patterns, gender roles, and disciplinary habits. While such information is
important to learn, it means we know far more about the current experience of parents in households with children than
we do about young adults who have already moved through their childhood and nowspeak for themselves. Studies on family
structure, however, serve scholars and family practitioners best when they span into adulthood. Do the children of gay and
lesbian parents look comparable to those of their heterosexual counterparts? The NFSS is poised to address this question
about the lives of young adults between the ages of 18 and 39, but not about children or adolescents. While the NFSS is
not the answer to all of this domains methodological challenges, it is a notable contribution in important ways.
1.3. The New Family Structures Study
Besides being brand-new data, several other aspects about the NFSS are novel and noteworthy. First, it is a study of young
adults rather than children or adolescents, with particular attention paid to reaching ample numbers of respondents who
were raised by parents that had a same-sex relationship. Second, it is a much larger study than nearly all of its peers. The
NFSS interviewed just under 3000 respondents, including 175 who reported their mother having had a same-sex romantic
relationship and 73 who said the same about their father. Third, it is a weighted probability sample, from which meaningful
statistical inferences and interpretations can be drawn. While the 2000 (and presumably, the 2010) US Census Integrated
Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) offers the largest nationally-representative sample-based information about youth in
same-sex households, the Census collects much less outcome information of interest. The NFSS, however, asked numerous
questions about respondents social behaviors, health behaviors, and relationships. This manuscript provides the rst
glimpse into those outcomes by offering statistical comparisons of them among eight different family structures/experiences
of origin. Accordingly, there is much that the NFSS offers, and not just about the particular research questions of this study.
There are several things the NFSS is not. The NFSS is not a longitudinal study, and therefore cannot attempt to broach
questions of causation. It is a cross-sectional study, and collected data from respondents at only one point in time, when they
were between the ages of 18 and 39. It does not evaluate the offspring of gay marriages, since the vast majority of its respon-
dents came of age prior to the legalization of gay marriage in several states. This study cannot answer political questions
about same-sex relationships and their legal legitimacy. Nevertheless, social science is a resource that offers insight to polit-
ical and legal decision-makers, and there have been enough competing claims about what the data says about the children
of same-sex parentsincluding legal depositions of social scientists in important casesthat a study with the methodolog-
ical strengths of this one deserves scholarly attention and scrutiny.
2. Data collection, measures, and analytic approach
The NFSS data collection project is based at the University of Texas at Austins Population Research Center. A survey de-
sign team consisting of several leading family researchers in sociology, demography, and human developmentfrom Penn
State University, Brigham Young University, San Diego State University, the University of Virginia, and several from the
University of Texas at Austinmet over 2 days in January 2011 to discuss the projects sampling strategy and scope, and con-
tinued to offer advice as questions arose over the course of the data collection process. The team was designed to merge
scholars across disciplines and ideological lines in a spirit of civility and reasoned inquiry. Several additional external con-
sultants also gave close scrutiny to the survey instrument, and advised on how best to measure diverse topics. Both the study
protocol and the questionnaire were approved by the University of Texas at Austins Institutional Review Board. The NFSS
data is intended to be publicly accessible and will thus be made so with minimal requirements by mid-late 2012. The NFSS
was supported in part by grants from the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation. While both of these are com-
monly known for their support of conservative causesjust as other private foundations are known for supporting more
liberal causesthe funding sources played no role at all in the design or conduct of the study, the analyses, the interpreta-
tions of the data, or in the preparation of this manuscript.
2.1. The data collection process
The data collection was conducted by Knowledge Networks (or KN), a research rm with a very strong record of gener-
ating high-quality data for academic projects. Knowledge Networks recruited the rst online research panel, dubbed the
KnowledgePanel
, that is representative of the US population. Members of the KnowledgePanel
are randomly recruited

by telephone and mail surveys, and households are provided with access to the Internet and computer hardware if needed.
Unlike other Internet research panels sampling only individuals with Internet access who volunteer for research, the Knowl-
edgePanel
is based on a sampling frame which includes both listed and unlisted numbers, those without a landline tele-
phone and is not limited to current Internet users or computer owners, and does not accept self-selected volunteers. As a
result, it is a random, nationally-representative sample of the American population. At last count, over 350 working papers,
conference presentations, published articles, and books have used Knowledge Networks panels, including the 2009 National
Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, whose extensive results were featured in an entire volume of the Journal of Sexual
Medicineand prominently in the mediain 2010 (Herbenick et al., 2010). More information about KN and the Knowledge-
Panel
, including panel recruitment, connection, retention, completion, and total response rates, are available from KN. The
typical within survey response rate for a KnowledgePanel
survey is 65%. Appendix A presents a comparison of age-appro-

priate summary statistics from a variety of socio-demographic variables in the NFSS, alongside the most recent iterations of
the Current Population Survey, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), the National Survey of
Family Growth, and the National Study of Youth and Religionall recent nationally-representative survey efforts. The esti-
mates reported there suggest the NFSS compares very favorably with other nationally-representative datasets.
2.2. The screening process
Particularly relevant for the NFSS is the fact that key populationsgay and lesbian parents, as well as heterosexual adop-
tive parentscan be challenging to identify and locate. The National Center for Marriage and Family Research (2010) esti-
mates that there are approximately 580,000 same-sex households in the United States. Among them, about 17%or
98,600are thought to have children present. While that may seem like a substantial number, in population-based sampling
strategies it is not. Locating minority populations requires a search for a probability sample of the general population, typ-
ically by way of screening the general population to identify members of rarer groups. Thus in order to boost the number of
respondents who reported being adopted or whose parent had a same-sex romantic relationship, the screener survey (which
distinguished such respondents) was left in the eld for several months between July 2011 and February 2012, enabling
existing panelists more time to be screened and new panelists to be added. Additionally, in late Fall 2011, former members
of the KnowledgePanel
were re-contacted by mail, phone, and email to encourage their screening. A total of 15,058 current
and former members of KNs KnowledgePanel
were screened and asked, among several other questions, From when you
were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relation-
ship with someone of the same sex? Response choices were Yes, my mother had a romantic relationship with another wo-
man, Yes, my father had a romantic relationship with another man, or no. (Respondents were also able to select both of
the rst two choices.) If they selected either of the rst two, they were asked about whether they had ever lived with that
parent while they were in a same-sex romantic relationship. The NFSS completed full surveys with 2988 Americans between
the ages of 18 and 39. The screener and full survey instrument is available at the NFSS homepage, located at: www.prc.utex-
as.edu/nfss.
2.3. What does a representative sample of gay and lesbian parents (of young adults) look like?
The weighted screener dataa nationally-representative samplereveal that 1.7% of all Americans between the ages of
18 and 39 report that their father or mother has had a same-sex relationship, a gure comparable to other estimates of chil-
dren in gay and lesbian households (e.g., Stacey and Biblarz (2001a,b) report a plausible range from 1% to 12%). Over twice as
many respondents report that their mother has had a lesbian relationship as report that their fathers have had a gay rela-
tionship. (A total of 58% of the 15,058 persons screened report spending their entire youthup until they turned 18 or left
the housewith their biological mother and father.)
While gay and lesbian Americans typically become parents today in four waysthrough one partners previous partici-
pation in a heterosexual union, through adoption, in-vitro fertilization, or by a surrogatethe NFSS is more likely to be com-
prised of respondents from the rst two of these arrangements than from the last two. Todays children of gay men and
lesbian women are more apt to be planned (that is, by using adoption, IVF, or surrogacy) than as little as 1520 years
ago, when such children were more typically the products of heterosexual unions. The youngest NFSS respondents turned
18 in 2011, while the oldest did so in 1990. Given that unintended pregnancy is impossible among gay men and a rarity
among lesbian couples, it stands to reason that gay and lesbian parents today are far more selective about parenting than
the heterosexual population, among whom unintended pregnancies remain very common, around 50% of total (Finer and
Henshaw, 2006). The share of all same-sex parenting arrangements that is planned, however, remains unknown. Although
the NFSS did not directly ask those respondents whose parent has had a same-sex romantic relationship about the manner of
their own birth, a failed heterosexual union is clearly the modal method: just under half of such respondents reported that
their biological parents were once married. This distinguishes the NFSS from numerous studies that have been entirely con-
cerned with planned gay and lesbian families, like the NLLFS.
Among those who said their mother had a same-sex relationship, 91% reported living with their mother while she was in
the romantic relationship, and 57% said they had lived with their mother and her partner for at least 4 months at some point
prior to age 18. A smaller share (23%) said they had spent at least 3 years living in the same household with a romantic part-
ner of their mothers.
Among those who said their father had a same-sex relationship, however, 42% reported living with him while he was in a
same-sex romantic relationship, and 23% reported living with him and his partner for at least 4 months (but less than 2% said
they had spent at least 3 years together in the same household), a trend similarly noted in Taskers (2005) review article on
gay and lesbian parenting.
Fifty-eight (58) percent of those whose biological mothers had a same-sex relationship also reported that their biological
mother exited the respondents household at some point during their youth, and just under 14% of them reported spending
time in the foster care system, indicating greater-than-average household instability. Ancillary analyses of the NFSS suggests
a likely planned lesbian origin of between 17% and 26% of such respondents, a range estimated from the share of such
respondents who claimed that (1) their biological parents were never married or lived together, and that (2) they never lived
with a parental opposite-sex partner or with their biological father. The share of respondents (whose fathers had a same-sex
relationship) that likely came from planned gay families in the NFSS is under 1%.
These distinctions between the NFSSa population-based sampleand small studies of planned gay and lesbian families
nevertheless raise again the question of just how unrepresentative convenience samples of gay and lesbian parents actually
are. The use of a probability sample reveals that the young-adult children of parents who have had same-sex relationships
(in the NFSS) look less like the children of todays stereotypic gay and lesbian coupleswhite, uppermiddle class, well-edu-
cated, employed, and prosperousthan many studies have tacitly or explicitly portrayed. Goldberg (2010, pp. 1213) aptly
notes that existing studies of lesbian and gay couples and their families have largely included white, middle-class persons
who are relatively out in the gay community and who are living in urban areas, while working-class sexual minorities,
racial or ethnic sexual minorities, sexual minorities who live in rural or isolated geographical areas have been overlooked,
understudied, and difcult to reach. Rosenfelds (2010) analysis of Census data suggests that 37% of children in lesbian
cohabiting households are Black or Hispanic. Among respondents in the NFSS who said their mother had a same-sex rela-
tionship, 43% are Black or Hispanic. In the NLLFS, by contrast, only 6% are Black or Hispanic.
This is an important oversight: demographic indicators of where gay parents live today point less toward stereotypic
places like New York and San Francisco and increasingly toward locales where families are more numerous and overall fer-
tility is higher, like San Antonio and Memphis. In their comprehensive demographic look at the American gay and lesbian
population, Gates and Ost (2004, p. 47) report, States and large metropolitan areas with relatively low concentrations of
gay and lesbian couples in the population tend to be areas where same-sex couples are more likely to have children in
the household. A recent updated brief by Gates (2011, p. F3) reinforces this: Geographically, same-sex couples are most
likely to have children in many of the most socially conservative parts of the country. Moreover, Gates notes that racial
minorities are disproportionately more likely (among same-sex households) to report having children; whites, on the other
hand, are disproportionately less likely to have children. The NFSS sample reveals the same. Gates Census-based assess-
ments further raise questions about the sampling strategies ofand the popular use of conclusions fromstudies based en-
tirely on convenience samples derived from parents living in progressive metropolitan locales.
2.4. The structure and experience of respondents families of origin
The NFSS sought to provide as clear a vision as possible of the respondents household composition during their childhood
and adolescence. The survey asked respondents about the marital status of their biological parents both in the past and pres-
ent. The NFSS also collected calendar data from each respondent about their relationship to people who lived with them in
their household (for more than 4 months) from birth to age 18, as well as who has lived with them from age 18after they
have left hometo the present. While the calendar data is utilized only sparingly in this study, such rich data enables
researchers to document who else has lived with the respondent for virtually their entire life up to the present.
For this particular study, I compare outcomes across eight different types of family-of-origin structure and/or experience.
They were constructed from the answers to several questions both in the screener survey and the full survey. It should be
noted, however, that their construction reects an unusual combination of intereststhe same-sex romantic behavior of par-
ents, and the experience of household stability or disruption. The eight groups or household settings (with an acronym or
short descriptive title) evaluated here, followed by their maximum unweighted analytic sample size, are:
1. IBF: Lived in intact biological family (with mother and father) from 0 to 18, and parents are still married at present
(N = 919).
2. LM: R reported Rs mother had a same-sex romantic (lesbian) relationship with a woman, regardless of any other
household transitions (N = 163).
3. GF: R reported Rs father had a same-sex romantic (gay) relationship with a man, regardless of any other household
transitions (N = 73).
4. Adopted: R was adopted by one or two strangers at birth or before age 2 (N = 101).
5. Divorced later or had joint custody: R reported living with biological mother and father from birth to age 18, but par-
ents are not married at present (N = 116).
6. Stepfamily: Biological parents were either never married or else divorced, and Rs primary custodial parent was mar-
ried to someone else before R turned 18 (N = 394).
7. Single parent: Biological parents were either never married or else divorced, and Rs primary custodial parent did not
marry (or remarry) before R turned 18 (N = 816).
8. All others: Includes all other family structure/event combinations, such as respondents with a deceased parent
(N = 406).
Together these eight groups account for the entire NFSS sample. These eight groups are largely, but not entirely, mutually
exclusive in reality. That is, a small minority of respondents might t more than one group. I have, however, forced their
mutual exclusivity here for analytic purposes. For example, a respondent whose mother had a same-sex relationship might
also qualify in Group 5 or Group 7, but in this case my analytical interest is in maximizing the sample size of Groups 2 and 3
so the respondent would be placed in Group 2 (LMs). Since Group 3 (GFs) is the smallest and most difcult to locate ran-
domly in the population, its composition trumped that of others, even LMs. (There were 12 cases of respondents who re-
ported both a mother and a father having a same-sex relationship; all are analyzed here as GFs, after ancillary analyses
revealed comparable exposure to both their mother and father).
Obviously, different grouping decisions may affect the results. The NFSS, which sought to learn a great deal of information
about respondents families of origin, is well-poised to accommodate alternative grouping strategies, including distinguish-
ing those respondents who lived with their lesbian mothers partner for several years (vs. sparingly or not at all), or early in
their childhood (compared to later). Small sample sizes (and thus reduced statistical power) may nevertheless hinder some
strategies.
In the results section, for maximal ease, I often make use of the acronyms IBF (child of a still-intact biological family), LM
(child of a lesbian mother), and GF (child of a gay father). It is, however, very possible that the same-sex romantic relation-
ships about which the respondents report were not framed by those respondents as indicating their own (or their parents
own) understanding of their parent as gay or lesbian or bisexual in sexual orientation. Indeed, this is more a study of the chil-
dren of parents who have had (and in some cases, are still in) same-sex relationships than it is one of children whose parents
have self-identied or are out as gay or lesbian or bisexual. The particular parental relationships the respondents were
queried about are, however, gay or lesbian in content. For the sake of brevity and to avoid entanglement in interminable
debates about xed or uid orientations, I will regularly refer to these groups as respondents with a gay father or lesbian
mother.
2.5. Outcomes of interest
This study presents an overview of 40 outcome measures available in the NFSS. Table 1 presents summary statistics for all
variables. Why these outcomes? While the survey questionnaire (available online) contains several dozen outcome questions
of interest, I elected to report here an overview of those outcomes, seeking to include common and oft-studied variables of
interest from a variety of different domains. I include all of the particular indexes we sought to evaluate, and a broad list of
outcomes from the emotional, relational, and social domains. Subsequent analyses of the NFSS will no doubt examine other
outcomes, as well as examine the same outcomes in different ways.
The dichotomous outcome variables summarized in Table 1 are the following: relationship status, employment status,
whether they voted in the last presidential election, and use of public assistance (both currently and while growing up),
the latter of which was asked as Before you were 18 years old, did anyone in your immediate family (that is, in your house-
hold) ever receive public assistance (such as welfare payments, food stamps, Medicaid, WIC, or free lunch)? Respondents
were also asked about whether they had ever seriously thought about committing suicide in the past 12 months, and about
their utilization of counseling or psychotherapy for treatment of any problem connected with anxiety, depression, relation-
ships, etc.
The Kinsey scale of sexual behavior was employed, but modied to allow respondents to select the best description of
their sexual orientation (rather than behavior). Respondents were asked to choose the description that best ts how they
think about themselves: 100% heterosexual, mostly heterosexual but somewhat attracted to people of your own sex, bisex-
ual (that is, attracted to men and women equally), mostly homosexual but somewhat attracted to people of the opposite sex,
100% homosexual, or not sexually attracted to either males or females. For simplicity of presentation, I create a dichotomous
measure indicating 100% heterosexual (vs. anything else). Additionally, unmarried respondents who are currently in a rela-
tionship were asked if their romantic partner is a man or a woman, allowing construction of a measure of currently in a
same-sex romantic relationship.
All respondents were asked if a parent or other adult caregiver ever touched you in a sexual way, forced you to touch him
or her in a sexual way, or forced you to have sexual relations? Possible answers were: no, never; yes, once; yes, more than
once; or not sure. A broader measure about forced sex was asked before it, and read as follows: Have you ever been phys-
ically forced to have any type of sexual activity against your will? It employs identical possible answers; both have been
dichotomized for the analyses (respondents who were not sure were not included). Respondents were also asked if they
Table 1
Weighted summary statistics of measures, NFSS.
NFSS variables Range Mean SD N
Currently married 0, 1 0.41 0.49 2988
Currently cohabiting 0, 1 0.15 0.36 2988
Family received welfare growing up 0, 1 0.34 0.47 2669
Currently on public assistance 0, 1 0.21 0.41 2952
Currently employed full-time 0,1 0.45 0.50 2988
Currently unemployed 0, 1 0.12 0.32 2988
Voted in last presidential election 0, 1 0.55 0.50 2960
Bullied while growing up 0, 1 0.36 0.48 2961
Ever suicidal during past year 0, 1 0.07 0.25 2953
Recently or currently in therapy 0, 1 0.11 0.32 2934
Identies as entirely heterosexual 0, 1 0.85 0.36 2946
Is in a same-sex romantic relationship 0, 1 0.06 0.23 1056
Had affair while married/cohabiting 0, 1 0.19 0.39 1869
Has ever had an STI 0, 1 0.11 0.32 2911
Ever touched sexually by parent/adult 0, 1 0.07 0.26 2877
Ever forced to have sex against will 0, 1 0.13 0.33 2874
Educational attainment 15 2.86 1.11 2988
Family-of-origin safety/security 15 3.81 0.97 2917
Family-of-origin negative impact 15 2.58 0.98 2919
Closeness to biological mother 15 4.05 0.87 2249
Closeness to biological father 15 3.74 0.98 1346
Self-reported physical health 15 3.57 0.94 2964
Self-reported overall happiness 15 4.00 1.05 2957
CES-D depression index 14 1.89 0.62 2815
Attachment scale (depend) 15 2.97 0.84 2848
Attachment scale (anxiety) 15 2.51 0.77 2830
Impulsivity scale 14 1.88 0.59 2861
Level of household income 113 7.42 3.17 2635
Current relationship quality index 15 3.98 0.98 2218
Current relationship is in trouble 14 2.19 0.96 2274
Frequency of marijuana use 16 1.50 1.23 2918
Frequency of alcohol use 16 2.61 1.36 2922
Frequency of drinking to get drunk 16 1.70 1.09 2922
Frequency of smoking 16 2.03 1.85 2922
Frequency of watching TV 16 3.15 1.60 2919
Frequency of having been arrested 14 1.29 0.63 2951
Frequency pled guilty to non-minor offense 14 1.16 0.46 2947
N of female sex partners (among women) 011 0.40 1.10 1975
N of female sex partners (among men) 011 3.16 2.68 937
N of male sex partners (among women) 011 3.50 2.52 1951
N of male sex partners (among men) 011 0.40 1.60 944
Age 1839 28.21 6.37 2988
Female 0, 1 0.51 0.50 2988
White 0, 1 0.57 0.49 2988
Gay-friendliness of state of residence 15 2.58 1.78 2988
Family-of-origin structure groups
Intact biological family (IBF) 0, 1 0.40 0.49 2988
Mother had same-sex relationship (LM) 0, 1 0.01 0.10 2988
Father had same-sex relationship (GF) 0, 1 0.01 0.75 2988
Adopted age 02 0, 1 0.01 0.75 2988
Divorced later/joint custody 0, 1 0.06 0.23 2988
Stepfamily 0, 1 0.17 0.38 2988
Single parent 0, 1 0.19 0.40 2988
All others 0, 1 0.15 0.36 2988
Mothers education
Less than high school 0, 1 0.15 0.35 2988
Received high school diploma 0, 1 0.28 0.45 2988
Some college/associates degree 0, 1 0.26 0.44 2988
Bachelors degrees 0, 1 0.15 0.36 2988
More than bachelors 0, 1 0.08 0.28 2988
Do not know/missing 0, 1 0.08 0.28 2988
Family-of-origin income
$020,000 0, 1 0.13 0.34 2988
$20,00140,000 0, 1 0.19 0.39 2988
$40,00175,000 0, 1 0.25 0.43 2988
$75,001100,000 0, 1 0.14 0.34 2988
$100,001150,000 0, 1 0.05 0.22 2988
(continued on next page)
had ever had a sexually-transmitted infection, and if they had ever had a sexual relationship with someone else while they
(the respondent) were married or cohabiting.
Among continuous variables, I included a ve-category educational achievement measure, a standard ve-point self-
reported measure of general physical health, a ve-point measure of overall happiness, a 13-category measure of total
household income before taxes and deductions last year, and a four-point (frequency) measure of how often the respondent
thought their current relationship might be in trouble (never once, once or twice, several times, or numerous times).
Several continuous variables were constructed from multiple measures, including an eight-measure modied version of
the CES-D depression scale, an index of the respondents reported current (romantic) relationship quality, closeness to
the respondents biological mother and father, and a pair of attachment scalesone assessing dependability and the other
anxiety. Finally, a pair of indexes captures (1) the overall safety and security in their family while growing up, and (2)
respondents impressions of negative family-of-origin experiences that continue to affect them. These are part of a multidi-
mensional relationship assessment instrument (dubbed RELATE) designed with the perspective that aspects of family life,
such as the quality of the parents relationship with their children, create a family tone that can be mapped on a continuum
from safe/predictable/rewarding to unsafe/chaotic/punishing (Busby et al., 2001). Each of the scales and their component
measures are detailed in Appendix B.
Finally, I evaluate nine count outcomes, seven of which are frequency measures, and the other two counts of gender-spe-
cic sexual partners. Respondents were asked, During the past year, howoften did you. . . watch more than 3 h of television
in a row, use marijuana, smoke, drink alcohol, and drink with the intent to get drunk. Responses (05) ranged from never
to every day or almost every day. Respondents were also asked if they have ever been arrested, and if they had ever been
convicted of or pled guilty to any charges other than a minor trafc violation. Answers to these two ranged from 0 (no, never)
to 3 (yes, numerous times). Two questions about respondents number of sex partners were asked (of both men and women)
in this way: How many different women have you ever had a sexual relationship with? This includes any female you had
sex with, even if it was only once or if you did not know her well. The same question was asked about sexual relationships
with men. Twelve responses were possible: 0, 1, 2, 3, 46, 79, 1015, 1620, 2130, 3150, 5199, and 100+.
2.6. Analytic approach
My analytic strategy is to highlight distinctions between the eight family structure/experience groups on the 40 outcome
variables, both in a bivariate manner (using a simple T-test) and in a multivariate manner using appropriate variable-specic
regression techniqueslogistic, OLS, Poisson, or negative binomialand employing controls for respondents age, race/eth-
nicity, gender, mothers education, and perceived family-of-origin income, an approach comparable to Rosenfelds (2010)
analysis of differences in children making normal progress through school and the overview article highlighting the ndings
of the rst wave of the Add Health study (Resnick et al., 1997). Additionally, I controlled for having been bullied, the measure
for which was asked as follows: While growing up, children and teenagers typically experience negative interactions with
others. We say that someone is bullied when someone else, or a group, says or does nasty and unpleasant things to him or
her. We do not consider it bullying when two people quarrel or ght, however. Do you recall ever being bullied by someone
else, or by a group, such that you still have vivid, negative memories of it?
Finally, survey respondents current state of residence was coded on a scale (15) according to how expansive or restric-
tive its laws are concerning gay marriage and the legal rights of same-sex couples (as of November 2011). Emerging research
suggests state-level political realities about gay rights may discernibly shape the lives of GLB residents (Hatzenbuehler et al.,
2009; Rostosky et al., 2009). This coding scheme was borrowed from a Los Angeles Times effort to map the timeline of state-
level rights secured for gay unions. I modied it from a 10-point to a 5-point scale (Times Research Reporting, 2012). I clas-
sify the respondents current state in one of the following ve ways:
1 = Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and/or other legal rights.
2 = Legal ban on gay marriage and/or other legal rights.
3 = No specic laws/bans and/or domestic partnerships are legal.
4 = Domestic partnerships with comprehensive protections are legal and/or gay marriages performed elsewhere are
recognized.
5 = Civil unions are legal and/or gay marriage is legal.
Each case in the NFSS sample was assigned a weight based on the sampling design and their probability of being selected,
ensuring a sample that is nationally representative of American adults aged 1839. These sample weights were used in every
Table 1 (continued)
NFSS variables Range Mean SD N
$150,001200,000 0, 1 0.01 0.11 2988
Above $200,000 0, 1 0.01 0.10 2988
Do not know/missing 0, 1 0.22 0.42 2988
statistical procedure displayed herein unless otherwise noted. The regression models exhibited few (N < 15) missing values
on the covariates.
This broad overview approach, appropriate for introducing a new dataset, provides a foundation for future, more focused
analyses of the outcomes I explore here. There are, after all, far more ways to delineate family structure and experiences
and changes thereinthan I have undertaken here. Others will evaluate such groupings differently, and will construct alter-
native approaches of testing for group differences in what is admittedly a wide diversity of outcome measures.
I would be remiss to claim causation here, since to document that having particular family-of-origin experiencesor the
sexual relationships of ones parentscauses outcomes for adult children, I would need to not only document that there is a
correlation between such family-of-origin experiences, but that no other plausible factors could be the common cause of any
suboptimal outcomes. Rather, my analytic intention is far more modest than that: to evaluate the presence of simple group
differences, andwith the addition of several control variablesto assess just how robust such group differences are.
3. Results
3.1. Comparisons with still-intact, biological families (IBFs)
Table 2 displays mean scores on 15 dichotomous outcome variables which can be read as simple percentages, sorted by
the eight different family structure/experience groups described earlier. As in Tables 3 and 4, numbers that appear in bold
indicate that the groups estimate is statistically different from the young-adult children of IBFs, as discerned by a basic
T-test (p < 0.05). Numbers that appear with an asterisk (
) beside it indicate that the groups dichotomous variable estimate

from a logistic regression model (not shown) is statistically-signicantly different from IBFs, after controlling for respon-
dents age, gender, race/ethnicity, level of mothers education, perceived family-of-origins income, experience with having
been bullied as a youth, and the gay friendliness of the respondents current state of residence.
At a glance, the number of statistically-signicant differences between respondents from IBFs and respondents from the
other seven types of family structures/experiences is considerable, and in the vast majority of cases the optimal outcome
where one can be readily discernedfavors IBFs. Table 2 reveals 10 (out of 15 possible) statistically-signicant differences in
simple t-tests between IBFs and LMs (the pool of respondents who reported that their mother has had a lesbian relationship),
one higher than the number of simple differences (9) between IBFs and respondents from both single-parent and stepfam-
ilies. All but one of those associations is signicant in logistic regression analyses contrasting LMs and IBFs (the omitted
category).
Beginning at the top of Table 2, the marriage rates of LMs and GFs (those who reported that their father had a gay rela-
tionship) are statistically comparable to IBFs, while LMs cohabitation rate is notable higher than IBFs (24% vs. 9%, respec-
tively). Sixty-nine (69) percent of LMs and 57% of GFs reported that their family received public assistance at some point
while growing up, compared with 17% of IBFs; 38% of LMs said they are currently receiving some form of public assistance,
compared with 10% of IBFs. Just under half of all IBFs reported being employed full-time at present, compared with 26% of
Table 2
Mean scores on select dichotomous outcome variables, NFSS (can read as percentage: as in, 0.42 = 42%).
IBF (intact
bio family)
LM
(lesbian mother)
GF
(gay father)
Adopted by
strangers
Divorced
late (>18)
Stepfamily Single-
parent
All
other
Currently married 0.43 0.36 0.35 0.41 0.36
0.41 0.37 0.39

Currently cohabiting 0.09 0.24
0.21 0.07
^
0.31
0.19
0.19
0.13
Family received welfare growing up 0.17 0.69
0.57
0.12
^
0.47
^
0.53
^
0.48
^
0.35
^
Currently on public assistance 0.10 0.38
0.23 0.27
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.23
Currently employed full-time 0.49 0.26
0.34 0.41 0.42 0.47

^
0.43
^
0.39
Currently unemployed 0.08 0.28
0.20 0.22
0.15 0.14 0.13

^
0.15
Voted in last presidential election 0.57 0.41 0.73
^
0.58 0.63
^
0.57
^
0.51 0.48
Thought recently about suicide 0.05 0.12 0.24
0.07 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.09

Recently or currently in therapy 0.08 0.19
0.19 0.22
0.12 0.17
0.13
0.09
Identies as entirely heterosexual 0.90 0.61
0.71
0.82
^
0.83
^
0.81
^
0.83
^
0.82
^
Is in a same-sex romantic relationship 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.23 0.05 0.13
0.03 0.02
Had affair while married/cohabiting 0.13 0.40
0.25 0.20 0.12

