Series 23, Number 22 July 2002

Cohabitation, Marriage,

Divorce,and Remarriage

in the United States
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

Bramlett MD and Mosher WD. Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage

in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat

23(22). 2002.

Library of Congress-in-Publication Data

Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States.

p. cm.— (Vital and health statistics. Series. 23, Data from the national

survey of family growth; no 22)

ISBN 0-8406-0582-X

1. Marriage—United States—Statistics. 2. Women —United States—

Statistics. 3. Unmarried couples—United States—Statistics. 4. Divorce—United

States—Statistics. 5. Remarriage—United States—Statistics. I. National Center

for Health Statistics (U.S.) II. Series.

HB1125 .C64 2002

306.81’.0973’09049—dc21

2002075369

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents

Mail Stop: SSOP

Washington, DC 20402-9328

Printed on acid-free paper.
Series 23, Number 22

Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce,

and Remarriage in the

United States

Data From the National Survey

of Family Growth

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics

Hyattsville, Maryland

July 2002

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2002-1998
National Center for Health Statistics

Edward J. Sondik, Ph.D., Director

Jack R. Anderson, Deputy Director

Jack R. Anderson, Acting Associate Director for

International Statistics

Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D., Associate Director for Science

Lawrence H. Cox, Ph.D., Associate Director for Research

and Methodology

Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D., Acting Associate Director for

Analysis, Epidemiology, and Health Promotion

P. Douglas Williams, Acting Associate Director for Data

Standards, Program Development, and Extramural Programs

Edward L. Hunter, Associate Director for Planning, Budget,

and Legislation

Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D., Acting Associate Director for

Vital and Health Statistics Systems

Douglas L. Zinn, Acting Associate Director for

Management and Operations

Charles J. Rothwell, Associate Director for Information

Technology and Services

Division of Vital Statistics

Mary Anne Freedman, Director

James A. Weed, Ph.D., Deputy Director
Contents

Abstract .................................................................................................. 1

Highlights................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ............................................................................................... 3

Trends and Differences in Marriage and Divorce ............................................................... 4

Data Sources ............................................................................................ 5

Life Tables on Marriage ................................................................................... 5

Methods ................................................................................................ 6

Community Distributions by Race/Ethnicity ................................................................... 8

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Cohabitation and Marital Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

The Probability of First Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The Probability That an Intact First Cohabitation Makes the Transition to Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

The Probability of First Cohabitation Disruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

The Probability of First Marriage Disruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

The Probability of Cohabitation After the End of First Marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

The Probability of Separation Making the Transition to Divorce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

The Probability of Remarriage Following Divorce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

The Probability of Second Marriage Disruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Trends Over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Summary of Findings for Each Independent Variable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Appendix I

Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Sample Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Sampling Errors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Appendix II

Appendix II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Text Tables

A. Number of women 15–44 years of age (in thousands) and percent distributions, by race/ethnicity and contextual

variables: United States, 1995 .......................................................................... 9

B. Number of women 15–44 years of age (in thousands) and percent distribution, by past cohabitation and marital status

and by age at interview and race/ethnicity: United States, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

C. Number of women 15–44 years of age (in thousands) and percent distribution, by current cohabitation and marital

status and by age at interview and race/ethnicity: United States, 1995. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

iii
D. Probabilities of first marriage disruption, of transition from separation to divorce, of remarriage, and of second

marriage disruption by race/ethnicity and cohort: United States .............................................. 27

E. Statistical significance of each individual characteristic by outcome .......................................... 29

F. Statistical significance of each contextual characteristic by outcome .......................................... 30

List of Figures

1. Probability of first marriage by age and race/ethnicity: United States, 1995 .................................... 11

2. Probability of first marriage by ages 18 and 30 by race/ethnicity: United States, 1995 ........................... 12

3. Probability of first marriage by age and importance of religion: United States, 1995 ............................. 12

4. Probability of first marriage by age 18 by community male unemployment rate, median family income, percent below

poverty, and percent receiving public assistance: United States, 1995 ......................................... 13

5. Probability of first marriage by age 30 by race/ethnicity and metropolitan status: United States, 1995 ............... 13

6. Probability that an intact cohabitation makes the transition to first marriage by duration of cohabitation and

race/ethnicity: United States, 1995 ..................................................................... 13

7. Probability that an intact cohabitation makes the transition to first marriage within 5 years by race/ethnicity and

family income: United States, 1995..................................................................... 14

8. Probability that an intact cohabitation makes the transition to first marriage within 5 years by religious affiliation:

United States, 1995.................................................................................. 14

9. Probability that an intact cohabitation makes the transition to first marriage by duration of cohabitation and

importance of religion: Non-Hispanic white women, United States, 1995 ...................................... 14

10. Probability that an intact cohabitation makes the transition to first marriage within 5 years by community male

unemployment rate, median family income, percent below poverty, and percent receiving public assistance:

United States, 1995.................................................................................. 15

11. Probability that an intact cohabitation makes the transition to first marriage within 5 years by race/ethnicity and

male unemployment rate in the community: United States, 1995 ............................................. 15

12. Probability that the first cohabitation breaks up by duration of cohabitation and race/ethnicity: United States,

1995.............................................................................................. 15

13. Probability that the first cohabitation breaks up by duration of cohabitation and age at the beginning of

cohabitation: United States, 1995 ...................................................................... 16

14. Probability that the first cohabitation breaks up within 10 years by race/ethnicity and age at the beginning of

cohabitation: United States, 1995 ...................................................................... 16

15. Probability that the first cohabitation breaks up within 5 years by race/ethnicity and forced intercourse before

cohabitation: United States, 1995 ...................................................................... 16

16. Probability that the first cohabitation breaks up within 10 years by community male unemployment rate, median

family income, percent below poverty, and percent receiving public assistance: United States, 1995 ................ 17

17. Probability that the first cohabitation breaks up within 10 years by race/ethnicity and male unemployment rate in the

community: United States, 1995 ....................................................................... 17

18. Probability that the first marriage breaks up by duration of marriage and race/ethnicity: United States,

1995.............................................................................................. 17

19. Probability that the first marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/ethnicity and age at the beginning of marriage:

United States, 1995.................................................................................. 18

20. Probability that the first marriage breaks up by duration of marriage and importance of religion: United States,

1995.............................................................................................. 18

21. Probability that the first marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/ethnicity and intact status of family of origin:

United States, 1995.................................................................................. 18

22. Probability that the first marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/ethnicity and forced intercourse: United States,

1995.............................................................................................. 19

23. Probability that the first marriage breaks up within 5 years by race/ethnicity and timing of first birth: United States,

1995.............................................................................................. 19

24. Probability that the first marriage breaks up within 15 years by race/ethnicity and generalized anxiety disorder:

United States, 1995.................................................................................. 19

25. Probability that the first marriage breaks up by duration of marriage and race difference with husband:

United States, 1995.................................................................................. 20

26. Probability that the first marriage breaks up within 10 years by community male unemployment rate, median

family income, percent below poverty, and percent receiving public assistance: United States, 1995 ................ 20

27. Probability that the first marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/ethnicity and median family income in the

community: United States, 1995 ....................................................................... 20

iv
28. Probability of postmarital cohabitation by duration of separation and race/ethnicity: United States, 1995............. 21

29. Probability of postmarital cohabitation by duration of separation and religious affiliation: United States, 1995 ........ 21

30. Probability of postmarital cohabitation within 10 years of separation by race/ethnicity and parity at separation:

United States, 1995.................................................................................. 21

31. Probability of postmarital cohabitation within 10 years of separation by community male unemployment rate,

median family income, percent below poverty, and percent receiving public assistance: United States, 1995.......... 22

32. Probability of transition from separation to divorce by duration of separation and race/ethnicity: United States, 1995 . . 22

33. Probability of transition from separation to divorce within 3 years of separation by community male unemployment

rate, median family income, percent below poverty, and percent receiving public assistance: United States, 1995...... 23

34. Probability of remarriage by duration of divorce and race/ethnicity: United States, 1995.......................... 23

35. Probability of remarriage within 10 years of divorce by race/ethnicity and age at divorce: United States, 1995 ....... 23

36. Probability of remarriage within 10 years of divorce by community male unemployment rate, median family income,

percent below poverty, and percent receiving public assistance: United States, 1995 ............................. 24

37. Probability of remarriage within 5 years of divorce by race/ethnicity and metropolitan status: United States, 1995..... 24

38. Probability that the second marriage breaks up by duration of marriage and race/ethnicity: United States, 1995 ....... 24

39. Probability that the second marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/ethnicity and age at remarriage:

United States, 1995.................................................................................. 25

40. Probability that the second marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/ethnicity and intact family of origin:

United States, 1995.................................................................................. 25

41. Probability that the second marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/ethnicity and forced intercourse:

United States, 1995.................................................................................. 25

42. Probability that the second marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/ethnicity and generalized anxiety disorder:

United States, 1995.................................................................................. 26

43. Probability that the second marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/ethnicity and presence of unwanted

children at remarriage: United States, 1995 .............................................................. 26

44. Probability that the second marriage breaks up within 10 years by community male unemployment rate, median

family income, percent below poverty, and percent receiving public assistance: United States, 1995 ................ 26

45. Probability of first marriage disruption within 10 years by marriage cohort and race/ethnicity: United States, marriages

begun in 1950–84 .................................................................................. 27

46. Probability of transition from separation to divorce within 5 years by marriage cohort and race/ethnicity:

United States, marriages begun in 1950–84 .............................................................. 28

47. Probability of remarriage within 5 years by divorce cohort and race/ethnicity: United States, divorces occurring in

1950–89........................................................................................... 28

48. Probability of second marriage disruption within 5 years by marriage cohort and race/ethnicity: United States,

marriages begun in 1950–84 .......................................................................... 28

List of Detailed Tables

1. Probability of first marriage by duration since age 15 and selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years

of age, United States, 1995 ........................................................................... 35

2. Probability of first marriage by duration since age 15 and selected contextual characteristics: All races, women

15–44 years of age, United States, 1995................................................................. 36

3. Probability of first marriage by duration since age 15 and selected characteristics: Hispanic women 15–44 years of

age, United States, 1995.............................................................................. 37

4. Probability of first marriage by duration since age 15 and selected contextual characteristics: Hispanic women 15–44

years of age, United States, 1995 ...................................................................... 38

5. Probability of first marriage by duration since age 15 and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years

of age, United States, 1995 ........................................................................... 39

6. Probability of first marriage by duration since age 15 and selected contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic white

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 .......................................................... 40

7. Probability of first marriage by duration since age 15 and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic black women 15–44

years of age, United States, 1995 ...................................................................... 41

8. Probability of first marriage by duration since age 15 and selected contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic black

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 .......................................................... 42

9. Probability that an intact first cohabitation makes the transition to marriage by duration of cohabitation and selected

characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 ..................................... 43

10. Probability that an intact first cohabitation makes the transition to marriage by duration of cohabitation and selected

contextual characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 ............................ 44

v
11. Probability that an intact first cohabitation makes the transition to marriage by duration of cohabitation and selected

characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995............................. 45

12. Probability that an intact first cohabitation makes the transition to marriage by duration of cohabitation and selected

contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995.................... 46

13. Probability that an intact first cohabitation makes the transition to marriage by duration of cohabitation and selected

characteristics: Non-Hispanic black women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995............................. 47

14. Probability that an intact first cohabitation makes the transition to marriage by duration of cohabitation and selected

contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic black women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995.................... 48

15. Probability of first cohabitation disruption by duration of cohabitation and selected characteristics: All races, women

15–44 years of age, United States, 1995................................................................. 49

16. Probability of first cohabitation disruption by duration of cohabitation and selected contextual characteristics: All races,

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 .......................................................... 50

17. Probability of first cohabitation disruption by duration of cohabitation and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 .......................................................... 51

18. Probability of first cohabitation disruption by duration of cohabitation and selected contextual characteristics:

Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 ......................................... 52

19. Probability of first cohabitation disruption by duration of cohabitation and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic

black women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 ..................................................... 53

20. Probability of first cohabitation disruption by duration of cohabitation and selected contextual characteristics:

Non-Hispanic black women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 ......................................... 54

21. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44

years of age, United States, 1995 ...................................................................... 55

22. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected contextual characteristics: All races,

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 .......................................................... 57

23. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected characteristics: Hispanic women 15–44

years of age, United States, 1995 ...................................................................... 58

24. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected contextual characteristics: Hispanic

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 .......................................................... 60

25. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 .......................................................... 61

26. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic

white women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 ..................................................... 63

27. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic black

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 .......................................................... 64

28. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic

black women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 ..................................................... 66

29. Probability of postmarital cohabitation by duration of separation and selected characteristics: All races, women

15–44 years of age, United States, 1995................................................................. 67

30. Probability of postmarital cohabitation by duration of separation and selected contextual characteristics: All races,

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 .......................................................... 69

31. Probability of postmarital cohabitation by duration of separation and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 .......................................................... 70

32. Probability of postmarital cohabitation by duration of separation and selected contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic

white women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 ..................................................... 71

33. Probability that a separation from first marriage makes the transition to divorce by duration of separation and

selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 .............................. 72

34. Probability that a separation from first marriage makes the transition to divorce by duration of separation and

selected contextual characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 ..................... 74

35. Probability that a separation from first marriage makes the transition to divorce by duration of separation and selected

characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995............................. 75

36. Probability that a separation from first marriage makes the transition to divorce by duration of separation and selected

contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995.................... 77

37. Probability of remarriage by duration of divorce and selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age,

United States, 1995.................................................................................. 78

38. Probability of remarriage by duration of divorce and selected contextual characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years

of age, United States, 1995 ........................................................................... 80

39. Probability of remarriage by duration of divorce and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years

of age, United States, 1995 ........................................................................... 81

vi
40. Probability of remarriage by duration of divorce and selected contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women

15–44 years of age, United States, 1995................................................................. 82

41. Probability of second marriage disruption by duration of remarriage and selected characteristics: All races, women

15–44 years of age, United States, 1995................................................................. 83

42. Probability of second marriage disruption by duration of remarriage and selected contextual characteristics: All races,

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 .......................................................... 85

43. Probability of second marriage disruption by duration of remarriage and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 .......................................................... 86

44. Probability of second marriage disruption by duration of remarriage and selected contextual characteristics:

Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 ......................................... 88

Appendix Tables

I. Sample sizes by race/ethnicity: 1995 National Survey of Family Growth ...................................... 92

II. First marriage life table estimates: Women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995 ............................. 93

vii
Objectives

This report presents national

estimates of the probabilities of marital

and cohabitation outcomes for women

15–44 years of age in 1995, by a wide

variety of individual- and communitylevel characteristics. The life-table

analysis in this report takes a life cycle

approach to estimate the probabilities

that:

+ a woman will marry for the first time,

+ an intact first cohabitation will make

the transition to marriage,

+ a first cohabitation will end in

separation,

+ a first marriage will end in separation

or divorce,

+ a disrupted first marriage will be

followed by a new cohabitation,

+ a separation from first marriage will

result in divorce,

+ a divorce from first marriage will be

followed by remarriage, and

+ a second marriage will end in

separation or divorce.

Methods

The life-table estimates presented

here are based on a nationally

representative sample of women 15–44

years of age in the United States in

1995 from the National Survey of

Family Growth, Cycle 5.

Results

The analyses show that various

individual and community-level

characteristics are related to the marital

and cohabitational outcomes examined

in this report. The results consistently

demonstrate that the cohabitations and

marriages of non-Hispanic black women

are less stable than those of nonHispanic white women. An analysis of

trends over time suggests that

differences by race/ethnicity are

becoming more pronounced in recent

years. Racial differences observed are

associated with individual

characteristics and with the

characteristics of the communities in

which the women live.

Keywords: cohabitation c marriage c

separation c divorce c remarriage c

context

Cohabitation, Marriage,

Divorce, and Remarriage in the

United States

Matthew D. Bramlett, Ph.D. and William D. Mosher, Ph.D.,

Division of Vital Statistics

Highlights

This report presents data from

Cycle 5 of the National Survey of

Family Growth (NSFG). The

NSFG is a nationally representative

survey focused on marriage, divorce,

contraception, infertility, and other

factors affecting pregnancy and birth

rates and women’s health. Cycle 5 of

the NSFG was based on face-to-face

interviews with 10,847 women 15–44

years of age in 1995. The analysis of

trends in this report is based on data

from the 1973, 1976, 1988, and 1995

cycles of the NSFG. For convenience in

writing in the text of this report,

non-Hispanic white women are often

referred to as ‘‘white’’ and non-Hispanic

black women are often referred to as

‘‘black.’’ The full labels are always used

in the tables and graphs.

This report contains 44 detailed

tables showing analyses of eight

outcomes related to cohabitation and

marriage: the probability that a woman

will marry for the first time, the

probability that an intact first premarital

cohabitation will become a marriage, the

probability that a first premarital

cohabitation will break up, the

probability that a first marriage will

break up, the probability that a woman

whose first marriage has disrupted will

enter a new cohabitation, the probability

that a separation from first marriage will

become a legal divorce, the probability

that a divorced woman will remarry, and

the probability of second marriage

disruption. A wide variety of

characteristics of women and the

communities in which they live are used

to examine these cohabitation and

marital outcomes.

The analyses in this report are

intended to provide a statistical

description, not a definitive or

exhaustive explanation of these topics.

The data shown here are intended to

suggest that both characteristics of

individuals and the communities in

which they live are often important

factors in understanding cohabitation

and marriage and to encourage

researchers to consider these factors

when studying these issues. This report

also attempts to shed light on at least

five important issues in the recent

statistical literature on marriage and

divorce:

+ What are the recent trends in marital

breakup, divorce, and remarriage?

+ Do the trends in these outcomes

differ by race/ethnicity?

The 1995 National Survey of Family Growth was jointly planned and funded primarily by the National

Center for Health Statistics, the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD),

the Office of Population Affairs, and the National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, with

additional support from the Children’s Bureau. The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical

assistance of Wayne E. Johnson, Ph.D., of the Office of Research and Methodology for assistance in

estimating standard errors of the statistics in this report. The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful

review and comments of Dr. V. Jeffery Evans of NICHD. This report was edited by Patricia KeatonWilliams, graphics produced by Jarmila Ogburn, and typeset by Jacqueline M. Davis.

Page 1
Page 2 [ Series 23, No. 22

+ Are characteristics of communities

related to couples’ success in

marriage?

+ Is the statistical portrait of marriage

affected if we measure unmarried

cohabitation and separation from

marriage as well as legal marriage

and divorce?

+ What demographic, economic, and

social factors affect the chances that

marriage will succeed or fail?

What are the trends? Our data show an

increase in the chances that first

marriages will end (in separation or

divorce) for marriages that began in the

1950s through the 1970s. From the early

1970s to the late 1980s, the rates of

breakup were fairly stable. The

probability of remarriage following

divorce has decreased slightly, and the

probability that the second marriage will

break up has risen from the 1950s to the

1980s.

Do the trends differ by race/ethnicity?

It appears that these trends were similar

for non-Hispanic white and nonHispanic black women, but black

women faced higher rates of marital

breakup, lower rates of making the

transition from separation to divorce,

and lower rates of remarriage. Among

white women, the increasing probability

of first marriage breakup leveled off in

the 1970s but appears to have continued

rising for black women through the

1980s.

Are characteristics of communities

related to success in marriage? This

report shows clear evidence that

community prosperity is related to

successful cohabitations and marriages,

and that neighborhood poverty increases

the likelihood that cohabitations and

marriages will fail.

Is the statistical portrait of union

formation and dissolution affected if

we measure unmarried cohabitation

and separation from marriage as well

as legal divorce? One major advantage

of survey data on marriage is that we

are not limited to examining legal

marriage and divorce. The data in this

report show that the probability that an

intact premarital cohabitation will result

in marriage is 70 percent after 5 years;

that probability is associated with the

woman’s race, age, education, the

household’s income, and the economic

opportunities in the community. The

data also show that a great many

marriages end in legal separation but not

in divorce, and that looking only at

divorce greatly understates marital

disruption among some groups—

especially non-Hispanic black and

Hispanic women.

What demographic, economic, and

social factors affect the chances that

marriage will succeed or fail? This

report shows that a number of

characteristics are closely associated

with the chances that a marriage will

continue or break up. For first

marriages, for example, marriages are

less likely to break up, and more likely

to succeed, if the wife grew up in a

two-parent home, is Asian, was 20 years

of age or over at marriage, did not have

any children when she got married, is

college-educated, has more income, or

has any religious affiliation.

The following highlights illustrate

the kinds of findings shown in this

report:

The probability of first marriage

is lower for non-Hispanic black women

than for other women (figures 1 and 2).

Getting married by the 18th birthday is

more likely for Hispanic and

non-Hispanic white women and less

likely for non-Hispanic black and Asian

women (figure 2). First marriage is less

likely for women who report that their

religion is not important (figure 3).

Early marriage is more likely for

women in communities with higher

male unemployment, lower median

family income, higher poverty and

higher receipt of welfare (figure 4). First

marriage is more likely in

nonmetropolitan areas and less likely in

central cities (figure 5).

The probability that an intact first

premarital cohabitation becomes a

marriage is higher among white women

and lower among black women

(figure 6); higher among couples with

higher incomes than for couples with

lower incomes (figure 7); and higher for

cohabiting women with any religious

affiliation than for those with no

religious affiliation, especially among

white women (figure 8). Marriage is

more likely for cohabiting white women

who report that their religion is either

somewhat or very important than for

those who report that their religion is

not important (figure 9).

Cohabiting women are more likely

to marry if they live in communities

with lower male unemployment, higher

median family income, lower poverty,

and lower receipt of welfare (figure 10).

The male unemployment rate seems to

be more important among black women

than among white women (figure 11).

After the first 3 years of

cohabitation, the probability that a

first premarital cohabitation breaks

up is higher among black women than

among Hispanic or white women

(figure 12) and is higher among younger

than older women (figure 13), especially

among white women (figure 14).

Women who have ever been forced to

have intercourse before the cohabitation

began are more likely to experience the

breakup of their first premarital

cohabitation than women who have

never been forced (figure 15).

Cohabiting women are more likely

to experience the breakup of their first

premarital cohabitation if they live in

communities with higher male

unemployment, lower median family

income, and higher rates of poverty and

receipt of welfare (figures 16 and 17).

Black women are more likely to

experience first marital disruption and

Asian women are less likely to

experience first marital disruption,

compared with white or Hispanic

women (figure 18). First marriages of

women who are 20 years of age or over

at marriage are less likely to break up

than marriages of teenaged brides; but

there is no significant difference by age

at marriage among Hispanic women

(figure 19). Women whose religion is

somewhat or very important are also

less likely to experience a breakup of

their first marriage than those whose

religion is not important (figure 20).

Women who lived with both parents

throughout childhood are less likely to

experience the breakup of their first

marriage than women who were not

raised with two parents throughout

childhood (figure 21). Women who have

never been forced to have intercourse

before marriage are less likely to
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 3

experience the breakup of their first

marriage than women who have ever

been forced to have intercourse before

marriage (figure 22). The chance of

marital disruption is lower if the wife

had her first birth after marriage

(figure 23).

Women who have ever suffered

from generalized anxiety disorder

(GAD) are more likely to experience the

breakup of their first marriage than

women who have never suffered from

GAD (figure 24). Interracial marriages

are more likely to disrupt than marriages

in which both spouses are the same

race/ethnicity (figure 25). First marriages

are more likely to disrupt in

communities with higher male

unemployment, lower median family

income, higher poverty, and higher

receipt of welfare (figures 26 and 27).

Entering a new cohabitation after

the first marriage ends is more likely

among white women than black women

(figure 28); more likely among women

with no religious affiliation than women

with any religious affiliation (figure 29);

more likely if she has few or no

children (figure 30); and more likely for

women who live in communities with

low male unemployment, poverty, and

receipt of welfare (figure 31).

Separated white women are more

likely to complete the legal divorce

process than separated Hispanic or

black women (figure 32). The transition

from separation to divorce is less likely

among women who live in less

prosperous communities (figure 33).

The probability of remarriage is

highest among white divorced women

and lowest among black divorced

women (figure 34). Remarriage is more

likely among women who were under

age 25 at divorce than among women

ages 25 and over at divorce (figure 35).

Remarriage is more likely for divorced

women who live in communities with

lower male unemployment, poverty, and

receipt of welfare (figure 36).

Remarriage is more likely for women

who live in nonmetropolitan areas and is

least likely for women who live in the

central cities of metropolitan areas

(figure 37).