^
0.32
0.19
^
0.16
^
Has ever had an STI 0.08 0.20
0.25
0.16 0.12 0.16
0.14
0.08
Ever touched sexually by parent/adult 0.02 0.23
0.06
^
0.03
^
0.10
0.12
0.10
0.08
^
Ever forced to have sex against will 0.08 0.31
0.25
0.23
0.24
0.16
0.16
^
0.11
^
Bold indicates the mean scores displayed are statistically-signicantly different from IBFs (currently intact, bio mother/father household, column 1),
without additional controls.
An asterisk (
) next to the estimate indicates a statistically-signicant difference (p < 0.05) between the groups coefcient and that of IBFs, controlling for
respondents age, gender, race/ethnicity, level of mothers education, perceived household income while growing up, experience being bullied as a youth,
and states legislative gay-friendliness, derived from logistic regression models (not shown).
A caret (^) next to the estimate indicates a statistically-signicant difference (p < 0.05) between the groups mean and the mean of LM (column 2), without
additional controls.
LMs. While only 8% of IBF respondents said they were currently unemployed, 28% of LM respondents said the same. LMs
were statistically less likely than IBFs to have voted in the 2008 presidential election (41% vs. 57%), and more than twice
as likely19% vs. 8%to report being currently (or within the past year) in counseling or therapy for a problem connected
with anxiety, depression, relationships, etc., an outcome that was signicantly different after including control variables.
In concurrence with several studies of late, the NFSS reveals that the children of lesbian mothers seem more open to
same-sex relationships (Biblarz and Stacey, 2010; Gartrell et al., 2011a,b; Golombok et al., 1997). Although they are not sta-
tistically different from most other groups in having a same-sex relationship at present, they are much less apt to identify
entirely as heterosexual (61% vs. 90% of respondents from IBFs). The same was true of GF respondentsthose young adults
who said their father had a relationship with another man: 71% of them identied entirely as heterosexual. Other sexual dif-
ferences are notable among LMs, too: a greater share of daughters of lesbian mothers report being not sexually attracted to
either males or females than among any other family-structure groups evaluated here (4.1% of female LMs, compared to
0.5% of female IBFs, not shown in Table 2). Exactly why the young-adult children of lesbian mothers are more apt to expe-
rience same-sex attraction and behaviors, as well as self-report asexuality, is not clear, but the fact that they do seems con-
sistent across studies. Given that lower rates of heterosexuality characterize other family structure/experience types in the
Table 3
Mean scores on select continuous outcome variables, NFSS.
IBF (intact
bio family)
LM (lesbian
mother)
GF (gay
father)
Adopted by
strangers
Divorced
late (>18)
Stepfamily Single- parent All
other
Educational attainment 3.19 2.39
2.64
3.21
^
2.88
^
2.64
2.66
2.54
Family-of-origin safety/security 4.13 3.12
3.25
3.77
^
3.52
3.52
^
3.58
^
3.77
^
Family-of-origin negative impact 2.30 3.13
2.90
2.83
2.96
2.76
2.78
2.64
^
Closeness to biological mother 4.17 4.05 3.71
3.58 3.95 4.03 3.85
3.97
Closeness to biological father 3.87 3.16 3.43 3.29
3.65 3.24
3.61
Self-reported physical health 3.75 3.38 3.58 3.53 3.46 3.49 3.43
3.41
Self-reported overall happiness 4.16 3.89 3.72 3.92 4.02 3.87
3.93 3.83
CES-D depression index 1.83 2.20
2.18
1.95 2.01 1.91

^
1.89
^
1.94
^
Attachment scale (depend) 2.82 3.43
3.14 3.12
3.08
^
3.10
^
3.05
^
3.02
^
Attachment scale (anxiety) 2.46 2.67 2.66 2.66 2.71 2.53 2.51 2.56
Impulsivity scale 1.90 2.03 2.02 1.85 1.94 1.86
^
1.82
^
1.89
Level of household income 8.27 6.08 7.15 7.93
^
7.42
^
7.04 6.96 6.19
Current relationship quality index 4.11 3.83 3.63
3.79 3.95 3.80
3.95 3.94
Current relationship is in trouble 2.04 2.35 2.55
2.35 2.43 2.35
2.26
2.15
An asterisk (
and states legislative gay-friendliness, derived from OLS regression models (not shown).
Table 4
Mean scores on select event-count outcome variables, NFSS.
IBF (intact
bio family)
LM (lesbian
mother)
GF
(gay father)
Adopted by
strangers
Divorced
late (>18)
Stepfamily Single-
parent
All
other
Frequency of marijuana use 1.32 1.84
1.61 1.33
^
2.00
1.47 1.73
1.49
Frequency of alcohol use 2.70 2.37 2.70 2.74 2.55 2.50 2.66 2.44
Frequency of drinking to get drunk 1.68 1.77 2.14 1.73 1.90 1.68 1.74 1.64
Frequency of smoking 1.79 2.76
2.61
2.34
2.44
2.31
2.18
1.91
^
Frequency of watching TV 3.01 3.70
3.49 3.31 3.33 3.43
3.25 2.95
^
Frequency of having been arrested 1.18 1.68
1.75
1.31
^
1.38 1.38
^
1.35
^
1.34
^
Frequency pled guilty to non-minor offense 1.10 1.36
1.41
1.19 1.30 1.21
1.17
^
1.17
^
N of female sex partners (among women) 0.22 1.04
1.47
0.47
^
0.96
0.47
^
0.52
^
0.33
^
N of female sex partners (among men) 2.70 3.46 4.17 3.24 3.66 3.85
3.23 3.37
N of male sex partners (among women) 2.79 4.02
5.92
3.49 3.97
4.57
4.04
2.91
^
N of male sex partners (among men) 0.20 1.48
1.47
0.27 0.98
0.55 0.42 0.44

An asterisk (
and states legislative gay-friendliness, derived from Poisson or negative binomial regression models (not shown).
NFSS, as Table 2 clearly documents, the answer is likely located not simply in parental sexual orientation but in successful
cross-sex relationship role modeling, or its absence or scarcity.
Sexual conduct within their romantic relationships is also distinctive: while 13% of IBFs reported having had a sexual rela-
tionship with someone else while they were either married or cohabiting, 40% of LMs said the same. In contrast to Gartrell
et al.s (2011a,b) recent, widely-disseminated conclusions about the absence of sexual victimization in the NLLFS data, 23% of
LMs said yes when asked whether a parent or other adult caregiver ever touched you in a sexual way, forced you to touch
him or her in a sexual way, or forced you to have sexual relations, while only 2% of IBFs responded afrmatively. Since such
reports are more common among women than men, I split the analyses by gender (not shown). Among female respondents,
3% of IBFs reported parental (or adult caregiver) sexual contact/victimization, dramatically below the 31% of LMs who re-
ported the same. Just under 10% of female GFs responded afrmatively to the question, an estimate not signicantly different
from the IBFs.
It is entirely plausible, however, that sexual victimization could have been at the hands of the LM respondents biological
father, prompting the mother to leave the union andat some point in the futurecommence a same-sex relationship. Ancil-
lary (unweighted) analyses of the NFSS, which asked respondents how old they were when the rst incident occurred (and
can be compared to the household structure calendar, which documents who lived in their household each year up until age
18) reveal this possibility, up to a point: 33% of those LM respondents who said they had been sexually victimized by a parent
or adult caregiver reported that they were also living with their biological father in the year that the rst incident occurred.
Another 29% of victimized LMs reported never having lived with their biological father at all. Just under 34% of LM respon-
dents who said they had at some point lived with their mothers same-sex partner reported a rst-time incident at an age
that was equal to or higher than when they rst lived with their mothers partner. Approximately 13% of victimized LMs
reported living with a foster parent the year when the rst incident occurred. In other words, there is no obvious trend
to the timing of rst victimization and when the respondent may have lived with their biological father or their mothers
same-sex partner, nor are we suggesting by whom the respondent was most likely victimized. Future exploration of the
NFSSs detailed household structure calendar offers some possibility for clarication.
The elevated LM estimate of sexual victimization is not the only estimate of increased victimization. Another more gen-
eral question about forced sex, Have you ever been physically forced to have any type of sexual activity against your will
also displays signicant differences between IBFs and LMs (and GFs). The question about forced sex was asked before the
question about sexual contact with a parent or other adult and may include incidents of it but, by the numbers, clearly in-
cludes additional circumstances. Thirty-one percent of LMs indicated they had, at some point in their life, been forced to
have sex against their will, compared with 8% of IBFs and 25% of GFs. Among female respondents, 14% of IBFs reported forced
sex, compared with 46% of LMs and 52% of GFs (both of the latter estimates are statistically-signicantly different from that
reported by IBFs).
While I have so far noted several distinctions between IBFs and GFsrespondents who said their father had a gay rela-
tionshipthere are simply fewer statistically-signicant distinctions to note between IBFs and GFs than between IBFs and
LMs, which may or may not be due in part to the smaller sample of respondents with gay fathers in the NFSS, and the much
smaller likelihood of having lived with their gay father while he was in a same-sex relationship. Only six of 15 measures in
Table 2 reveal statistically-signicant differences in the regression models (but only one in a bivariate environment). After
including controls, the children of a gay father were statistically more apt (than IBFs) to receive public assistance while grow-
ing up, to have voted in the last election, to have thought recently about committing suicide, to ever report a sexually-trans-
mitted infection, have experienced forced sex, and were less likely to self-identify as entirely heterosexual. While other
outcomes reported by GFs often differed from IBFs, statistically-signicant differences were not as regularly detected.
Although my attention has been primarily directed at the inter-group differences between IBFs, LMs, and GFs, it is worth
noting that LMs are hardly alone in displaying numerous differences with IBFs. Respondents who lived in stepfamilies or sin-
gle-parent families displayed nine simple differences in Table 2. Besides GFs, adopted respondents displayed the fewest sim-
ple differences (three).
Table 3 displays mean scores on 14 continuous outcomes. As in Table 2, bold indicates simple statistically-signicant out-
come differences with young-adult respondents from still-intact, biological families (IBFs) and an asterisk indicates a regres-
sion coefcient (models not shown) that is signicantly different from IBFs after a series of controls. Consistent with Table 2,
eight of the estimates for LMs are statistically different from IBFs. Five of the eight differences are signicant as regression
estimates. The young-adult children of women who have had a lesbian relationship fare worse on educational attainment,
family-of-origin safety/security, negative impact of family-of-origin, the CES-D (depression) index, one of two attachment
scales, report worse physical health, smaller household incomes than do respondents from still-intact biological families,
and think that their current romantic relationship is in trouble more frequently.
The young-adult GF respondents were likewise statistically distinct from IBF respondents on seven of 14 continuous out-
comes, all of which were signicantly different when evaluated in regression models. When contrasted with IBFs, GFs re-
ported more modest educational attainment, worse scores on the family-of-origin safety/security and negative impact
indexes, less closeness to their biological mother, greater depression, a lower score on the current (romantic) relationship
quality index, and think their current romantic relationship is in trouble more frequently.
As in Table 2, respondents who reported living in stepfamilies or in single-parent households also exhibit numerous sim-
ple statistical differences from IBFson nine and 10 out of 14 outcomes, respectivelymost of which remain signicant in
the regression models. On only four of 14 outcomes do adopted respondents appear distinctive (three of which remain sig-
nicant after introducing controls).
Table 4 displays mean scores on nine event counts, sorted by the eight family structure/experience groups. The NFSS
asked all respondents about experience with male and female sexual partners, but I report them here separately by gender.
LM respondents report statistically greater marijuana use, more frequent smoking, watch television more often, have been
arrested more, pled guilty to non-minor offenses more, andamong womenreport greater numbers of both female and
male sex partners than do IBF respondents. Female LMs reported an average of just over one female sex partner in their life-
times, as well as four male sex partners, in contrast to female IBFs (0.22 and 2.79, respectively). Male LMs report an average
of 3.46 female sex partners and 1.48 male partners, compared with 2.70 and 0.20, respectively, among male IBFs. Only the
number of male partners among men, however, displays signicant differences (after controls are included).
Among GFs, only three bivariate distinctions appear. However, six distinctions emerge after regression controls: they are
more apt than IBFs to smoke, have been arrested, pled guilty to non-minor offenses, and report more numerous sex partners
(except for the number of female sex partners among male GFs). Adopted respondents display no simple differences from
IBFs, while the children of stepfamilies and single parents each display six signicant differences with young adults from
still-intact, biological mother/father families.
Although I have paid much less attention to most of the other groups whose estimates also appear in Tables 24, it is
worth noting how seldom the estimates of young-adult children who were adopted by strangers (before age 2) differ statis-
tically from the children of still-intact biological families. They display the fewest simple signicant differencesseven
across the 40 outcomes evaluated here. Given that such adoptions are typically the result of considerable self-selection, it
should not surprise that they display fewer differences with IBFs.
To summarize, then, in 25 of 40 outcomes, there are simple statistically-signicant differences between IBFs and LMs,
those whose mothers had a same-sex relationship. After controls, there are 24 such differences. There are 24 simple differ-
ences between IBFs and stepfamilies, and 24 statistically-signicant differences after controls. Among single (heterosexual)
parents, there are 25 simple differences before controls and 21 after controls. Between GFs and IBFs, there are 11 and 19 such
differences, respectively.
3.2. Summary of differences between LMs and other family structures/experiences
Researchers sometimes elect to evaluate the outcomes of children of gay and lesbian parents by comparing them not di-
rectly to stable heterosexual marriages but to other types of households, since it is often the caseand it is certainly true of
the NFSSthat a gay or lesbian parent rst formed a heterosexual union prior to coming out of the closet, and witnessing
the dissolution of that union (Tasker, 2005). So comparing the children of such parents with those who experienced no union
dissolution is arguably unfair. The NFSS, however, enables researchers to compare outcomes across a variety of other types of
family-structural history. While I will not explore in-depth here all the statistically-signicant differences between LMs, GFs,
and other groups besides IBFs, a few overall observations are merited.
Of the 239 possible between-group differences herenot counting those differences with Group 1 (IBFs) already de-
scribed earlierthe young-adult children of lesbian mothers display 57 (or 24% of total possible) that are signicant at
the p < 0.05 level (indicated in Tables 24 with a caret), and 44 (or 18% of total) that are signicant after controls (not
shown). The majority of these differences are in suboptimal directions, meaning that LMs display worse outcomes. The
young-adult children of gay men, on the other hand, display only 11 (or 5% of total possible) between-group differences
that are statistically signicant at the p < 0.05 level, and yet 24 (or 10% of total) that are signicant after controls (not
shown).
In the NFSS, then, the young-adult children of a mother who has had a lesbian relationship display more signicant
distinctions with other respondents than do the children of a gay father. This may be the result of genuinely different
experiences of their family transitions, the smaller sample size of children of gay men, or the comparatively-rarer expe-
rience of living with a gay father (only 42% of such respondents reported ever living with their father while he was in a
same-sex relationship, compared with 91% who reported living with their mother while she was in a same-sex
relationship).
4. Discussion
Just how different are the adult children of men and women who pursue same-sex romantic (i.e., gay and lesbian)
relationships, when evaluated using population-based estimates from a random sample? The answer, as might be expected,
depends on to whom you compare them. When compared with children who grew up in biologically (still) intact, mother
father families, the children of women who reported a same-sex relationship look markedly different on numerous out-
comes, including many that are obviously suboptimal (such as education, depression, employment status, or marijuana
use). On 25 of 40 outcomes (or 63%) evaluated here, there are bivariate statistically-signicant (p < 0.05) differences between
children from still-intact, mother/father families and those whose mother reported a lesbian relationship. On 11 of 40 out-
comes (or 28%) evaluated here, there are bivariate statistically-signicant (p < 0.05) differences between children from
still-intact, mother/father families and those whose father reported a gay relationship. Hence, there are differences in both
comparisons, but there are many more differences by any method of analysis in comparisons between young-adult children
of IBFs and LMs than between IBFs and GFs.
While the NFSS may best capture what might be called an earlier generation of children of same-sex parents, and in-
cludes among them many who witnessed a failed heterosexual union, the basic statistical comparisons between this group
and those of others, especially biologically-intact, mother/father families, suggests that notable differences on many out-
comes do in fact exist. This is inconsistent with claims of no differences generated by studies that have commonly em-
ployed far more narrow samples than this one.
Goldberg (2010) aptly asserts that many existing studies were conducted primarily comparing children of heterosexual
divorced and lesbian divorced mothers, potentially leading observers to erroneously attribute to parental sexual orientation
the corrosive effects of enduring parental divorce. Her warning is well-taken, and it is one that the NFSS cannot entirely
mitigate. Yet when compared with other young adults who experienced household transitions and who witnessed parents
forming new romantic relationshipsfor example, stepfamiliesthe children of lesbian mothers looked (statistically) signif-
icantly different just under 25% of the time (and typically in suboptimal directions). Nevertheless, the children of mothers
who have had same-sex relationships are far less apt to differ from stepfamilies and single parents than they are from
still-intact biological families.
Why the divergence between the ndings in this study and those from so many previous ones? The answer lies in part
with the small or nonprobability samples so often relied upon in nearly all previous studiesthey have very likely underes-
timated the number and magnitude of real differences between the children of lesbian mothers (and to a lesser extent, gay
fathers) and those raised in other types of households. While the architects of such studies have commonly and appropri-
ately acknowledged their limitations, practicallysince they are often the only studies being conductedtheir results are
treated as providing information about gay and lesbian household experiences in general. But this study, based on a rare large
probability sample, reveals far greater diversity in the experience of lesbian motherhood (and to a lesser extent, gay father-
hood) than has been acknowledged or understood.
Given that the characteristics of the NFSSs sample of children of LMs and GFs are close to estimates of the same offered by
demographers using the American Community Study, one conclusion from the analyses herein is merited: the sample-selec-
tion bias problem in very many studies of gay and lesbian parenting is not incidental, but likely profound, rendering the abil-
ity of much past research to offer valid interpretations of average household experiences of children with a lesbian or gay
parent suspect at best. Most snowball-sample-based research has, instead, shed light on above-average household
experiences.
While studies of family structure often locate at least modest benets that accrue to the children of married biological
parents, some scholars attribute much of the benet to socioeconomic-status differences between married parents and those
parents in other types of relationships (Biblarz and Raftery, 1999). While this is likely true of the NFSS as well, the results
presented herein controlled not only for socioeconomic status differences between families of origin, but also political-geo-
graphic distinctions, age, gender, race/ethnicity, and the experience of having been bullied (which was reported by 53% of
LMs but only 35% of IBFs).
To be sure, those NFSS respondents who reported that a parent of theirs had had a romantic relationship with a member
of the same sex are a very diverse group: some experienced numerous household transitions, and some did not. Some of their
parents may have remained in a same-sex relationship, while others did not. Some may self-identify as lesbian or gay, while
others may not. I did not explore in detail the diversity of household experiences here, given the overview nature of this
study. But the richness of the NFSSwhich has annual calendar data for household transitions from birth to age 18 and from
age 18 to the presentallows for closer examination of many of these questions.
Nevertheless, to claim that there are few meaningful statistical differences between the different groups evaluated here
would be to state something that is empirically inaccurate. Minimally, the population-based estimates presented here sug-
gest that a good deal more attention must be paid to the real diversity among gay and lesbian parent experiences in America,
just as it long has been among heterosexual households. Child outcomes in stable, planned GLB families and those that are
the product of previous heterosexual unions are quite likely distinctive, as previous studies conclusions would suggest. Yet
as demographers of gay and lesbian America continue to noteand as the NFSS reinforcesplanned GLB households only
comprise a portion (and an unknown one at that) of all GLB households with children.
Even if the children in planned GLB families exhibit better outcomes than those from failed heterosexual unions, the for-
mer still exhibits a diminished context of kin altruism (like adoption, step-parenting, or nonmarital childbirth), which have
typically proven to be a risk setting, on average, for raising children when compared with married, biological parenting (Mill-
er et al., 2000). In short, if same-sex parents are able to raise children with no differences, despite the kin distinctions, it
would mean that same-sex couples are able to do something that heterosexual couples in step-parenting, adoptive, and
cohabiting contexts have themselves not been able to doreplicate the optimal childrearing environment of married, bio-
logical-parent homes (Moore et al., 2002). And studies focusing on parental roles or household divisions of labor in planned
GLB families will fail to revealbecause they have not measured ithow their children fare as adults.
The between-group comparisons described above also suggest that those respondents with a lesbian mother and those
with a gay father do not always exhibit comparable outcomes in young adulthood. While the sample size of gay fathers
in the NFSS was modest, any monolithic ideas about same-sex parenting experiences in general are not supported by these
analyses.
Although the NFSS offers strong support for the notion that there are signicant differences among young adults that cor-
respond closely to the parental behavior, family structures, and household experiences during their youth, I have not and will
not speculate here on causality, in part because the data are not optimally designed to do so, and because the causal
reckoning for so many different types of outcomes is well beyond what an overview manuscript like this one could ever pur-
port to accomplish. Focused (and more complex) analyses of unique outcomes, drawing upon idiosyncratic, domain-specic
conceptual models, is recommended for scholars who wish to more closely assess the functions that the number, gender, and
sexual decision-making of parents may play in young adults lives. I am thus not suggesting that growing up with a lesbian
mother or gay father causes suboptimal outcomes because of the sexual orientation or sexual behavior of the parent; rather,
my point is more modest: the groups display numerous, notable distinctions, especially when compared with young adults
whose biological mother and father remain married.
There is more that this article does not accomplish, including closer examinations of subpopulations, consideration
of more outcomes and comparisons between other groups, and stronger tests of statistical signicancesuch as multiple
regression with more numerous independent variables, or propensity score matching. That is what the NFSS is designed
to foster. This article serves as a call for such study, as well as an introduction to the data and to its sampling and measure-
ment strengths and abilities. Future studies would optimally include a more signicant share of children from planned gay
families, although their relative scarcity in the NFSS suggests that their appearance in even much larger probability samples
will remain infrequent for the foreseeable future. The NFSS, despite signicant efforts to randomly over-sample such popu-
lations, nevertheless was more apt to survey children whose parents exhibited gay and lesbian relationship behavior after
being in a heterosexual union. This pattern may remain more common today than many scholars suppose.
5. Conclusion
As scholars of same-sex parenting aptly note, same-sex couples have and will continue to raise children. American courts
are nding arguments against gay marriage decreasingly persuasive (Rosenfeld, 2007). This study is intended to neither
undermine nor afrm any legal rights concerning such. The tenor of the last 10 years of academic discourse about gay
and lesbian parents suggests that there is little to nothing about them that might be negatively associated with child devel-
opment, and a variety of things that might be uniquely positive. The results of analyzing a rare large probability sample re-
ported herein, however, document numerous, consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian
behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18. While previous studies suggest that children in
planned GLB families seem to fare comparatively well, their actual representativeness among all GLB families in the US
may be more modest than research based on convenience samples has presumed.
Although the ndings reported herein may be explicable in part by a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child
development in lesbian and gay familiesincluding a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from per-
sistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for their parental and romantic relationship statusesthe empirical claim
that no notable differences exist must go. While it is certainly accurate to afrm that sexual orientation or parental sexual
behavior need have nothing to do with the ability to be a good, effective parent, the data evaluated herein using population-
based estimates drawn froma large, nationally-representative sample of young Americans suggest that it may affect the real-
ity of family experiences among a signicant number.
Do children need a married mother and father to turn out well as adults? No, if we observe the many anecdotal accounts
with which all Americans are familiar. Moreover, there are many cases in the NFSS where respondents have proven resilient
and prevailed as adults in spite of numerous transitions, be they death, divorce, additional or diverse romantic partners, or
remarriage. But the NFSS also clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adultson multiple counts and
across a variety of domainswhen they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially
when the parents remain married to the present day. Insofar as the share of intact, biological mother/father families contin-
ues to shrink in the United States, as it has, this portends growing challenges within families, but also heightened depen-
dence on public health organizations, federal and state public assistance, psychotherapeutic resources, substance use
programs, and the criminal justice system.
Appendix A. Comparison of weighted NFSS results with parallel national survey results on selected demographic and
lifestyle variables, US adults (in percentages)
NFSS 2011,
N = 941
(1823)
NSYR
20072008,
N = 2520
(1823)
NFSS 2011,
N = 1123
(2432)
Add Health
20072008,
N = 15,701
(2432)
NFSS 2011,
N = 2988
(1839)
NSFG
20062010,
N = 16,851
(1839)
CPS ASEC
2011,
N = 58,788
(1839)
Gender
Male 52.6 48.3 47.3 50.6 49.4 49.8 50.4
Female 47.4 51.7 52.8 49.4 50.6 50.2 49.6
Appendix A (continued)
NFSS 2011,
N = 941
(1823)
NSYR
20072008,
N = 2520
(1823)
NFSS 2011,
N = 1123
(2432)
Add Health
20072008,
N = 15,701
(2432)
NFSS 2011,
N = 2988
(1839)
NSFG
20062010,
N = 16,851
(1839)
CPS ASEC
2011,
N = 58,788
(1839)
Age
1823 28.9 28.6 28.2
2432 41.2 40.6 42.1
3339 29.9 30.9 29.8
Race/ethnicity
White, NH 54.2 68.3 60.2 69.2 57.7 61.6 59.6
Black, NH 11.0 15.0 13.0 15.9 12.6 13.3 13.2
Hispanic 24.9 11.2 20.7 10.8 20.8 18.6 19.5
Other (or multiple),
NH
10.0 5.5 6.2 4.2 8.9 6.5 7.8
Region
Northeast 18.9 11.8 16.5 17.6 17.5
Midwest 18.7 25.6 23.3 21.1 21.2
South 34.3 39.1 39.6 36.7 37.0
West 28.2 23.5 20.6 24.6 24.4
Mothers education
(BA or above)
28.4 33.3 24.6 21.9 25.3 22.2
Respondents education
(BA or above)
5.3 3.8 33.7 30.0 26.5 24.2
Household income
(current)
Under $10,000 21.0 9.7 5.6 11.9 9.5 5.7
$10,00019,999 13.3 9.1 6.9 9.2 13.1 7.4
$20,00029,999 11.6 10.3 10.1 10.5 13.5 9.5
$30,00039,999 8.0 11.0 11.1 9.6 13.4 9.4
$40,00049,999 6.5 12.8 11.8 9.9 8.5 9.1
$50,00074,999 14.9 22.3 24.3 19.2 19.5 20.3
$75,000 or more 24.7 24.9 30.2 29.8 22.7 38.6
Ever had sex 66.5 75.6 90.6 93.9 85.6 91.2
Never been married 89.3 92.8 45.7 50.0 51.7 52.3 54.4
Currently married 8.0 6.9 44.9 44.6 40.6 39.2 37.9
Church attendance
Once a week or more 18.4 20.2 22.1 16.0 22.3 26.2
Never 32.3 35.6 31.2 32.1 31.7 25.8
Not religious 21.1 24.7 22.5 20.2 22.0 21.7
Self-reported health
Poor 1.8 1.5 1.0 1.2 1.5 0.7
Fair 8.4 9.2 11.0 7.9 10.7 5.3
Good 28.7 26.7 37.6 33.5 33.9 24.9
Very Good 39.6 37.5 35.7 38.2 37.3 40.9
Excellent 21.5 25.2 14.8 19.1 16.7 28.3
Never drinks alcohol 30.5 21.9 22.4 26.1 25.4 18.7
Appendix B. Construction of outcome indexes
B.1. CES-D (depression) index (8 items, a = 0.87)
Respondents were asked to think about the past 7 days, and assess howoften each of the following things were true about
them. Answer categories ranged from never or rarely (0) to most of the time or all of the time (3). Some items were re-
verse-coded for the index variable (e.g., You felt happy.):
1. You were bothered by things that usually do not bother you.
2. You could not shake off the blues, even with help from your family and your friends.
3. You felt you were just as good as other people.
4. You had trouble keeping your mind on what you were doing.
5. You felt depressed.
6. You felt happy.
7. You enjoyed life.
8. You felt sad.
B.2. Current romantic relationship quality (6 items, a = 0.96)
Respondents were asked to assess their current romantic relationship. Answer categories ranged from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (5):
1. We have a good relationship.
2. My relationship with my partner is very healthy.
3. Our relationship is strong.
4. My relationship with my partner makes me happy.
5. I really feel like part of a team with my partner.
6. Our relationship is pretty much perfect.
B.3. Family-of-origin relationship safety/security (4 items, a = 0.90)
Respondents were asked to evaluate the overall atmosphere in their family while growing up by responding to four state-
ments whose answer categories ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5):
1. My family relationships were safe, secure, and a source of comfort.
2. We had a loving atmosphere in our family.
3. All things considered, my childhood years were happy.
4. My family relationships were confusing, inconsistent, and unpredictable.
B.4. Family-of-origin negative impact (3 items, a = 0.74)
Respondents were asked to evaluate the present-day impact of their family-of-origin experiences by responding to three
statements whose answer categories ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5):
1. There are matters from my family experience that I am still having trouble dealing with or coming to terms with.
2. There are matters from my family experience that negatively affect my ability to form close relationships.
3. I feel at peace about anything negative that happened to me in the family in which I grew up.
B.5. Impulsivity (4 items, a = 0.76)
Respondents were asked to respond to four statements about their decision-making, especially as it concerns risk-taking
and new experiences. Answer categories ranged from 1 (never or rarely) to 4 (most or all of the time):
1. When making a decision, I go with my gut feeling and do not think much about the consequences of each
alternative.
2. I like new and exciting experiences, even if I have to break the rules.
3. I am an impulsive person.
4. I like to take risks.
B.6. Closeness to biological mother and father (6 items, a = 0.89 and 0.92)
Respondents were asked to evaluate their current relationship with up to four parent gureswho they reported living
with for at least 3 years when they were 018 years oldby reporting the frequency of six parentchild interactions. For each
parent gure, these six items were coded and summed into a parental closeness index. From these, I derived indices of close-
ness to the respondents biological mother and biological father. Response categories ranged from never (1) to always (5):
1. How often do you talk openly with your parent about things that are important to you?
2. How often does your parent really listen to you when you want to talk?
3. How often does your parent explicitly express affection or love for you?
4. Would your parent help you if you had a problem?
5. If you needed money, would you ask your parent for it?
6. How often is your parent interested in the things you do?
B.7. Attachment (depend, 6 items, a = 0.80; anxiety, 6 items, a = 0.82)
For a pair of attachment measures, respondents were asked to rate their general feelings about romantic relationships,
both past and present, in response to 12 items. Response categories ranged from not at all characteristic of me (1) to very
characteristic of me (5). Items 16 were coded and summed into a depend scale, with higher scores denoting greater com-
fort with depending upon others. Items 712 were coded and summed into an anxiety scale, with higher scores denoting
greater anxiety in close relationships, in keeping with the original Adult Attachment Scale developed by Collins and Read
(1990). The measures employed were:
1. I nd it difcult to allow myself to depend on others.
2. I am comfortable depending on others.
3. I nd that people are never there when you need them.
4. I know that people will be there when I need them.
5. I nd it difcult to trust others completely.
6. I am not sure that I can always depend on others to be there when I need them.
7. I do not worry about being abandoned.
8. In relationships, I often worry that my partner does not really love me.
9. I nd that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.
10. In relationships, I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me.
11. I want to merge completely with another person.
12. My desire to merge sometimes scares people away.
References
Anderssen, Norman, Amlie, Christine, Erling, Ytteroy A., 2002. Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 43 (4), 335351.
Balsam, Kimberly F., Beauchaine, Theodore P., Rothblum, Esther D., Solomon, Sondra E., 2008. Three-year follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil
unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples. Developmental Psychology 44, 102116.
Baumle, Amanda K., Compton, DLane R., Poston Jr., Dudley L., 2009. Same-Sex Partners: The Demography of Sexual Orientation. SUNY Press, Albany, NY.
Berg, Sven, 1988. Snowball sampling. In: Kotz, Samuel, Johnson, Norman L. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, vol. 8. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Biblarz, Timothy J., Raftery, Adrian E., 1999. Family structure, educational attainment, and socioeconomic success: rethinking the pathology of matriarchy.
American Journal of Sociology 105, 321365.
Biblarz, Timothy J., Stacey, Judith, 2010. How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family 72 (1), 322.
Bos, Henny M.W., Sandfort, Theo G.M., 2010. Childrens gender identity in lesbian and heterosexual two-parent families. Sex Roles 62, 114126.
Bos, Henny M.W., van Balen, Frank, van den Boom, Dymphna C., 2007. Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian parent families. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry 77, 3848.
Brewaeys, Anne, Ponjaert, Ingrid, Van Hall, Eylard V., Golombok, Susan, 1997. Donor insemination: child development and family functioning in lesbian
mother families. Human Reproduction 12, 13491359.
Brown, Susan L., 2004. Family structure and child well-being: the signicance of parental cohabitation. Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (2), 351367.
Busby, Dean M., Holman, Thomas B., Taniguchi, Narumi, 2001. RELATE: relationship evaluation of the individual, family, cultural, and couple contexts.
Family Relations 50, 308316.
Collins, Nancy L., Read, Stephen J., 1990. Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 58, 644663.
Crowl, Alicia L., Ahn, Soyeon, Baker, Jean, 2008. A meta-analysis of developmental outcomes for children of same-sex and heterosexual parents. Journal of
GLBT Family Sciences 4 (3), 385407.
Finer, Lawrence B., Henshaw, Stanley K., 2006. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and
Reproductive Health 38, 9096.
Fulcher, Megan, Sutn, Erin L., Patterson, Charlotte J., 2008. Individual differences in gender development: associations with parental sexual orientation,
attitudes, and division of labor. Sex Roles 57, 330341.
Gartrell, Nanette K., Bos, Henny M.W., 2010. US national longitudinal lesbian family study: psychological adjustment of 17-year-old adolescents. Pediatrics
126 (1), 111.
Gartrell, Nanette K., Bos, Henny M.W., Goldberg, Naomi G., 2011a. Adolescents of the U.S. national longitudinal lesbian family study: sexual orientation,
sexual behavior, and sexual risk exposure. Archives of Sexual Behavior 40, 11991209.
Gartrell, Nanette K., Bos, Henny M.W., Goldberg, Naomi G., 2011b. New trends in same-sex sexual contact for American adolescents? Archives of Sexual
Behavior. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9883-5.
Gates, Gary J., 2011. Family formation and raising children among same-sex couples. NCFR Report 56 (4), F1F3.
Gates, Gary J., Ost, Jason, 2004. The Gay and Lesbian Atlas. The Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC.
Goldberg, Abbie E., 2010. Lesbian and Gay parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle. APA Books, Washington, DC.
Golombok, Susan, Perry, Beth, Burston, Amanda, Murray, Clare, Mooney-Somers, Julie, Stevens, Madeleine, Golding, Jean, 2003. Children with lesbian
parents: a community study. Developmental Psychology 39, 2033.
Golombok, Susan., Tasker, Fiona., Murray, Clare., 1997. Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: family relationships and the socioemotional
development of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 38, 783792.
Hatzenbuehler, Mark L., Keyes, Katherine M., Hasin, Deborah S., 2009. State-level policies and psychiatric morbidity in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
populations. American Journal of Public Health 99 (12), 22752281.
Herbenick, Debby, Reece, Michael, Schick, Vanessa, Sanders, Stephanie A., Dodge, Brian, Fortenberry, J.Dennis, 2010. Sexual behavior in the United States:
results from a national probability sample of men and women ages 1494. Journal of Sexual Medicine 7 (Suppl. 5), 255265.
Hufngton Post: Healthy Living, 2011. Child Abuse Rate at Zero Percent in Lesbian Households, New Report Finds. The Hufngton Post. <http://
www.hufngtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html> (accessed 01.13.12).
Times Research Reporting, 2012. Interactive: Gay Marriage Chronology. Los Angeles Times. <http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-gmtimeline-
,0,5345296.htmlstory> (accessed 01.03.12).
MacCallum, Fiona, Golombok, Susan, 2004. Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual
mothers at early adolescence. Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry 45, 14071419.
Manning, Wendy D., Smock, Pamela J., Majumdar, Debarun, 2004. The relative stability of cohabiting and marital unions for children. Population Research
and Policy Review 23, 135159.
McLanahan, Sara, Sandefur, Gary, 1994. Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Miller, Brent C., Fan, Xitao, Christensen, Matthew, Grotevant, Harold, van Dulmen, Manfred, 2000. Comparisons of adopted and nonadopted adolescents in a
large, nationally representative sample. Child Development 71 (5), 14581473.
Moore, Kristin Anderson, Jekielek, Susan M., Emig, Carol, 2002. Marriage from a Childs Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What
Can We Do About It? Child Trends Research Brief, Child Trends, Washington, DC.
Movement Advancement Project, Family Equality Council and Center for American Progress, 2011. All Children Matter: How Legal and Social Inequalities
Hurt LGBT Families, Full Report.
National Center for Family and Marriage Research, 2010. Same-Sex Couple Households in the US, 2009. Family Proles, FP-10-08.
Nock, Steven L., 2001. Afdavit of Steven Nock. Halpern et al. v. Canada and MCCT v. Canada. ON S.C.D.C. <http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/Law/cases/Canada/
ontario/halpern/aff_nock.pdf> (accessed 12.20.11).
Patterson, Charlotte J., 1997. Children of lesbian and gay parents. In: Ollendick, Thomas H., Prinz, Ronald J. (Eds.), Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, vol.
19. Plenum, New York.
Patterson, Charlotte J., 2000. Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62, 10521069.
Patterson, Charlotte J., 2006. Children of lesbian and gay parents. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15 (5), 241244.
Perrin, Ellen C., Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2002. Technical report: coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex
partners. Pediatrics 109, 341344.
Redding, Richard R., 2008. Its really about sex: same-sex marriage, lesbigay parenting, and the psychology of disgust. Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy
16, 127193.
Resnick, Michael D., Bearman, Peter S., Blum, Robert W., Bauman, Karl E., Harris, Kathleen M., Jones, Jo, Tabor, Joyce, Beuhring, Trish, Sieving, Renee E., Shew,
Marcia, Ireland, Marjorie, Bearinger, Linda H., Udry, J.R., 1997. Protecting adolescents from harm: ndings from the national longitudinal study on
adolescent health. Journal of the American Medical Association 278 (10), 823832.
Rosenfeld, Michael, 2007. The Age of Independence: Interracial Unions, Same-Sex Unions and the Changing American Family. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Rosenfeld, Michael J., 2010. Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school. Demography 47, 755775.
Rostosky, Sharon Scales, Riggle, Ellen D.B., Horne, Sharon G., Miller, Angela D., 2009. Marriage amendments and psychological distress in lesbian, gay, and
bisexual (LGB) adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology 56 (1), 5666.
Sirota, Theodora, 2009. Adult attachment style dimensions in women who have gay or bisexual fathers. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 23 (4), 289297.
Snijders, Tom A.B., 1992. Estimation on the basis of snowball samples: how to weight? Bulletin de Mthodologie Sociologique 36, 5970.
Stacey, Judith, Biblarz, Timothy J., 2001a. (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review 66 (2), 159183.
Stacey, Judith, Biblarz, Timothy, 2001b. Afdavit of Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz. Halpern et al. v. Canada and MCCT v. Canada. ON S.C.D.C. <http://
www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/stacey_biblarz.pdf> (accessed 12.20.11).
Tasker, Fiona, 2005. Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: a review. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 26 (3), 224240.
Tasker, Fiona, 2010. Same-sex parenting and child development: reviewing the contribution of parental gender. Journal of Marriage and Family 72, 3540.
Tasker, Fiona L., Golombok, Susan, 1997. Growing Up in a Lesbian Family. Guilford, New York.
Vanfraussen, Katrien, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, Ingrid, Brewaeys, Anne, 2003. Family functioning in lesbian families created by donor insemination. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry 73 (1), 7890.
Veldorale-Brogan, Amanda, Cooley, Morgan, 2011. Child outcomes for children with LGBT parents. NCFR Report 56 (4), F15F16.
Wainright, Jennifer L., Patterson, Charlotte J., 2006. Delinquency, victimization, and substance use among adolescents with female same-sex parents. Journal
of Family Psychology 20 (3), 526530.
Wainright, Jennifer L., Russell, Stephen T., Patterson, Charlotte J., 2004. Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents
with same-sex parents. Child Development 75 (6), 18861898.

EXHIBIT 65
Social Science Research 41 (2012) 735- 751
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Social Science Research
ELSEVIER
j o u rna I h omep age: www. e I sevier . c om/locate/ssresea rc h
Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of
the American psychological association' s brief on lesbian and gay parenting
Loren Marks *
Louisiana State University. 341 School of Human Ecology. Baton Rouge. LA 70803. United States
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received 3 October 2011
Revised 8 March 2012
Accepted 12 March 2012
Keywords:
Samesex parenting
Lesbian
Gay
1. Introduction
ABSTRACT
In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian
and gay parenting. This brief included the assertion: "Not a single study has found children
of lesbian or gay parents to be clisadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children
of heterosexual parents" (p. 15). The present article closely examines thi s assertion and t he
59 published studies cited by the APA to support it. Seven central questions address: ( 1)
homogeneous sampling, (2) absence of comparison groups, (3) comparison group charac-
teristics, (4) contradictory data, (5) the limited scope of children's outcomes studied, ( 6)
paucity of long-term outcome data. and (7) lack of APA-urged statistical power. The conclu-
sion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically war-
rant ed. Recommendations for future research are offered.
Over the past few decades, differences have been observed between outcomes of children in marriage- based intact fam-
ilies and children in cohabiting, divorced, step, and single-parent families in large, representative samples.
1
Based on four
nationally representative longitudinal studies with more than 20,000 total participants. McLanahan and Sandefur concl ude:
Children who grow up in a ilouseilold with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a
ilousellold with both of their biological parents . . . regardless of wile tiler tile resident parent remarries?
Differences have recurred in connection with myriad issues of societal-level concern including: (a) health,
3
mortality,
4
and
suicide risks,
5
(b) drug and alcohol abuse.
6
(c) criminality and incarceration,
7
(d) intergenerational poverty,
8
(e) education and/
or labor force contribution,
9
(f) early sexual activity and early childbearimg,
10
and (g) divorce rates as adults.
11
These outcomes
represent important impact variables that influence the well-being of children and famil ies, as well as the national economy.
* Fax: +1 225 578 2697.
Email address: lorenm@lsu.edu
1
See Table 2: Mclanahan and Sandefur (1994) and Wi'lcox et al. (2005).
2
Mclanahan and Sandefur (1994), p. 1 (emphasis in original).
3
Wai te ( 1995).
4
Gaudino et al. (1999) and Siegel et al. (1996).
5
Wilcox et al. (2005. p. 28) and Cutler eta!. (2000).
6
Bachman et al. (1997). Flewelling and Bauman ( 1990), Horwitz eta!. (1996),johnson et a!. (1996). Simon (2002), Waite and Gallagher (2000). Wei toft et al.
(2003), and Wi lcox et al. (2005).
7
Blackmon et al. {2005). Harper and McLanahan (2004). Kamark and Galston (1990, pp. 14-15). Manning and Lamb (2003). and Margolin (1992, p. 546).
8
Akerlof (1998), Blackmon et al. (2005). Brown (2004). Oliver and Shapiro ( 1997). Rank and Hirschi ( 1999).
9
Amato (2005), Battle (1998), Cherl in eta!. (1998), Heiss (1996), lansford (2009), Manni ng and lamb (2003), Mclanahan and Sandefur (1994), Phillips and
Asbury ( 1993), and Teachman et a!. ( 1998).
10
Amato (2005), Amato and Booth (2000), Ellis et al. (2003), and Mclanahan and Sandefur ( 1994).
11
Cherlin et al. ( 1995) and Wolfinger (2005).
0049-089X/$- see front matter 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights rese1ved.
http:/fdx.doi.org/1 0.1 016/j .ssresearch.2012.03.006
736 L Marks/Social Science Research 41 (2012) 735-751
By way of comparison, social science research with small convenience samples has repeatedly reported no significant dif-
ferences between children from gay/lesbian households and heterosexual households. These recurring findings of no signif-
icant differences have led some researchers and professional organizations to formalize related claims. Perhaps none of these
claims has been more influential than the following from the 2005 American Psychological Association (APA) Brief on "Les-
bian and Gay Parenting".12.
13
Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to
children of heterosexual parents.
Are we witnessing the emergence of a new family form that provides a context for children that is equivalent to the t ra-
ditional marriage-based family? Many proponents of same-sex marriage contend that the answer is yes. Others are
and wonder-given that other departures from the traditional marriage-based family form have been correlated with more
negative long-term child outcomes-do children in same-sex families demonstrably avoid being "disadvantaged in any sig-
nificant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents" as the APA Brief asserts? This is a quest ion with important
implications, particularly since the 2005 APA Brief on "Lesbian and Gay Parenting" has been repeatedly invoked in the cur-
rent same-sex marriage debate.
2. Statement of purpose
The overarching question of this paper is: Are the conclusions pres en ted in the 2005 APA Brief on "Lesbian and Gay Parenting"
valid and precise, based on the cited scientific evidence?
14
In the present paper, seven questions relating to the cited scientific
evidence are posed, examined, and addressed.
15
Two portions of the APA Brief are of particular concern to us in connection with these questions: (a) the "Summary of
Research Findings" (pp. 5-22), and (b) the first and largest section of the annotated bib[iography, entitled "Empirical Studies
Specifically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children" (pp. 23-45). In the latter section (pp. 23-45), the APA
references 67 manuscripts. Eight of these studies are "unpublished dissertations".
16
The 59 published studies are listed in
Table 1 of this paper, providing clear parameters from which to formulate responses to the seven outlined questions, nextt.
2.1. Question 1: how representative and culturally, ethnically, and economically diverse were the gayjlesbia n households in t11e
published literature behind the APA brief?
In response to question 1, more than three-fourths (77%) of the studies cited by the APA brief are based on small, non-
representative, convenience samples of fewer than 100 participants. Many of the non-representative samples contain far
fewer than 100 participants, including one study with five participants (Wright, 1998; see Table 1 ). As Strasser (2008) notes:
Members of the LGBT community ... vary greatly in their attitudes and practices. For this reason, it would be misleading to
cite a st udy of gay men in urban southern California as if they would represent gay men nationally (p. 37).
By extension. it seems that influential clai ms by national organizations should be based, at least partly, on research that is
nationally representative.
Lack of representativeness often entails lack of diversity as well.
17
A closer examination of the APA-cited literature from the
"Empirical Studies" (pp. 23- 45) section of the APA Brief reveals a tendency towards not only non-representative but racially
homogeneous samples. For example:
12
The APA Brief's stated objective was primarily to influence family law. The preface states that "the focus of the publication .. . (is( to se!Ve the needs of
psychologists. lawyers, and parties in family law cases .... Although comprehensive, the research summary is focused on those issues that often arise in family
law cases involving lesbian mothers or gay fathers" (APA Brief, 2005, p. 3). Redding (2008) reports that "leading professional organizations including the
American Psychological Association" have issued statements and that "advocates have used these research conclusions to bolster support for lesbigay parenting
and marriage rights. and the resear ch is now frequently cited in public policy debates and judicial opinions" (p. 136).
13
Patterson. p. 15 (from APA Brief. 2005).
14
Kuhn ( 1970/1996) has stated that there is an "insufficiency of methodological directives, by themselves, to dictate a unique substantive conclusion to many
sorts of scient ific questions" (p. 3). To draw substantive conclusions. a socially and historically influenced paradigm is needed. Researc h is then "directed to the
articulation of those phenomena a nd theories that the paradigm already supplies" (p. 24). Indeed. paradigmatic biases. and other influences. can make us
vulnerable to "discrepancies between warranted and stated conclusions in the social sciences" (Glenn. 1989, :p. 119; see also Glenn, 1997).
15
Kuhn ( 1970/1996) has noted that "when scientists disagree about whether the fundamental problems of their field have been solved, the search for rules
gains a function that it does not ordinarily possess" (p. 48).
16
These unpublished dissertations includetland (1991 ). McPherson ( 1993). Osterweil (1 991 ). Paul (1986), Puryear (1983). Rees ( 1979), Sbordone (1993), and
Steckel (1985). An adapted portion of one of these dissertations (Steckel, 1985) was eventually published ( Steckel, 1987) and is included in the present
examination; the other unpublished work is not included in Table 1 of this paper.
17
Of the 59 published "Empirical Studies Specifically Re lated to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children", no studies mention African-American. Hispanic.
or Asian-American families in either their titles or subtitles. The reference list in the APA Brief's "Summary of Research Findings" (pp. 15- 22) is also void of any
studies focusing on African-American. Hispanic. or Asian- American families. None of the "Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and
Their Children" (pp. 23- 45) holds. as its focus. any of these minorities. (Note: Three years after the 2005 APA Brief. Moore (2008) published a small but
pioneering study on African-American lesbians.)
L Marks/Soda/ Science Researc/1 41 (2012) 735-751 737
Table 1
Publications Ci red in APA brief on lesbian and gay parenting (pp. 23-45 ).
Author and year GayLes N Hetero N Stat used Cohen Stat Outcome studied Hetero compar
N power group
Bai ley et al. (1995) 55par; 82chl 0 T-test/Chi 393 N/A Sexual orientation None
Barrett and Tasker 101 0 T-test/Chi 393 N/A Child responses to a gay parent None
(2001 )
Bigner and jacobsen 33 33 T-rest 393 No Parents reports of values of Fathers
childrPn
Bigner and jacobsen 33 33 T-rest 393 No Parent reports of parent behavior Fathers
( 1989b)
Bas et al. (2003) 100 100 MAN OVA 393 No Parental motives and desires Families
Bos et al. (2004) 100 100 MANOVA 393 No Parent reports of couple Families
relations
Bozett (1980) 18 0 Qualitative N/A N/A Father disclosure of None
homosexuality
Brewaeys et al. ( 1997) 30 68 ANOVA 393 No Emotional/ gender development Dlj Non- DI
Couples
Chan et al. ( 1998a) 30 16 Various 393 No Division of labor/child Dl Couples
adjustment
Chan er al. ( 1998b) 55 25 Various 393 Reported Psychosocial adj ustment Dl Couples
Ciano- Boyce and 67 44 ANOVA 393 No Division of child care Adoptive Parents
Shelley-Sireci (2002)
Crawford et al. ( 1999) 0 0 MAN OVA 393 N/A 388 Psychologists' attitudes N/A
Flaks et al. (1995) 15 15 MANOVA 393 No Cognitive/behavioral/parenting Married Couples
Fulcher et al. (2002) 55 25 T-test/Chi 393 Reported Dl/adult-child relationshi ps Parents
Gartrell et al. ( 1996) 154 0 Descri pt. N/A N/A Prospective Parent Reports None
Gartrell et al. ( 1999) 156 0 Descript. N/A N/A Reports on parenting issues None
Gartrell et al. (2000) 150 0 De script. N/A N/A Reports on parenting issues None
Gartrell et al. (2005) 74 0 Descript. N/A N/A Healt h, school/education None
Gershon et al. ( 1999) 76 0 Reg. 390 N/A Adolescent coping None
Golombok et al. ( 1983) 27 27 T-testj Chi 393 No Psychosexual development Single mother
families
Golombok et al. (2003) 39 134 Various 393 No Socioemoti onal dev.f relations Couples &
singles
Golombok and Rust N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Rel iability testing of a pre-school
( 1993) gender inventory
Golombok and Tasker 25 21 Pearson 783 Reported Sexual orientation Children of
( 1996) si ngle mothers
Golombok et al. ( 1997) 30 83 MAN OVA 393 No. Parent-child interactions Couples &
si ngles
Green ( 1978) 37 0 Descript. N/A N/A Sexual identity None
Green et al. ( 1986) 50par: 56chl 40par: 48chl Various 390 No Sexual ide11tityfsocial relations Single mothers
Harris and Turner 23 16 ANOVA/Chi 393 No Sex roles/relationshi p wi th child Single moth. &
( 1986) fath.
Hoeffer (1981) 20 20 ANOVA 393 No Sex-role behavior Single mothers
Huggins ( 1989) 18 18 T-rest 393 No Self-esteem of adolescent Divorced
children mothers
johnson and O'Connor 415 0 Various N/A No Parenting bel iefs/division of None
(2002) labor fete.
King and Black ( 1999) N/A N/A F 393 N/A 338 College students' N/A
perceptions
Kirkpatrick et al. (1981) 20 20 Descript. N/A No Gender development Single mothers
Koepke et al. ( 1992) 47 couples 0 MAN OVA N/A N/A Relat ionshi p quality None
Kweskin and Cook, 1982 22 22 Chi-Sqr 785 No Sex-role behavior Single mothers
Lewis, 1980 21 0 Qualitative N/A NfA Child response to m. disclosure None
Lott-Whitehead and 45 0 Descriptive N/A N/A Adult reports of impacts on None
Tully, 1993 children
Lyons. 1983 43 37 Descriptive N/A No Adult self-reports Divorced
mothers
McLeod et al .. 1999 0 0 Muir. regr. N/A No 151 College student reports N/A
Miller. 1979 54 0 Qualitative N/A N/A Father behavior & f-chi ld bond None
Miller et al. , 1981 34 47 Chi-Sqr 785 No Mother role/ home environment Mothers
Morris et al., 2002 2431 0 MANCOVA N/A N/A Adult reports on "coming out" None
Mucklow and Phelan, 34 47 Chi-Sqr 785 No Behavior and self- concept Married mothers
1979
O'Connell, 1 !)')3 11 0 Qualitative N/A N/A Social and sexual identity None
Pagelow, 1980 20 23 Qualj Descr. N/A N/A Problems and coping Single mothers
Patterson (1994) 66 0 T-rest 393 No Social/ behavioral/sexual identity Available norms
Patterson {1995) 52 0 T-test/Chi/ F 393 No Division of labor/child None
adjustment
(continued on next page)
Table 1 ( continued)
Author and year Gayl es N Hetero N Stat used Cohen Stat Outcome studied Hetero compar
N power group
Patterson (2001 ) 66 0 Various 393 No Maternal mental health/child None
adjustment
Patterson et al., 1998 66 0 Various 393 No Contact wj grandparents & adults None
Rand et aL ( 1982) 25 0 Correlations 783 No Mothers psychological heal th None
Sarantakos. 1996 58 116 F-test 393 N/A Children's educational / social Married/ non-
outcomes married
Siegenthaler and Bigner. 25 26 T-rest 393 No Mothers' value of chi ldren Mothers
2000
Steckel (1987) (Review) N/ A N/A N/A No Psychosocial development of None
chi ldren
Sullivan. 1996 34 couples 0 Qualitative N/A N/A Division of labor None
Tasker and Golombok, 25 21 Pearson/T 783 No Psychosocial/sexual orientation Single mot hers
1995
Tasker and Golombok 27 27 Various 393 Reported Psychological outcomes/ fami ly Single mothers
( 1997) rei.
Tasker and Golombok 15 84 ANCOVA/ 785 N/A Work and family life Dl & NC couples
( 1998) Chi
Vanfraussen et al. 24 24 ANOVA 393 No Donor insemination/family Famil ies
(2003) funct.
Wainwright et al. (2004) 44 44 Various 393 No Psychosocial j school j romantic Couples
Wright ( 1998) 5 0 Qualitative N/A N/A Family issues/ processes/ None
meaning
N/A =Not appl icable (e.g., In connection wi th statistical power, qualitative studies and studies without heterosexual comparison groups are coded as N/A).
1. "AU of [the fathers in the sample] were Caucasian" (Bozett, 1980, p. 173).
2. "Sixty parents, all of whom were White" comprised the sample (Flaks et al., 1995, p. 107).
3. "(All40) mothers ... were white" (Hoeffer, 1981, p. 537).
4. "All the children, mothers, and fathers in the sample were Caucasian" (Huggins, 1989, p. 126).
5. "The 25 women were all white" (Rand et al., 1982, p. 29).
6. "All of the women . . . (were] Caucasian" (Siegenthaler and Signer, 2000, p. 82).
7. "All of the birth mothers and co-mothers were white" (Tasker and Go lombok, 1998, p. 52).
8. "All (48] parents were Caucasian" (Vanfraussen et al., 2003, p. 81 ).
Many of the other studies do not explicitly acknowledge all-White samples, but als.o do not mention or identify a single
minority p-articipant-while a dozen others report "almost" all-white samples.
18
Same-sex family researchers Lott-Whitehead
and Tully (1993) cautiously added in the discussion of their APA Brief-cited study:
Results from this study must be interpreted cautiously due to several factors. First, the study sample was small (N = 45)
and biased toward well -educated, white women with high incomes. These factors have plagued other [same-sex parent-
ing] studies, and remain a concern of researchers in this field (p. 275).
Similarly, in connection with this bias, Patterson (1992), who would later serve as sole author of the 2005 APA Briefs
"Summary of Research Findings on Lesbian and Gay Families", reported
19
:
Despite the diversity of gay and lesbian communities, both in the United States and abroad, samples of children [and par-
ents] have been relatively homogeneous .... Samples for which demographic information was reported have been
described as predominantly Caucasian, well-educated, and middle to upper class.
In spite of the privileged and homogeneous nature of the non-representative samples employed in the studies at that
time, Patterson's (1992) conclusion was as follows
20
:
Despite shortcomings [in the studies], however, results of existing research comparing children of gay or lesbian parents
with those of heterosexlllal parents are extraordinarily clear. and they merit attention ... There is no evidence to suggest
that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that
among offspring of heterosexual parents.
18
Examples of explicit or i mplicitly all-White (or nearly all-White) samples include. but are not limited to: Bigner anc!Jacobsen (1989a.b). Bozert (1980). Flaks
etal. ( 1995). Green (1978). Green eta I. (1986). Hoeffer (1981 ). Huggins (1989). Koepke et al. ( 1992). Rand et al. ( 1982). Siegenthaler and Signer (2000). Tasker
and Golombok ( 1995, 1998). Vanfraussen et al. (2003).
19
Patterson (1992, p. 1029).
20
Patterson (1992. p. 1036) (emphasis added).
Patterson's concl usion in a 2000 review was essentially the same
21
:
[ C]entral results of existi ng research on lesbian and gay couples and families with children are exceptionally clear . ... [The]
home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are j ust as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to
enable p.sychosocial growth among family members.
Although eight years had passed, in this second review, Patterson (2000) reported the continuing tendency of same-sex
parenting researchers to select privileged lesbian samples. Specifically, she summarized, "Much of the research [still) in-
volved small samples that are predominantly White, well-educated [and) middle-class" (p. 1064).
22
Given the privileged,
homogeneous, and non-representative samples of lesbian mothers employed in "much of the research", it seems warranted
to propose that Patterson was empirically premature to conclude that comparisons between "gay or lesbian parents" and "het-
erosexual parents" were "extraordinarily clear"
23
or "exceptionally clear".
24
There is an additional point that warrants attention here. In Patterson's statements above, there are recurring references
to research on children of "gay" men/parents. In 2000, Demo and Cox reported that "children living with gay fathers" was a
"rarely studlied household configuration".
25
/n 2005, how many of the 59 published studies cited in the APA's list of"Empirical Stud-
ies Specifically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children" (pp. 23- 45) specifically addressed the outcomes of childr.en
from gay fathers? A closer examination reveals t hat only eight studies did so.Z
6
Of these eight studies, four did not include a het-
erosexual comparison group.
27
In three of the four remaining studies (with heterosexual comparison groups), the outcomes
studied were:
(1) "the value of children to .. .fathers" (Bigner and j acobsen, 1989a, p. 163);
(2) "parenting behaviors of. . .fathers" (Bigner and jacobsen, 1989b, p. 173);
(3) "problems" and "relationship with child" (Harris and Turner, 1986, pp. 107- 8).
The two Bigner and j acobsen ( 1989a,b) studies focused on fathers' reports of fa tilers' values and behaviors, not on ch il-
dren's outcomes-illustrating a recurring tendency in the same-sex parenting li terature to focus on the parent rather than
the child. Harris and Turner (1986) addressed parent-child relationships, but their study's male heterosexual comparison
group was composed of two single fathers. Although several studies have exami ned aspects of gay fatlhers' lives, none of
the studies comparing gay fathers and heterosexual comparison groups referenced in the APA Brief (pp. 23- 45) appear to
have specifically focused on children's developmental outcomes, with the exception of Sarantakos ( 1996 ), a study to which
we will later return.
In summary response to question 1 ("How representative and culturally, ethnically, and economically diverse were the
gay/lesbian households in t he published literature behind the APA Brief?"), we see that in addition to relying primarily
on small, non-representative, convenience samples, many studies do not include any minority individuals or families. Fur-
ther, comparison studies on children of gay fathers are almost non-existent in the 2005 Brief. By their own reports, social
researchers examining same-sex parenting have repeatedly selected small, non-representative, homogeneous samples of
privileged lesbian mothers to represent all same-sex parents. This pattern across three decades of research raises significant
questions regarding lack of representativeness and diversity in the same-sex parenting studies.
2.2. Question 2: llow many studies of gayjlesbian parents had no lleterosexual comparison group?
Of the 59 publications cited by the APA in the annotated bibliography section entitled "Empirical Studies Specifically
Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children" (pp. 23-45), 33 included a heterosexual comparison group. In direct
response to question 2, 26 of the studies ( 44.1 %) on same-sex parenting did not include a heterosexual comparison group. In
well-conducted science, it is important to have a clearly defined comparison group before drawing conclusions regarding
differences or the lack thereof. We see that nearly half of the "Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian and Gay Par-
ents and Their Children" referenced in the APA Brief allowed no basis for comparison between these two groups (see Table
1 ). To proceed with precision, this fact does not negate the APA claim. It does, however, dilute it considerably as we are left
with not 59, but 33, relevant studies with heterosexual comparison groups.
2.3. Question 3: when lleterosexua/ comparison groups were used, what were tile more specific characteristics of tllose groups?
We now turn to a question regarding the nature of comparison samples. Of the 33 published "Empirical Studies Specif-
ically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children" (APA Brief. pp. 23- 45) that did directly include a heterosexual
21
Patterson (2000,, p. 1064) (emphasis added).
22
Patterson (2000, p. 1064).
23
Patterson ( 1992. p. 1 036).
24
Patterson (2000, p. 1064).
zs Demo and Cox (2000, p. 890).
26
Bailey et al . { 1995), Barrett and Tasker (2001 ). Bigner and jacobsen (1989a,b), Bozert (1980), Harris and Turner (1986), Miller (1979), Sarantakos (1996).
27
Bailey et al . ( 1995). Barrett and Tasker (2001), Bozett ( 1980). Miller (1979).
Table 2
Brief overview of 15 intact/divorce/step/single family studies.
Number of reported participants
Is the study based on a probability sample?
(N)
Probability
Camp Grp
Long
Is a probability sample used as a comparison group?
Does the study employ measurements across time?
Key
Amato (1991)
Aquilino ( 1994)
Brown (2004)
Chase-Lansdale et al. (1995)b
Cherlin et al. ( 1998)<
Ellis et al. (2003)
Harper and Mclanahan (2004)cll
Hetherington and Kelly (2002)e
Jekielek ( 1998)
Lichter et al. (2003)r
Manning and Lamb (2003)
! ~ Y e s x ~ No
(N)
9643
4516
35,938
17.414
11,759
762
2846
1400
1640
7665
13,231
Mclanahan and Sandefur (1994) (based on four data sets)
PS!Dg 2900
NLSYh 5246
HSBS;
NSF Hi
Mitchell et al. (2009)
1
Nock (1998)m
Page and Stevens (2005 )"
Total
National Survey of America's Families (NSAF).
b United Ki ngdom study and sample.
c United Ki ngdom study and sample.
10.400
13,017k
4663
3604
2023
148,667
d National Longitudinal Survey or Young Men and Women (NLSY).
Virginia Longitudinal Study (VLS).
r National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG).
g Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID).
h National Longitudinal Survey of Young Men and Women (Nl.SY).
; The High School and Beyond Study (HSBS).
j National Smvey of Families and Households (NSFHI).
Probability
k This is the total original sample. The sub-sample is unl isted but is likely smaller.
1
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health ( Add Health).
m National Longitudinal Survey of Young Men and Women (NLSY).
" Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID).
Comp Grp Long
X
!
X
X
comparison group, what were tile more specific characteristics of tile groups that were compared? The earlier examination and
response related to question 1 documented t:hat, by Patterson's reports. "Despite the diversity of gay and lesbian communi-
ties . .. in the United States",2
8
the repeatedly selected representatives of same-sex parents have been "small samples [of lesbi-
ans) that are predominantly White, well-educated [and) middle-class" (p. 1 064).
29
In spite of homogeneous sampling, there is considerable diversity among gay and lesbian parents. Considerable diversity
exists among heterosexual parents as well. Indeed, the opening paragraph of the present article noted recurring differences
in several outcomes of societal concern for children in marriage-based intact families compared with children in cohabiti ng,
divorced, step, and single-parent families?
0
Many of the cited fi ndings are based on probability samples of thousands (see
Table 2).
Because children in marriage-based intact families have historically fared better than children in cohabiting, divorced,
step, or single-parent famil ies on the above outcomes. the question of what "groups" researchers selected to represent het-
erosexual parents in the same-sex parenting studies becomes critical. A closer examination of the 33 published same-sex
parenting studies (APA Brief, pp. 23-45) with comparison groups, listed chronologicaEiy, reveals that:
1. Pagelow (1980) used "single mothers" as a comparison group (p. 198).
2. Hoeffer (1981) used "heterosexual single mothers" (p. 537).
3. Kirkpatrick et al. (1981) used "single, heterosexual mothers" (p. 545).
4. Kweskin and Cook ( 1982) used women from Parents without Partners (p. 969).
28
Patterson (1992, p. 1029).
29
Patterson (2000, p. 1064).
30
See Footnotes 2-10 for documentation.
5. Lyons (1983) used "heterosexual single mothers" (p. 232).
6. Golombok et al. (1983) used "single-parent households" (p. 551 ).
7. Green et al. (1986) used "solo parent heterosexual mothers" (p. 175).
8. Harris and Turner (1986) used 2 "male single parents" and 14 "female single parents" (p. 105).
9. Huggins (1989) used "divorced heterosexual mothers"
31
(p. 123 ).
10. Tasker and Golombok (1995) used "heterosexual single mothers" (p. 203).
11. Tasker and Golombok (1997) used "single heterosexual mothers" (p. 38).
We see that in selecting heterosexual comparison groups for their studies, many same-sex parenting researchers have not
used marriage-based, intact families as heterosexual representatives, but have instead used single mothers (see Table 1 ).
Further. Bigner and jacobsen used 90.9 percent single-father samples in two other studies ( 1989a, 1989b ).
32
In total, in at
least 13 of the 33 comparison studies listed in the APA Briefs list of "Empirical Studies" (pp. 23-45) that include heterosexual
comparison groups, the researchers explicitly sampled "single parents" as representatives for heterosexual parents. The re-
peated (and perhaps even modal) selection of single-parent families as a comparison heterosexual-parent group is noteworthy,
given that a Child Trends (2002) review has stated that "children in single-parent families are more li kely to !have problems than
are children who live in intact families headed by two biological parents".
33
Given that at least 13 of t he 33 comparison studies listed in the APA Briefs list of "Empi rical Studies" (pp. 23-45) used
single-parent families as heterosexual comparison groups, what group(s) did the remaini ng 20 studies use as heterosexual
representatives? In closely examining the 20 remaining published comparison group studies, it is difficult to formulate pre-
cise reports of the comparison group characteristics. because in many of these studies. the heterosexual comparison grou ps
are referred to as "mothers" or "couples" without appropriate specificity (see Table 1 ). Were these mothers continuously
married- or were they single, divorced, remarried, or cohabiting? When couples were used, were they continuously mar-
ried-or remarried or cohabiting? These failures to explicitly and precisely report sample characteristics (e.g., married or
cohabiting) are significant in light of Brown's (2004) finding based on her analysis of a data set of 35,938 US children and
their parents, that "regardless of economic and parental resources, the outcomes of ado[escents (12-17 years old) in cohab-
iting fami lies ... are worse ... than those . .. in two-biological-parent married fami lies".3
4
Because of the disparities noted by
Brown and others, scientific precision requires t hat we know whether researchers used: (a) single mothers, (b) cohabiting moth-
ers and couples, (c) remarried mothers, or (d) continuously married mot hers and couples as heterosexual comparison groups.
Due to the ambiguity of the characteristics of the heterosexual samples in many same-sex parenting studies. let us frame
a question that permits a more precise response. namely: How many of the studies in the APA Briefs "Empirical Studies" section
(pp. 23-45) explicitly compare the outcomes of children from intact, marriage-based families with those from same-sex families? In
an American Psychologist article published the year after the APA Brief. Herek (2006) referred to a large. national study by
McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) "comparing the children of intact heterosexual fami lies with children being raised by a sin-
gle parent". Herek then emphasized that "this [large scale] research literature does not include studies comparing children
raised by two-parent same-sex couples with children raised by two-parent heterosexual couples".
35
Isolated exceptions exist
with relatively small samples (as discussed shortly in response to question 4 and as listed in Table 1 ). but they are rare.
Given what we have seen regarding heterosexual comparison group selection, let us revisit three related claims. First , in
1992, Patter son posited that
36
:
[N]ot a single study has found children of gay and lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any respect relative to children
of heterosexual parents.
Patterson's (2000) claim was similar
37
:
[C]entral results of existing research on lesbian and gay couples and families with children are exceptionally clear. ...
[The] home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are just as likely as those provided by heterosexual par-
ents to enable psychosocial growth among family members.
Lastly, and most significantly, we turn to the APA Briefs "Summary of Research Findings on Lesbian and Gay Parenting",
also single-authored by Patterson (seep. 5)
38
:
Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to
children of heterosexual parents.
31
"Four of the 16 [divorced( heterosexual mothers were either remarried or currently living with a heterosexual lover" (p. 127).
32
"Of the 66 respondents. six were married. 48 were divorced. eight were separated. and four had never been married" (Signer and jacobsen ( 1989a. p. 166).
Thi s means the sample was 90.9% single.
33
Moore et al. (2002): for an extensi ve review. see Wilcox et al. (201 1 ).
34
Brown (2004. p. 364) (emphasis added).
35
Herek (2006, p. 612).
36
Patterson ( 1992, p. 1 036) (emphasis added).
37
Patterson (2000. p. 1064) (emphasis added).
38
Patterson. p. 15 (from APA Brief. 2005). (emphasis added).
ln all three of these claims (including that latter from the 2005 APA Brief), Patterson uses the broad and plural term "het-
erosexual parents", a term that includes marriage-based, intact families. This broad claim is not nuanced by the information
that, with rare exceptions, the research does not include studies comparing children raised by two-parent, same-sex couples
with children raised by marriage-based, heterosexual couples. Further, no mention is made that in at least 13 of the 33 ex-
tant comparison studies referenced in the Brief (pp. 23-45}, the groups selected to represent "heterosexual parents" were
composed largely, if not solely, of single parents. We now move to another related examination of the APA Brief.
2.4. Question 4: does a scientifically-viable study exist to contradict the conclusion that "not a single study has found children of
lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged"?
There is at least one notable exception
39
to the APA's claim that "Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay
parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents".
40
ln the "Summary of Find-
ings" section, the APA Brief references a study by Sarantakos (1996},
4 1
but does so in a footnote that critiques the study (p. 6,
Footnote 1 ). On page 40 of the APA Briefs annotated bibliography, a reference to the Sarantakos (1996) article is offered, but
there is no summary of the study's findings, only a note reading "No abstract available".
Upon closer examination, we find that the Sarantakos ( 1996) study is a comparative analysis of 58 children of heterosex-
ual married parents, 58 chi ldren of heterosexual cohabiting couples, and 58 children living with homosexual couples that
were all "matched according to socially significant criteria (e.g., age, number of children, education, occupation, and so-
cio-economic status)".
42
The combined sample size (174) is the seventh-largest sample size of the 59 published studies listed
in the APA Briefs "Summary of Research Findings on Lesbian and Gay Parenting" (see Table 1). However, the six studies with
larger sample sizes were all adult self-report studies,
43
making the Sarantakos combined sample the largest study (APA Brief, pp.
23- 45} that examined children's developmental outcomes.
Key findings of the Sarantakos study are summarized below. To contextualize these data, the numbers are based on a tea-
cher rating-scale of performance "ranging from 1 (very low performance), through 5 (moderate performance) to 9 (very high
performance)".
44
Based on teacher (not parent) reports, Sarantakos found several significant differences between married fam-
ilies and homosexual fami lies.
45
Language Achievement
Mathematics Achievement
Social Studies Achievement
Sport Interest/Involvement
Sociability/Popularity
School/Learning Attitude
Parent-School Relationships
Support with Homework
Parental Aspirations
Sarantakos, 1996, pp. 24- 27.
Married 7.7, Cohabiting 6.8, Homosexual 5.5
Married 8.1, Cohabiting 7.4, Homosexual 6.Sa
Sarantakos concluded, "Overall, the study has shown that children of married couples are more likely to do well at school
in academic and social terms, than children of cohabiting and homosexual couples".
46
The APA's decision to de-emphasize the Sarantakos ( 1996) study was based, in part, on the criticism that "nearly all indi-
cators of the children's functioning were based on subjective reports by teachers".
47
The Sarantakos study was based, in part,
on teacher reports. However, teacher reports included "tests" and "normal school assessment" (p. 24). Subsequently, it may be
39
Other arguably contradictory studies are reviewed by Schumm (2011 ).
40
Patterson, p. 15 (from APA Brief, 2005).
41
Among the diverse types of gay/lesbian parents there are at least two major categories that warrant scholarly precision: (a) two lesbian or gay parents
raising an adopted or Dl (donor insemination) child from infancy with these and only these two parents; and (b) two lesbian or gay parents raising a child who
is the biological offspring of one of the parents. following a separation or divorce from a heterosexual partner. The Sarantakos sample is of the latter (b) type. In
terms of scholarly precision, it is important to differentiate and not draw strong implications from a to 'b' or 'b' to a: Indeed, the author would posit that
adopted versus Dl children may also warrant separate consideration. The core issue is that precision is essential and overextension of findings should be
avoided. This same issue is of serious concern in connection with the tendency to overextend findings regarding lesbian mothers to apply to gay fathers (see
Regnerus. this volume).
42
Sarantakos (1996, p. 23).
43
In order, these six studies include: (1) Morris et aL, 2002 (N 2431 ), who addressed adults' reports of "coming out"; (2) johnson and O'Connor (2002)
(N 415). who addressed adults' reports of parenting beliefs. division of labor. etc.; (3) Crawford et aL (1999) (N 388), who addressed psychologists' self-
reports of gay adoption; ( 4) King and Black ( 1999) (N 338), who addressed college students' perceptions of gay parents; (5) Bos et aL (2003) ( N 200), who
addressed parental motives and desires; and (6) Bos et a l. (2004) (N 200), who addressed parental reports of couple relations. These foci are not children's
outcomes.
44
Sarantakos ( 1996, p. 24).
45
Social Studies Achievement is significant at the p .008 level; the eight other differences are significant at the p .000 level.
46
Sarantakos (1996, p. 30).
47
APA Brief (2005), Footnote 1, p. 6 (emphasis added).
argued that Sarantakos' decision not to rely solely or extensively on parent reports, as is done in most same-sex parenting stud-
ies, is a strength, given parents' tendencies towards bias when reporting on their own children.
48
Sarantakos
49
also drew data
from school aptitude tests and observations, thereby modeling a research ideal of triangulation of sources. 5 In fact. the study
integrated not only three data sources to triangulate; it featured at least four (i.e., teachers, tests, observations, and child re-
ports). Further, the study controlled for "education, occupation, and socio-economic status" and then, based on teacher reports,
compared marriage-based families with gay/lesbian families and found nine significant differences-with children from mar-
riage-based families rating higher in eight areas. By objective standards, compared with the studies cited by the APA Brief,
the 1996 Sarantakos study was:
(a) Tile largest comparison study to examine children's outcomes,
51
(b) One of the most comparative (only about five other studies used three comparison groups),
52
and
(c) Tile most comprehensively triangulated study (four data sources) conducted on same-sex parenting. 5
3
Accordingly, this study deserves the attention of scientists interested in the question of homosexual and heterosexual
parenting, rather than the footnote it received.
As we conclude the examination of question 4, let us review a portion of APA's published negation of Sarantakos' (1996)
study
54
:
[Children Australia, the journal where the article was published] cannot be considered a source upon which one should
rely for understanding the state of scientific knowledge in this field, particularly when the results contradict those that
have been repeatedly replicated in studies published in better known scientific journals.
For other scientists, however, the salient point behind the Sarantakos findings is that the novel comparison group of mar-
riage-based families introduced significant differences in children's outcomes (as opposed to the recurr:ing "no difference"
finding with single-mother and "couple" samples). We now turn to the fifth question.
2.5. Question 5: what types of outcomes have been investigated?
With respect to the APA Briers claim that "not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to (have] dis-
advantaged [outcomes('', what types of outcomes have been examined and investigated? Specifically, how many of the same-
sex parenting studies in Table 1 address the societal concerns of intergenerational poverty, collegiate education and/or labor
force contribution, serious criminality, incarceration, early childbearing, drug/alcohol abuse, or suicide that are frequently
the foci of national studies on children, adolescents, and young adults, as discussed at the outset of this paper?
Anderssen and coll eagues cataloged the foci of same-sex parenting studies in a 2002 review and reported
55
:
Emotional functioning was the most often studied outcome (12 studies), followed by sexual preference (nine studies),
gender role behavior (eight studies), behavioral adjustment (seven studies), gender identity (six studies), and cognitive
functioning (three studies).
Examination of the articles cited in the 2005 APA Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting yields a list of studied outcomes that
are consistent with Anderssen's summary, i ncluding: "sexual orientation"
56
; "behavioral adjustment. self-concepts, and
sex-role identity"
57
; "sexual identity"
58
; "sex-role behavior"
59
; "self-esteem"
60
; "psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal"
6 1
;
"socioemotional development"
62
; and "maternal mental health and child adjustment".
63
48
I t is well replicated that individuals tend to rate the group wi th which they most identify more posit ivel y than they do other groups. This positive bias
includes wi thin-family ratings Roese and Olson (2007).
49
Sarantakos is the author of several research methods textbooks (2005, 2007b) and the author/editor of a four- volume. 1672-page work in Sage Publications'
Benchmarks in Social Research Series (2007a).
50
.. Triangulat ion is a means of checking the integrity of the inferences one draws. It can involve the use of multiple data sources, .. . multiple theoretical
perspectives. multiple methods. or all of these .. (Schwandt, 2001. p. 257). In effect. the standard of triangulation is advocacy for checks and balances.
51
Six of the 59 studies listed in the 2005 APA Brief (pp. 23- 45) had larger samples, but, as discussed earlier, they all focused on adult reports of adult
perceptions and outcomes.
52
For x a m p ~ e Brewaeys et al. ( 1997). Golombok et al. (2003, 1997), MacCallum and Golombok (2004). and Tasker and Golombok (1998).
53
In spite of the strong design with respect to triangulati on. the Sarantakos study does not appear to be based on a true probability sample, nor is it or a large
sample (al though it is a subsample or a 900-pl us study). The study is rigorous by comparison to ot her same-sex parenti ng studies. but is limited compared w i th
most of the nat ionally representative studies on intact famil ies listed in Table 2.
54
Patterson (2005) in APA Brief. p. 7. Footnote I.
55
Anderssen et al. ( 2002, p. 343 ).
56
Bailey et al . ( 1995) and Golombok and Tasker ( 1996)_
57
Patterson ( 1994 ).
58
Green ( 1978).
59
Hoeffer (1981) and Kweskin and Cook ( 1982).
60
Huggins ( 1989).
61
Golombok et al. ( 1983).
62
Golombok et al. (1997).
63
Patterson ( 2001 ).
With these focal outcomes identified, it is noteworthy that all of the aforementioned outcomes of societal-level concern
are absent from the list of "most often studied outcome(s)" as identified by Anderssen et al.
64
In response to the present arti-
cle's question 5 (what types of outcomes have been investigated for children of gay{lesbi.an families?), it may be concluded: In
the same-sex parenting research that undergirded the 2005 APA Brief, iit appears that gender-related outcomes were the dom-
inant research concern. To be more precise, Table 1 lists several categories of information regarding the 59 published empirical
studies; one of these categories is the "outcome studied". More than 20 studies have examined gender-related outcomes, but
there was a dearth of peer-reviewed journal articles from which to form science-based conclusions in myriad areas of societal
concern.
65
One book-length empirical study
66
entitled Same-Sex Couples (Sarantakos, 2000, Harvard Press) did examine several issues
of societal concern. In connection with the questions raised in the present article, this study:
( 1) includes a diverse sample of lesbian and gay parents instead of focusing on privileged lesbian mothers (question 1 );
(2) uses not only one but two heterosexual comparison samples; one married parent sample and one cohabitating parent
sample (questions 2 and 3);
(3) examines several outcomes of societal concern (question 5); and
(4) is unique in presenting long-term (post-18 years old) outcomes of children with lesbian and gay parents (question 6,
addressed later).
This study's conclusion regarding outcomes of gay and lesbian parents reads, in part:
If we perceive deviance i n a general sense, to include excessive drinking, drug use, truancy, sexual deviance, and crimi nal
offenses, and if we rely on the statements made by adult children (over 18 years of age) ... [then] children of homosexual
parents report deviance in higher proportions than children of (married or cohabiting) heterosexual couples (Sarantakos,
2000, P' 131).
The 2005 APA Brief does not cite this study, again leaving us to more closely examine the claim that "Not a single study
has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosex-
ual parents" (p. IS).
The Sarantakos (2000) study also includes the report that "the number of children who were labeled by their parents as
gay, or identified themselves as gay, is much higher than the generally expected proportion" (p. 133). However, the study
also notes areas of no significant heterosexual-homosexual differences (i.e., "Physical and emotional well-being", p. 130),
consistent with the 2005 APA Briefs claims. All of these findings warranted attention in the 2005 APA !Brief but were over-
looked. Of most interest to us here, however, is the novel attention of Sarantakos (2000) on multiple concerns of societal
importance, including drug and alcohol abuse, education (truancy), sexual activity, and criminality.
In any less-developed area of empirical inqui1y it takes time, often several decades, before many of the central and most
relevant questions can be adequately addressed. This seems to be the case with same-sex parenting outcomes, as several
issues of societal concern were almost entirely unaddressed in the 2005 APA Brief.
2.6. Question 6: what do we know about the long-term outcomes of children of lesbian and gay parents?
In the preceding response to question 5, the outcomes of intergenerational poverty, criminality, college education and{ or
labor force contribution, dmg{alcohol abuse. suicide, early sexual activity, early childbearing, and eventual divorce as adults
were mentioned. Close consideration reveals that the majority of these outcomes are not "child" outcomes. Indeed, most of
these outcomes are not optimally observable until (at the earliest) mid-late adolescence or early adulthood (and in the case
of divorce, not until middle adulthood). As discussed in question 5, virtually none of the peer-reviewed, same-sex parenting
compari son studies addressed these outcomes.
67
Additionally, of the 59 published studies cited by the APA 2005 Brief (pp. 23-45 ). it is difficult to find comparison studies
of any kind that examine late adolescent outcomes of any kind. The few that utilize comparison groups have comparison
groups of 44 or fewer.
68
Let us further explore the importance of a Jack of data centered on adolescents and young adults.
Table 2 identifies 15 of the hundreds of available studies on outcomes of children from intact families (as contrasted with
comparison groups such as cohabiting couples and single parents). One of these studies included a data set of 35,938 cihil-
dren-one of "the largest ... nationally representative survey[s] of US children and their parents".
69
Based on analysis of this
64