Black women are more likely to

experience the breakup of their second

marriage than other women (figure 38);

second marriage disruption is more

likely among women who were younger

than age 25 at remarriage than women

who were older at remarriage

(figure 39), more likely among women

who were not raised throughout

childhood with two parents (figure 40),

more likely among women who have

ever been forced to have intercourse

before marriage than women who have

never been forced to have intercourse

before marriage (figure 41), and more

likely among women who have ever

suffered from GAD than women who

have never suffered from GAD

(figure 42).

Women with no children at the start

of the second marriage are the least

likely to experience second marital

disruption. Among those with children

at remarriage, those with any unwanted

children are more likely to experience a

second marital disruption than those

with no unwanted children (figure 43).

Women who live in communities with

higher male unemployment, lower

median family income, higher poverty,

and higher receipt of welfare are more

likely to experience the second marital

breakup (figure 44).

Although the statistics presented in

this report are descriptive in nature, it is

possible to observe how the

characteristics of individuals and

communities may be related to the

stability of cohabitations and marriages.

Cohabitations and marriages tend to last

longer if the woman was older at the

time the cohabitation or marriage began,

if her family income is higher, if she

has any religious affiliation or reports

that her religion is important to her, if

she was raised through childhood in a

two-parent intact family, if she had

never been forced to have intercourse, if

she had no children at the start of the

cohabitation or marriage, if her first

birth was at least 8 months after the

beginning of the cohabitation or

marriage, if she has never suffered

generalized anxiety disorder, if she is

the same race/ethnicity as her husband,

or if she lives in communities with

higher median family income, lower

male unemployment, less poverty, less

receipt of welfare, and more adults who

are college-educated. Some of these

characteristics show stronger effects for

the stability of marriage than for the

stability of cohabitation, and some of

the effects vary by race/ethnicity.

Introduction

Marriage is associated with a

variety of positive outcomes,

and dissolution of marriage is

associated with negative outcomes—for

men, women, and their children. A full

analysis of the benefits of marriage—to

either children or spouses—is beyond

the scope of this report; but this brief

review should serve to highlight the

importance of the data described in this

report. The purpose of this report is to

present estimates of the patterns of

cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and

remarriage in the United States as of

1995, by a wide variety of individualand community-level characteristics. We

do not attempt to provide rigorous

explanations for the many findings

reported here. The intent is to present

the findings in a statistically sound

format, in greater detail than has ever

been done for the United States, and

thus to encourage more understanding

and further study of these important

topics.

Compared with unmarried people,

married men and women tend to have

lower mortality, less risky behavior,

more monitoring of health, more

compliance with medical regimens,

higher sexual frequency, more

satisfaction with their sexual lives, more

savings, and higher wages (1–3). The

differences between married and

unmarried people may reflect a causal

effect of marriage or a selection effect.

Healthier people may be more likely

than others to find mates and marry.

Research has suggested that the benefits

of marriage may be partially due to a

selection effect and partially due to true

benefits to be gained from being

married as opposed to being unmarried

(3,4). A lower mortality risk among the

married has been shown to persist even

after health in early adulthood was

controlled, suggesting that at least part

of the benefit of being married is not

the result of selection (4).

Compared to married individuals,

divorced persons exhibit lower levels of
Page 4 [ Series 23, No. 22

psychological well-being, more health

problems, greater risk of mortality, more

social isolation, less satisfying sex lives,

more negative life events, greater levels

of depression and alcohol use, and lower

levels of happiness and self-acceptance

(5). The economic consequences of

divorce can be severe for women. Most

often, children remain with the mother

after divorce; the loss of the exhusband’s income often results in a

severe loss of income per capita (6,7).

For a man, the retention of income

combined with decreased family size

may actually result in an increase in his

new household’s income per capita (6,8).

Adverse outcomes accrue to

children of divorce and children raised

in single-parent families. Although not

all single-parent families are the result

of divorce and not all divorced mothers

remain single, virtually all children of

divorce spend some time in a

single-parent household until the mother

remarries. Even when the mother does

remarry, studies suggest that children in

stepfamilies have similar risks of

adverse outcomes as children in

single-parent families: both groups of

children do worse than children living

with two biological parents in terms of

academic achievement, depression, and

behavior problems such as drug and

alcohol abuse, premarital sexual

intercourse, and being arrested (9).

Single-parent families have lower

levels of parental involvement in school

activities and lower student

achievement, compared to two-parent

families (10). Children raised in

single-parent families are more likely to

drop out of high school, have lower

grades and attendance while in school,

and are less likely to attend and

graduate from college than children

raised in two-parent families (11). They

are more likely to be out of school and

unemployed and are also more likely to

become single parents themselves, than

children raised in two-parent families

(11). Studies have found that, compared

to children in two-parent families,

children of divorce score lower on

measures of self-concept, social

competence, conduct, psychological

adjustment and long-term health (5).

The positive health benefits of

marriage and the negative consequences

of divorce illustrate the importance of

examining trends and differentials in the

patterns of marriage and divorce over

time.

Trends and Differences in

Marriage and Divorce

In the United States during the

second half of the twentieth century, the

proportion of people’s lives spent in

marriage declined due to postponement

of marriage to later ages and higher

rates of divorce (12). The increase in

nonmarital cohabiting has also

contributed to the decline in the

proportion of peoples’ lives spent in

marriage. Increasing rates of

cohabitation have largely offset

decreasing rates of marriage (13,14).

The proportion of time spent in

marriage has varied across demographic

subgroups. Since 1950, the marital

patterns of white and black Americans

have diverged considerably. About

91 percent of white women born in the

1950s are estimated to marry at some

time in their lives, compared with only

75 percent of black women born in the

1950s (13). Black married couples are

more likely to break up than white

married couples, and black divorcees are

less likely to remarry than white

divorcees (13).

The degree of attachment to

marriage among black Americans is

similar to that of white Americans as

measured by attitudes toward marriage

(15,16). One explanation offered by

some researchers for the lower

proportion of time spent in marriage

among black Americans is the idea of a

‘‘marriage squeeze,’’ in which the

‘‘marriageable pool’’ of black men is

low due to high rates of joblessness,

incarceration, and mortality (17–19).

Employed men are more likely than

unemployed men to marry (20).

In addition to race and employment

status, other characteristics of

individuals that have been found to be

related to a higher probability of getting

married include higher education and

earnings (21). Characteristics related to

getting married earlier include growing

up in a disrupted family and higher

levels of parents’ education (22).

Characteristics of individuals related to

a higher probability of divorce include

younger age at marriage, lower

education and later birth cohort (23),

later marriage cohort and presence of a

premarital birth (24), premarital

cohabitation (25), and premarital sexual

activity (26). Catholic white women are

less likely to divorce than non-Catholic

white women (24). Marital

dissatisfaction has been found to be

associated with psychiatric disorders

such as GAD, depression, and panic

(27). Other characteristics related to a

lower probability of remarriage include

higher education and older age at

divorce (28) and presence of children

from prior marriages (9).

Lower economic prospects for

less-educated young men have been

hypothesized to decrease the probability

of marriage. The increasing economic

independence of women has also been

hypothesized to decrease the probability

of marriage, although recent evidence

suggests that the increasing economic

independence of women may actually

increase the probability of marriage as

earnings and employment may make

either partner an attractive potential

spouse (17,21). Marriage market

conditions may also play a role, in that

the probability of divorce is higher in

areas with large numbers of

economically attractive potential

alternate partners (17,29).

A full analysis of all of the

individual- and community-level

characteristics associated with

cohabitation, marriage, and divorce is

beyond the scope of this report. The

purpose of this report is to present

estimates of the patterns of cohabitation,

marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the

United States as of 1995 by a wide

variety of demographic and community

characteristics. The individual

characteristics include some which have

been shown to be related to marital

outcomes in the literature cited above:

age, race/ethnicity, education, income,

employment status, religion, family

background, parity, GAD, and whether

the woman cohabited with her husband

before marriage (9, 13, 20–28). Other

individual characteristics have been

found in other analyses of the National

Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) to be
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 5

correlated with related variables such as

marital status, age at marriage, or year

of marriage: forced intercourse, timing

of first birth, and whether births were

unwanted (30).

Some of these individual

characteristics are not available for all

analyses. For example, whether the

marriage was preceded by cohabitation

is only appropriate for analyses of firstand second-marriage duration. Some

characteristics do not always have

enough cases to use in some analyses.

For example, parity is measured as the

number of children born by the start of

the analysis interval, and the interval for

the analysis of first marriage begins at

age 15; the number of women who had

given birth before age 15 was

insufficient for analysis of this variable.

Where possible, analyses were run by

various different measurements of these

variables. Analyses of all outcomes are

presented by religious affiliation and the

importance of religion. For analyses of

first- and second-marriage disruption,

results are presented by the wife’s age

and by the age difference with her

husband, and by the wife’s race/

ethnicity and by the race difference with

her husband (the age difference with

partner and race difference with partner

are not available for analysis of the first

cohabitation because of the large

amount of missing data in the woman’s

report of her first cohabiting partner’s

characteristics).

Basic measures of residence such as

region of residence and metropolitan

status are included here. Other measures

of the characteristics of the community

measured at the census-tract or county

level are also included: the male

unemployment rate, median family

income, percent of households below

poverty, percent of families receiving

public assistance, percent of adults with

college education, the crime rate in the

county, and the percent of women

never-married.

The analysis of each outcome is

presented by each individual and

community characteristic separately. The

results are descriptive and are not meant

to represent a definitive explanation of

these outcomes. Further analysis using

multivariate techniques may reveal that

some of the characteristics in this report

are more or less important than others,

but such analysis is beyond the scope of

this report. The estimates in this report

are based on Cycle 5 of NSFG,

conducted in 1995 by the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC)/National Center for Health

Statistics (NCHS). Preliminary estimates

of first marriage disruption, the

transition from separation to divorce,

remarriage, and second marriage

disruption by race/ethnicity and age

based on the 1995 NSFG were

published previously (31).

Data Sources

There have been several sources of

data on marriage, divorce, and

cohabitation in the United States in

recent decades, but few are still active:

+ Until 1995, the NCHS Vital

Statistics program included marriage

and divorce registration data. The

collection of individual record data

ended with data year 1995, and

since then only annual total counts

of marriages and divorces have been

available (32). That system

previously gave annual rates of legal

marriage and divorce by marriage

order and age but had no data on

the lifetime probability of divorce

by other characteristics and included

no data on cohabitation or

separation.

+ The U.S. Census Bureau’s Current

Population Survey (CPS) previously

contained a marital history

supplement to the June CPS every 5

years in 1980, 1985, 1990, and

1995, but was not continued after

1995 (33).

+ The National Survey of Families

and Households, conducted by the

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Center for Demography and

Ecology, was a comprehensive

survey covering many aspects of

cohabitation and marriage and was

especially useful because of its

longitudinal design, allowing for the

prediction of outcomes based on

covariates measured before those

outcomes. However, the sample was

originally drawn in 1987 and the

last data collection was in 1992–94,

although a third wave of data is

being collected in 2001–02 (34).

+ The U.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of

Income and Program Participation

(SIPP) is a longitudinal panel survey

of approximately 37,000 households

that includes a marital history and a

large number of demographic

characteristics. The most recent

SIPP data available were from the

1996 panel (35). There was no

cohabitation history data collected in

SIPP, so analysis of the transition

from cohabitation to marriage is

impossible.

+ Cycle 5 of the NSFG was collected

in 1995 and contains full

cohabitation and marriage histories

as well as a large number of

potential characteristics to study

patterns of cohabitation, marriage,

and divorce. In addition, the NSFG

Cycle 5 includes data on the

characteristics of the communities in

which the respondents live, allowing

for contextual analysis of

cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and

remarriage. Cycles 1 through 5 of

NSFG can be pooled to perform

trend analysis. Unlike most of these

other data systems, NSFG is

currently ongoing. Cycle 6 of the

NSFG is to be collected in 2002,

with public-use data files expected

to become available in late 2003.

Further analysis of new data on

these topics collected in 2002 will

therefore be possible.

Life Tables on Marriage

There have been numerous studies

using life-table techniques to study

marriage and divorce in the United

States. One study presented first and

second marriage dissolution life tables

based on the 1973 NSFG (23). Another

study (1980) constructed similar tables

on first and second marriage based on

the Divorce Registration Area annual

divorce certificate data (36). Life tables

of marriage, widowhood, and divorce

have been computed based on published

census and vital statistics data (37,38).