Anderssen et al. (2002, p. 343).
65
Including: intergenerational poverty. criminality, college education and/or labor force contribution. drug/alcohol abuse, suicide, sexual activity and early
childbearing, and eventual divorce.
66
This study is a later. larger, and more detailed report on the earlier mentioned Sarantakos ( 1996) study. The sample of that study was larger than the other
comparison samples in Table 1.
67
Gartrell and colleagues (1999, 2000, 2005) have commenced to do so. but in 2005 they were reporting on children who were only 10 years old (with a
sample size of 74 and no heterosexual comparison group).
68
I.e. Wainwright et al. (2004).
69
Brown (2004), p. 355.
nationally representative sample, Susan Brown emphasized, "The fi ndings of this study . .. demonstrate the importance of sep-
arately examining children and adolescents". She then explained
70
:
Although the outcomes of children (6- 11 years old) in cohabiting families ... are worse ... than those of chi ldren in two-
biological-parent married families, much of this difference ... is economic. ... In contrast. regardless of economic and
parental resources, the outcomes of adolescents (12- 17 years old) in cohabiting families ... are worse .. . than those .. .in
two-biological-parent married fami lies.
In short, in the case of cohabiting families and "two-biological-parent married families" the differences in children's out-
comes increase in significance as the children grow older. The likelihood of significant differences arising between children
from same-sex and married families may also increase across time- not just into adolescence but into early and middle
adulthood. For example, research indicates that "[d)aughters raised outside of intact marriages are ... more likely to end
up young, unwed mothers than are children whose parents married and stayed married", and that "[p)arental divorce in-
creases the odds that adult children will also divorce".7
1
Longitudi nal studies that follow children across time and into aduEthood to examine such outcomes are comparatively
rare and valuable. We briefly turn to a key finding from one such study that followed children of divorce into middle adult-
hood. Based on a 2S-year longitudinal study, Wallerstein and coll eagues (2001) state:
Contrary to what we have long thought, t he major impact of divorce does not occur during childhood or adolescence.
Rather, it rises in adulthood as serious romantic relationships move center stage. When it comes time to choose a life
mate and build a new family, the effects of divorce crescendo (p. x:xix).
Wallerstein's research, like nearly all of the studies in the same-sex parenting literature, is based on a small, non-repre-
sentative sample that should not be generalized or overextended. Her longitudinal work does, however, indicate that "effects
[can] crescendo" in adulthood. Did any published same-sex parenti ng study cited by the 200S APA Brief(pp. 23-4S) track the
societally significant long-term outcomes into adulthood? No. Is it possible that "t he major impact" of same-sex parenting
might "not occur during childhood or adolescence ... [but that it will rise] in adulthood as serious romantic relationships
move center stage"? Is it also possible that "when it comes time to choose a life mate and build a new family" that the effects
of same-sex parenting will simi larly "crescendo" as they did in Wallerstei n's study of divorce effects? In response to this or
any question regarding the long-term, adult outcomes of lesbian and gay parenting we have almost no empirical basis for
responding. An exception is provided by the findings from self-reports of adult "children" (18 +years of age) in Sarantakos'
(2000) book-length study, but those results not encouraging. This is a si ngle study however- a study that, li ke those cited by
the APA Brief. lacks the statistical power and rigor of the large, random. representative samples used in marriage-based fam-
ily studies (see Table 2). We now move to a final related empirical question regarding the same-sex parenting literature.
2.7. Question 7: have the studies in this area committed the type ll error and prematurely concluded that heterosexual couples and
gay and lesbian couples produce parental outcomes with no differences?
The Summary of Research Findings in the APA brief reads, "As is tme in any area of research, questions have been raised
with regard to sampling issues, statistical power, and other technical matters" (p. S). However. neither statistical power nor
the related concern of Type II error is further explained or addressed. This wi ll be done next.
In social science research, questions are typically framed as follows: "Are we 9S% sure the two groups being compared are
different?" {p <.OS). If our statistics seem to confirm a difference with 9S% or greater confidence, then we say the two groups
are "significantly different". But what if, after statistical analysis, we are only 8S% sure that the two groups are different? By
the rules of standard social science, we would be obligated to say we were unable to satisfactorily conclude t hat the two
groups are different. However, a reported finding of "no statistically significant difference" (at the p < .OS Level: 9S%-plus cer-
tainty) is a grossly inadequate basis upon which to offer the science-based claim that the groups were conclusively "the
same". In research, incorrecttly concluding that there is no difference between groups when there is in fact a difference is
referred to as a Type II error. A Type II error is more likely when undue amounts of random variation are present in a study.
Specifically, small sample size, unreliable measures, imprecise research methodology, or unaccounted for variables can all
increase the likelihood of a Type II error. All one would have to do to be able to come to a conclusion of "no difference"
is to conduct a study with a small sample and/or sufficient levels of random variation. These weaknesses compromise a
study's "statistical power" (Cohen. 1988).
It must be re-emphasized! that a conclusion of "no significant difference" means that it is unknown whether or not ad if-
ference exists on the variable(s) in question (Cohen, 1988). This conclusion does not necessarily mean that the two groups
are, in fact, t he same on the variable being studied, much less on all other characteristics. This point is important with same-
sex parenting research because Patterson ( 1992, 2000) and the 200S APA Brief seem to draw inferences of sameness based on
the observation that gay and lesbian parents and heterosexual parents appear not to be statistically different from one an-
other based! on small, non-representative samples- thereby becoming vulnerable to a classic Type II error.
70
Brown (2004), p. 364.
71
Wilcox et al. (2011 ). p. 11.
To make the APA Briefs proposition of sameness more precarious, in a review published one year after the APA Brief in
the flagship APA journal. American Psychologist. Herek (2006) acknowledged that many same-sex parenting studies have
"utilized small. select convenience samples and often employed unstandardized measures".
72
Anderssen et al. (2002) simi-
larly indicated in their review of same-sex parenting studies. "The samples were most often small, increasing the chance to con-
clude that no differences exist between groups when in fact the differences do exist. This casts doubt on the external validity of
the studies".
73
With these limitations noted. the 2005 APA Brief explicitly claimed that findings of non-significant differences
between same-sex and heterosexual parents had been "repeatedly replicated" (p. 7, Footnote 1 ).
Reasons for skepticism regarding the APA Briefs claim that findings have been "repeatedly replicated" rest in Neuman's
(1997) point that "the logic of replication implies that different researchers are unlikely to make the same errors"?
4
How-
ever. if errors (e.g .. similarly biased sampling approaches employing "small. select convenience samples"
75
and comparison
groups) are repeated by different researchers. the logic behind replicat ion is undermined. As has been previously detailed in
the response to question 1 in this article, same-sex parenting researchers have repeatedly selected White, well-educated, mid-
dle- and upper-class lesbians to represent same-sex parents. This tendency recurred even after this bias was explicitly identified
by Patterson ( 1992. 2000)?
6
Further. repeated sampling tendencies in connection with heterosexual comparison groups (e.g ..
single mothers), were documented in response to Question 3 in this paper. These repeated (convenience) sampling tendencies
across studies that employed different measures do not seem to constitute valid scientific replication.
An additional scientific question raised by the above information regarding "small. select convenience"
77
samples is
framed by Stacey and Biblarz (2001) who reveal that "many of these [comparative same-sex parenting] studies use conventional
levels of significance ... on miniscule samples. substantially increasing their likelihood of failing to reject the null hypothesis".
78
Was the APA's claim that "Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged .. .''
79
based! on
clear scientific evidence or (perhaps) Type II errors? In response. we now turn to the APA-acknowledged but unexplained cri-
tique of low "statistical power" in these studlies (p. 5 ).
The last three editions of the APA Publicatt:ion manual ( 1994, 2001, 2010) have urged scholars to report effect sizes and to
take statistical power into consideration when reporting their results. The APA 5th Publication manual (2001) in use at the
time of APA's 2005 Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting stated:
Take seriously the statistical power considerations associated with your tests of hypotheses. Such considerations relate to
the likelihood of correctly rejecting the tested hypotheses. given a particular alpha level. effect size. and sample size. In
that regard, you should routinely provide evidence that your study has power to detect effects of substantive interest
(e.g .. see Cohen, 1988). You should be similarly aware of the role played by sample size in cases in which not rejecting
the null hypothesis is desirable (i.e .. when you wish to argue that there are no differences (between two groups)) ...
(p. 24).
This awareness of statistical power in cases "when you wish to argue that t here are no differences" bears directly on
same-sex comparative research. The APA 5th Publication manual (2001) continues:
Neither of the two types of probability [alpha level or p value] directly reflects the magnitude of an effect or the strength
of a relationship. For the reader to fully understand the importance of your findings, it is almost always necessary to
include some index of effect size or strength of relationship in your Results section (p. 25 ).
Let us review three statements from the APA 5th Publication Manual for emphasis:
(1) The APA urges researchers to: 'Take seriously the statistical power considerations" and "routinely provide evidence"
(p. 24).
(2) The APA identifies a specific concern with sample size and statistical power in connection with cases where authors
"wish to argue that there are no differences" between compared groups (p. 24).
(3) The APA concludes: "It is almost always necessary to include some index of effect size or strength of relationship in
your Results section" (p. 25).
The APA's first highlighted exhortation is that an author "should routinely provide evidence that your study has sufficient
power ... (e.g .. see Cohen. 1988)" (p. 24). The reference cited here by the APA is the vo[ume Statistical Power Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) by the late psychometrician jacob Cohen, who has been credi ted with foundational work in sta-
tistical meta-analysis (Borenstein. 1999). In his APA-cited volume. Cohen states:
72
Herek (2006). p. 612.
73
Anderssen et al. (2002), p. 348.
74
Neuman (1997). p. 150.
75
Herek (2006). p. 612.
76
Further. single mothers have been repeatedly selected to represent heterosexual parents as documented in this paper's response to question 3.
77
Herek (2006), p. 612.
78
Stacey and Biblarz (2001, p. 168), Footnote 9.
79
Patterson. p. 15 (from APA Brief. 2005).
Most psychologists of whatever stripe believe that samples. even small samples, mirror the characteristics of their parent
populations. In effect. they operate on the unstated premise that the law of large numbers holds for small numbers as
well. ... [Citing Tversky and Kahneman) 'The believer in the law of small numbers has incorrect intuitions about signif-
icance level, power, and confidence intervals. Significance levels are usually computed and reported, but power and con-
fidence levels are not. Perhaps they should be".
But as we have seen, too many of our colleagues have not responded to [this) admonition .... They do so at their
peril (p. xv).
Let us contextualize "the law of small numbers" with respect to the same-sex parenting studies cited in the APA Brief. The
combined non-representative sample total of all 59 same-sex parenting studies in the 2005 APA Brief(pp. 23-45) is 7800
80
(see Table 1 ). By comparison. Table 2 lists 15 prominent studies that contrast children's outcomes in intact, single-parent, di-
vorced, and/or step-family forms using large probability samples and comparison groups.
81
The average sample size in these
studies is 9911
82
-a figure larger than all 59 same-sex parenting studies combined (7800).
We now turn to another question relating t o Cohen's statements: How many of the plllblished same-sex parenting studies
with a heterosexual comparison group cited in APA's Brief(pp. 23-45} "provide[ d) evidence" of statistical power, consistent
with APA's Publication Manual and the "admonition" of jacob Cohen who is cited in the APA manual? An examination of the
studies indicates that only four of the 59 did so.
83
In addition to Cohen's (1988) statement that statistical power is ignored at our own peril, he offered several tables in his
volume for researchers to reference. Employing these tables. statistical experts Lerner and Nagai (2001) computed the sam-
ple sizes required for "a power level of .80, or a Type II error rate of .20, or one in five findings" (p. 1 02). At this power level,
the minimum number of cases required to detect a small effect size
84
is 393 for a T-rest or ANOVA, or 780-plus for Chi-Square
or Pearson Correlation Coefficient tests.
85
In Table 1 of this report, the 59 published same-sex parenting studies cited in the APA
Brief ( pp. 23-45) are compared against these standards. A close examination indicates that not a single study, including the few
that reported power. meets the standards needed to detect a small effect size. Indeed. it appears that only two of the comparison
studies (Bos et al., 2003, 2004) have combined sample sizes of even half of "the minimum number of cases".
86
In their book-length examination of same- sex parenting studies, Lerner and Nagai (2001) further indicate that 17 of the
22 same-sex parenting comparison studies they reviewed had been designed in such a way that the odds of failing to find a
significant difference [between homo- and hetero-sexual groups) was 85% or higher.
87
Irndeed, only one of the 22 studies they
analyzed revealed a probability of Type II error below 77 percent, and that study did find differences.
88
These methodological
concerns (and others) were rai sed and explained in Lerner and Nagai's monograph (see pp. 95-108 ), and in an 81 -page report by
Nock (2001) preceding the APA Brief.
89
Nock concluded:
All of the [same-sex parenting] articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution. Not a single one
was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research .... [l]n my opinion, the only acceptable
conclusion at this point is that the literature on this topic does not constitute a solid body of scientific evidence (Nock,
2001, pp. 39, 47).
80
This figure (7800) includes same-sex parents and their children. as well as heterosexual comparison samples (1404). psychologists (388), and college
students' perception reports ( 489).
81
Table 2 lists 15 studies that contrast children's outcomes in intact famil ies compared with other family forms using large, probability samples and
comparison groups. The focal topics of these studies are not "sexual preference, gender roUe behavior . .. [and] gender identity" (Anderssen et al., 2002, p. 343),
but outcomes such as "educational attainment", "labor force attachment", and "early childbearing" (McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994, pp. 20-21 ), as
recommended in the earlier examination of question 5. Further. all but two of the 15 studies employ longitudinal designs, as recommended in t he earlier
examination or question 6.
8
z This figure is the result of 148,667 divided by 15 studies.
83
These include Chan et al. (1998b), Fulcher et al. (2002), Golombok and Tasker (1996). and Tasker and Golombok (1997).
84
By way of context, in a 67 study meta-analysis of the average differences in outcomes between children with "divorced and continuously married parents",
Amato (2001 ) reported an average weighted effect size of between - 0.12 and - 0.22 (a - 0. 17 average) with an advantage in all five domains considered to
children of continuously married parents (p. 360). These effect sizes of about .20, although statistically robust, would be classified by Cohen ( 1992) as small
effect sizes. Even so, based on the data. most family scholars would agree that children whose parents remain continuously married tend to fare slightly to
moderately better than when parents divorce. However, large numbers were needed to determine this "small" but important effect. Indeed. most effect sizes in
social science research tend to be small. Rigorous and sound social science tends to include and account for many influential factors that each has a small but
meaningful effect size. In social science. detecting a novel "large effect" from a single variable (whether it is divorce, remarriage, or same-sex parenting), is a
comparatively rare occurrence. If we are to examine possible effects of same-sex parenting with scientific precision and rigor, related examinations would, like
Amato's work, be designed and reftrned to detect "small effect" sizes.
85
Cohen ( 1988) proposes a "relatively high power" of .90 for cases where one is trying to "demonstrate the r [difference[ is trivially small" (p. 104 ). If t he .90
power were applied, the required sample sizes would further increase. However, because none of the studies in Table 1 of the present report approach the .80
power levels, .90 calculations are unnecessary here.
86
The "minimum number of cases" is 393. The two Bos et al. studies both have combined samples of 200. Four other larger samples are not comparison
st udies Crawfon.J et al. (1999), Johnsun and O'Connor (2002), King and Black (1999), and o r r i ~ et al. (2002).
87
Lerner and Nagai (2001. p. 103).
88
The single exception was Cameron and Cameron ( 1996) with a comparatively low probability error rate of25%. This study, like the Sarantakos ( 1996) study
mentioned earlier. did report some significant differences between children of heterosexual and homosexual parents but, like Sarantakos (1996). was not
addressed in the body of the 2005 APA brief but was instead moved to a footnote on p. 7. See Redding (2008) for additional discussion (p. 137).
89
For similar critiques preceding the 2005 APA brief, seeNock (2001 ). Schumm (2004), Wardle ( 1997). and Williams (2000). For similar critiques post-dating
the 2005 APA !brief, see Byrd (2008). Schumm (2010a.b, 2011 ), and Redding (2008. p. 138).
More specifically, Nock identified: (a) several flaws related to sampling (including biased sampling, lllon-probability sam-
pling, convenience sampling, etc.); (b) poorly operationalized defi nitions; (c) researcher bias; (d) lack of longitudinal studies;
(e) failure to report reliability; (f) low response rates: and (g) lack of statistical power (pp. 39-40).
90
Although some of these
flaws are briefly mentioned in the 2005 APA Summary of Research Findings on Lesbian and Gay Parenting, many of the signif-
icant concerns raised by Nock or Lerner and Nagai are not substantively addressed.
91
Indeed, the Lerner and Nagai volume and
the Nock report are neither mentioned nor referenced.
To restate, in connection with the APA's published urging that researchers: ''Take seriously the statistical power consid-
erations" and "routinely provide evidence", the academic reader is left at a disadvantage.
92
Only a few comparison studies
specifically reported statistical power at all and no comparison study approached the minimum sample size of 393 needed
to find a small effect.
The author's response to question 7 has examined how comparisons have been made from a research methods stand-
point. In summary, some same-sex parenting researchers have acknowledged that "miniscule samples"
93
significantly in-
crease "the chance to conclude that no differences exist between groups when in fact the differences do exist"-thereby
casting "doubt on the external validity of the studies".
94
An additional concern is that the APA Briefs claim of "repeatedly rep-
licated" findings of no significant difference rested almost entirely on studies that were published without reports of the APA-
urged effect sizes and statistical power analyses.
95
This inconsistency seems to justify scientific skepticism, as well as the eff01t
of more closely assessing the balance, precision, and rigor behind the conclusions posed in the 2005 APA Brief.
3. Conclusion
The 2005 APA Brief, near its outset. claims that "even taking into account all the questions and/or limitations that may
characterize research in this area, none of the published research suggests conclusions different from that which will be
summarized" (p. 5 ). The concluding summary later claims, "Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments
provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's
psychosocial growth" (p. 15 ).
96
We now return to the overarching question of this paper: Are we witnessing the emergence of a new family form that
provides a context for childlren that is equivalent to the traditional marriage-based family? Even after an extensive reading
of the same-sex parenting literature, the author cannot offer a high confidence, data-based "yes" or "no" response to this
question. To restate, not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief (pp. 23-45; see Table 1) compares a large,
random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of
married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are
insufficient to supp01t a strong generalizable claim either way. Such a statement would not be grounded in science. To make
a generalizable claim, representative, large-sample studies are needed- many of them (e.g., Table 2).
Some opponents of same-sex parenting have made "egregious overstatements"
97
disparaging gay and lesbian parents.
Conversely, some same-sex parenting researchers seem to have contended for an "exceptionally clear"
98
verdict of "no differ-
ence" between same-sex and heterosexual parents since 1992. However, a closer examination leads to the conclusion that
strong, generalized assertions, including those made by the APA Brief, were not empirically warranted.
99
As noted by Shiller
(2007) in American Psychologist, "the line between science and advocacy appears blurred" (p. 712).
The scientific conclusions in this domain will increase in validity as researchers: (a) move from small convenience sam-
ples to large representative samples; (b) increasingly examine critical societal and economic concerns that emerge during
adolescence and adulthood; (c) include more diverse same-sex families (e.g., gay fathers, racial minorities, and those without
middle-high socioeconomic status); (d) include intact, marriage-based heterosexual families as comparison groups; and (e)
90
Four of these seven issues are addressed in the prese nt paper. The exceptions include researcher bias. failure to report reliability. and low response rates.
91
The 200S APA Briers Summary on Research Findings acknowledges criticisms of same-sex parenting research including: (a) non-representative sampling,
(b) "poorly matched or no control groups", (c) "well-educated. middle class ]lesbian) families", and (d) "relatively small samples" (p. 5). The respective
responses to these criticisms in the APA brief are: (a) "contemporary research on children of lesbian and gay parents involves a. wider array of sampling
techniques than did earlier studies"; (b) "contemporary research on children of lesbian and gay parents involves a wider array of research designs (and hence.
control groups) than did earlier studies'": (c) "contemporary research on children of lesbian and gay parents involves a greater diversity of families than did
earlier studies"; and (d) "contemporary research has benefited from such criticisms" (p. 5). The APA Brief does not challenge the validity of these research
criticisms but notes that improvements are being made.
92
See Schumm (201 Ob) for more comprehensive. article-length treatment of these statistical issues.
93
Stacey a11d Biblarz (2001. p. 168).
94
Anderssen et al. (2002, p. 348).
95
Schumm (2010b).
96
The APA Brief also states that "t he existing data are still limited, and any conclusions must be seen as tentative". Also, that '"it should be acknowledged that
on lesbian ami gay parents ami their chii<Jren, though no l onger new, l i mited in extent" (p. 15). For some Lh.ese seem to
be overridden by the APA Briers conclusions.
97
This reality has been disapprovingly documented by Shiller (2007).
98
Patterson (1992).
99
In 2006, the year following APA's release of the brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting, "former APA president Nicholas Cummings argued that there has been
significant erosion'" of the APA's established principle (Shiller (2007). p. 712) . . . that "when we speak as psychologists we speak from research evidence and
clinical experience and expertise'" (Cummings (2006), p. 2).
constructively respond to criticisms from methodological experts.
100
Specifically, it is vital that critiques regarding sample
size. sampling strategy, statistical power. and effect sizes not be disregarded. Taking these steps will help produce more meth-
odologically rigorous and scientifically informed responses to significant questions affecti ng fami lies and children.
References
Akerlof. G .. 1998. Men without children. Economic journal 108. 287-309.
Amato. P .. 1991. Parental absence during childhood and depression in later life. Sociological Quarterly 32. 543- 556.
Amato. P .. 2001. Children of divorce in the 1990s: an update of the Amoato and Keith ( 1991) meta-analysis. journal of Family Psychology 15. 355- 370.
Amato, P .. 2005. The impact of family formation change on the cognitive. social. and emotional well-being of the next generation. The Future of Children 15,
75-96.
Amato. P .. Booth. A .. 2000. A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. MA.
Anderssen. N .. Amlie. c.. Ytteroy. E.A.. 2002. Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents: a review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian journal
of Psychology 43. 335-351.
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (forth ed.). 1994. APA. Washington. DC.
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (fifth ed.). 2001. APA, Washington. DC.
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (sixth ed.). 2010. APA, Washington. DC.
Aquilino. W.S .. 1994. Impact of childhood family disruption on young adults' relationships with parents. journal of Marriage and the Family 56.295- 313.
Bachman. j.G. et al. 1997. Smoking. Drinking and Drug Abuse in Young Adulthood. Erlbaum. Mahwah. Nj.
Bailey. j.M .. Bobrow. D .. Wolfe. M., Mikach. S .. 1995. Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. Developmental Psychology 31. 124-129.
Barrett. H .. Tasker. F .. 2001. Growing up with a gay parent: views of 101 gay fathers on their sons' and daughters' experiences. Educational and Child
Psychology 18. 62-77.
Battle, j .. 1998. What beats having two parents?: educational outcomes for African- American students in single- versus dual-parent families. journal of
Black Studies 28. 783- 801.
Bigner. ].J.. jacobsen. R.B .. 1989a. The value of children to gay and heterosexual fathers. journal of Homosexuality 19. 163-172.
Bigner. j .j .. jacobsen. R.B .. 1989b. Parenting behaviors of homosexual and heterosexual fathers. journal of Homosexuality 19. 173- 186.
Blackmon, L.. Clayton. 0 .. Glenn, N., Malone-Colon, L., Roberts, A., 2005. The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans: A Comprehensive Literature
Review. Institute for American Values. New York.
Borenstein. M .. 1999. jacob Cohen. PhD. 1923-1998. Archives of General Psychiatry 56. 581.
Bos. H.M.W .. van Balen, F .. van den Boom. D.C., 2003. Planned lesbian families: their desire and motivation to have children. Human Reproduction 10.2216-
2224.
Bos. H.M.W .. van Balen, F .. van den Boom. D.C.. 2004. Experience of parenthood. couple relationship. social support. and child-rearing goals in planned
lesbian mother families. journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45, 755- 764.
Bozett. F.W .. 1980. Gay fathers: how and why they disclose their homosexuality to their children. Family Relations 29. 173-179.
Brewaeys, A .. Ponjaert. 1.. Van Hall, E.V .. Golombok. S . 1997. Donor insemination: childl development and family functioning in lesbian mother families.
Human Reproduction 12, 1349-1359.
Brown, S.L. 2004. Family structure and child well-being: the significance of parental cohabitation. journal of Marriage and Family 66, 351- 367.
Byrd. A.D., 2008. Conjugal marriage fosters healthy human and societal development. In: Wardle. L. (Ed.). What's the Harm? Does Legalizing Same-Sex
Marriage Really Harm Individuals. Families or Society? University Press. lanham. MD. pp. 3- 26.
Cameron. P .. Cameron. K .. 1996. Homosexual parents. Adolescence 31. 757-776.
Chan, R.W . Brooks, R.C.. Raboy, B .. Patterson, C.j., 1998a. Division oflabor among lesbian and heterosexual parents: associations with children's adjustment.
journal of Family Psychology 12. 402-419.
Chan. R.W .. Raboy. B .. Patterson. Cj .. 1998b. Psychosocial adjustment among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual
mothers. Child Development 69. 443-457.
Chase-lansdale. P.L.. Cherlin. A.J., Kiernan. K.K .. 1995. Tlhe long-term effects of parental divorce on the mental health of young adults: a developmental
perspective. Child Development 66. 1614-1634.
Cherlin. A.j. et al, 1995. Parental divorce in childhood and demographic outcomes in young adulthood. Demography 32.299- 318.
Cheri in. A.j.. Chase-lansdale. P.l.. McRae. C.. 1998. Effects of parental divorce on mental health throughout the life course. American Sociological Review 63.
239- 249.
Ciano-Boyce, C .. Shelley-Sireci. L.. 2002. Who is mommy tonight? Lesbian parenting issues. journal of Homosexuality 43. 1- 13.
Cohen.].. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. second ed. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, Nj.
Cohen,].. 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112, 155-159.
Crawford.!.. McLeod. A.. Zamboni. B.D .. jordan. M.B .. 1999. Psychologists' attitudes toward gay and lesbian parenting. Professional Psychology: Research a.nd
Practice 30, 394-40 I.
Cummings. N.A .. 2006. The APA and psychology need reform. Paper presented at the ann.ual convention of the American Psychological Association (August
12). New Orleans. LA.
Cutler. D.M. er al., 2000. Explaining the rise in youth suicide. Working Paper 7713. National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge.
Demo. D.H .. Cox. M.J.. 2000. Families with young children: a review of research in the 1990s. journal of Marr iage and the Family 62. 876-895.
Ellis. B.j. et al, 2003. Does father absence place daughters at special risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy? Child Development 74. 801 - 821.
Flaks, D., Ficher,l., Masterpasqua, F., joseph. G . 1995. Lesbians choosing motherhood: a comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their
children. Developmental Psychology 31, 104- 114.
Flewelling. R.L.. Bauman, K.E .. 1990. Family structure as a predictor of initial substance use and sexual intercourse in early adolescence. journal of Marriage
and the Family 52. 171- 181.
Fulcher, M., Chan, R.W., Raboy, B., Patterson, C.j.. 2002. Contact with grandparents among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian a.nd
heterosexual mothers. Parenting: Science and Practice 2. 61-76.
Gartrell. N .. Hamilton. ].. Banks. A .. Mosbacher. D .. Reed. N .. Sparks. C.H .. Bishop. H .. 1996. The national lesbian family study: 1. Interviews with prospective
mothers. American journal of Orthopsychiatry 66, 272-281.
Gartrell. N .. Banks. A.. Hamilton.].. Reed, N .. Bishop. H .. Rodas. C.. 1999. The national lesbian family study: II. Interviews with mothe:rs of toddlers. American
journal of Orthopsychiatry 69, 362- 369.
Gartrell. N .. Banks, A., Reed. N., Hamilton, j .. Rodas. C.. Deck, A .. 2000. The national lesbian family study: III. Interviews with mothers of five-year olds.
American j ournal of Orthopsychiatry 70. 542-548.
Gartrell. N .. Deck. A.. Rodas. C.. Peyser, H .. Banks. A .. 2005. The national lesbian family study: 4.1nterviews with the 10-year old children. American journal of
Orthopsychiatry 75. 518-524.
Gaudino. j.A. et al. 1999. No fathers names: a risk factor for infant mortality in the state of Georgia. Social Science and Medicine 48. 253-265.
100
At least one such study (Rosenfeld. 20 I 0) has emerged in the years since the 2005 APA brief was issued. This study features a very large sample but has a I so
received critici sm (Schumm. 2011 ).
Gershon, T.D .. , Tschann, J.M .. jemerin. J.M .. 1999. Stigmatization, self-esteem, and coping among the adolescent children of lesbian mothers. journal of
Adolescent Health 24, 437- 445.
Glenn. N.D .. 1989. What we know. what we say we know: discrepancies between warranted and stated conclusions in the social sciences. In: Eulau. H. (Ed.).
Crossroads of Social Science. The ICPSR 25th Anniversary Volume. Agathon Press. New York. pp. 119- 140.
Glenn. N.D .. 1997. A reconsideration of the effect of no-fault divorce on divorce rates. j ournal of Marriage and the Family 59. 1023- 1025.
Golombok, S., Rust. J., 1993. The pre-school activities inventory: a standardized assessment of gender role in children. Psychologica I Assessment 5, 131- 136.
Golombok. s .. Tasker. F .. 1996. Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian fami lies.
Developmental Psychology 32. 3-11.
Golombok, S., Spencer, A., Rutter. M., 1983. Children in lesbian and single-parent households: psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry 24.551-572.
Golombok, S., Tasker, F., Murray, C., 1997. Children raised i n fatherless families from infancy: family relationships and the socioemotional development of
children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 38, 783- 791.
Golombok. S .. Perry. B .. Burston. A., Murray. C .. Mooney-Somers. J .. Stevens. M .. Golding. J .. 2003. Children with lesbian parents: a community study.
Developmental Psychology 39. 20-33.
Green. R., 1978. Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents. American Journal of Psychiatry 135, 692- 697.
Green. R., Mandel, J.B .. Hotvedt, M.E., Gray, J., Smith, L, 1986. Lesbian mothers and their children: a comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and
their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior 7. 175- 181.
Harper. C., Mclanahan, S., 2004. Father absence and youth incarceration. journal of Research on Adolescence 14, 369-397.
Harris, M.B., Turner. P.H .. 1986. Gay and lesbian parents. Journal of Homosexuality 12. 101- 113.
Heiss. J., 1996. Effects of African American family structure on school attitude and performance. Social Problems 43, 246-267.
Herek. G.M .. 2006. Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: a social science perspective. American Psychologist 61.607- 621.
Hetherington. M .. Kelly. J .. 2002. For Better or for Worse: Divorce Reconsidered. Norton, New York.
Hoeffer, B .. 1981. Children's acquisition of sex-role behavior in lesbian mother families. American journal of Orthopsychiatry 5, 536- 544.
Horwitz. A.V., White. H.R., Howell-White. S .. 1996. Becoming married and mental health: a longitudinal study of a cohort of young adults. journal of
Marriage and the Family 58, 895-907.
Huggins. S.L. 1989. A comparative study of self-esteem of adolescent children of divorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers. journal of
Homosexuality 18, 123- 135.
jekielek. s .. 1 '998. Parental conflict, marital disruption. and children's emotional well- being. Social Forces 76, 905- 936.
Johnson, S.M., O'Connor, E., 2002. The Gay Baby Boom: The Psychology of Gay Parenthood. NYU Press. New York.
johnson, R.A. et al, 1996. The Relat ionship Between Family Structure and Adolescent Substance Abuse. US Dept. of Health and Human Services. Rockville.
MD.
Kamark. E.C., Galston. W.A., 1990. Putting Children First: A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990s. Progressive Policy Institute, Washington. DC.
King. B.R .. Black. K.N .. 1999. College students' perceptual stigmatization of the children of lesbian mothers. American journal of Orthopsychiatry 69. 220-
227.
Kirkpatrick. M .. Smith. C.. Roy, R.. 1981. Lesbian mothers and their children: a comparative survey. American journal of Orthopsychiatry 51, 545- 551.
Koepke. L.. Hare. J.. Moran. P .. 1992. Relationship quality in a sample of lesbian couples with children and child-free lesbian couples. Family Relations 41.
224- 229.
Kuhn, T.S . 1970/1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. third ed. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.
Kweskin. S.L.. Cook, A.S., 1982. Heterosexual and homosexual mothers self-described sex-role behavior and ideal sex-role behavior in children. Sex Roles 8,
967-975.
L.ansford.J.E . 2009. Parental divorce and children's adjustment. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4. 140- 152.
Lerner, R .. Nagai, A .. 2001 . No Basis: What t he Studies Don't Tell us About Same-Sex Parenting. Marriage law Project. Washington, DC.
Lewis. K.G .. 1980. Children of lesbians: Their point of view. Social Work, 198- 203.
Lichter. D.T .. Graefe. D.R .. Brown. j.B.. 2003. Is marriage a panacea? Union formation among economically disadvantaged unwed mothers. Social Problems
so. 60-86.
Lott-Whitehead. L.. Tully. C.T .. 1993. The family lives of lesbian mothers. Smith College Studies in Social Work 63, 265- 280.
Lyons. T.A .. 1983. Lesbian mother's custody fears. Women & Therapy 2, 231-240.
MacCallum. F .. Golombok. S .. 2004. Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothe1s at
early adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45, 1407-1419.
Manning. W.D .. Lamb. K.A.. 2003. Adolescent well-being in cohabiting. married. and si ngle-parent families. journal of Marriage and Family 65, 876- 893.
Margolin. L. 1992. Child abuse by mothers boyfriends: why the overrepresentation? Child Abuse and Neglect 16. 541-551.
Mclanahan. S .. Sandefur. G .. 1994. Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts. What Helps. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. MA.
McLeod. A.C.. Crawford. 1., Zecheister. J.. 1999. Heterosexual Undergraduates' Attitudes Toward Gay Fathers and their Children. journal of Psychology and
Human Sexuality 11.43- 62.
Miller. B.. 1979. Gay fathers and t heir children. Family Coordinator 28. 544-552.
Miller. J.A .. jacobsen. R.B .. Bigner. J.J.. 1981 . The child's home environment for lesbian versus heterosexual mothers: a neglected area of research. journal of
Homosexuality 7. 49- 56.
Mitchell. K.S., Booth. A .. King. V .. 2009. Adolescents with nonresident fathers: are daughters more disadvantaged than sons? journal of Marriage and Family
71. 650- 662.
Moore. M.R .. 2008. Gendered power relations among women: a study of household decision making in Black. lesbian step families. American Sociological
Review 73, 335-356.
Moore. K.A.,jekielek. S.M .. Emig. C. E .. 2002. Marriage From a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children. and What Can We Do About lt?
Child Trends Research Brief. Washington. DC.
Morris,j.F .. Balsam. K.F .. Rothblum. E. D .. 2002. Lesbian and bisexual mothers and non-mothers: demographics and the coming out process. journal of Family
Psychology 16. 144- 156.
Mucklow. B.M .. Phelan. G.K .. 1979. Lesbian and traditional mothers' responses to adult responses to child behavior and self concept. Psychological Reports
44. 880- 882.
Neuman. W.L. 1997. Social Research Methods. third ed. Allyn & Bacon. Boston.
Nock. S.L., 1998. Marriage in Men' s Lives. Oxford University Press. New York.
Nock. S .. 2001. The Affidavit of Steven Nock, Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada. No. 684/00 (Ont. Sup. Ct. of justice).
O'Connell. A.. 1993. Voices from the heart: the developmental impact of a mother's lesbianism on her adolescent children. Smith College Studies in Social
Work 63, 281- 299.
Oliver, M.L, Shapiro, T.M .. 1997. Black Wealth/White Wealth. Routledge, New York.
Page, M.E .. Stevens. A. H .. 2005. Understanding racial differences in the economic costs of growing up in a single-parent family. Demography 42. 75- 90.
Pagel ow. M.D .. 1980. Heterosexual and lesbian single mothers: a comparison of problems. coping. and solutions. journal of Homosexuality s. 198- 204.
Patterson. Cj .. 1992. Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development 63. 1025-1042.
Patterson. C.J.. 1994. Children of the lesbian baby boom: Behavioral adjustment. self-concepts. and sex- role identity. In: Greene. B .. Herek. G. {E.ds.).
Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Psychology: Theory, Research. and Application. Sage, Beverly Hills. CA. pp. 156-175.
Patterson. C.J.. 1995. Families of the lesbian baby boom: parents' division of labor and children's adjustment. Developmental Psychology 31. 115- 123.
Patterson. C.J., 2000. Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. journal of Marriage and the Family 62, 1052-1069.
Patterson. C.j., 2001. Families of the lesbian baby boom: maternal mental health and chi ld adjustment. journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy 4 (3{4).
91- 107.
Patterson. C.j., 2005. Lesbian and gay parents and their children: summary of research findings. lesbian and Gay Parenting: American Psychological
Association, pp. 5- 22.
Patterson, C.j., Hurst. S., Mason, C., 1998. Families of the lesbian baby boom: children's contacts with grandparents and other adults. American journal of
Orthopsychiatry 68, 390-399.
Phillips, C.P., As bury, C.A., 1993. Parental divorcejseparati.on and the motivational characteristics and educational aspirations of African American university
students. The journal of Negro Education 62, 204-210.
Rand, C., Graham, D.L.R., Rawlings. E.I., 1982. Psychological health and factors the court seeks to control in lesbian mother custody trials. journal of
Homosexuality 8, 27- 39.
Rank. M.R .. Hirschi. T.A., 1999. The economic risk of childhood in America: estimat ing the probability of poverty across the formative years. journal of
Marriage and the Family 61.1058- 1067.
Redding, R., 2008. It's really about sex: same-sex marriage, lesbigay parenting. and the psychology of disgust. Duke journal of Gender Law & Policy 15, 128-
193.
Roese. N.j., Olson. J.M .. 2007. Better. stronger, faster self-serving judgment, affect regulation, and the optimal vigilance hypothesis. Perspectives on
Psychological Science 2. 124- 141.
Rosenfeld, M.j., 2010. Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school. Demography 47, 755-775.
Sarantakos, S., 1996. Children in three contexts: family, education. and social development. Children Australia 21, 23- 31.
Sarantakos. S .. 2000. Same-Sex Couples. Harvard Press. Sydney.
Sarantakos, S., 2005. Social Research, third ed. Palgrave Macmillan.
Sarantakos, S., 2007a. Data analysis, vol. 4. Sage. Thousand Oaks. CA.
Sarantakos, S., 2007b. Tool Kit for Quantitative Data Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan.
Schumm, W.R., 2004. What was really learned from Tasker and Golombok's {1995) study of lesbian and single parent mothers? Psychological Reports 94,
422-424.
Schumm, W.R., 2010a. Comparative relationship stability of lesbian mother and heterosexual mother families: a review of evidence. Marriage & Family
Review 46, 499- 509.
Schumm, W.R ... 2010b. Statistical requirements for properly investigating a null hypothesis. Psychological Reports 107, 953- 971.
Schumm, W.R., 2011. Child outcomes associated with lesbian parenting: Comments on Biblarz and Stacy's 2010 report. journal of Human Sexuality 3, ].S-
80.
Schwandt, T., 2001. Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Shiller, V.M., 2007. Science and advocacy issues in research on children of gay and lesbian parents. American Psychologist 62, 712-713.
Siegel. C. et al. 1996. Mortality from intentional and unintentional injury among infants of young mot hers in Colorado. 1982- 1992. Archives of Pediatric a.nd
Adolescent Medicine 150, 1077-1083.
Siegenthaler. A.L.. Bigner, j.j., 2000. The value of children to lesbian and non-lesbian mothers. journal of Homosexuality 39, 73- 91.
Simon. R.W .. 2002. Revisiting the relationships among gender, marital status. and menr.al health. American journal of Sociology 107, 1065-1096.
Stacey,] .. Biblarz, T.j .. 2001. (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review 66. 159- 183.
Steckel. A .. 1985. Separation-Individuation in Children of Lesbian and Heterosexual Couples. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Wright Institute
Graduate School, Berkeley, CA.
Steckel. A .. 1987. Psychosocial development of children i n lesbian mothers. In: Bozett, F.W. ( Ed.), Gay and Lesbian Parents. Praeger. New York, pp. 75-85.
Strasser, M .. 2008. The alleged harms of recognizing same-sex marriage. In: Wardle. L. {Ed.), What's the Harm? Does legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Really
Harm Individuals, Families or Society? University Press, lanham, MD, pp. 27- 46.
Sullivan, M., 1996. Rozzie and Harriett? Gender and family parents of lesbian coparents. Gender and Society 10, 747- 767.
Tasker. F.L.. Golombok, S., 1995. Adults raised as children in lesbian families. American journal of Orthopsychiatty 65, 203- 215.
Tasker. F.L.. Golombok, S .. 1997. Growing Up in a lesbian Family: EFfects on Child Development. Guilford, New York.
Tasker, F.L.. Golombok, S., 1998. The role of co-mothers in planned lesbian-led families. journal of Lesbian Studies 2. 49- 68.
Teachman, j.R. et al, 1998. Sibling resemblance in behavioral and cognitive outcomes: the role of father presence. journal of Marriage and the Family 60.
835-848.
Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, 1., Brewaeys, A., 2003. Family functioning in leslbian families created by donor insemination. American journal of
Orthopsychiatry 73, 78- 90.
Wainright. j.L.. Russell. S.T.. Patterson. C.j., 2004. Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of with same-sex
parents. Child Development 75 .. 1886- 1898.
Waite, L., 1995. Does marriage matt er? Demography 32, 483-507.
Waite, l., Gallagher. M .. 2000. The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier. Healthier, and Better off Financially. Doubleday. New York.
Wallerstein, j., Lewis. j.M .. Blakeslee, S., 2001. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce. Hyperion. New York.
Wardle. L. D .. 1997. The potential impact of homosexual parenting on children. University of Illinois Law Review 1997, 833-919.
Wei toft, G.R. et al. 2003. Mortality, severe morbidity. and injury in children living with single parents in Sweden: a population-based study. The Lancet 361,
289- 295.
Wilcox, W.B. et al, 2005. Why Marriage Matters. second ed. Institute for American Values. New York.
Wilcox, W.B. et al. 2011. Why Marriage Matters. third ed. Institute for American Values. New York.
Williams, R.N., 2000. A critique of the research on same-sex parenting. In: Dollahite, D.C. (Ed.), Strengthening Our Families. Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, UT, pp.
325-355.
Wolfinger, N.H., 2005. Understanding the Divorce Cycle: The Chi ldren of Divorce in their Own Marriages. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Wright. j.M .. 1998. lesbian Stepfamilies: An Ethnography of love. Harrington Park, New York.

EXHIBIT 66
Hlli'TI. Dov. 18: 245-266 (1975)
Fathers: Forgotten Contributors to Child Development
Micluzel E. Lamb
1
Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Xt:y Words. Fathess Socill development Family hNonality development
Socialization
A bstr11ct. Theoretical and research lite:atuce on the role of fathers In chlld develop-
ment Is reviewed. The nut seetlon polnu out there is little known about father-Infant
and the Impact of the father on Want soc:bl development, though diverse
theoretical perspectives all assume that the ! atller's role i.l mlnlmal, and, at best, lndilect. It
Is sugcsted that this assumption b unsubsUIJitiated. Fathers an beUcvcd to play an lnllucn-
t.W role In later child devclopmeJit, though the theoretical assumptions, are
quately validated by research. A new hypothesis is proposed whereby fatllen arc seen as
phying a vitally ilnportant role In $0clali.zation, yet one which Is qiUJJt4tively dill'crent from
tllat played by moth.en. Vlllious research dclign.s are suggested whereby this hypothesis C3n
be RJbject to emplricaJ validation.
Research and theorizing on the social influences on human development
have been a major concern of psychologists for many years. There is a wide-
spread belief that early experiences have a disproportionately powerful effect on
both cognitive and affective development, and many consider the nuclear family
to be a major factor in socialization. Within the last decade, there have been
1
Thb p)pcr was written whUc: the aucbor wu enpgcd In research by the
Poundatjo11 for Oilld Development through the Ecology of HuiiWI Development l'Jognm.
. Thanks arc offerccl to Thom41 M. Achtnb11ch, lJrU 8tOn{tnbrt:MtT, Gwa G. Fein, l+'fllklm
Xtsstn, and lllmft 8. Lamb for their thOIJ8blfUl and genuow critlasms o( earlier dn!u or
this article, and for theil encouracemcnt and assistance.
,
:..\ I a "
Lcmb 246
numerous attempts to explore the mother-child relationship, on the assumption
ilhat its absence may be pathogenic (Bowlby, 1951, 1969). The. purpose of this
review is to suggest that the father-child relationship deserves more explicit
attention than it has been accorded in the past. Specifically, I shall argue that
both mothers and fathers play crucial and qualitatively different roles in the
of the child; indeed, this is probably what accounts for the social
izing perfonnance of the nuclear family.
Previous research has impUed that the father plays essentially no role in the
social development of the infant, while in later childhood he is believed to be a
crucial figure in sex role and moral development. I will contend that the father-
infant and mother-infant interaction differ substantially in character. 'This
makes plausible the possibility that the parents contribute differentially to
socialization from infancy. Subsequently, I shall focus on the theories con
ceming the role of the father in later childhood, and suggest that the correla
tiona! search for effects which dominates most of the research is premature;
logically, it should follow characterization of the nature of the father-infant
relationship. Lastly, I will suggest, largely for heuristic purposes, an hypothesis
concerning the role of the father, and suggest several approaches whereby the
nature of the father-child relationship; and the role of thre father in tha
mother-father-child farn:ily system, mlght best be explored in the future.
Infancy
From the earlier writings of Freud, psychologists have believed that one of
the prerequisites for normal development is a satisfactory relationship with the
mother in infancy. As Freud wrote 'In these ... lies the root of the mothets
importance, unique, without parallel, established unalterably for the whole life-
time as the fust and strongest love-object, and as the prototype of a1.l later
Jove-relations - for both sexes' (1949, p. 45). As I will demonstrate in tbJs
most of the theorists and researchers who succeeded Freud, whatever
their theoretical persuasion, have concurred in emphasizing the mother-infant
relationship. The father is assumed to be of minimal importance during infancy,
and where he is accorded any consideration, he is seen as no more than an
occasional mother-substitute. Bowlby's belief (which indeed is the belief of most
theorists) is that ' ... the child's relation to his mother ... is without doubt in
ordinary circumst ances, by far his most important relationship during these
years ... (W)hile continual reference will be made to the mother- child
little will be said of the father-child relation; his value as the economic and
emotionol support of the mother will be assumed'(Bowlby, 1951, p. 13; present
author's italics).
Puhcrs: Forgotten Contributou to Child Development 247
Attachment Theory
Attachment theory ltolds that the human infant is biologically or genetically
biased so as to emit certain behaviors (attachment behaviors) which have as their
predictable outcome, the attainment or maintenance of proximity to the attach-
ment object (Bowlby, 1969; Lamb, 1974). Whether or not Bowlby is correct in
assuming that the infant is preprogrammed to seek proximity to a protective
person, however, there is little reason why this should necessarily be tho infant's
mot'IJer. Although Bowlby (1969) has suggested that there are hom1onal factors
which predispose a mother to act maternally, there is little evidence that this is
true.Bowlby recognizes this, since he argues that the mother to whom the infant
becomes attached need not be the biological mother. The selection of the
infant's at1aclunent figure Is determined instead by the extent of the infant's
exposure to various adults. The deficiencies in this argument will be di-scussed in
the section on 111e Availability Hypothest's.
CognitiveDevelopmental Perspectives
The widespread belief in the primary importance of the mother-child rela
tionship is shared not only by social-learning and attachment theorists, but by
cognitive developmental.ists as well. Kohlberg, for example, states 'the boy's
affectional tie to his mother is deep, and it takes some time before the boy's
self-<:onceptual or sex-role identity considerations can lead him to subordinate it
to the development of a tie to the father'(Kohlberg, 1966, p. 135). According to
Kohlberg, the relationship with the father is fonned between 4 and 8 yeaJS of
age (Kohlberg and Zigler. 1967). Similar assumptions are made by Panons and
Bales (1955) and Mowrer {1950): 'The first identification infants make with
mother figures is undifferentiated ... it is only at a later stage, presumably, that
the chlld becomes aware of the partition of mankind into two sexes; and it is
then that the father, who has played a somewhat subsidiary role up to this point,
nonnally comes forward as the boy's special mentor, guide, and model' (Mowrer,
1950, pp. 607-608). The implication is that for the young girl, her father re-
mains a shadowy, subsidiary, and presumably irrelevant entity in her socialization.
The Secondary Drive Theory
In earlier years, additional support for the 'natural' preeminence of the
mother as a socialization agent would be dnwn from the second3ry drive
hypothesis. Thls lay at the root of fireutf's notions of the mother's importance,
and was also basic to learning theory expositions (Ainsworth, 1969; Bijou and
Baer, 1961; Maccoby and Masten, 1970). This notion, in brief, proposed that
the child became attached to his mother because she was the person who fed
him and satisfied his basic needs: in learning theory terms, an associative bond
was fonned between the pleasurable sensation of need gratification and the
person of the mother. This theory, which emphasized the feeding situation, was
I
I
I,
I
I
. ;I
I
..
- ....
7t i
I
_____j . \
i.JJmb 248
discredited when Harlow ( 1961; Harlow and Zimmerman, 19 59,) demonstrated
that infant monkeys preferred to cling to, and derived comfort from, a terry-
cloth mother surrogate rather than a wire surrogate that fed them.
The Availability Hypothesis
More recently, social learning theorists (Gewirtz. 1972) and implicitly, too,
Bowlby and Ainsworth, have assumed that the mother is the most important
person in the infant's life because she spends the most time with him. Actu!lly,
the conflicting evidence on the effects of day care on mother-infant attachment
(Fein and Clarke.Stewart, 1973) suggests that duration of time in proximity
may be a poor index of the security of the infant's attachment to either parent.
Pederson and Robson (1969) found a negligible correlation between the amount
of time the fathers spent in play and the degree of infant aUaclunent as deter
mined by reported intensity of greeting behavior. Likewise, Schaffer and
Emerson (1964) found that the amount of time that a mother spent with her
child was uncorrelated with the intensity of the child's attachment to her.
In addition, there is little known about the amount of time mothers and
fathers actually interact with their infants. A study by Pederson and Robson
(1969) based on maternal reporu, indicated that fathers spent, on average,
8 h/week in play with their infants (aged 8-9 months).
1
l.n a far more extensive
study, unfortunately also reliant on maternal reports, the Newsons (1963, 1968)
found that with 1-year-olds, 52% of the fathers were hiShly participant, while
27 % took a moderate share in the care of their babies. With 4-year-olds, 51 %of
the fathers were ltighly participant, and 40% were moderately participant. 'A
highly participant father is usually described as one who will do anything for the
children' (Newson and Newson, 1965, p. 137) whereas 'a moderately participant
father is one who in general is prepared to help with the children if he is asked or
in an emergency, but who does not do a deal as a matter of coUJSe'
(p. 138). Play with the infants was excluded. from this categorization, since 99
of the fathers played witb their children. Thus there is clear evidence that mod
fathers are highly accessible to their offspring when in the home.
Clarke-Stewart's (1972) findings make abundantly clear, too, that tht
amount of interaction between the infant and his mother should not be exag-
gerated. Play with, object stimulation by. and affectionate contact with file
mother each accounted for 5% or less of the infant's waking day. While motheJS
'Another oft-cited study (Rebelsky and Honks, 1911) suggested that fathers spemu
averago of only 37 sec/day talking to their Infants in the fu:st quarter-yur of life. Bronfen-
brennQ' (personal comrnun.). however, Ius pointed out t hat the data provided indicate Uut
there were crrou in the com,put:ltion of this average. In the w.u small and
the data Itself questionable . Further, the datn u best refer only to the extent of voal
interaction. It is quite JIO$$ible that (ll(ther nonvocal interaction took place. Finally, we clo
not know to what extent the fathers were inhibited by the microphone worn by the infants.
Fathers: Forgotten Contributors to Child Development 249
spend a great deal of time in the same room as their infants, interaction is
surprisingly limited.
One must also bear in mind the affective quality of tl1e infant' s interaction
with each patent - the opportunity for brief yet highly emotionally charged
interaction with the father each evening may offset the longer hours spent with a
harrassed and dissatisfied mother during the day (Birnbaum, 1971; Yarrow et al.,
1962). Just as 'it Js possible that the nonworking mother spends relatively li ttle
time in direct positive interaction with her child, and thus the working mother's
deliberate efforts might end up in more positive interaction time' (L. Hoffman,
1974, p. 214), it is possible that fathers may be making the satne deliberate
efforts.
The availability hypothesis is deficient, then, insofar as it fails to take into
account the fact which these theorists all emphasize in other contexts, namely
that the important variable is not so much the amount of time spent together,
but the sensitivity of the adult and infant t o one another's behavioral signals
(Ainsworth et aL, 1974), and the quality of the interaction. If tile frequent
extended daily separations involved in day care cannot be shown to affect the
mother-child attachment, it is unreasonable to assume that the daily separations
from the father are inimical to the development of an infant- father relationship
if the working father does avail himself of the opportunities to interact in the
evenings.
Summary
Thus most of the evidence indicates that the availability hypothesis is not
sufficient to explain the hypothesized preeminence of mothers as attachment
figures and socializing agents. None of the reasons set forth above amount to
adequate justification for the almost universal emphasis on mother- infant
relations. Before fathers em safely be ignored, as far as research on infancy is
concerned, it must be established that they are necessarily less adequate, or
secondazy, attachment figures, as Bowlby (1969) believes.
Studies of Fathers and Infants
Recently, Greenberg and Morris (1974) have reported, on the basis of the
self-reports of the fathers of newborns, that the birth of a child has a profound
impact on most fathers. The fathers reported positive attitudes towards the
neonates, and m awareness of a bond and of the personality and individuality of
the infant. The Implication is that the newborn has an inlpact on both parents,
not solely on the mother, and that there is every likelihood that both parents
will become salient social objects, drawn to interact with and care for the newest
member of the family system.
t -- I