Other studies have presented statistics

on marriage and divorce that are

calculated as cumulative percents, which
Page 6 [ Series 23, No. 22

are similar to estimates obtained in life

tables. One such study presented

cumulative probabilities of remarriage

based on the 1976 NSFG (28). Another

study presented cumulative proportions

of marriages dissolved based on the

1982 NSFG (22). Because the focus of

this report is on the occurrence of

certain events (marital disruption,

remarriage, etc.) within a specified time

frame (duration of marriage, duration of

divorce, etc.), life-table techniques are

appropriate for this analysis (23). A

detailed description of life-table

techniques appears in the ‘‘Methods’’

section, and a sample life table appears

in Appendix II.

The life tables in this report are

based on Cycle 5 of the NSFG, the most

recent available data. In addition, a large

number of covariates are examined that

were not analyzed in the previous

studies, including the characteristics of

the communities in which women live.

We also include cohabitation life tables

that were not available in prior studies,

including the probability of cohabitation

disruption, the probability of a

cohabitation becoming a marriage, and

the probability of cohabitation after the

dissolution of first marriage.

Methods

Data—The national estimates of

cohabitation, marriage, and divorce

patterns in this report are based on data

from the 1995 NSFG. Cycle 5 of NSFG,

conducted by CDC/NCHS in 1995, was

based on a multistage probability sample

of the civilian, noninstitutionalized

population of women in the United

States, yielding estimates that are

representative of women 15–44 years of

age in 1995. Between January and

October 1995, in-home computerassisted personal interviews were

conducted with 10,847 women, of

whom 1,553 were Hispanic women,

6,483 were non-Hispanic white women,

2,446 were non-Hispanic black women

and 365 were women of other races and

ethnic origins. The overall response rate

was 79 percent (30).

The sample list for the 1995 NSFG

was selected from households that

responded to the 1993 National Health

Interview Survey. Non-Hispanic black

and Hispanic women were sampled at

higher rates than were other women.

Sampling weights account for

differential probabilities of sample

selection and for nonresponse, and are

adjusted to agree with control totals by

age, race, parity, and marital status

provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The 10,847 women in the 1995 NSFG

represent the 60 million women 15–44

years of age in the civilian

noninstitutionalized population of the

United States in 1995. On average, each

woman in the 1995 NSFG represents

about 5,500 women in the population,

although sample weights vary

considerably from this average value

depending on the respondent’s race, age,

and Hispanic ethnicity, the response rate

for similar women, and other factors

(30,39). See Appendix I, Technical

Notes for additional information.

The 1995 NSFG collected complete

retrospective histories of each woman’s

experiences with cohabitation, marriage,

and divorce, including the beginning

and ending dates of each cohabitation

and marriage and the outcome of each

union (marriage, separation, divorce, or

widowhood) (40). Given these data, the

probabilities shown in this report can be

estimated using life-table techniques.

Previous analyses of marriage and

divorce based on vital statistics have

computed and presented annual rates of

marriage and divorce (41,42). Rates are

snapshots of data limited to a specific

year. The life-table analysis in this

report takes a life-cycle approach to

estimate the probabilities that:

+ a woman will get married for the

first time,

+ an intact first cohabitation will make

the transition to marriage,

+ a first cohabitation will end in

breakup,

+ a first marriage will end in

separation or divorce,

+ a disrupted first marriage will be

followed by cohabitation,

+ a separation will result in divorce,

+ a divorce from first marriage will be

followed by remarriage, and

+ a second marriage will end in

separation or divorce.

These outcomes are presented in

this report in the order in which they

typically occur in the lives of women

and men—that is, in a ‘‘life-cycle’’

order. Each outcome was treated

independently. Although it is possible to

combine outcomes in multidecrement

life tables (such as the formation of the

first union as either cohabitation or

marriage, or the end of first cohabitation

in either breakup or marriage), that is

beyond the scope of this report.

Previous analysis of divorce and

remarriage based on Cycle 4 of NSFG

used a measure of the cumulative

proportion of marriages disrupted as of

interview to describe the phenomena

(43). This statistic is a refinement of a

rate, approximating the estimates that

life-table analysis provides. However, it

is only a single measure of the

cumulative proportion at the time of

interview; life tables provide estimates

of cumulative proportions at every time

point in the life course of a marriage.

Life Tables—The life table is a tool that

demographers and statisticians use most

often to study mortality, but it is also

often applied to the study of marital

stability. In studying mortality, the

cohort life table is a summary of the

mortality history of a given cohort from

birth to death (a cohort is a group of

people born in the same year; e.g., the

1950 cohort includes persons born in

1950), and requires data on the

longevity of all cohort members, a span

of more than 100 years. As a result, the

period life table is typically used as a

model of what would happen to a given

cohort if the age-specific death rates

from a certain point in time were to

remain fixed for the duration of the

cohort’s life (44,45).

As members of the cohort age, they

are subjected to the age-specific death

rates of successive age categories in the

life table. At each interval, the

age-specific death rate for that interval

is used to calculate how many members

of the cohort die during that interval.

That number of deaths is subtracted

from the count of cohort members, and

the result is the number of cohort

members who survive to go on to the

next interval. Eventually, the last age

interval is reached and the last cohort

members die. One overall measure of

longevity is the proportion who survive
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 7

to specific ages (44). Survivor curves

can be plotted that show the proportion

of the cohort surviving to each

successive age category (45,46).

To apply life table analysis to the

study of marital (or cohabitation)

stability, the cohort of people is replaced

with a cohort of marriages (or

cohabitations); age is replaced by union

duration, and death is replaced by

breakup, separation, or divorce. A

mortality life table is used to analyze

death, which is a one-time event that

cannot be reversed, whereas a marital

life table is used to analyze marriage,

which can occur more than once and

can be reversed. However, there is little

conceptual difference between the two if

one considers that the event of a first

marriage cannot be reversed (a married

woman can become unmarried, but

cannot change the fact that she

experienced the event of a first

marriage).

There is an additional issue that

must be addressed in order to apply lifetable analysis to the study of marital

outcomes. The NSFG sample of women

is limited to ages 15–44, so the marriage

histories are incomplete. For respondents

whose marriage has not yet ended as of

interview, the end date of the marriage

is unknown, and it is not known how

the marriage will end; therefore the

duration of the marriage is unknown,

and is referred to in statistical literature

as ‘‘censored.’’ Life table procedures

allow for the simultaneous analysis of

complete and incomplete marriage

histories (23).

Life table analysis can handle

censored cases by keeping such cases in

the analysis as long as they are at risk

of disruption and then dropping them

out once the risk is unknown (47). For

example, when calculating the

proportion of marriages that dissolve in

each duration interval, a marriage that

has existed for 24 months and still

exists intact at interview would remain

in the denominator for each duration

interval until 24 months of duration is

reached; after that, the case would no

longer be used in the calculations.

Widowhood removes a marriage

from the risk of dissolution. The length

of time that the marriage would have

endured intact if the husband had not

died is unknown, so cases of

widowhood are censored (removed from

the analysis) at the date of the death of

the husband. Widowhood is very rare

among women in the age group 15–44.

The mortality of the wives is

unobservable, as the woman had to have

been alive in order to be interviewed. As

the risk of mortality among women in

the age range 15–44 is low, this is

unlikely to affect the results

substantially.

The basic measure used in this

report is the probability that a marriage

or cohabitation will end in separation or

divorce. For convenience and brevity in

this report, this measure is referred to as

the probability of dissolution or the

probability of disruption. In this sense,

dissolution or disruption means ‘‘to

break apart’’ or break up. For analysis

of first- or second-marriage disruption,

the duration of the marriage is measured

in months from the start of the marriage

until the separation or divorce

(marriages ending in widowhood or still

intact at interview are censored). For

analysis of cohabitation disruption,

duration is measured from the start of

the cohabitation until the end of the

cohabitation, or if the couple married

during the relationship, from the start of

the cohabitation until the separation or

divorce (cohabitations ending in the

death of the partner or still intact at

interview are censored). Cohabitations

that had already made the transition to

marriage are included in the analysis of

cohabitation disruption because the

analysis focuses on how long the actual

relationship endures rather than how

long particular legal definitions endure.

For the interval to first marriage,

duration is measured from the 15th

birthday to the date of first marriage.

Women who never married are censored

at interview. For the transition from

cohabitation to marriage, duration is

measured from the start of the

cohabitation to the date of first

marriage. Cohabitations ending in death

of the partner or disruption, or still

intact and unmarried at interview, are

censored. For the interval until

post-marital cohabitation, duration is

measured from the date of the end of

the first marriage until the start of a new

cohabitation. Women who remarried

without first cohabiting or who

remained unmarried and did not enter a

new cohabitation by the time of the

interview are censored. For the

transition from separation to divorce,

duration is measured from the date of

separation from first marriage to the

date the divorce was finalized. Women

who never made the transition to

divorce by the time of the interview are

censored. For remarriage, duration is

measured from the date of the divorce

to the date of the second marriage.

Women who never remarried by the

time of the interview are censored.

A woman 30 years of age at the

time of her marriage cannot be included

in a measure of the probability of

dissolution after 20 years of marriage,

because she would have been 50 years

of age after 20 years of marriage, and

the maximum age of women in the

NSFG sample was 44. Because of the

age limitation on the sample, the longer

the period of observation, the younger

the women must be at marriage to have

been 44 years of age or younger when

she was interviewed. Estimates toward

the later durations are therefore biased

toward the experiences of younger

women at marriage. Because younger

age at marriage is associated with a

higher probability of disruption, this

means that estimates toward the later

durations may be overestimates of the

probability of disruption. To avoid

awkwardness in describing results

affected by this limitation, tables and

graphs in this report are truncated as

necessary. The events examined in this

report include the first marriage, the

transition from first cohabitation to

marriage, first cohabitation disruption,

first marriage dissolution, postmarital

cohabitation, the transition from

separation to divorce, second marriage,

and second-marriage dissolution. The

higher the average age at the event, the

more truncation is necessary to avoid

this potential bias. In the future, the

NSFG could address this issue by

interviewing women up to 54 or 59

years of age.

The probability of divorce itself is

not always the best measure of marital

instability. While 26.5 percent of women

have divorced at the end of 10 years of

first marriage, 33 percent of all first
Page 8 [ Series 23, No. 22

marriages have disrupted because of

either separation or divorce at the end of

10 years (NSFG Cycle 5, results not

shown). Subgroup comparisons of the

probability of divorce are not

appropriate for subgroups that differ in

the probability that separation will lead

to divorce (48). For example, research

has shown that the marriages of black

women are more likely to end in

separation than the marriages of white

women, and that separated black couples

are less likely to make the transition to

divorce than separated white couples

(23,43). A comparison of the probability

of divorce alone therefore obscures

some of the difference between these

two groups in the probability that a

marriage will dissolve. For this reason,

in this report, marital disruption is

defined as either separation or divorce,

and a second analysis examines the

probability that separated women will

divorce.

Appendix II presents an example

life table for the duration of first

marriage and describes in detail each

part of the life table and its role in the

generation of survival statistics. In the

following analysis, for the sake of

brevity, only the cumulative proportion

dissolved at the beginning of selected

intervals is presented and compared

across subgroups. (The intervals that

have been selected are consistent across

outcomes: after 1 year, after 3 years,

after 5 years, after 10 years, after 15

years.) The cumulative proportion

dissolved after a specified period is a

more stable estimate than the estimates

of individual probabilities of dissolution

within each period (23). Although this

explanation and the example life table in

the appendix focus on marital duration

as the dependent variable of interest, the

methodology is easily adapted to

examine other cohabitation and marital

outcomes.

The analyses of the interval until

first marriage and of first marriage

stability are the only analyses in this

report in which there were sufficient

numbers of non-Hispanic Asian women

in the NSFG sample to generate reliable

estimates. In all other analyses in this

report, non-Hispanic Asian women are

included in analysis of the full sample

but are not analyzed separately. (See

Technical Notes.) Non-Hispanic

American Indian women are included in

analysis of the full sample, but there

were not sufficient numbers of

non-Hispanic American Indian women

in the sample to produce reliable

estimates separately.

Estimates are presented separately

for non-Hispanic white women,

non-Hispanic black women, and

Hispanic women. Analyses by other

characteristics are presented separately

for non-Hispanic white women, and

non-Hispanic black women, although in

some cases the number of non-Hispanic

black women in the sample was not

large enough to produce reliable

estimates by other covariates. There

were enough Hispanic women in the

sample to present analysis by other

characteristics separately for Hispanic

women for only two outcomes: the

interval until first marriage and the

stability of first marriage. For

convenience in writing, in the text of

this report, non-Hispanic white women

are often referred to as ‘‘white’’ and

non-Hispanic black women are often

referred to as ‘‘black.’’ The full labels

are always used in the tables and

graphs. The statistics in this report were

computed using the LIFETEST

procedure in Version 8 of PC-SAS (49).