EXHIBIT 67
Volume 5
Pages 991 - 1255
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE HONORABLE VAUGHN R. WALKER
KRISTIN M. PERRY, )
SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, )
and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
VS. ) NO. C 09-2292-VRW
)
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his )
official capacity as Governor of )
California; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., )
in his official capacity as )
Attorney General of California; )
MARK B. HORTON, in his official )
capacity as Director of the )
California Department of Public )
Health and State Registrar of )
Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, )
in her official capacity as Deputy )
Director of Health Information & )
Strategic Planning for the )
California Department of Public )
Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his )
official capacity as )
Clerk-Recorder for the County of )
Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his )
official capacity as )
Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk )
for the County of Los Angeles, )
) San Francisco, California
Defendants. ) Friday
___________________________________) January 15, 2010

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Reported By: Katherine Powell Sullivan, CRR, Katherine Powell Sullivan, CRR, Katherine Powell Sullivan, CRR, Katherine Powell Sullivan, CRR, CSR CSR CSR CSR 5812 5812 5812 5812
Debra L. Pas, CRR, CSR 11916 Debra L. Pas, CRR, CSR 11916 Debra L. Pas, CRR, CSR 11916 Debra L. Pas, CRR, CSR 11916
Official Reporter Official Reporter Official Reporter Official Reporters ss s - U.S. District Court - U.S. District Court - U.S. District Court - U.S. District Court
992
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiffs: GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
BY: THEODORE B. OLSON, ESQUIRE
MATTHEW D. MCGILL, ESQUIRE
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071-3197
BY: THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR., ESQUIRE
CHRISTOPHER D. DUSSEAULT, ESQUIRE
SCOTT MALZAHN, ESQUIRE
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, California 94105-2933
BY: ETHAN D. DETTMER, JR., ESQUIRE
ENRIQUE A. MONAGAS, ESQUIRE
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, New York 10504
BY: DAVID BOIES, ESQUIRE
ROSANNE C. BAXTER, ESQUIRE
575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, New York 10022
BY: JOSHUA I. SCHILLER, ESQUIRE

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900
Oakland, California 94612
BY: JEREMY MICHAEL GOLDMAN, ESQUIRE
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN, ESQUIRE

For Plaintiff- CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Intervenor: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
One Drive Carlton B. Goodlett Place
BY: THERESE STEWART, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
DANNY CHOU, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
RONALD P. FLYNN, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
ERIN BERNSTEIN, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY

(APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE)
993
APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):

For Defendant MENNEMEIER, GLASSMAN & STROUD
Gov. Schwarzenegger: 980 9th Street, Suite 1700
Sacramento, California 95814-2736
BY: ANDREW WALTER STROUD, ESQUIRE

For Defendant STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
Edmund G. Brown Jr.: 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
BY: TAMAR PACHTER, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General
1300 I Street, 17th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
BY: GORDON BURNS, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL

For Defendant- COOPER & KIRK
Intervenors: 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
BY: CHARLES J. COOPER, ESQUIRE
DAVID H. THOMPSON, ESQUIRE
HOWARD C. NIELSON, JR., ESQUIRE
NICOLE MOSS, ESQUIRE
PETER PATTERSON, ESQUIRE

ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND
15100 North 90th Street
BY: BRIAN W. RAUM, SENIOR COUNSEL
JAMES A. CAMPBELL, ESQUIRE
JORDAN LORENCE, ESQUIRE
DALE SCHOWENGERDT, ESQUIRE

For Defendant OFFICE OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNSEL
Dean C. Logan: 500 West Temple Street, Room 652
Los Angeles, California 90012
BY: JUDY WHITEHURST, DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL

For Defendant
Patrick O'Connell: OFFICE OF ALAMEDA COUNTY COUNSEL
1221 Oak Street, Suite 450
Oakland, California 94612
BY: CLAUDE F. KOLM, DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL
MANUEL MARTINEZ, DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL

(APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE)

994
APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):

For Defendant- TERRY L. THOMPSON, ESQUIRE
Intervenor Tam: P.O. Box 1346
Alamo, California 94507
For Mr. Garlow, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE
Mr. McPherson: 11 West Chestnut Hill Road
Litchfield, Connecticut 06759
BY: VINCENT P. MCCARTHY, ESQUIRE
For Dennis ANDREW PERRY PUGNO, ESQUIRE
Hollingsworth: 101 Parkshore Dr #100
Folsom, California 95630-4726
For Proposed ADVOCATES FOR FAITH AND FREEDOM
Intervenor Imperial 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110
County, et al.: Murrieta, California 92562
BY: JENNIFER L. MONK, ESQUIRE

_ _ _ _

LAMB - CROSS EXAMINATION / THOMPSON
1063
1 differently than men in terms of as it relates to children?
2 A. I'm not familiar with research on that.
3 Q. Gender is also related to certain occupations, correct?
4 A. There are certain occupations where some genders are more
5 prominent than others, yes, although this has actually changed
6 pretty dramatically over time.
7 Q. Gender is associated with educational opportunities,
8 correct?
9 A. Uhm, I'm not sure it's associated with opportunities. It
10 may be associated in some context with whether or not people
11 take advantage of opportunities.
12 Q. Men are more likely to perpetrate sexual abuse than women
13 are, as a general characteristic, correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. As a result, stepfathers are much more likely to be
16 perpetrators of sexual abuse than stepmothers, correct?
18 Q. And stepfathers are more likely than biological fathers to
19 abuse their children, correct?
20 A. I think that's correct, too, yes.
21 Q. And stepfathers molest children at a higher rate than
22 stepmothers, correct?
23 A. Yes, correct.
24 Q. And molestation of a child negatively impacts the child's
25 development, correct?
1064
1 A. It certainly can, yes.
2 Q. And there is evidence that men who are married to women,
3 however, are less likely to drink heavily and less likely to
4 gamble, correct?
5 A. I've heard of that research. It's obviously outside of my
6 expertise -- range of expertise, yes.
7 Q. When it comes to parenting skills and abilities, you're
8 not saying that men and women are completely interchangeable,
9 correct?
10 A. What I'm saying is that where it comes to the aspects of
11 parenting that affect children's adjustment, it's the same
12 features of the parents' behavior that are important for their
13 children's adjustment.
14 Q. I would like to direct your attention to page 225 of your
15 deposition in this case, lines 9 through 14.
16 A. That's back to --
17 Q. Binder 1, the testimony binder.
18 A. Okay. Number 1. And what pages was that?
19 Q. 225.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. And line 9, it says -- let me make sure I'm in the right
22 place here. All right. Line 9 through 14. Line 9 starts with
23 my question:
24 "Is it your opinion that men and women are
25 completely interchangeable in terms of
1065
1 parenting skills and ability?
2 "ANSWER: Well, I'm not saying they are
3 completely interchangeable with respect to
4 skills and abilities."
5 And you gave that testimony, right?
6 A. I did. I continued for several paragraphs explaining what
7 I meant.
8 (Laughter)
9 Q. And we'll explore that in great detail today. You --
10 A. I just don't want you to lose sight of the fact that there
11 is more.
12 Q. You would concede that gender is a complicated variable,
13 and that it has ramifications for an individual's experiences
14 from the beginning of their life, correct?
16 Q. So gender likely would be related to some of the processes
17 related to raising a child, but not necessarily in a
18 straightforward way, correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And so you think gender is one of those variables that can
21 have ripple effects in a variety of different ways on the way
22 in which people behave, and can in a variety of ways affect the
23 way they behave with their children, correct?
24 A. It can, yes.
25 Q. Gender is something that actually has a wide range of
1066
1 effects on a variety of different levels of our behavior,
2 correct?
4 Q. Fathers' biological and socially-reinforced masculine
5 qualities predispose them to treat their children differently
6 than do mothers, correct?
7 A. I'm not sure about that.
8 Q. Well, let's look at tab 9 of your binder, your second
9 binder. And this would be 9A, actually.
10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. And turning your attention -- this is called -- this is
12 from 2000. It's "Fatherhood in the 21st Century." And this is
13 something you were a coauthor of, correct?
15 And I'd like to direct your attention to page 130.
16 And in particular, to the right-hand column, the second full
17 paragraph. And it's the third sentence, that says:
18 "Fathers' biological and socially-reinforced
19 masculine qualities predispose them to treat
20 their children differently than do mothers."
21 A. And I'm still not sure where you are. Sorry. Oh, okay,
22 the second column. I have you now.
23 Q. Okay. And when you signed on to this paper as a coauthor,
24 you believed that to be true, correct?
25 A. Well, I think this is referring to David Popenoe, and

EXHIBIT 68

EXHIBIT 69
' /
Journal of Marriage and Family ncfr '
:::::::=
JULIE 0. TEITLER Columbia University
NA CY E. REICHMA1 Robert Wood Johnson Medical School*
LE A NEPOMNY ASCHY Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey**
lRWI GARFI KEL Columbia University***
Effects of Welfare Participation on Marriage
We investigated the widely held premise
that welfare participation causes women to
refrain from marriage. Using data from the
Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study
(N = 3,219), we employed an event hisfOIJ'
approach to study transitions to marriage among
mothers who have had a nonmarital birth. We
found that welfare participation reduces the
likelihood of transiaoning to marriage (hazard
ratio is 0.67, p <.01), but only while the mother
is receiving Once the mother leaves
welfare, past receipt has little effect on marriage.
We infer that the negative association between
welfare participation and subsequent marriage
reflects tempora1y economic disincentives rather
than an erosion of values.
Columbia University School of Social Work, 1255
Amsterdam Avenue, ew York, NY 10027
(jot8@eolumbia.edu).
*Department of Pediatrics, Robert Wood Johnson Medical
School, 97 Paterson St., Room 435, ew Brunswick, J
08903.
**School of Social Work, Rutgers, The State University of
ew Jersey, 536 George St., Room 205, New Brunswick,
J 08901.
columbia University School of Social Work, 1255
Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027.
This article was edited by Jay Teachman.
Key Words: marriage. welfare, welfare reform.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor-
tunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996,
often referred to as welfare reform, ended enti-
tlement to wei fare benefits under Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) and replaced
AFDC with Temporary Assistance for eedy
Families (T A NF) block grants to states. The
broad goal of the PRWORA was to reduce
dependence on government benefits by promot-
ing work, encouraging marriage, and reducing
nonmarital childbearing. The legislation repre-
sented a convergence of dissatisfaction with the
welfare system on both sides of the poli tical
spectrum. Welfare participation was viewed by
many as a cause of dependence, rather than a
consequence of disadvantage, and part of a "tan-
gle of pathologies'' (to borrow from Moynihan,
1965) alongside nonmarital childbearing. The
new legislation required mothers to work in
exchange for cash benefits, imposed lifetime lim-
its, and encouraged marriage- all with the goal
of breaking the cycle of dependence and bring-
ing an increasingly marginalized underclass to
the mainstream.
In terms of reducing caseloads, welfare
reform has been a clear success; welfare rolls
have declined by over 50% since their peak
in 1994, and at least one third of the caseload
decline can be explained by welfare reform.
At the same time, employment rates of low-
skilled mothers rose dramatically (Ziliak, 2006),
and at least some of that increase was a
result of welfare reform (Schoeni & Blank,
878 Journal of Marriage and Family 71 (November 2009): 878- 891
Welfare Participation and Marriage
2000). The effects on family structure have
been less clear. A large literature on the
effects of welfare reform on marriage and
a smaller one on cohabitation have yielded
mixed findings, and the literature on nonrnarital
childbearing and female headship indicates
slightly negative but inconsistent effects of
welfare refom1 (Blank, 2002; Gennetian &
Knox, 2003; Grogger & Karoly, 2005; Moffitt,
1998; Peters, Plotnick, & Jeong, 200 I; Ratcliffe,
McKernan, & Rosenberg, 2002).
That there were large reductions in welfare
caseloads and increases in employment, with
little accompanying change in marriage and
nonmarital fertility, casts doubt on the existence
of a tight pathological knot involving those
behaviors- a premise that has been taken as
a given by policymakers and researchers al ike.
According to Blank (2007) in a recent synthesis
article on the effects of welfare reform, "There
is continuing grist for the research mill of social
scientists in all disciplines to understand both
why one set ofbehaviors [work, earnings] was so
responsive [to welfare reform] in the past decade,
while other behaviors [marriage, nonmarital
fertility] have been relatively unchanged"
(p. 32).
The two causal mechanisms most commonly
assumed to operate are that welfare participation
compromises values and that there are economic
disincentives to marrying while on welfare. In
terms of the former, one of tihe very vocal
arguments in favor of welfare reform focused
on the value of work (Katz, 2001). The idea
was that work builds character and positively
affects attitudes toward family, whereas welfare
re1iance erodes family values (Mead, 1989). In
terms of the latter, critics of AFDC pointed to
the perverse financial incentives of the program.
The logic was that AFDC discouraged marriage
because benefits were more easily obtained
by one-parent families, making women more
likely to have children outside of marriage
and remain unmarried. PRWORA eliminated
some of the disincentives to marriage, but
because the income of a cohabiting partner or
spouse is factored into eligibility for T ANF,
disincentives to co-residing or marrying may
slill exisl- parlicularly when family slruclure is
difficult to conceal, as in the case of marriage
(e.g., see Burstein, 2007, for a good discussion
of eligibility rules for two-parent families under
AFDC and T ANF).
879
Direct links between welfare partiCipation
and marriage have rarely been expnored-either
under AFDC or TANF. The literature on
effects of welfare policy on marriage does not
directly test or further our understanding of
how participation in the welfare system might
discourage the formation of marital unions.
Moreover, welfare participation could have
small effects on marriage that become apparent
only over a long period of time (longer than the
time frame considered in most policy analyses)
or it may delay marriage temporari ly but have
little effect on the likelihood of an individual
ever marrying.
By design, most participants in T ANF and
its predecessor AFDC have been unmarried
women, and the two behaviors (welfare par-
ticipation and marriage) are therefore strongly
associated. It is not clear, however, that wel-
fare causes nonmarriage. Marriage could make
women ineligible for welfare (reverse causal-
ity) or differences in marriage behavior between
participants and nonparticipants could reflect
(relatively stable) cultural or socioeconomic
characteristics or (transitory) changes in cir-
cumstances. Studies that have used welfare
participation as a control variable in analyses
focusing on other detetminants of marriage have
generally found weak or insignificant associa-
tions with marriage (e.g., Brien, 1997; Lichter,
McLaughlin, Kephart, & Landry, 1992; Smock
& Manning, 1997).
As far as we know, only two studies have
explicitly investigated the effects of welfare
participation on marriage. Both report findings
based primarily on AFDC, so their results may
not be applicable to T ANF participation in the
post-1996 envi ronment. The first used data from
the Panel Study of Income Dynamics to esti-
mate the effects of AFDC participation on being
married 10, 15, and 20 years later (Vartanian &
McNamara, 2004). The authors found a negative
association between participation in AFDC for
more than 2 years and being married 15 years
later, a positive association between AFDC par-
ticipation for less than 2 years and being married
20 years later, and no other significant associ-
ations. The inconsistent results, small sample
sizes, and possible selection issues make it dif-
ficult to draw inferences from the study about
the long-tenn effects of AFDC participation on
marnage.
Using 1989 to 2000 data from tlhe Survey of
Income and Program Participation, Fitzgerald
880
and Ribar (2004) found sizable negative effects
of current welfare participation (AFDC or
T ANF) on exits from female headship (the most
common pathway being through marriage) in
simultaneous models of welfare participation
and headship. Their estimated effect sizes are
larger than the associations found in other
studies, perhaps reflecting their focus on the
effect of being on welfare rather than having
been on welfare at some point in the recent past.
Overall, a very small literature indicates that
there are short -term (contemporaneous) negative
effects of welfare participation on marriage but
that the effects in the longer term are unclear. To
comprehensively explore the effects of welfare
participation on marriage and to understand what
underlies those potential effects, it is necessary to
consEder both short- and long-term effects, which
requires that the two be modeled simultaneously,
or at least consistently (using the same data,
control variables, and model specifications).
Potential long-term effects are of particular
interest to us, as they are more relevant to claims
about: a self-perpetuating culture of poverty.
We use post-welfare-reform data to test
the widely held premise that participation in
welfare discourages marriage. We employ an
event hist01y approach to estimate the effects
of T ANF participation on the likelihood and
timing of marriage among mothers who have
had a nonmarital birth, a group at high risk
for welfare dependence. We estimate effects
that are concurrent with TANF receipt and
those that persist after spells on TANF have
ended and project effects over the life course.
Specifically, we address the following questions:
Is T ANF participation associated with long-
term changes in marital behavior? Is T ANF
participation associated with marriage in the
short term (while a participant is receiving
benefits)? What are potential mechanisms? What
is the role of selection? How large would the sum
of long-term and short-term effects be over the
life course if the effects remained constant over
time?
METHOD
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing
Study follows a cohort of parents and their
newborn children in 20 U.S. citi es (located
in 15 states). Mothers were interviewed in
the hospital at the time of their child's
birth (baseli ne) and over the telephone I , 3,
Journal of Marriage and Family
and 5 years later. Baseline interviews were
conducted with a probability sample of 3;711
unmarried mothers and a comparison group of
1,196 married mothers from 1998 to 2000 (see
Reichman, Teitler, Garfinkel, & McLanahan,
200 I, for details of the research design).
Response rates of unmarried mothers were
87% at baseline, 89% (of baseline completed
interviews) at the 1-year follow-up, 87% (of
baseline completed interviews) at 3 years, and
84% (of baseline completed interviews) at
5 years (Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research
on Child Wellbeing, 2008).
Of the 3,293 mothers who reported that
they were unmarried at baseline and who
completed follow-up interviews at 1 year, 39
(approximately 1 %) were excluded from the
analysis because of inconsistent or missing
reports of marriage dates, 5 (<I%) were
excluded because of missing TANF participation
dates, and 30 (approximately I%) were excluded
because of missing data on other covariates.
The remaining 3,219 cases formed the analysis
sample. A comparison of the mothers in our
analysis sample to the baseline unmarried
mothers not in our analysis sample (primarily
because they did not complete J -year follow-up
interviews) revealed the two groups to be ve1y
similar in terms of race/ethnicity, education,
and baseline cohabitation status. Mothers who
remained in the sample were more likely than
those who were lost to follow-up to be less than
20 years old at the time of birth (23% vs. 16%)
and to ibe U.S. born (88% vs. 79%).
We focused on whether, to what extent,
and how TANF participation affects entry into
marriage among mothers who had nonmarital
births. We used time-varying measures of
marriage and welfare participation. All other
analysis variables were measured at baseline
and were non-time-va1ying. The outcome of
interest was marriage, either to the baby's father
or to someone else. At each wave of the survey,
mothers provided exact dates of marriage (when
applicable), which were used to ascertain their
marital status at each month of the observation
period. The 527 observations for which there was
no completed 3- or 5-year follow-up interview
were rught censored at the t ime of the mother's
last interview.
Dates and numbers of months of welfare
participation were asked about in each fol low-
up wave. Specifically, respondents were asked
whether they were currently on TANF, whether
they had received TANF in the past I 2 months,
and whether they had ever received TANP. They
were also asked for how many months and
when they last received TANF. We used those
reports to construct monthly welfare histories
from 1997 until the focal child was 5 years
old (2003 to 2005, depending on the year the
chi ldren were born). The TANF participation
dates were used to construct two time-varying
measures ofT ANF participation, allowing us to
estimate short- and long-term effects. The first
was a measure of current T ANF participation,
which was coded l for months in which the
respondent was on T ANF and 0 for months
in which she was not on T ANF. The second
was a measure of past T ANF participation,
which was coded 1 for any given month if
the respondent had been on T ANF at any time
since 1997 but was not currently on T ANF
and coded 0 othe!!Wise. By considering welfare
participation only since 1997, we excluded
previous AFDC participation from our measure
of past participation. It is therefore possible that
a mother who relied on AFDC but not on TANF
was coded as not having relied on T ANF in the
past. We tested for sensitivity of the results to
this restriction, as described later. When exact
T ANF participation dates were missing at any
point during the mother's observation period,
we imputed dates on the basis of information
provided by the mother at all available survey
waves and assessed the sensitivity of our findings
to those imputations.
Table I shows the combinations of T ANF
statuses experienced by individual sample
members. Over half(57%, Groups B- F) ofthe
mothers received T ANF at some point during
or before the observation period; of those, 84%
(Groups B, C, F) experienced between one and
six transitions onto or off of T ANF (we were
able to observe up to three separate T ANF spells
for a given mother) and most (70%, groups B,
C) were included in the reference group (never
on TANF) for at least some of their exposure
time.
We incorporated the following control vari-
ables (all measured at baseline) that past
research indicates are associated with both wel-
fare participation and transitions to marriage:
mother's race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White,
non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and other non-
White), mother's educational attainment (less
than high school, high school or equivalent,
or more than high school), mother's nativity
881
Table l. Observed TANF Status Transitions (N = 3,219)
Observed T ANF Status
Never
(reference
Description group) Current Past II
A Never received TANF X 1,373
in past or during
observation period
8 First transitioned to X X 199
TANFduring
observation period
and remained on
throughout
C FiTSt transitioned to X X X 1, 100
TANFduring
observation period
and left T ANF
during observation
period
DOn TANF throughout X 37
entire observation
period
E On T ANF only prior X 252
to observation
period
F On TANF when or X X 258
before observation
period began and
left TANF during
observation period
Total number of 2,671 2,967 1,6 10
mothers ever
observed in each
status
(U.S. bom vs. foreign bom), whether the mother
was cohabiting with the baby's father, parity
(whether the birth of the focal child was the
mother's first birth), the mother' s age (whether
she was at least 20 years old), whether the birth
was covered by Medicaid, whether the mother
lived with both of her biological parents at age
15, the mother's health (excellent, very good,
or good, compared to fair or poor), and whether
the mother attended religious services at least
several times per month.
We also included city indicators to control
for state policies and other characteristics of
mothers' cities and states (such as labor and
marriage markets) t hat may be associated with
both T ANF participation and marriage. The city
882
indicators also controlled for the amount of time
mothers were exposed to the post-1996 welfare
environment since, in each city, births were
sampled within a short period of time (births
in Oakland and Austin occurred in 1998; those
in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Richmond,
and Newark occurred in 1999; and those in the
remaining 13 cities occurred in 2000).
R ESU LTS
Descriptive Analysis
As shown in Figure 1, marriage rates were
relatively low and declined slightly over
the observation period. Approximately 9%
of the sample married within 12 months
after the birth of the child. The percentages
marrying each subsequent year were 5%,
4%, 4%, and 3%, respectively (from life
table estimates). After 5 years, 75% of the
mothers remained unmarried. Applying national
race-specific marriage rates for mothers with
nonmarital births, from Graefe and Lichter
(2002), to the racial distribution of our sample,
the percent marrying within 5 years of the
birth would have been approximately 30%. Our
slightly lower observed rate (25%) could reflect
the fact that our sample is more recent and
exclusively urban.
Marriage rates during the observation period
differed considerably by TANF participation
status. Of those in the sample who received
T ANF at some point between 1997 and when
they were last interviewed, only 16% married
within 5 years, compared to more than twice as
many (37%) among those who were never on
TANF. As explained earlier, these differences
could reflect marriage delays associated with
current TANF participation, delays resulting
from having been on T ANF in the past, or
characteristics (observed or unobserved) of
mothers that are associated both with T ANF
participation and marriage.
Characteristics of mothers by whether they
ever participated in T ANF between 1997 and
their last interview are presented in Table 2.
Overall, a large proportion of this sample of
urban unmarried mothers was poor or nearly
poor ( 40% of mothers had less than a high
school education, and 76% had births covered
by Medicaid). There were notable differences,
however, between T ANF participants and
nonparticipants. Participants were less likely
than nonparticipants to be non-Hispanic White,
to have high educational attainment levels, to
be foreign born, to have been cohabiting with
the infant's father at the time of the birth, and to
have lived with both parents at age 15. They were
FIGURE I. K APLAN-MEIER UNMARRIED SURVIVAL ESTIMATES.
1.0
.75
.50
.25
0
0
.......
'' ......,
-...
--
---,_, ---------------------- ------.. __ _
-.... __
-----------&
20 40 60
Ever on TANF ----- Never on TANF
---- All Mothers
80
Months
Table 2. Sample Characteristics by TANF Participation
Status
Ever on Never on All
TANF TANF Mothers
Married father or partner 15 34 24
by 5 year or last
interview
Baseline characterics
Non-Hispanic White II 20 15
Non-Hispanic Black 67 40 55
Hispanic 20 37 27
Other non-White 2 3 3
less than high school 46 31 40
High school graduate 34 33 34
More than high school 19 36 26
Born in U.S. 94 79 88
Cohabiting with father 40 59 48
of child
First birth 32 51 40
Age :;::20 years 76 79 77
Medicaid birth 84 65 76
Lived with both 29 45 36
biological parents at
age 15
Good, very good, or 90 93 91
excellent health
N 1, 846 1, 373 3,219
Note: Figures are percentages.
more likely to be having a second- or higher-
order birth and to have relied on Medicaid to
pay for the birth.
Fifty-seven percent of the sample ( 1,846
out of 3,219 mothers) relied on TANF at
any time between 1997 and when they were
last interviewed (between 2003 and 2005 for
most mothers in the study). For this group,
the average length of the first T ANF spell that
occurred between the focal child's birth and
the mother's last interview was 10.8 months;
the median was 7.3 months (figures not shown
in table). Six percent of participants were still
on their first T ANF spell when they were last
interviewed (not shown in table). As would be
expected given the time-limited nature of cash
assistance since the PRWORA legislation, the
TANF spells in our sample were substantially
shorter than typical AFDC spells in the early
1990s; the latter had a median duration of about
2 years (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 1998).
883
Multivariate Analysis
We employed event history analysis to model
the effect of TANF participation on the
likelihood and timing of marriage. Specifically,
we estimated Cox proportional hazard models
in which duration was measured in months from
the child's birth. All baseline unmarried mothers
who completed !-year follow-up interviews
were included, whether or not they completed
subsequent interviews. Individuals who did not
marry duri ng the observation period were right-
censored at the time of their last interview.
Because the outcome of interest was marriage,
mothers were included in the analyses only
until the month they married. We employed the
commonly used Breslow approximation method
to handle ties (multiple marriages occurring in
the same observation month), a technique that is
appropriate when events are rare relative to the
size of the at-risk sample.
Using an event history framework had several
advantages over standard regression techniques.
First, by incorporating time varying measures
of both welfare participation and marriage,
we were able to establish the sequencing of
the two. Second, we did not have to choose
an arbitrary time point at which to assess
marital status and could determine the extent
to which T ANF participation was associated
with delays in marriage. Finally, we could make
use of observations. even when mothers did not
complete all follow-up interviews.
We first estimated effects of current and
past welfare participation on the likelihood
and timing of marriage. By including both
welfare statuses in our models, we were able
to disentangle associations between T ANF
participation and marriage that were short-term
(i.e., confined to the recipiency period) and those
that persisted beyond the period of welfare
participation. The two potential mechanisms
of interest, changes in values and responses
to eligibility criteria, would predict effects of
different duration. If welfare participation erodes
family values, negative effects on marriage
should persist beyond the recipiency period
(i.e., we should find evidence of past TANF
participation effects). If economic disincentives
related to eligibility deterred marriage, these
should operate primarily during the recipiency
period, leading to much stronger effects of
current than of past T ANF participation.
Next, we estimated an extensive set of auxil-
iary models. We assessed the sensitivity of the
884
estimates to the coding ofT ANF participation,
explored potential reverse causality! estimated
effects for subpopulations at high risk of rely-
ing on welfare, examined the extent to which
the effects varied by cumulative time spent on
TANF, and assessed the sensitivity of the esti-
mates to how we coded marriage and to the
inclusion of additional covariates.
Third, we explored potential selection expla-
nations. We distinguished between two poten-
tial sources of selection-that on the basis of
relatively fixed individual characteristics such
as unobserved cultural or sociodemographic
attributes, and that on the basis of transient fac-
tors such as relationship breakups. The former
would produce associations between past TANF
participation and marriage similar to what would
be expected on the basis of the erosion of values
hypothesis. The latter would produce positive
associations between current TANF participa-
tion and marri age and weak or no associations
between past T ANF and marriage as would be
expected on the basis of the hypothesized TANF
eligibility mechanism. We conducted analyses
with stratified samples to explore the extent to
which our findings appeared to reflect selection
versus hypothesized causal effects.
Estimated effects of TANF participation on
marriage. Table 3 shows estimates from an
unadjusted model of the effects of current
and past T ANF participation on marriage, a
model that adds city indicators, and a model
that includes city indicators plus all of the
covariates listed in Table 2. The hazard ratios
in Model 1 (0.68 and 0.45 for past and current
TANF participation, respectively) indicate that
both TANF statuses reduced the likelihood of
marriage (hazard ratios are significant and less
than 1). The estimates changed little when
controlling for city (Model 2), indicating that
policies or other characteristics of cities or states
did not explain observed associations between
TANF participation and marriage. When we also
controlled for the individual level covariates
(Model 3), the hazard of marrying while on
TANF was two thi rds that of marrying while
not on TANF (hazard ratio was 0.67 and
highly significant) and the effect of past T ANF
participation was close to 0 (hazard ratio was
0.94, p = .52).
We tested the proportionali ty assumption for
all covariates using the Schoenfeld residual test.
The test indicated that the effects of all but one
Table 3. Effects of Past and Current TANF Participation
on Hazard of Marriage (N = 3,219)
Received TANF in
past
Currently on TANF
Non-His panic Black
Hispanic
Other non-White
High school graduate
More than high school
Born in U.S.
Cohabiting with
father of child
First birth
Age 2:20 years
Medicaid birth
Lived with both
biological parents
at age 15
Good, very good, or
excellent health
Attends religious
services several
times/ month
City indicators
Log likel ihood
LR chi-square
Model I Model 2 Model 3
0.68***
(.00)
0.45***
(.00)
No
- 5,922
61 .22
(.00)
0.74***
(.00)
0.48***
(.00)
Yes
- 5,881
143.36
(.00)
0.94
(.52)
0.67***
(.00)
o.so++
(.00)
o.n
(.0 I)
0.76
(.22)
1. 16
(. 12)
1.ss
(.00)
0.73**
(.0 I)
2.06***
(.00)
0.95
(.56)
0.94
(.52)
0.95
(.55)
1.02
(.84)
1. 12
(.44)
1.28***
(.00)
Ye s
- 5,791
32229
(.00)
Note: f igures are proportional hazard ratios (and p values).
p < .05. p < .01 .
variable (whether parents cohabited at baseline)
were constant over time. Eliminating this vari-
able from the model did not affect the estimate or
significance of the T ANF participation variables.
For past and current T ANF participation, our
main analysis variables, the p values from the
Schoenfeld test were .25 and .42, respectively.
Alternative model specifications. Estimates from
several. additional model specifications are
shown in Table 4. First, we estimated mod-
els in which only past T ANF participation was
included and in which only current T ANF par-
ticipation was included. The estimated effect
of past T ANF when included alone (hazard
ratio = 1.04, p = .63) was similar to the cor-
responding estimate from Model 3 in Table 3,
as was that of current TANF participation alone
(hazard ratio= 0.69, p <.01), indicating that
the estimates of past and current T ANF partic-
ipation were not biased because of collinearity
between the two. Next, we show estimates from
models that restricted the sample to cases for
which we had complete infom1ation on T ANF
participation. We found that the estimates were
insensitive to these sample restrictions and there-
fore to our imputations of T ANF participation
dates. This was not surprising given that the vast
majority of imputations were made within very
short time intervals. We also estimated models
that dropped only the person months affected by
the imputation (not shown) and the results were
similar.
Next, we estimated models to investigate
two potential types of reverse causality- the
possibility that a mother left T ANF because
she became ineligible for benefits as a result of
marrying and the possibi lity that she left TANF
because she planned to marry. In terms of the
fanner, our coding of both T ANF participation
and marriage was based on monthly rather than
dai ly reports, so if a mother left TANF and
married within a !-month period, we could not
be certain which came first. Three mothers in
our analysis sample had TANF exit and marriage
885
dates that were within I month of one another,
and excluding those cases from the analyses
barely changed the results (the hazard ratios in
Model3 were 0.92 and 0.67 for past and current
T ANF participation, respectively; not shown
in table). In terms of the latter, it is possible
that a mother left T ANF because she planned
to marry, perhaps to avoid stigma associated
with being on welfare when one married. If this
were the case, marriage intentions would have
affected TANF participation and our models
would have overestimated the negative effects
of current TANF participation on marriage and
underestimated the effects of past participation.
To address this issue, we estimated models
in which TANF exits were coded as having
occurred 1 month later and, separately, 3 months
later than reported. That is, we coded mothers
who went off T ANF 1 or 3 months prior
to marrying as still on T ANF when they
married. The estimates of current and past T ANF
participation in this set of models were almost
identical to those in Table 3, alleviating concerns
about potential reverse causality to the extent
that a 3-month lead time fully accounts for
the anticipatory effect of marriage on T ANF
departures. With a !-month lag (not shown),
the Model 3 estimates were 0.95 (p = .56) and
0.65 (p < .0 1), respectively, for past and current
TANF participation, and, with a 3-month lag, the
corresponding estimates were 1.0 I (p = .93)
and 0.69 (p < .01), respectively (Table 4).
In the bottom panel of Table 4, we present
estimates from models that restricted the sample
to women at relatively high risk of welfare
Table 4. Effects of Past and Current TANF Participation on HazC/rd of Marriage: Alternative Model Specifications
and High Risk Subgroups
Sample Size Received T ANF in Past Currently on TANF
Alternative specifications
Past TANF only 3,219 1.04 ( .63) na
Current T ANF only 3,219 11(/ 0.69* .. (.00)
Nonimputed TANF dates 1,998 1.00 (.99) 0.64 .. (.0 1)
TANF exit lagged 3 months 3,219 LOI (.93) 0.69***(.00)
Populations at relatively high risk ofT ANF participation
U.S.-born mothers 2,819 0.87 (. 18) 0.64** (. 01 )
Mothers eligible for T ANF 1,299 1.05 ( .79) 0.81 (.27)
Medicaid births 2,438 0.93 ( .49) 0.70 .. *(.01)
Mothers with high school education or less 2,370 0.92 (.48) o. n (. 02)
Note: All models include the same set of covariates as in Model 3 of Table 3. Figures are proportional hazard ratios (and
p values).
'** p < .05. p < .01.
886
parttctpation-native born mothers, mothers
who were el igible for TANF during the year
after their child's birth, mothers who had births
covered by Medicaid, and mothers who had at
most a high school education (see Reichman,
Teitler, Garfinkel, & Garcia, 2004, for details on
the TANF eligibility imputation method). For
each of these subsamples, the hazard ratio for
having been on T ANF in the past was close to I
and not statistically significant, andl, for all but
the sample of women eligible for TANF, the
effect of currently being on T ANF was negative
(hazard ratio <I) and statistically significant.
In additional analyses (results not shown),
we further confirmed the finding of no effect
of past T ANF participation on marriage by
examining whether the effects varied according
to cumulative time spent on TANF. Past research
has identified the existence of a small group of
chronic welfare participants whose behaviors
differed disti nctly from those of occasional
users (Bane & Ellwood, 1983). Thus, although
there may have been no effects of past T ANF
participation on average, there could have been
effects for this particular group. Specifically, we
interacted past T ANF participation with a time-
varying measure of the cumulative number of
months the mother was on TANF and, in separate
models, with a time-varying categorical variable
indicating whether the mother had participated
in TANF for at least 24 months. We found that
the effect of past T ANF participation did not
increase with longer exposures to T ANF (i.e.,
the hazard ratios of the interaction terms were
close to 1 and not at all statistically significant).
We also found no interactive effects between
current T ANF participation and time spent on
TANF.
We further assessed the sensitivity of the
estimates to how we coded current and
past TANF participation (results not shown).
Specifically, we estimated models with an
alternative measure of past TANF participation
that was coded as 1 when a mother was
currently on TANF but had another completed
welfare spell in the past and models that
counted participation in AFDC (pre-1997) as
past welfare participation. In both cases, the
estimates were virtually unchanged. We also
estimated models i.n which only one time-
varying measure of T ANF participation (ever
on TANF) was included. The hazard ratio for
the measure of ever on T ANF was significant
and approximately half that for the estimate of
currently on TANP in Table 3.
Finally, we estimated models that predicted
marriage to the biological father of the focal
child (as opposed to anyone) and models that
included additional covariates-more detailed
baseline relationship status measures, whether
the mother had any children with another father,
maternal employment, mother's intentions to
marry, maternal mental health problem, sexu-
ally transmitted disease during pregnancy, unin-
tended pregnancy, whether the father was ever
incarcerated, and whether the child's father was
physically or verbally abusive. In all cases, the
results were substantively unchanged (results
not shown).
Mechanisms. The very robust finding that there
was no effect of past TANF participation is
inconsistent with the hypothesis that welfare
participation erodes fami ly values. This null
finding also suggests that selection on the basis
of fixed social, cultural, or demographic factors
is not at play. The finding of a significant
effect of current T ANF participation suggests
that either TANF discourages marriage through
immediate financial disincentives (eligibility)
or that selection on the basis of transient
circumstances (as opposed to that based on
fixed characteristics) underlies the observed
association between T ANF participation and
marnage.
To further explore the role of eligibility,
we reestimated Model 3 of Table 3, separately,
for mothers whose partners (the fathers of the
focal children) had very low earnings potential
at the time of the baseline interview (as a
proxy for future income because time-varying
monthly income is not available) and for those
whose partners had higher earnings potential.
In the former group, we included mothers with
partners who had a disability that prevented
them from working, were not employed or in
school during the week preceding the birth of
the child, or had ever been incarcerated. The
latter group consisted of mothers whose partners
were employed or in school and had never been
incarcerated. These analyses were restricted
to coll!ples who were romantically involved
throughout the study period. We hypothesized
that financial disincentives to marrying while on
TANF would be smaller (and therefore that the
current T ANF participation effects on marriage
would be smaller) for the mothers whose
partners had low earnings potential, because
their financial eligibility for TANf should be
less affected by marriage. We found this to
be the case, as there was no effect of current
T ANF participation for mothers whose partners
had low earnings potential (hazard ratio = 1.17,
p = .55) but a strong effect for women whose
partners were more likely to contribute income
to the household (hazard ratio= 0.51, p = .03).
These results, which are presented in the top
panel of Table 5, are consistent with the weak
effects among T ANF eligible mothers (from
Table 4), almost none of whom could have had
partners with significant income.
We also estimated models for mothers
whose relationship with the child's father ended
between the baseline and ! -year follow-up
interviews and for those who remained involved
with the child' s father throughout that period.
Relationship dissolution is an example of a
change in circumstance that could immediately
decrease the likelihood of marrying and increase
the likelihood of having to rely on T ANF.
As such, it could potentially explain some
of the estimated effect of current T ANF
participation on marriage. We found that it did
not. Whether we defined being in a relationship
as living together or being romantically involved
Table 5. Effects of Past and Current TANF Participation
on Hazard of Marriage, According to Partner's Earnings
Potential and According to Relationship Dissolution
Partner with low
earnings potential"
Yes
No
Relationship
dissolution between
baseline and I year
follow-upb
Yes
No
Recelived
Sample T ANF in Currently
Size Past on TANF
451 1.03 (.90) 1.17 (.55)
700 1.01 (.97) 0.51**(.03)
396 1.37 (.40) 0. 71 (.41)
I , 148 0.96 (.74) 0.66**(.03)
Note: All models irnclude the same set of covariates as in
Modt:l 3 uf Tab It: 3. Figun:s an: proportional hazard ratios
(and p values).
< Among couples romantically involved throughout
observation period. b Among baseline cohabitors.
** p < .05.
887
regardless of cohabitation status (results from
the former are shown in the bottom panel
of Table 5), estimates for the mothers who
remained in a relationship with the father were
as strong as those for both the fuU sample and
for mothers whose relationship with the father
ended.
Although neither of the above tests is
definitive, the patterns offindings are consistent
with a causal explanation that eligibility is
driving the association between current T ANF
participation and marriage through financial
disincentives.
Assessing the Magnitude of Effects
We used the results from Table 3 to project the
effects ofT ANF participation on the probabili ty
of marriage and on t he average delay in marriage
over an 18-year period (the period oftime before
the focal child would reach majority age). The
value of this exercise was to provide a sense of
the magnitude of the effects, projected over the
life course, rather than to predict long-term rates
of marriage in the cohort of women we observed
for 5 years.
We applied the estimated participation effects
to the expected number of years (out of the first
18 years of the focal child's life) mothers would
spend on TANF. This calculation required that
we make some assumptions about the proportion
of mothers who would eventuall y marry, the
proportion who would ever participate in the
TANF program, and the average length of
TANF spells. The calculations also assumed that
effects remain constant over the 18-year period.
The assumptions and calculations are detailed
in the Appendix. Given our assumptions, we
project that T ANF participation would decrease
marriage rates by, at most, 3.7 to 4 .. 9 percentage
points over 18 years. That is, 61%- 62% of
mothers who will have spent any time on
T ANF would marry within 18 years of the
birth compared to 66% of those who wi ll not
have participated in TANF. We also project that
TANF participation would result in an average
delay in marriage of 12 to 16 months over the
18-year period.
D ISCUSSION
We investigated the extent to which welfare par-
ticipation is associated with the likeli hood and
timing of marriage among mothers with young
888
children born out of wedlock-a population of
substantial policy interest. We did not address
the much-studied question of whether welfare
policies affect marriage (and if so, by how
much); rather, we focused on the less explored
but important question of how participation in
TANF affects transitions to marriage. We tested
two theories that have been central to the debates
surrounding welfare reform and PRWORA reau-
thori zation-that welfare participation erodes
family values (a cul ture of poverty argument)
and tlhat there are financial disincentives to mar-
rying while on welfare (as would be predicted
by economic theory).
We found evidence that T ANF participation
had a negative effect on the probability of
marriage, but the effect appeared to be confined
to the period of participation and would translate
to only minor delays in marriage over the long
run, assuming effects remained constant over
time. Our estimated effects of current T ANF
participation were very similar in magnitude to
those obtained by Fitzgerald and Ribar (2004),
which combined participation in AFDC and
TANF. Whether delays in marriage are harmful
to mothers and their children is not clear. On
the one hand, marriage is an important route out
of poverty for many unwed mothers (Lichter,
Graefe, & Brown, 2003), and delays may
therefore have detrimental effects on mothers'
and children's economic well-being. On the
other hand, marriage delays could have favorable
effects on family stability by leading to more
selective searches for mates, which could result
in higher quality or longer term relationships.
The lack of evidence of effects of past T ANF
participation on marriage is a new finding and
has important implications for theory and policy.
Not only can we rule out the proposition that
welfare participation, at least in the post-welfare-
reform era, has toxic effects on morality and
values that discourage marriage, we can also
rule out the classic culture of poverty argument
that reliance on government assistance and
reject ion of the institution of marriage are two
aspects of a culturally embedded set of poverty
norms that is transmitted across generations or
communities. The reality is that once mothers
leave welfare, their prospect of marriage reverts
to that of mothers with similar socioeconomic
characteristics who never were on welfare. In
other words, poor women who have relied on
welfare in the past are not less likely to marry
than those who never relied on welfare. We
cannot ascertain with our data whether this was
the case under AfDCj but under the T ANf
program disincentives to marriage are at most
very short-lived.
The mechanisms behind the observed nega-
tive associations between current T ANF partic-
ipation and marriage are less clear-cut but point
to financial disincentives vis-a-vis el igibility as
an underlying cause. We assessed the plausi-
bility of eligibility and selection as drivers of
those associations by comparing estimates of
current T ANF participation from stratified anal-
yses. In doing so, we found more support for the
eligibility theory than for selection. The effect
of current T ANF participation was smaller for
women whose partners had low earnings poten-
tial (and who would therefore have less to lose
in terms of eligibi lity by marrying) than for
mothers with partners who were more likely to
contribute to household income, suggesting that
eligibility incentives play a role. In contrast, the
effects of current TANF participation were sim-
ilar for mothers whose romantic relationships
with the father ended and those who maintained
romantic relationships, suggesting that selection
on the basis of transient circumstances does not
underlie the negative association between cur-
rent T ANF participation and maniage. These
tests, however, are not conclusive and do not
rule out other plausible explanations that are not
testable with our data. For example, the stigma-
tization of welfare participation (e.g., Kluge!
& Smith, 1986; Rainwater, 1982) could deter
potential marriage partners. Welfare participa-
tion may alter participants' perceptions of their
own marriage worthiness (Stuber & Schlesinger,
2006), which could lead to difficulties in find-
ing partners and maintaining relationships. The
negative association between current T ANF par-
ticipation and marriage could also reflect a
tendency for poor couples to delay marriage
until they achieve self-imposed levels of eco-
nomic self-sufficiency (Edin & Kafalas, 2005;
Gibson, Edin, & McLanahan, 2005). Any of
these explanations is consistent with short-term
effects ofTANF participation.
We offer several caveats. First, we focused
primarily on post- 1996 experiences, as only a
subset of women in our sample would have
been eligible for benefits prior to the welfare
reform legislation in 1996. It is possible that
there were larger past and current participation
effects on marriage under AFDC than under
the contemporary regime. That said, T ANF is
more relevant than AFDC for welfare debates
moving forward. Second! T ANf participation
was self-reported. Although self-reports of
program participation do not appear to have
systematic bias (Bound, Brown, & Mathiowetz,
2001 ), imprecision in the measurement of its
timing could lead to underestimated effects of
T ANF participation. Third, we cannot generalize
our findings to women in nonurban areas.
Finally, our projections of the effects of TANF
participation over the life course are limited
by the 5-year observation window. They are
also based on a number of assumptions, one of
which is that there has been little change since
PRWORA in the average amount of time spent
on welfare. If substantially less time is spent
on welfare under the restrictive new regime
(which is likely, because of lifetime limits and
the shorter length ofT ANF spells as compared to
AFDC), then our projections likely overestimate
the cumulative effects of participation.
The findings from this study inform ongoing
welfare pol icy debates and have two key policy
implications. First, TANF participation has only
a short-term effect on marriage and appears
inconsequential for women's marriage prospects
in the long run. Even if it were possible to
eliminate the effect entirely, doing so would
result in negligible increases in marriage among
low income parents. Second, t he short-term
effects, if they are in fact because of T ANF
eligibility rules, could potentially be reduced by
implementing a grace period during which the
earnings of a new spouse would be disregarded
in participants' el:igibility determinations.
NOTE
This research was supported by grants from the Department
of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Eval uation (100-99-0007) and
Administration for Children and Famillies (90 PA00007-
01). The authors are grateful to Andrew Sperl for valuable
programming assistance.
REFERENCES
Bane, M. J., & Ellwood, D. ( 1983). The dynamics of
dependence: The roots to self-sufficiency. Report
prepared for the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. Cambridge, MA: Urban Systems
Research and Engineering.
Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child
Wellbeing, Princeton University. (2008). Intro-
duction to the Fragile Families public use data.
889
Retrieved June 15, 2008, from http://www.fragile
families.princeton .. edu/documentationlcore/4waves
_fLpublic. pdf
Blank, R. (2002). Evaluating welfare reform in the
United States. Journal of Economic Literature, 40,
1105 - 1166.
Blank, R. (2007). What we know, what we don't
know, and what we need to know about welfare
reform. National Poverty Center Working Paper
Series #07- 19. Retrieved June 15, 2008, from
http://www.http:// npc.umich.edulpublications/ ul
working_paper07- l9.pdf
Bound, J., Brown, C., & Mathiowetz, N. (200 I ). Mea-
surement error in survey data. In J. J. Heckman &
E. E. Leamer (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics
(Vol. 5, pp. 3705- 3843). New York: Elsevier.
Brien, M. J. ( 1997). Racial differences in marriage
and the role of marriage markets. Journal of Human
Resources, 32, 74 L- 778.
Burstein, N. R. (2007). Economic influences on
marriage and divorce. Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 26, 387-429.
Edin, K., & Kafa1as, M. (2005). Promises I can keep:
Why poor women put motherhood before marriage.
Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Fitzgerald, J. , & Ribar, D. (2004). Transitions in wel-
fare participation and female headship. Population
Research and Policy Review, 23, 641-670.
Gennetian, L. A., & Knox, Y. (2003). Staying single:
The effects of welfare reform policies on 1narriage
and cohabitation. New York: MDRC.
Gibson-Davis, C., Edi n, K., & McLanahan, S. (2005).
High hopes but even higher expectations: The
retreat from marriage among low-income couples.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 130 I - 1312.
Graefe, D. , & Lichter, D. (2002). Marriage among
unwed mothers: Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics
compared. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproduc-
tive Health, 34,286- 293.
Grogger, J., & Karoly, L. A. (2005). Welfare reform:
Effects of a decade of change. Cambridge, MA:
Katz, M. B. (200 1 ). The price of citizenship: Redefin-
ing the American welfare state_ New York:
Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt & Co.
Kluge!, R., & Smith, E. ( 1986). Beliefs about
inequality: Americans' views of what is and ought
to be. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Lichter, D. , Graefe, D., & Brown, J. (2003). Is mar-
riage a panacea? Union formation among eco-
nomically disadvantaged unwed mothers. Social
Problems, 50, 60-86.
Lichter, D. T., McLaughlin, D. K., Kephart, G., &
Landry, D. J. (1992). Race and the retreat from
marriage: A shortage of marriageable men?
American Sociological Review, 57, 781 - 799.
Mead, L. ( 1989). The logic of workfare: The
underclass and work policy. The Annals of the
890
American Academy of Political and Social Science,
501, 156- 169.
Moffitt, R. A. ( 1998). The effects of welfare on
marriage and ferti lity. In R. A. Moffitt (Ed.),
Welfare, the family, and reproductive behavior:
Research perspectives (pp. 50 - 97). Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Moffitt, R. (2002). Experienced- based measures
of heterogeneity in the welfare caseload. In
M. Ver Ploeg, R. Moffitt, & C. Citro (Eds.),
Studies of welfare populations: Data collection
and research issues. Retrieved June 15, 2008,
from http://Aspe.Hhs.Gov/ Hsp/ Welf-Res-Data-
lssues02
Moynihan, D. (1965). The Negro family: The case
for national action. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor, Office of Policy, Planning,
and Research.
Peters, H., Plotnick, R., & Jeong, S. (2001). How
will welfare reform affect childbearing and
family structure decisions? Institute for Research
on Poverty No. 1239- 0 I. Madison, WI: IRP
Publications.
Rainwater, L. (1982). Stigma in income-tested pro-
grams. In I. Garfinkel (Ed.), Income tested pro-
grams: The case for and against. New York:
Academic Press.
Ratcl iffe, C., McKernan, S., & Rosenberg, E. (2002).
Welfare reform, living arrangements, and eco-
nomic well-being: A synthesis of literature. Wash-
ington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Reichman, N. E., Teitler, J. 0 ., Garfinkel, I., &
Garcia, S. (2004). Variations in maternal and
child well being among financially eligible mothers
by T ANF participation status. Eastern Economic
Journal, 30, I 0 1- 118.
Reichman, N. E., Teitler, J. 0 ., Garfinkel, I., &
McLanahan, S. (200 I). Fragile Families: Sample
and design. Children and Youth Services Review,
23,303- 326.
Schoeni, R. F., & Blank, R. M. (2000). What has
welfare reform accomplished? Impacts on welfare
participation, employment, income, poverty, and
family structure. NBER Working Paper #7627.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Smock, P. J. , & Manning, W. D. (1997). Cohabiting
partners' economic circumstances and marriage.
Demography, 34, 331- 341.
Stuber, J., & Schlesinger, M. (2006). Sources of
stigma for means-tested government programs.
Social Science and Medicine, 63, 933- 945.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation. ( 1998). Welfare spell dynamics. In Aid
to Families with Dependent Children: The Base-
line(pp. 107- 123). Retrieved June 15,2008, from
http:/ I asp e. hhs. gov /HSP I AFDC/ afdcbase98 .httn#
intro
Vartanian, T. P., & McNamara, J. M. (2004). The
welfare myth: Disentangling the long-term effects
of poverty and welfare receipt for young single
mothers. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 3,
105 - 140.
Ziliak, J .P. (2006). Taxes, transfers, and the labor
supply of single mothers. Unpublished working
paper. Retrieved June 15, 2008, from http://