The software package SUDAAN,

Version 7.5.6 was used to compute the

standard errors of the statistics (50). The

point estimates derived in SAS and

SUDAAN are identical, but the standard

errors computed in SUDAAN correct

for the complex survey design of the

NSFG Cycle 5.

The statistical significance of

differences in the probabilities examined

in this report is assessed by comparing

the boundaries of confidence intervals

around each estimate (see the Technical

Notes for further details). Differences

presented in the text are statistically

significant at the 5-percent level,

indicating that if the difference were

merely the result of random chance and

did not reflect a true difference in the

general population, the difference would

only be observed in less than 5 percent

of all possible samples. In general,

results are described at specific points in

time, for example, the probability of

marital disruption after 5 years of

marriage, or after 10 years of marriage.

Differences that are described in the text

as statistically significant at certain

durations of marriage may not be

statistically significant at other durations

of marriage. Differences that are not

discussed in the text are not necessarily

statistically insignificant. See the

Technical Notes for details on assessing

the statistical significance of any

difference not noted in the text.

Analyses of data by women’s

educational attainment are limited to

women 20 years of age and over at

interview because below age 20,

education is largely a function of age

and is often incomplete.

Community Distributions

by Race/Ethnicity

As will be shown, the race/ethnicity

differences in marital and cohabitational

stability found in this report are

substantial, and the trend analysis

suggests that the differences are

increasing over time, such that marital

instability has leveled off for

non-Hispanic white women but

continues to increase for non-Hispanic

black women. In the analyses of marital

and cohabitational outcomes, the

consistent finding is that less affluent

communities as indicated by lower

median family income and percent

college educated and higher

unemployment, poverty, and welfare are

associated with lower marital and

cohabitational stability. An examination

of community distributions by

race/ethnicity may suggest avenues for

further exploration of the race

differences in marital and cohabitational

stability.

Table A shows the percentage

distributions of community

characteristics for all women and

separately for Hispanic, white, and black

women. The community characteristics

are classified into three categories: the

top 25 percent, the middle 50 percent,

and the bottom 25 percent. The

percentages in the ‘‘Total’’ column do

not always equal 25, 50, and 25,

because the value at the quartile does

not always split the sample up into

exact quartiles. For example, if the 25th

percentile value of median family
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 9

Table A. Number of women 15–44 years of age (in thousands) and percent distribution, by race/ethnicity and contextual variables:

United States, 1995

Race/ethnicity

Number Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Contextual variable (1,000s)1 Total Hispanic white black

Male unemployment

Bottom 25 percent .................... 18,505 30.7 15.8 35.7 15.5

Middle 50 percent .................... 28,825 47.9 45.7 50.9 35.5

Top 25 percent ...................... 12,870 21.4 38.5 13.4 49.0

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 15,767 26.2 39.9 19.8 51.4

Middle 50 percent .................... 30,452 50.6 44.4 54.2 37.8

Top 25 percent ...................... 13,981 23.2 15.7 26.0 10.8

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 14,465 24.0 13.0 28.1 9.1

Middle 50 percent .................... 30,322 50.4 43.4 54.6 34.3

Top 25 percent ...................... 15,414 25.6 43.6 17.3 56.6

Percent receiving welfare

Bottom 25 percent .................... 15,695 26.1 15.2 30.4 11.5

Middle 50 percent .................... 30,059 49.9 38.7 54.8 33.9

Top 25 percent ...................... 14,447 24.0 46.1 14.8 54.6

Percent of adults college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 16,781 27.9 38.9 23.0 48.8

Middle 50 percent .................... 29,711 49.4 46.7 51.6 39.5

Top 25 percent ...................... 13,708 22.8 14.5 25.5 11.7

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 14,591 25.0 7.1 30.9 12.3

Middle 50 percent .................... 29,277 50.2 53.2 50.3 45.6

Top 25 percent ...................... 14,469 24.8 39.6 18.8 42.1

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 16,038 26.6 14.4 32.6 8.3

Middle 50 percent .................... 30,221 50.2 50.8 52.8 36.7

Top 25 percent ...................... 13,942 23.2 34.8 14.7 55.1

Metropolitan status

Central city ........................ 18,550 30.8 51.0 22.8 55.2

Other SMSA2 ....................... 29,303 48.7 41.3 52.9 31.7

Not SMSA2 ........................ 12,347 20.5 7.7 24.3 13.2

1The weighted number of women is an estimate of the total population size and does not reflect sample size. 2SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

income is $10,000, but there are a large

number of cases with values of $10,000,

there may not be a clear distinction at

exactly the 25th percentile.

Table A shows that non-Hispanic

white women are disproportionately

present in affluent neighborhoods and

that non-Hispanic black and Hispanic

women are disproportionately present in

less-affluent neighborhoods. Roughly

31 percent of all women live in

low-unemployment communities and

21 percent live in high-unemployment

communities, but among white women,

almost 36 percent live in lowunemployment communities and only

13 percent live in high-unemployment

communities, compared with 16 percent

of black women in low-unemployment

areas and almost one-half (49 percent)

of black women in high-unemployment

areas (table A). Only 9 percent of black

women live in low-poverty communities

and 57 percent live in high-poverty

areas, compared with 28 percent of

white women in low-poverty areas and

17 percent of white women in

high-poverty areas. The distribution of

Hispanic women falls between that of

white and black women, but Hispanic

women are also disproportionately

present in less affluent areas (table A).

It will be shown that median family

income in the community is associated

with the probability of first marriage

disruption, such that marriages are more

likely to fail if the woman lives in a

low-income community. This

relationship is similar among white and

black women. Because black women

tend to live in communities with low

median family income and communities

with low income are associated with a

larger probability of marital disruption,

black women have a higher chance of
marital dissolution than white women,

who are less likely to live in

communities with low income.

However, within low-income

communities, black women still have a

greater probability of marital disruption

than white women in low-income

communities, so some of the race

difference remains unexplained.

To fully explore the effects of

individual and community characteristics

requires multilevel modeling, which is

beyond the scope of this report.

Associations between individual

outcomes and community characteristics

could be influenced by unobserved

factors. The analyses by community

characteristics are not meant to represent

full explanations of the outcomes

studied in this report. Researchers are

encouraged to use these results as

starting points to follow up with more

extensive analysis.

Results

Cohabitation and Marital

Status

Table B shows the distribution of

women 15–44 years of age in 1995 by

past cohabitation and marital status, age

at interview, and race/ethnicity. Past

cohabitation and marital status is

classified in table B as never married or

ever married, with each group further

split into two subgroups separating the

never cohabited from the ever cohabited.

These four subgroups are mutually

exclusive and exhaustive, summing to

100 percent.

Almost 28 percent of women 15–44

years of age have never married nor

cohabited (table B). This percentage is

considerably larger for young women

and decreases as age increases. About

62 percent of women have ever been

married, one-half of whom have ever

cohabited and one-half of whom have

never cohabited. The remaining

10 percent have cohabited, but never

married. Non-Hispanic white women are

more likely to have experienced both

cohabitation and marriage, while

non-Hispanic black women are more

likely to have experienced neither

cohabitation nor marriage (table B).

Table C shows the distribution of

women 15–44 years of age in 1995, by

current cohabitation and marital status at

interview, age at interview, and

race/ethnicity. Current cohabitation and

marital status is classified as currently

cohabiting or not currently cohabiting.

The category not currently cohabiting is

further split into the never married,

formerly married, or currently married.

These four subgroups are mutually

exclusive and exhaustive, summing to

100 percent. Although current cohabitors

could be never married or formerly

married, they would not be included in

the never married or formerly married

categories because those groups are

restricted to respondents not cohabiting

at interview in order to focus on the

proportions of women currently in a

marriage or cohabitation.

Roughly 50 percent of women

15–44 years of age are currently married

and 7 percent of women 15–44 years of

age are currently cohabiting (table C).

One third of women 15–44 years of age

are not cohabiting and have never

married. The remaining 10 percent are

not cohabiting and are formerly married

(separated, divorced, or widowed). The

percent currently cohabiting is larger for

young adults in their twenties and then

decreases as age increases. The most

striking differences by race/ethnicity are

the higher percent not cohabiting and

never married and the lower percent

currently married among non-Hispanic

black women. In the remaining text of

this report, non-Hispanic white women

are often referred to as ‘‘white’’ and

non-Hispanic black women are often

referred to as ‘‘black.’’ The full labels

are always used in the tables and

graphs.

Table B. Number of women 15–44 years of age (in thousands) and percent distribution, by past cohabitation and marital status and by

age at interview and race/ethnicity: United States, 1995

Age at interview and race/ethnicity

Number

(1,000s)1 Total

Past cohabitation and marital status

Never married Ever married

Never

cohabited

Ever

cohabited

Never

cohabited

Ever

cohabited

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,201 100.0 27.5 10.2 31.4 30.9

Age at interview

15–19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,961 100.0 88.6 7.0 2.6 1.9

20–24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,041 100.0 45.5 20.2 16.2 18.1

25–29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,693 100.0 20.3 15.4 30.4 33.9

30–34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,065 100.0 10.8 9.3 37.8 42.1

35–39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,211 100.0 7.1 6.4 42.9 43.6

40–44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,230 100.0 5.5 4.1 51.5 38.9

Race/ethnicity

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,702 100.0 28.2 10.4 35.1 26.3

White non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,522 100.0 24.7 8.9 32.7 33.7

Black non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,210 100.0 39.7 17.3 20.2 22.9

Other non-Hispanic2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,767 100.0 33.2 8.3 35.1 23.4

1The weighted number of women is an estimate of the total population size and does not reflect sample size.

2Includes Asian and Pacific Islander women and American Indian women, not shown separately.

Page 10 [ Series 23, No. 22
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 11

Table C. Number of women 15–44 years of age (in thousands) and percent distribution, by current cohabitation and marital status and

by age at interview and race/ethnicity: United States, 1995

Current cohabitation and marital status

Not cohabiting

Age at interview Number Currently Never Formerly Currently

and race/ethnicity (1,000s)1 Total cohabiting married married married

Total ..................... 60,201 100.0 7.0 33.4 10.3 49.3

Age at interview

15–19 .................... 8,961 100.0 4.1 91.5 0.6 3.8

20–24 .................... 9,041 100.0 11.2 56.1 5.5 27.2

25–29 .................... 9,693 100.0 9.8 28.9 8.8 52.5

30–34 .................... 11,065 100.0 7.5 16.2 11.6 64.7

35–39 .................... 11,211 100.0 5.3 11.9 15.0 67.9

40–44 .................... 10,230 100.0 4.4 8.8 18.1 68.6

Race/ethnicity

Hispanic ................... 6,702 100.0 8.2 32.8 11.6 47.4

White non-Hispanic ............ 42,522 100.0 7.0 29.4 9.3 54.3

Black non-Hispanic ............ 8,210 100.0 6.9 52.5 15.5 25.2

Other non-Hispanic2 ........... 2,767 100.0 4.6 39.1 7.6 48.8

1The weighted number of women is an estimate of the total population size and does not reflect sample size.

2Includes Asian and Pacific Islander women and American Indian women, not shown separately.

The Probability of First

Marriage

Tables 1 and 2 show the probability

that a woman marries for the first time

by characteristics of the woman and her

community. Tables 3 and 4 show these

estimates for Hispanic women, tables 5

and 6 show the estimates for nonHispanic white women, and tables 7 and

8 show the estimates for non-Hispanic

black women. These tables show the

probabilities of marriage at specific

durations since age 15, the starting point

for this analysis. The starting point is

actually the month of the 15th birthday,

so a 3-year interval ends in the month

just before the 18th birthday and a

5-year interval ends in the month just

before the 20th birthday. A recent census

report estimated that 90 percent of

women will marry at some time in their

lives (51); because most women

eventually marry, the tables presented

here basically show differences in the

timing of first marriage by

characteristics of the woman and her

community. A particular variable may

show a significant difference in the

proportion of women married by age 18,

Percent married 

Hispanic Non-Hispanic white 

Non-Hispanic black Non-Hispanic Asian 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

15 16 18 20 25 30 

Age in years 

Figure 1. Probability of first marriage by age and race/ethnicity: United States, 1995

but the differences tend to converge at

later durations as most women

eventually marry.

Table 1 shows that 8 percent of

women married for the first time by the

18th birthday, 25 percent married by the

20th birthday, and 76 percent married by

the 30th birthday. Figure 1 shows the

probability of marriage over time by

race/ethnicity: Hispanic and nonHispanic white women are more likely

to marry by age 25 than non-Hispanic

black or Asian women, but by age 30,

non-Hispanic Asian women have caught

up to Hispanic and white women. Black

women are significantly less likely to

have married by age 30 than any other

group (table 1 and figure 1). Figure 2

shows the probability of marriage by

age 18 and by age 30, by race/ethnicity.

Early marriage is more likely for

Hispanic women, followed by white

women, and is less likely for black

women and Asian women. Marriage by

age 30 is considerably lower for

non-Hispanic black women, with

virtually no differences among the other

groups (figure 2).

Early marriage (i.e., before the 18th

birthday) is more likely among women

with less than a high school education at

interview, and among women whose

mothers had less than a high school

education (table 1). The pattern of

differences is similar for the two
Page 12 [ Series 23, No. 22

13 

77 

8 

81 

5 

52 

3 

77 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

Age 18 Age 30 

Percent married 

Hispanic Non-Hispanic white 

Non-Hispanic black Non-Hispanic Asian 

receipt of public assistance. The

differences in figure 4 are substantial:

The probability of early marriage is

200 percent higher in high-poverty

communities compared with low-poverty

communities.

Marriage by age 30 is less likely in

metropolitan areas than in

nonmetropolitan areas. For all women,

and among Hispanic, white, and black

women, the probability of first marriage

is lowest in central cities and highest in

nonmetropolitan areas (figure 5).

Figure 5 also shows that within each

category of metropolitan status,

Figure 2. Probability of first marriage by ages 18 and 30 by race/ethnicity: United States,

1995

Figure 3. Probability of first marriage by age and importance of religion: United States,

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

15 16 18 20 25 30 

Age in years 

Very important Somewhat important Not important 

Percent married 

1995

measurements of education, but the

differences are larger by the woman’s

own education than by her mother’s

education. Because of data quality issues

(the higher level of imputation of

mother’s education), the respondent’s

own education is retained for the

remaining analysis in this report and

mother’s education is dropped.

Other characteristics that are

associated with early marriage include

lower family income at interview, being

affiliated with a fundamentalist

Protestant faith, and living in the South

(table 1). Among Hispanic women,

affiliation with either fundamentalist

Protestant or other Protestant faiths is

associated with early marriage (table 3).

Differences by these variables are

smaller and nonsignificant among

non-Hispanic black women, although

the differences by education and

mother’s education remain statistically

significant (table 7).

Figure 3 shows the probability of

first marriage by the importance of

religion. Women who reported that their

religion is not important are less likely

to marry than other women at all ages

through age 30 (figure 3).

Early marriage is more common in

less-affluent communities. Figure 4

shows that marriage by age 18 is more

likely in communities with higher male

unemployment, lower median family

income, higher poverty, and higher

non-Hispanic black women are

significantly less likely to marry by age

30 than Hispanic or non-Hispanic white

women.

The Probability That an Intact

First Cohabitation Makes the

Transition to Marriage

Tables 9 and 10 show the

probability that the first premarital

cohabitation becomes a marriage by

characteristics of the woman and her

community. Tables 11 and 12 show

these estimates for non-Hispanic white

women, and tables 13 and 14 show

these estimates for non-Hispanic black

women. Table 9 shows that for all

women, the probability of a first

premarital cohabitation becoming a

marriage is 58 percent after 3 years of

cohabitation and 70 percent after 5 years

of cohabitation. This means that

58 percent of cohabitations that have

lasted at least 3 years have made the

transition to marriage by that time and

that 70 percent of cohabitations that

have lasted for 5 years have made the

transition to marriage by that time.

Table 9 and figure 6 show that the

probability that a first premarital

cohabitation becomes a marriage is

higher for white women, lower for black

women, and intermediate for Hispanic

women (figure 6). The probability that

the first cohabitation becomes a

marriage within 5 years is 75 percent for

white women, 61 percent for Hispanic

women, and only 48 percent for black

women (table 9). Table 9 also shows that

the probability of the transition to

marriage is higher for women with

higher family income (the measurement
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 13

6 

11 

4 

8 8 

9 

10 

3 

12 

11 

0 

5 

10 

15 

Unemployment Income Poverty Welfare 

Percent married 

Low Middle High 

4 

8 

of family income in the NSFG Cycle 5

includes any income from the

cohabitating partner). Figure 7 reveals

that this difference by family income is

much larger among black women than

white women: Among white women,

there is only a nonsignificant 4

percentage point difference in the

probability of the transition to marriage

between the low-income and highincome groups, whereas the difference is

32 percentage points among black

women (figure 7).

Figure 4. Probability of first marriage by age 18 by community male unemployment rate,

median family income, percent below poverty, and percent receiving public assistance:

United States, 1995

66 

73 72 

48 

79 79 82 

56 

84 

88 87 

58 

0 

1

1 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

All races 

SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area. 

Hispanic Non-Hispanic 

white 

Non-Hispanic 

black 

Central city Other SMSA Not SMSA

Percent married 

1 

Figure 5. Probability of first marriage by age 30 by race/ethnicity and metropolitan status:

United States, 1995

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

0 10 

Duration in years 

Percent married 

Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

1 3 5 

Figure 6. Probability that an intact cohabitation makes the transition to first marriage by

duration of cohabitation and race/ethnicity: United States, 1995

Although differences between

specific denominations are small, the

probability of the transition to marriage

differs significantly between women

with any religious affiliation and women

with no religious affiliation. Figure 8

shows that the probability of the

transition to marriage within 5 years is

65 percent for women with no religious

affiliation and 72 percent for women

with any religious affiliation, and the

difference is larger among white

women. Figure 9 shows that among

white women, women to whom religion

is not important are less likely to make

the transition to marriage than women to

whom religion is somewhat or very

important, although the difference

converges to nonsignificance at later

durations of cohabitation.

A greater probability of making the

transition from cohabitation to first

marriage within 5 years is also

associated with higher education, having

a two-parent intact family throughout

childhood, having no children at

cohabitation, and having children after

the start of the cohabitation as compared

with before the cohabitation or never

(table 9).

The probability that a first

premarital cohabitation makes the

transition to marriage within 5 years is

higher in communities with a lower

male unemployment rate, a higher

median family income, a lower percent

of families below poverty, and a lower

percent of households receiving public

assistance (table 10 and figure 10). The

probability of the transition to marriage

is higher in communities with a higher

percent college-educated and a higher

percent of women never-married, is

lower in central cities than in other

areas, and does not differ significantly
Page 14 [ Series 23, No. 22

62 

73 

39 

71 75 

50 

73 77 

71 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

All races Non-Hispanic 

white 

Non-Hispanic 

black 

Percent married 

Less than $25,000 $25,000-$49,999 $50,000 or more 

Figure 7. Probability that an intact cohabitation makes the transition to first marriage

within 5 years by race/ethnicity and family income: United States, 1995

65 65 

72 

77 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

All races Non-Hispanic white 

Percent married 

No religious affiliation Any religious affiliation 

Figure 8. Probability that an intact cohabitation makes the transition to first marriage

within 5 years by religious affiliation: United States, 1995

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

0 3 5 10 

Duration in years 

Percent married 

Very important Somewhat important Not important 

1 

Figure 9. Probability that an intact cohabitation makes the transition to first marriage by

duration of cohabitation and importance of religion: Non-Hispanic white women,

United States, 1995

by the crime rate in the county

(table 10). In a typical comparison in

table 10, the difference between an

extreme category and the middle

category is not significant, whereas the

difference between the bottom quarter

and the top quarter is significant.

Among white women, the effects of

the community male unemployment

rate, the percent below poverty, and the

percent college-educated fade to

nonsignificance (table 12). Among black

women, only the median family income

and percent college-educated fade to

nonsignificance (table 14). Figure 11

shows that the effect of community

male unemployment is stronger among

black women than among white women:

The difference in the probability of the

transition to marriage within 5 years

between low-unemployment and

high-unemployment communities is

twice as high among black women

(27 percentage points) than among white

women (13 percentage points, figure 6,

based on tables 12 and 11).

The Probability of First

Cohabitation Disruption

Tables 15 and 16 show the

probability of first premarital

cohabitation disruption by characteristics

of the woman and her community.

Tables 17 and 18 show these estimates

for non-Hispanic white women, and

tables 19 and 20 show these estimates

for non-Hispanic black women.

Cohabitation disruption includes

cohabitations that made the transition to

marriage and then disrupted, because we

are more interested in seeing how long

the relationship endures than in seeing

how long certain legal definitions of the

relationship endure. The probability of

first cohabitation disruption for all

women is 39 percent within 3 years and

49 percent within 5 years (table 15).

Figure 12 shows that black women are

more likely to experience a cohabitation

disruption than either white or Hispanic

women. The difference in the

probability of cohabitation disruption

between Hispanic and white women is

only statistically significant at 3 years’

duration of cohabitation (table 15).

The cohabitations of women who

were at least 25 years of age at the start
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 15

of the cohabitation are less likely to

disrupt than those of women younger

78 

58 

80 80 

72 73 72 73 

66 

78 

58 55 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

Unemployment Income Poverty Welfare 

Percent married 

Low Middle High 

Figure 10. Probability that an intact cohabitation makes the transition to first marriage

within 5 years by community male unemployment rate, median family income, percent

below poverty, and percent receiving public assistance: United States, 1995

78 79 

66 

72 

76 

53 

66 66 

39 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

All races Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

Percent married 

Low unemployment Medium unemployment High unemployment

than 25 years of age at cohabitation.

Figure 13 shows that there are very

small differences among women under

18, 18–19, and 20–24 years of age, and

a much larger difference between these

groups and women 25 years of age and

over. Figure 14 reveals that the

difference by age at cohabitation is

twice as large among white women as it

is among black women. The difference

between the two extreme age categories

is 31 percentage points for white women

and only 15 percentage points among

black women, based on tables 17 and

19.

Women who have ever been forced

to have intercourse at some time before

the cohabitation are more likely to

experience cohabitation disruption than

those who have not been forced to have

intercourse (table 15). Figure 15 reveals

that this difference is larger for white

women than for black women. After 5

years of cohabitation, the probability of

disruption is 60 percent for white

women who have ever been forced to

have intercourse and 46 percent for

white women who have never been

forced to have intercourse, a difference

of 14 percentage points; the analogous

difference among black women is

Figure 11. Probability that an intact cohabitation makes the transition to first marriage

within 5 years by race/ethnicity and male unemployment rate in the community:

United States, 1995

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

0 3 5 10 

Duration in years 

Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

Percent disrupted 

1 

Figure 12. Probability that the first cohabitation breaks up by duration of cohabitation and

race/ethnicity: United States, 1995

5 percentage points (figure 15, based on

tables 17 and 19). These data do not

identify or classify whether the forced

intercourse was with the cohabiting

partner or someone else. It is therefore

not clear what role, if any, the forced

intercourse had in the disruption of the

cohabitation. This finding, like many

other findings in this report, deserves

further study.

Women who have ever had GAD

are more likely to experience a

cohabitation disruption than those who

have never had GAD (table 15). The

American Psychiatric Association

defines generalized anxiety disorder as

unrealistic or excessive anxiety or worry

about two or more life circumstances for

6 months or longer (52). Women were

classified as having ever suffered from

GAD if they reported that they had

suffered for at least 6 months from

worry or anxiety, including feelings of

restlessness, feeling keyed up or on

edge, irritability, a pounding or racing
Page 16 [ Series 23, No. 22

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

0 3 5 10 

Duration in years 

Percent disrupted 

Under age 18 Age 18-19 Age 20-24 Age 25 and over 

1 

Figure 13. Probability that the first cohabitation breaks up by duration of cohabitation and

age at the beginning of cohabitation: United States, 1995

68 70 

77 

68 68 

77 

60 58 

72 

43 

39 

62 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

All races Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

Percent disrupted 

Under age 18 Age 18-19 Age 20-24 Age 25 and over 

Figure 14. Probability that the first cohabitation breaks up within 10 years by race/

ethnicity and age at the beginning of cohabitation: United States, 1995

Women with no religious affiliation are

more likely to experience a cohabitation

disruption than Catholic or

nonfundamentalist Protestant women.

Although parity and the wantedness

status of children present at the start of

the cohabitation are not significantly

related to the probability of disruption,

the timing of the first birth matters:

Women whose first birth was more than

7 months after the cohabitation began

are less likely to experience a

cohabitation disruption than women

whose first birth was before the union,

and women who have never had a birth

are more likely to experience disruption.

Cohabitations in the South are slightly

more likely to disrupt than those in the

Northeast and Midwest, although the

difference is not statistically significant

until after 10 years of cohabitation

(table 15).

The effect of work status at

cohabitation differs between white and

black women: White women not

working at the time the cohabitation

began are more likely to experience

cohabitation disruption after 10 years

than those working at cohabitation (and

full-time/part-time status makes no

difference), but black women working

part-time at cohabitation are more likely

to experience cohabitation disruption

after 10 years, followed by those not

working, and full-time workers

(tables 17,19).

The probability of cohabitation

disruption is higher in communities with

higher unemployment, lower median

family income, and a higher percent of

families either below poverty level or

receiving public assistance (table 16 and

figure 16). Cohabitation disruption is

also more likely in communities with a

higher percent of women never-married

and in central cities (table 16). Among

white women, the probability of

cohabitation disruption is higher in

counties with higher crime (table 18).

58 60 59 

47 46 

54 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

All races Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

Percent disrupted 

Ever had forced intercourse Never had forced intercourse 

Figure 15. Probability that the first cohabitation breaks up within 5 years by race/ethnicity

and forced intercourse before cohabitation: United States, 1995

heart, getting tired easily, trouble falling

or staying asleep, and feeling faint.

Other characteristics of individuals

are also associated with the probability

of cohabitation disruption. Higher

family income and being raised in an

intact two-parent family are associated

with a lower probability of disruption.

Figure 17 shows that the effect of the

community male unemployment rate is

similar for white and black women: The

difference in the probability of

disruption between low-unemployment

and high-unemployment areas is

12 percentage points among white

women and 10 percentage points among
58 

71 

54 56 

60 59 61 61 

69 

55 

69 69 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

Unemployment Income Poverty Welfare 

Low Middle High 

Percent disrupted 

Figure 16. Probability that the first cohabitation breaks up within 10 years by community

male unemployment rate, median family income, percent below poverty, and percent

receiving public assistance: United States, 1995

58 57 

66 

60 60 

69 69 70

76 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

All races Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

Low unemployment Medium unemployment High unemployment 

Percent disrupted 

Figure 17. Probability that the first cohabitation breaks up within 10 years by race/

ethnicity and male unemployment rate in the community: United States, 1995

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

0 1 3 5 10 15 

Duration in years 

Non-Hispanic white 

Non-Hispanic black Non-Hispanic Asian 

Hispanic 

Percent disrupted 

Figure 18. Probability that the first marriage breaks up by duration of marriage and

race/ethnicity: United States, 1995

black women. Within each of black women are more likely to

unemployment group, the cohabitations disrupt than those of white women.

Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 17

The Probability of First

Marriage Disruption

Tables 21 and 22 show the

probability of first marriage disruption

due to separation or divorce by

characteristics of the woman and her

community. Tables 23 and 24 show

these estimates for Hispanic women,

tables 25 and 26 show these estimates

for non-Hispanic white women, and

tables 27 and 28 show these estimates

for non-Hispanic black women. After 5

years, 20 percent of all first marriages

have disrupted, due to either separation

or divorce. After 10 years, one-third of

first marriages have disrupted (table 21).

After 10 years, 32 percent of white

women’s first marriages have dissolved,

and 34 percent of Hispanic women’s

first marriages have dissolved (table 21).

In contrast, 47 percent of black women’s

first marriages have dissolved after 10

years. Asian women’s first marriages

dissolve at a considerably slower rate:

After 10 years, only 20 percent have

disrupted. Figure 18 shows the similarity

of white and Hispanic women’s

probabilities of disruption, the higher

likelihood of disruption among black

women and the lower likelihood of

disruption among Asian women.

Age at marriage is associated with

the risk of marital disruption. Table 21

shows that after 10 years of marriage,

48 percent of first marriages of brides

under age 18 have disrupted, compared

with only 24 percent of those to brides

at least age 25 at marriage (table 21).

Women in the youngest age category are

twice as likely to experience marital

disruption within 10 years as women in

the oldest age category. Figure 19 shows

that this difference is even larger among

white women, a difference of

28 percentage points. Among black

women, the difference is 17 percentage

points. Figure 19 also shows that there

is virtually no difference by age at

marriage among Hispanic women.

Figure 20 shows the relationship of

first marital disruption with the

importance of religion. The graph shows

that the higher the importance attached

to religion, the lower the likelihood of

marital disruption (although the
Page 18 [ Series 23, No. 22

48 

33 

50 

55 

40 38 39 

52 

29 31 

27 

45 

24 

36 

22 

38 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

All races Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

Percent disrupted 

Under age 18 Age 18-19 Age 20-24 Age 25 and over 

Figure 19. Probability that the first marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/ethnicity

and age at the beginning of marriage: United States, 1995

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

0 1 3 5 10 15 

Duration in years 

Percent disrupted 

Very important Somewhat important Not important 

Figure 20. Probability that the first marriage breaks up by duration of marriage and

importance of religion: United States, 1995

29 28 29 

40 43 45 

41 

53 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

All races Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

Percent disrupted 

Intact two-parents Otherwise 

Figure 21. Probability that the first marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/ethnicity

and intact status of family of origin: United States, 1995

difference between the ‘‘very important’’

and the ‘‘somewhat important’’ groups is

not statistically significant) (table 21 and

figure 20). Women who reported that

religion is ‘‘not important’’ to them are

more likely to have experienced first

marital dissolution than women who

reported that religion is ‘‘somewhat

important’’ or ‘‘very important.’’

The probability of first marriage

dissolution is substantially higher for

women who did not grow up in a

two-parent intact family (table 21).

Figure 21 shows that this effect is

similar for Hispanic women, white

women, and black women. Among

white women, those who were raised in

an intact family have a 29-percent

chance of marital dissolution after 10

years of marriage; those who did not

have an intact family have a 41-percent

chance of dissolution, a difference of

12 percentage points (figure 21). The

analogous difference among black

women is 13 percentage points, and

among Hispanic women, 17 percentage

points. This finding is consistent with

the notion of the intergenerational

transmission of divorce (53).

Marital dissolution is more likely

for a woman who was ever forced to

have intercourse by a man at some time

in her life before she was married

(table 21). Figure 22 shows that this

effect is found for Hispanic, white, and

black women. The difference in

probabilities between women who have

and have not ever been forced to have

intercourse is large: 17 percentage points

for Hispanic women, 22 percentage

points for non-Hispanic white women,

and 20 percentage points for nonHispanic black women (figure 22). It

was noted earlier that the effect of

forced intercourse on the probability of

cohabitation disruption was larger for

white women than for black women, but

for first marriage dissolution, the effect

appears to be very similar for the two

racial groups.

Figure 23 shows that among

Hispanic, white, and black women,

those whose first birth was more than 7

months after first marriage have the

lowest chance of marital disruption.

Differences among the other three

categories of timing of first birth are not

statistically significant, but the data

suggest that for Hispanic and black

women, those whose first birth is within

7 months of marriage are the most

likely to experience marital disruption

(tables 23,25,27).

Women who have ever suffered

from GAD are more likely to experience

first marital disruption than women who

have not had GAD. Figure 24 shows a

difference of 16 percentage points after

15 years of marriage. This difference is

smaller for black women than for white

women. The difference in the

probability of marital disruption between

women who have ever suffered from

GAD and those who have not is

17 percentage points for non-Hispanic

white women, 10 percentage points for
53 

49 51 

63 

30 32 29 

43 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

All races Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

Ever had forced intercourse Never had forced intercourse 

Percent disrupted 

Figure 22. Probability that the first marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/ethnicity

and forced intercourse: United States, 1995

23 

29 31 

26 

23 

36 

12 

15 

18 

22 

30 28 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

Percent disrupted 

Before first marriage 0-7 months after 

More than 7 months after Never had first birth 

Figure 23. Probability that the first marriage breaks up within 5 years by race/ethnicity

and timing of first birth: United States, 1995

55 

58 

54 

64 

39 

38 

37 

54 

1 

1 

1 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

All races Hispanic Non-Hispanic white 

GAD is generalized anxiety disorder. 

Non-Hispanic black 

Percent disrupted 

Ever had GAD Never had GAD 

Figure 24. Probability that the first marriage breaks up within 15 years by race/ethnicity

and generalized anxiety disorder: United States, 1995

non-Hispanic black women, and

20 percentage points for Hispanic

women (figure 24).

First marriages in which the

husband and wife are both members of

the same race/ethnicity are more likely

to succeed than those in which the

spouses are of different race/ethnicity

(table 21 and figure 25). After 10 years

of marriage, interracial marriages have a

41-percent chance of disruption and

same-race marriages have a 31-percent

chance of disruption (table 21). The

number of specific comparisons that can

Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 19

be made is limited because of small sample

sizes. While specific pairings such as

‘‘white/black’’ or ‘‘black/Asian’’ are not

shown, comparisons that can be shown

reliably are presented in table 21.

‘‘White/any other’’ couples have similar

chances of marital disruption as all

‘‘different race’’ couples, which is not

surprising as the majority of ‘‘different

race’’ couples are ‘‘white/any other’’

pairings. ‘‘Black/any other’’ couples appear

to have chances of marital disruption

similar to those for all black couples.

Other individual characteristics of

women that are associated with a greater

probability of marital dissolution include

lower education, lower family income,

not working at the beginning of

marriage, working full time as opposed

to working part time at marriage, having

no religious affiliation, already having

one child or more at the start of the

marriage, and living in the South

(table 21). First marriages that were

preceded by cohabitation are more likely

to disrupt than those that were not

preceded by cohabitation. The only

variable in table 21 that does not show a

significant effect on the probability of

first marital dissolution is the age

difference between husband and wife.

First marriages are more likely to

disrupt in communities with higher

unemployment, lower median family

income, and a higher percent of families

below poverty level or receiving public

assistance (table 22 and figure 26). First

marriages are also more likely to disrupt

in central cities, and in communities

with a lower percent college-educated, a

higher crime rate, and a higher percent

of women never-married (table 22).

Figure 27 shows that the effect of

community median family income is

similar for Hispanic, white, and black

women. The difference in the

probability of marital disruption between

low-income and high-income

communities is 12 percentage points for

Hispanic women, 20 percentage points

for white women, and 23 percentage

points for black women.

The Probability of Cohabitation

After the End of First Marriage

Tables 29 and 30 show the

probability of postmarital cohabitation
Page 20 [ Series 23, No. 22

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

0 1 3 5 10 15 

Duration in years 

Different race Same race 

Percent disrupted 

Figure 25. Probability that the first marriage breaks up by duration of marriage and race

difference with husband: United States, 1995

29 

44 

24 26 

33 33 34 34 

41 

23 

43 41 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

Unemployment Income Poverty Welfare 

Percent disrupted 

Low Middle High 

Figure 26. Probability that the first marriage breaks up within 10 years by community

male unemployment rate, median family income, percent below poverty, and percent

receiving public assistance: United States, 1995

44 

38 

43 

56 

33 31 33 

39 

23 

26 

23 

33 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

All races Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

Percent disrupted 

Low income Medium income High income 

Figure 27. Probability that the first marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/ethnicity

and median family income in the community: United States, 1995

by characteristics of the woman and her black women and Hispanic women in

community. Tables 31 and 32 show the sample whose first marriages have

these estimates for non-Hispanic white ended is not large enough for reliable

women; the numbers of non-Hispanic estimation by independent and

contextual variables. The probability of

postmarital cohabitation indicates the

probability that a woman will enter a

new cohabiting relationship after the end

of her first marriage. The probability of

cohabitation after the end of the first

marriage is 53 percent after 5 years and

70 percent after 10 years (table 29).

Black women are significantly less

likely to cohabit after marriage than

Hispanic or white women. Five years

after the end of the first marriage, the

probability of postmarital cohabitation is

50 percent for Hispanic women,

58 percent for white women, and only

31 percent for black women (table 29

and figure 28). The difference between

Hispanic and white women is not

statistically significant.

Women with no religious affiliation

are the most likely to have cohabited

after marriage (86 percent within 10

years), and women affiliated with

fundamentalist Protestant faiths are the

least likely (56 percent within 10 years,

table 29). Figure 29 shows that women

with any religious affiliation are less

likely to cohabit after marriage than

women with no religious affiliation. For

women whose religion is very

important, the probability of

cohabitation after marriage is 62 percent

within 10 years, compared with

77 percent of those for whom religion is

not important (table 29).

Having no children at the end of

first marriage is associated with a higher

probability of entering a new

cohabitation: Figure 30 shows that the

probability of postmarital cohabitation

within 10 years of separation is

77 percent for childless women,

70 percent for women with one child,

and 63 percent for women with more

than one child. Figure 30 also shows

that this effect is smaller among white

women.

Other characteristics of individuals

that are associated with a higher

probability of cohabitation after

marriage include not growing up in a

two-parent intact family (table 29).

Women at least 25 years of age at the

end of the first marriage are less likely

than younger women to cohabit after

marriage, although differences between

teenagers and women in their early
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 21

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

0 1 3 5 10 15 

Duration in years 

Percent cohabiting 

Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

twenties are not statistically significant

(table 29).

The probability of postmarital

cohabitation is lower in central cities

than in other areas (table 30).

Cohabitation after marriage is less likely

in communities with high

unemployment, low median family

income, a high percent of families

below poverty or receiving public

assistance, a low percent collegeeducated, a high percent of women

never-married, and high crime rates

(table 30 and figure 31).

Figure 28. Probability of postmarital cohabitation by duration of separation and race/

ethnicity: United States, 1995

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

0 1 3 5 10 15 

Duration in years 

Percent cohabiting 

No religious affiliation Any religious affiliation 

Figure 29. Probability of postmarital cohabitation by duration of separation and religious

affiliation: United States, 1995

77 

81 

70 

75 

63 

73 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

All races Non-Hispanic white 

Percent cohabiting 

No children One child Two or more 

Figure 30. Probability of postmarital cohabitation within 10 years of separation by

race/ethnicity and parity at separation: United States, 1995

For several of these communitylevel factors, the difference in the

probability of postmarital cohabitation

that is statistically significant is between

one extreme category and the two other

categories. For example, the likelihood

of cohabitation after marriage is

significantly lower in communities with

very high unemployment (the top

quartile) than in communities with low

or moderate rates of unemployment.

This is the pattern that is repeated for

all variables in table 30 except

metropolitan status and median family

income. Cohabitation after marriage is

significantly less likely in communities

with very high unemployment, very

high poverty and receipt of welfare,

very low education, and a very high

percent of women never-married.

Cohabitation after marriage is more

likely in communities with very low

crime rates (although the difference by

crime rate is only significant at 5 years’

duration of separation, table 30).

The Probability of Separation

Making the Transition to

Divorce

Tables 33 and 34 show the

probability that a separation will lead to

divorce by characteristics of the woman

and her community. Tables 35 and 36

show these estimates for non-Hispanic

white women; the numbers of

non-Hispanic black women and

Hispanic women in the sample whose

first marriages have ended in separation

are not sufficient for reliable estimation

by independent and contextual variables.

Most separated women make the

transition to divorce very quickly:

84 percent make the transition to divorce
Page 22 [ Series 23, No. 22

76 

63 

72 72 73 76 76 75 

58 

67 

59 59 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

Unemployment Income Poverty Welfare 

Percent cohabiting 

Low Middle High 

Figure 31. Probability of postmarital cohabitation within 10 years of separation by

community male unemployment rate, median family income, percent below poverty, and

percent receiving public assistance: United States, 1995

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

0 3 5 10 

Duration in years 

Percent divorced 

Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

1 

Figure 32. Probability of transition from separation to divorce by duration of separation

and race/ethnicity: United States, 1995

within 3 years, and 91 percent do so

within 5 years (table 33).

The separations of white women are

much more likely to result in divorce

than the separations of black or

Hispanic women. Virtually all

separations of white women result in

divorce quickly. Table 33 shows that

97 percent of white women make the

transition to divorce within 5 years of

the separation, compared with

77 percent of Hispanic women and only

67 percent of black women. A

substantial proportion (15 percent or

more) of Hispanic and black separations

remain as separations for the long term.

Figure 32 shows the large gap that exists

between white women and Hispanic or

black women.

The transition from separation to

divorce is less likely for women without

a high school degree, for women with

low income, for women not working at

the time of separation, for women with

children at separation, and (among those

with children) for women with any

unwanted children at separation

(table 33). The transition to divorce is

also less likely if the first birth occurred

before the marriage or during the first 7

months of marriage and is less likely in

the Northeast and more likely in the

Midwest. Because the vast majority of

women make the transition to divorce

within 5 years, the differences tend to

disappear at later durations, although

some of the differences can still be

detected at 5 years’ duration.

The contextual variables in table 34

show a consistent pattern in that,

typically, one extreme category differs

significantly from the other two

categories in the probability of the

transition to divorce. The transition to

divorce is less likely in communities

with very high unemployment, poverty,

receipt of public assistance and percent

of women never-married, and very low

median family income and education

(table 34 and figure 33). Differences

between the median category and the

opposite extreme are smaller. The

transition from separation to divorce is

less likely in central cities and more

likely in communities with very low

crime rates.

The transition from separation to

divorce is virtually universal among

non-Hispanic white women, as noted

previously. Hence, differences among

non-Hispanic white women tend to

disappear by 5 years of separation.

Differences found for the full sample

are also smaller when the statistics are

limited to non-Hispanic white women

(tables 35 and 36).

The Probability of Remarriage

Following Divorce

Tables 37 and 38 show the

probability of remarriage by

characteristics of the woman and her

community. Tables 39 and 40 show

these estimates for non-Hispanic white

women; the numbers of non-Hispanic

black and Hispanic divorced women in

the sample were not large enough for

reliable estimation by independent and

contextual variables. Table 37 shows that

54 percent of divorced women remarry

within 5 years and 75 percent of

divorced women remarry within 10

years. Black women are the least likely

to remarry, and white women are the

most likely to remarry (figure 34). After

5 years of divorce, the probability of

remarriage is 58 percent for white

women, 44 percent for Hispanic women,

and only 32 percent for black women
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 23

91 

78 

90 92 

85 87 89 88 

72 

88 

72 70 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

Unemployment Income Poverty Welfare 

Percent divorced 

Low Middle High 

(table 37). A study based on Cycle 2 of

the NSFG, conducted in 1976, showed

that the probability of remarriage within

5 years of divorce was 73 percent for

white women and 49 percent for black

women (28). The results in table 37

suggest that the probability of

remarriage within 5 years of divorce has

decreased over the 19-year interval

between Cycles 2 and 5 (a decrease of

one-fifth for white women and one-third

for black women).

The probability of remarriage is

higher for women who were under age

25 at divorce. Women under age 25 at

Figure 33. Probability of transition from separation to divorce within 3 years of separation

by community male unemployment rate, median family income, percent below poverty,

and percent receiving public assistance: United States, 1995

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

0 3 5 10 

Duration in years 

Percent remarried 

Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

1 

Figure 34. Probability of remarriage by duration of divorce and race/ethnicity:

United States, 1995

81 83 

68 72 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

All races Non-Hispanic white 

Percent remarried 

Under 25 years 25 years and over 

Figure 35. Probability of remarriage within 10 years of divorce by race/ethnicity and age at

divorce: United States, 1995

divorce have an 81-percent chance of

remarriage within 10 years, while

women 25 years of age or over at

divorce have only a 68-percent chance

of remarriage within 10 years, a

difference of 13 percentage points

(table 37). Figure 35 shows that the

difference among white women is

11 percentage points.

Table 37 shows that the probability

of remarriage is greater for women with

higher family income, although this

result should be interpreted with caution

because family income was measured at

interview and could have increased as a

result of remarriage. Women living in

the South are more likely to remarry

than other women (table 37).

Differences by parity at divorce are

small and not significant, although the

results do suggest that remarriage is

more likely if there are no children

present at the time of the divorce

(table 37). Women whose first birth was

at least 7 months after first marriage are

more likely to remarry after divorce

than women whose first birth occurred

before or just after marriage. Women

who have never had a birth by the time

of the NSFG interview are less likely to

remarry than women who had had a

birth by the time of the interview

(table 37). Many of these differences in

the probability of remarriage diminish

after 10 years of divorce.

The probability of remarriage is

lower in communities with very high

unemployment, poverty and receipt of

public assistance, and very low median

family income (although the difference

by family income is not significant,

table 38 and figure 36). Women living in

communities with a higher percent of
Page 24 [ Series 23, No. 22

79 

71 

77 75 75 77 78 79 

67 

74 

66 65 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

Unemployment Income Poverty Welfare 

Percent remarried 

Low Middle High 

Figure 36. Probability of remarriage within 10 years of divorce by community male

unemployment rate, median family income, percent below poverty, and percent receiving

public assistance: United States, 1995

quite large: The probability is about

45 percent higher for nonmetropolitan

areas than for central cities, for all

women and white women (figure 37).

Among divorced white women, the

chance of remarriage within 5 years of

divorce is 47 percent in central cities,

58 percent in the suburbs of

metropolitan areas, and 68 percent in

nonmetropolitan areas (table 40).

Many of these community effects

found for the full sample fade to

nonsignificance for white women. The

probability of remarriage for white

women is lower in central cities and

higher in rural areas, and lower in

communities with a higher percent of

women never-married; no other

contextual variable in table 40 shows a

significant effect for white women.

The Probability of Second

Marriage Disruption

Tables 41 and 42 show the

probability of second marriage

disruption due to separation or divorce

by characteristics of the woman and her

community. Tables 43 and 44 show

these estimates for non-Hispanic white

women; the numbers of remarriages

among non-Hispanic black and Hispanic

44 47 

54 

58 

64 

68 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

All races Non-Hispanic white 

Percent remarried 

Central city Other SMSA Not SMSA 1 

1 

1 

SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area. 

Figure 37. Probability of remarriage within 5 years of divorce by race/ethnicity and

metropolitan status: United States, 1995

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

0 3 5 10 

Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

Duration in years 

Hispanic 

Percent disrupted 

1 

Figure 38. Probability that the second marriage breaks up by duration of marriage and

race/ethnicity: United States, 1995

women never-married are less likely to in central cities (table 38 and figure 37).

remarry after divorce, and remarriage is The difference in the probability of

more likely in rural areas and less likely remarriage by metropolitan status is

women in the sample are too small for

separate analysis by individual and

contextual variables. Fifteen percent of

remarriages have dissolved after 3 years

and almost a quarter after 5 years

(table 41).

The remarriages of black women

are more likely to disrupt, and those of

Hispanic women are less likely to

disrupt, although differences by

race/ethnicity are not statistically

significant, due to the small sample

sizes of Hispanic and black women

(table 41 and figure 38). Prior research

has suggested that the remarriages of

black women are less stable than those

of white women (23). That study did not

consider Hispanic women separately

because the number of Hispanic women

in the sample was too small to be

analyzed separately.

The data also show that second

marriage disruption is more likely for

women under age 25 at remarriage than

for women at least age 25 at remarriage.

After 10 years of remarriage, the
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 25

GAD are nearly 50 percent more likely

47 49 

34 33 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

50 

All races Non-Hispanic white 

Percent disrupted 

Under 25 years 25 years and over 

Figure 39. Probability that the second marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/

ethnicity and age at remarriage: United States, 1995

33 33 

49 51 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

All races Non-Hispanic white 

Percent disrupted 

Intact two-parents Otherwise 

to experience a second marriage

disruption than women who have never

suffered from GAD (figure 42).

Women who have children at the

time of remarriage are more likely to

experience second marriage disruption

than women who do not have any

children, and if the children were

unwanted, the probability of disruption

is even higher (table 41 and figure 43).

Figure 43 shows that after 10 years of

remarriage, the probability of disruption

is 32 percent for women with no

children at remarriage. For women with

children, but none of whom were

reported as unwanted, the probability is

40 percent, and for women with

children, and any of whom were

reported as unwanted, the probability is

44 percent (slightly higher, at 47 percent,

among white women, figure 43). It is

not surprising that the presence of

children from a prior relationship can

affect the stability of a second marriage,

nor is it surprising that the presence of

unwanted children may have a greater

Figure 40. Probability that the second marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/

ethnicity and intact family of origin: United States, 1995

45 48 

36 36 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

All races Non-Hispanic white 

Percent disrupted 

Ever had forced intercourse Never had forced intercourse 

Figure 41. Probability that the second marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/

ethnicity and forced intercourse: United States, 1995

probability of disruption is 47 percent

for women who were under age 25 at

remarriage and 34 percent for women at

least age 25 at remarriage (table 41 and

figure 39). This difference is slightly

larger among white women (figure 39).

Stressful events in the past may

impact the stability of remarriages. The

probability of second marriage

disruption is higher for women who did

not grow up in a two-parent intact

family (49 percent) than for women who

did (33 percent, figure 40). Women who

have ever been forced to have

intercourse are more likely to