APPENDIX: PROJECTIONS OF TANF
PARTJCIPATLON EFFECTS ON MARRlAGE OVER
18 Y EARS
Assumptions About Marriage Rates
We computed an expected marriage rate for
our sample over an 18-year period by applying
race/ethnic-specific marriage rates of women
with nonmarital births (from Graefe & Lichter,
2002, which used the National Survey of Famil y
Growth) to the composition of our sample.
Graefe and Lichter estimated that 82% of
Whites, 62% of Hispanics, and 59% of Black
women with out-of-wedlock births will marry.
Our sample was 15% Whi te, 28% Hispanic, and
54% Black. We therefore obtained an estimated
marriage rate of 62% over an 18-year period or
an average marriage rate of 3.5% per year.
Assumptions About Amount of Time Spent
on TANF
Using data from the National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth from 1979 to 1996, Moffitt
(2002) found that welfare recipients received
AFDC for an average of 39 months over a I 0-
year period. The average amount of time on
TANF is likely to be somewhat lower than what
it was on AFDC because of the time limits
and other restrictions under PR WORA. Because
Moffitt's figures cover a shorter time period,
however, we assumed 3 years (36 months) as
a lower bound and 4 years (48 mont hs) as an
upper bound figure for average amount of time
on T ANF over an 18-year period.
Using the proportion of baseline unmarried
mothers in our sample who were ever on TANF
by the 5-year follow-up interview (.59) as a
guide, we assumed 60% as a lower bound
estimate of the percentage that will ever be
on T ANF over an 18-year period and 75% as
an upper bound estimate. This translated into
an average of 1 0%- 17% of baseline unmarried
mothers being on TANF in any given year.
Annual Marriage Rates ofParticipants
and Nonparticipants
From our assumptions above (on average, 3.5%
would marry each year over the 18-year period;
I 0%- 17% woul.d be on T ANF in a given
year) and from the estimated effect of current
T ANF participation on marriage from Model 3
in Table 3 (.67), we estimated the proportion of
T ANF nonparticipants and T ANF participants
who will marry each year; we call these M
111
and M
1
, respectively. Our estimate of the annual
proportion ofT ANF nonparticipants who marry
(Mm) on the basis of the assumption of I 0% of
mothers on T ANF each year was calculated as
follows:
.035 = .67 Mnt * .10 + Mnt * .90Mnt = .0362
(1)
Our estimate of the annual marriage rate of
TANF nonparticipants (M
111
) on the basis of the
assumption of 17% of mothers on T ANF each
year was calculated as follows:
.035 = .67 Mnt * .17 + Mm * .83M
11
t = .0371
(2)
Since the .0362 and .0371 figures are so close,
we used the midpoint, .0366, to derive the annual
proportion of women on T ANF who marry, as
follows:
M
1
= .0366 * .67 = .0245 (3)
We assumed that the effect of past TANF
participation is 0 because in our main and
supplementary models the estimates of past
891
T ANF were highly insignificant and the hazard
ratios were vety close to 0.
Cumulative Effect ofTANFParticipation Over
18 Years
We calculated the expected marriage rate (within
18 years) of mothers who wil l never be on T ANF
(Cnr) as follows:
Cm = Mnt * 18 = .659 (4)
and the expected marriage rate of mothers who
will have been on T ANF at some point ( C
1
) as
fol lows:
Ct = (Mt * 3) + (Mnt * 15) = .622 (5a)
(assuming that women who participate in TANF
will do so for an average of 3 years in total), or
Ct = (Mt * 4) + (Mnt * 14) = .610 (5b)
(assuming that women who participate in TANF
will do so for an average of 4 years in
total).
Cumulative Effect ofTANF Participation
on Marriage Delay
To estimate the average delay "in marriage,
we divided (Cn
1
- C
1
) by the percent of non-
TANF recipients who marry each year (M
111
) .
We obtained an estimate of marriage delay
ranging from 1.0 l to 1.34 years, or 12 to
16 months.

EXHIBIT 70
World Changes in
Divorce Patterns
William J. Goode
YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS: NEW HAVEN AND LONDON
Copyright 1993 by Yale University.
All rights reserved.
'Thi book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part.
including illustrations, in any foml (beyond that copying
permitted by Sections I 07 and I 08 of the U.S. Copyright
Law and except by reviewers for the public press),
without wriUen permission from the publishers.
Designed by Sally Harris/Summer Hill Books.
Set in Meridien type by
The Composing Room of Michigan.
Printed in the United States of America by
Edwards Brothers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Goode, William Josiah.
World changes in divorce patterns I William J. Goode
p. em.
ISBN 0-300-05537-4
I. Divorce-Cross-cultural studies. I. Title.
HQ814.G62 1993
306.89-dc20 92-44530
A catalogue record for this book is available
from the British Library.
The paper in this book meets the guidelines for
permanence and durability of the Committee on
Production Guidelines for Book Longevity
of the Council on Library Resources.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
CIP
Co
Preface
I. Th(
2. Div
3. Sot
to l
4. Th(
COl
5. Ea5
6. Th<
Set
7. Lat
Di\
8. Sta
an<
9. The
Dh
10. Th
Inc
Go
ll. Co
Index
140 ANGLO COUNTRIES
In the 1980s, some slackening of the official crude rates occurred, and at
the end ofthis period several countries showed a tiny decrease. Many com-
mentators suggested that this might be the end of the rise and that divorces
would fall again. It is also possible, however, that the lowering of the rate
during this period is merely a result of the decline in marriage rates and the
simultaneous increase in cohabitation in all these countries. Both of these
changes effectively remove millions of couples from the risk of official di-
vorce, though not of course from informal dissolutions (and, as we noted,
cohabitants have higher dissolution rates than legal unions).
Table 6.1 also shows the current crude divorce rates in each of the Anglo
countries. The United States, as we noted, still have the highest divorce rates
(4.7 per 1000 population in 1990), followed by Canada (3.7 in 1987) and
England and Wales (2. 9 in 1989). The lowest divorce rates among these
roughly similar countries were in Australia (2.5 in 1989) and New Zealand
(2.6 in 1989).
The divorce rates per I ,000 married women, which are more precise than
the crude rates, are shown in Table 6.2. Here too we see the highest current
rates in the United States (21 divorces per 1,000 married women in 1988).
The other Anglo countries have considerably lower rates and are closely
grouped together: 12.7 in England, 12.4 in Canada, 12 in New Zealand, and
10.8 in Australia between 1986 and 1989. Note that with these more refined
figures we can still observe a slackening of rates, even a slight decline, at the
end of the 1980s. (Of course, all these figures also exclude the dissolutions
among cohabiting unions.)
Changes in Grounds for Divorce
A systematic coverage of the grounds in all these countries cannot be done
within a small compass, since in both Canada and the United States (and
Australia until the 1959 divorce law) the states and provinces all applied
somewhat different rules. Nevertheless some brief description should be
useful.
Although Canada seemed to be leading the way with its 1968 recognition
of irreconcilable marital breakdown as sufficient grounds for divorce
(adopted by Australia in 1976; England and Wales in 1973; and New Zea-
land in 1980) that law also continued the option of using matrimonial
offenses (cruelty, adultery, drunkenness, and the like) as did other Anglo
countries. Indeed, in the period 1973-1985, there was little change in the
grounds used by Canadians. "Marital breakdown," as we see in China and
Europe, may not be an easy road to divorce, if stringent proof for it is
ANGLO COUNTRIES 141
required. Three years of separation or five years' desertion were still a requi-
site in Canada for that proof. Thus over that period, only one-third of the
couples followed that seemingly easier course; many viewed the charge of
matrimonial offenses as a quicker solution, while others reared in a fault
fiamework viewed iL a more appropriate. Still others used fault d1arges to
gain some advantages in the settlement. Even the 1986 law still permitted
such offenses to be used, but today, if the couple can reach an agreement
they can get a divorce almost immediately. That is, if they petition before the
year of waiting is over they might be divorced when the period is com-
pleted.6 Thus by 1987-1988, about 80 percent of all divorces were based on
a separation of one year or more.
In New Zealand, there was no major liberalization of divorce until1980,
when iL followed the Canada 1968 law and reduced the waiting period
before a petition could be made to two years in cases of desertion and formal
separation, and to 4-7 years without that formality.
7
A more important step
was also taken in 1968, however,-the Domestic Purposes Benefit Act. Even
women who had been separated from their husbands, not only those who
were widowed or deserted, could receive state assistance if necessary. By the
time of the 1980 act, which (like the 1975 Act in Australia) simply accepted a
single ground, the irreconcilable breakdown of marriage, divorce had be-
come common in New Zealand. Living apart for two years is all that is legally
required for the purpose, and the other party cannot prevent it. It is, in effect,
a slow "no-fault" divorce.
In Australia the effect of the new law in 1976 was a rise from 7.3 divorces
per 1,000 married women to 19.2 in the following year when it took effect.
8
Since the law required only a waiting period, the jump was made up largely
of people who had already completed that wait; after that the rate fell until
the early 1980s,9 when it began to rise once more.
In England and Wales, the Marital Proceedings Act of 1969 began a series
of changes embodied in subsequent legislation (effective in 1973 ), which
wee stimulated by and in turn caused much public debate and family re-
search. This sociolegal debate continued through the 1980s. The trend was
toward less stringent grounds for divorce, and increasing attention to the
problems of economic settlements after divorce. The 1969 law permitted
divorce on the basis of separation, but it did not lead to amicable proceed-
ings, and fault continued to be alleged even after the Matrimonial Act of
6. Health Reports, supplement no. 17, 1990, vol. 2, no. 1, "Divorces 1987-1988," (Ottawa:
Statistics Canada), pp. 34-3 7. On these points, see John.F. Peters, "Divorce and Remarriage,"
pp. 220, 221.
7. Carmichael, "Remarriage," p. 88.
8. Phillips, Divorce, p. 47.
9. Carmichael, "Remarriage," p. 102.
142 ANGLO COUNTRIES
1984: in 1987, some three-quarters of all divorce petitions alleged the faults
of adultery, "behavior" (in effect, "cruelty"), or desertion.l
0
Indeed, from 19 50 to 1971, when most of the new provisions were finally
in place, the charge of adultery was made in 50-70 percent of the cases filed
by husbands and 37-47 percent of those filed by the wife. Charges of deser-
tion continued to be high until the end of the 1960s (one-half to one-fourth
of the cases). By the 1970s, desertion as a charge by either spouse dropped to
very low percentages.
11
By contrast, allegations of cruelty ("behavior") rose
threefold between 1950 and 1986, to include about half of all cases'.
While some people who charge their spouses with adultery or cruel be-
havior may in fact believe that their spouses are guilty of such marital mis-
conduct, the large number offault-based divorces may also be explained by
the fact that this is the quickest route to getting a divorce in England and
Wales. A fault charge may be heard as soon as a hearing can be scheduled-
in contrast to divorces by agreement, which require a two-year separation,
and those without an agreement, which require a five-year separation.
From the 1950s on, legal aid from the state was used by English wives in
about 70 percent of their petitions (Stone, pp. 437-88). A similar program
was begun in the United States in the 1970s, as part of an expanding poverty-
law program. It was thought that the poor most needed help in problems
relating to landlords and business debts, but instead the greatest demand
was from wives who wanted legal help in getting out of a marriage, or relief
from a difficult husband. The American response was to make some effort to
restrict the number of cases (for example, to those in which there was
physical violence), since otherwise the government would be charged with
aiding the dissolution of marriage.
The basic ground in England and Wales is the same in all cases. The
breakdown of the marriage is "proved" by ( 1) any of the three older faults
(adultery, desertion, or "behavior"); ( 2) two years' separation with an agree-
ment between the spouses; or (3) five years' separation without such an
agreement. These grounds do not require, however, and in practice discour-
age, a court fight or even an appearance. Most divorces occur instead
through a "special procedure." One party fills in a form stating the presumed
facts, and this is considered by a judicial officer. The other party can legally
resist the petition, but lawyers will advise against it. The state will only rarely
give any financial support for such a fight, and as a practical matter it would
be useless in the long run.l2
10. On these points see the "Background Materials" by Mavis Maclean and John Eekelaar,
Bellaggio Conference, 1990.
11. Lawrence Stone, Road to Divorce (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp.440-4l.
12. Maclean and Eekelaar, 1990.; see also G. C. Davis and M. Murch, Grounds for Divorce
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
ANGLO COUNTRIES 143
Thus, though in a formal sense some fault may still be charged, in the
usual course of events the allegation now is no more than a clerical necessity.
Moreover, except in extreme cases, courts will not consider fault in cases of
custody or support for wives and children. Nevertheless, in 1985, only about
22 percent of all divorce cases were based simply on separation with mutual
consent.
13
Canada, too, moved toward less severe rules for divorce through the intro-
duction in 1968 of marital breakdown as grounds, 1
4
in addition to the usual
marital offenses. Breakdown was to be shown by a separation for three
years, desertion for five years, or addiction to alcohol. It was not until 1986
that a Canadian variety of no-fault divorce was possible-that is, one year of
separation, or a separation with agreement, which could presumably be
granted as soon as the year was over. Legally, the couple might apply to-
gether and get a divorce as soon as the court convened.
Matrimonial offense may still be used for divorce in Canada, however, as
in England and Wales. Indeed, in the period 1973-1985, divorces granted
on the grounds of separation alone remained steady at about one-third of all
cases. (Again, this process was slower and took at least three years.) The
effect of the 1985-1986 law was quick and decisive: once separation for
only one year was the basis for divorce, it became the choice offour-fifths of
the couples obtaining a divorce between 1987 and 1988.
15
Although liberalization of divorce law occurred still later inN ew Zealand,
in the Family Proceedings Act of 1980, important steps toward it took place
in 1968. One was an act that reduced the waiting e r i o ~ as noted earlier.
16
The more significant change was the Domestic Purposes Benefits Act, which
granted financial support from the state to all women in need, whether
widowed, divorced, deserted, or separated. The number who sought that
help increased fourteenfold in ten years. The possibility of state support and
the increasing number of wives taking jobs probably led more women to
utilize the available legal grounds and also assured husbands that very likely
they would not have to bear the full financial consequences of divorce. Thus
the political pressure to ease the laws increased. The 1980 act was the first
major liberalization of divorce, in effect making irreconcilable breakdown of
the marriage the only ground: living apart for two years with legal dissolu-
tion an automatic procedure.
1
7
13. Divorce Series FM2, no. 12, 1985 Marriage and Divorce Statistics (London: Office of
Censuses and Surveys), p. 99, table 4.6.
14. Peters, "Divorce," pp. 2l 0-Il.
15. Health Reports, "Divorces 1987-1988," pp. 34-37; and Owen Adams, "Divorce in
Canada, 1988," ibid, p. 57.
16. Carmichael. 1985, "Remarriage," pp. 87-90.
17. Phillips, Divorce, p. 47.
144 ANGLO COUNTRIES
In the United States the individual states have maintained separate family
laws even more than the separate states of Canada or Australia. In 1969, for
example, when California became the first state to pass a "pure" no-fault
law (either partner could get the divorce, and the other spouse could not
refuse it even if "innocent"), New York and South Carolina still permitted
divorce only for adultery. All the states form part of a distinctive "modern
high-divorce-rate culture" and march in a common direction even though
some lag at times far behind the others.
Of all Western nations the United States has had the highest divorce rate,
and now competes only with Sweden (and probably Russia) for preemi-
nence in this dubious achievement. Still, its legal acceptance of divorce was
reluctant, too, until after the 1950s. The new laws began to appear in various
states in the late 1960s, paralleling changes in other Western countries.
By 1990, 14 states had accepted irreconcilable differences or breakdown
as "a sole ground," 22 accepted that plus additional grounds, and a majority
required some period of separation (often with some additional require-
ment).l8 In all these states, it seems clear that the legislative changes fol-
lowed alterations in marital behavior and the actual practices of courts. That
is, successive interpretations by courts had already weakened the laws, and
the real behavior of couples often simply evaded the laws-for example, by
establishing a false residence in a "quick-divorce" state or fabricating an
"adultery" case in the states with severe laws. Thus, when the laws were
made to conform more closely with real practice, they had only modest
effects on the rates.
On the other hand, it seems equally obvious that the laws have always
opened the door for some couples who would not have taken that step
without the new liberalization; and the laws have also helped to create a set
of social understandings as to how easy it is to become divorced if married
life seems irksome.
Nevertheless, despite the persistent diversity of the divorce laws in the fifty
U.S. states, there appears to be a legal consensus emerging: most people
believe that individuals who are unhappy in their marriage have a "right" to
get a divorce and that it is unfair and inappropriate for the state to erect legal
obstacles to prevent them from exercising that right. Thus most states have
adopted some form of no-fault divorce law, which makes it relatively easy to
get a divorce with mutual consent and, in many states, only slightly more
difficult to get a divorce if only one party wants it. (The difficulties in the legal
process, which help lawyers earn a living, vary from state to state and de-
18. Doris Jonas Freed and Timothy B. Walker, "Family Law in the Fifty States: An Over-
view," Family Law Review 23 (Winter 1990), pp. 515-16.
ANGLO COUNTRIES 145
pend on the "formal" grounds, filing procedures, waiting periods, costs, and
requirements for legal separations and separation agreements.)
While there is increased freedom to end a marriage, there is also an
increased concern about the economic aspects and effects of divorce and a
feeling that it is appropriate for the state to oversee and regulate such mat-
ters. Courts therefore spend more time today on valuing and dividing mari-
tal property and establishing orders for child support (and, less frequently,
alimony). As a result, as Lenore Weitzman observed in The Divorce Revolution,
the focus of the legal process has shifted from moral questions of fault and
responsibility to the economic issues of the ability to pay and financial need.
Today fewer husbands and wives fight about who did what to whom: they
are more likely to argue about the value of marital property, what she can
earn, and what he can pay.l9
Divorce laws among the six Australian states were independent until the
Marital Causes Act of 1959, which enacted a uniform law for the nation as a
unit.
20
The existing separate grounds for divorce were kept, but standards
for proof were set for all. Thereafter, anyone could obtain a divorce on the
grounds of separation for five years. So long a duration did not seem appeal-
ing to many, and thus the most common grounds remained adultery or
desertion (two years) until the mid-1970s. The act came into effect in 1961,
and was part of a series passed during the years from 1959 to 1966.
21
The Australian Family Law Act of 1975 went into effect the succeeding
year, and the divorce rate per 1,000 married women rose almost threefold,
from 7.3 to 19.2, though it fell sharply after that.
22
Essentially the act re-
duced the grounds to a "continued separation for one year." It required no
proof of fault, as fault is no longer relevant. Thus a divorce is possible even if
only one party wants it.z3
Duration of Marriage and Chances of Eventual Divorce
As in many European countries, the average duration of marriages in the
Anglo nations has decreased only little over the past four decades, in spite of
the strong rise in divorce rates. Often durations are reported as medians (the
19. Lenore J. Weitzman, The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Conse-
quences for Women and Children in America (New York: Free Press, 1985), p. x.
20. Gordon A. Carrriichael and Peter F. McDonald, "The Rise and Fall (?) of Divorce in
Australia, 1968-1985," San Francisco: Population Association, 1988, unpublished paper.
21. See Yearbook Australia 1985 (Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics), p. 92.
22. Gordon A. Carmichael. "The Changing Structure of Australian Families," Australian
Quarterly 57 ( 1985 ), p. 102.
23. See also Kate Funder and Richard Ingleby, "The Economic Impact of Divorce: The
Australian Perspective," in Weitzman and Maclean.

EXHIBIT 71
"'
'
l
I

(
t

The
UNEXPECTED LEGACY
.
\
of DIVORCE

A 2 5 YEAR
(;
LANDMARK STUDY
oS'
Judith Wallerstein, Julia Lewis,
1
and Sandra Blakeslee
li!HYPE Rl 0 Ni
New York
Copyright 2ooo Judith Wallerstein, Julia Lewis, and Sandra Blakeslee
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any
manner whatsoever without the written permission of the Publisher. Printed
in the United States of America. For information address: Hyperion, 77 W.
66th Stteet, New York, New York Ioo23-6298.
library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Wallerstein, Judith S.
The unexpected legacy of divorce : a 25 year landmark study / by Judith
Wallerstein, Julia M. Lewis and Sandra Blakeslee.-Ist ed.
p. em.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-7868-6394-3
r. Children of divorced parents-United
2. Divorce--United States-Longitudinal
II. Blakeslee, Sandra. III. Tide.
HQ834.W3 56 2000
306.89'0973-dc2I 00-03 j07I
Book Design f:y Cassandra J Pappas
FIRST EDITION
IO 9 8 7 6 4
2
--
States-Longitudinal studies.
studies. I. Lewis, Julia.
T
a
An
sh
a
TWENTY-TWO
Conclusions
"What's done to children, they Will do to society."
Karl A. Menninaer
A
round the time I was finishing this book, a very impor-
tant judge ~ n ~ family law bench in .a large state I shall
not name mVlted me to come see him. I was eager to
meet with him because I wanted to cliscuss some ideas I have for edu-
cating parents under court auspices that go beyond the simple advice
"don't fight." After we had talked for a half an hour or so, the judge
leaned back in his chair and said he'd like my opiniort about something
important. He had just attended several scientific lectures in which re-
searchers argued that children are shaped more by genes t han by family
environment. Case in point, studies of identical twins reared separately
show that in adulthood such twins often like the same foods and clothing
styles, belong to the same political parties, and even bestow identical
names on their dogs. The judge looked perplexed. "Do you think that
294
Conclusions 2 9 5
could mean divorce is in the genes?" he asked in all seriousness. "And
if that's so, does it matte.t; what a court decides when parents divorce?"
I was taken aback. Here was a key figure in the lives of thousands of
children asking me whether what he and his colleagues do or say on the
bench makes any difference. He seemed relieved by the notion that
maybe his actions are insignificant.
I told him that I personally doubt the existence of a "divorce gene."
If such a biological trait had arisen in evolution, it would be of very
recent vintage. But, I added, "What the court does matters enormously.
You have the power to protect children from being hurt or to increase
their suffering."
Now it was his turn to be taken aback. ''You think we've increased
children's suffering?"
''Yes, Your Honor, I do. With all respect, I have to say that the court
along with the rest of society has increased the suffering of children."
"How so?" he asked.
We spent another half hour talking about how the courts, parents,
atto.rney , mental health workers-indeed most adults-have been reluc-
tant to pay genuine attention to children during and after divorce. He
listened respectfully to me but I must say I left the judge's chambers that
day in a state of shock that soon turned to gloom. How can we be so
utterly lost and confused that a leading judge would accept the notion of
a "divorce gene" to explain our predicament? If he's confused about his
role, what about the rest of us? What is it about the impact of divorce
on oo1 society and our children that's so hard to understand and accept?
Having spent the last thirty years of my life traveling here and abroad
talking to professional, legal, and mearaJ health. groups plus working with
thousands of parents and children in divorced families, it's clear that
we've created a new kind of society never before seen in human culture.
Silently and unconsciously, we have created a culture of divorce. It's hard
to grasp what it means when we say that first marriages stand a 45 percent
chance of breaking up and that second marriages have a Go percent
chance of ending in divorce. What are the consequences for all of us
when 2 5 percent of people today between the ages of eighteen and forty-
four have parents who divorced? What does it mean to a society when
people wonder aloud if the family is about to disappear? What can we
do when we learn that married couples with children represent a mere
296 CONCLUSIONS
26 percent of households in the r 99os and that the most common living
arrangement nowadays is a household of unmarried people with no chil-
dren?' These numbers are terrifying. But like all massive social change,
what's happening is affecting us in ways that we have yet to understand.
For people like me who work with divorcing families all the time,
these abstract numbers have real faces. When I think about people I
know so well, including the "children" you've met in this book, I can
relate to the millions of children and adults who suffer with loneliness
and to all the teenagers who say, "I don't want a life like either of my
parents." I can empathize with the countless young men and women who
despair of ever finding a lasting relationship and who, with a brave toss
of the head, say, "Hey, if you don't get married then you can't get di-
vorced." It's only later, or sometimes when they think I'm not listening,
that they add softly, "but I don't want to grow old alone." I am especially
worried about how our divorce culture has changed childhood itself. A
million new children a year are added to our march of marital failure. As
they explain so eloquently, they lose the carefree play of childhood as
well as the comforting arms and lap of a loving parent who is always
rushing off because life in the postdivorce family is so incredibly difficult
to manage. We must take very seriously the complaint of children like
Karen who declare, "The day my parents divorced is the day my child-
hood ended."
Many years ago the psychoanalyst Erik Erikson taught us that child-
hood and society are vitally connected. But we have not yet come to
terms with the changes ushered in by our divorce culture. Childhood is
different, adolescence is different, and adulthood is different. Without
" our noticing, we have created a new class of young children who take
care of themselves, along with a whole generation of overburdened par-
ents who have no time to enjoy the pleasures of parenting. So much has
happened so fast, we cannot hold it all in our minds. It's simply over-
whelming.
But we must not forget a very important other side to all these
changes. Because of our divorce culture, adults today have a greater sense
of freedom. The importance of sex and play in adult life is widely ac-
cepted. We are not locked into our early mistakes and forced to stay in
wretched, lifelong relationships. The change in women-their very iden-
tity and freer role in society-is part of our divorce culture. Indeed, two-
thirds of divorces are initiated by women despite the high price they pay
Conclusions 2 9 7
in economic and parenting burdens afterward. People want and expect a
lot more out of marriage than did earlier generations. Although the di-
vorce rate in second and third marriages is sky-high, many second mar-
riages are much happier than the ones left behind. Children and adults
are able to escape violence, abuse, and misery to create a better life.
Clearly there is no road back.
The sobering truth is that we have created a new kind of society that
offers greater freedom and more opportunities for many adults, but this
welcome change carries a serious hidden cost. Many people, adults and
children alike, are in fact not better off. We have created new kinds of
families in which relationships are ftagile and often unreliable. Children
today receive far less nw:nuance, protection and parenting than was their
lot a few decades ago. Long-term marriages come apart at srill smprising
rates. And many in the older generation who started the divorce ~ v
lution find themselves estranged from their adult children. Is this the
price we must pay for needed change? Can't we do better?
I'd like to say that we're at a crossroads but I'm afraid I can't be that
optimistic. We can choose a new route only if we agree on where we are
and where we want to be in the futw:e. The outlook is cloudy. For every
person who wants to sound an alarm, there's another who says don't
worry. For everyone concerned about cl1e economic and emotional dep-
rivations inllerited by children of di orce there are those who argue that
those kids were "in trouble before" and that divorce is irrelevant, no big
deal. People want to feel good about their choices. Doubtless many do.
In actual fact, after most divorces, one member of the former couple
,feels much better while the other feels no better or even worse. Yet at /
any dinner patty you will still hear the arne myths: Divorce is a temporary
crisis. So many childlen have experienced their parents' divorce that kids
nowadays don't worry so much. It's easier. They almost expect it. It's a
rite of passage. If I feel better, so will my children. And so on. As always,
children are voiceless or unheard.
But family scholars who have not always seen eye to eye are con-
verging on a number of findings that fly in the face of our cherished
myths. We agree that the effects of divorce are long-term. We know that
the family is in trouble. We have a consensus that children raised in
divorced or remarried families are less well adjusted as adults than those
raised in intact families.
The life histories of this first generation to grow up in a divorce
298 CONCLUSIONS
culture tell us truths we dare not ignore. Their message is poignant, clear,
and contrary to what so many want to believe. They have taught me the
following:
From the viewpoint of the children, and counter to what happens to
their parents, divorce is a cumulative experience. Its impact increases over
time and rises to a crescendo in adulthood. At each developmental stage
divorce is experienced anew in different ways. In adulthood it affects
personality, the ability to trust, expectations about relationships, and abil-
ity to cope with change.
The first upheaval occurs at the breakup. Children are frightened and
angry, terrified of being abandoned by both parents, and they feel re-
sponsible for the divorce. Most children are taken by surprise; few ate
relieved. As adults, they remember with sorrow and anger how little sup-
port they got from their parents when it happened. They recall how they
were expected to adjust overnight to a terrifying number of changes that
confounded them. Even children who had seen or heard violence at
home made no connection between that violence and the decision to
divorce. The children concluded early on, silently and sadly, that family
relationships are fragile and that the tie between a man and woman can
break capriciously, without warning. They worried ever after that parent-
child relationships are also unreliable and can break at any time. These
early experiences colored their later expectations.
As the postdivorce family took shape, their world resem-
bled what they feared most. Home was a lonely place. The household
was in disarray for years. Many children forced to move, leaving
behind familiar schools, close friends, and other supports. What they
- remember vividly as adults is the loss of the intact family and the safety
net it provided, the difficulty of having two parents in two homes, and
how going back and forth cut badly into playtime and friendships. Parents
were busy with work, preoccupied with rebuilding their social lives. Both
moms and dads had a lot less time to spend with their children and were
less responsive to their children's needs or wishes. Little children espe-
cially felt that they had lost both parents and were unable to care for
themselves. Children soon learned that the divorced family has porous
walls that include new lovers, live-in partners, and stepparents. Not one
of these relationships was easy for anyone. The mother's parenting was
often cut into by the very heavy burdens of single parenthood and then
by the demands of remarriage and stepchildren.

2:14-cv-00024 #53

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2:14-cv-00024 #53

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

Neighborhood Caregiver Caregiver Mentallyill Alcohol/drug

Fostercare Grandparent(s) Grandparent(s) Nonfoster,

Estimate differs at 0.05 level from that of foster care.

Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married,

role . ... ) H unte:r and Swddard

, that is representative of the US population. Members of the KnowledgePanel

are randomly recruited

survey is 65%. Appendix A presents a comparison of age-appro-

) beside it indicate that the groups dichotomous variable estimate

0.41 0.37 0.39

Currently employed full-time 0.49 0.26

0.34 0.41 0.42 0.47

0.15 0.14 0.13

0.07 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.09

0.25 0.20 0.12

0.16 0.12 0.16

Family-of-origin safety/security 4.13 3.12

3.58 3.95 4.03 3.85

1.95 2.01 1.91

Current relationship quality index 4.11 3.83 3.63

3.79 3.95 3.80

2.35 2.43 2.35

3.49 3.31 3.33 3.43

1.19 1.30 1.21

0.55 0.42 0.44

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi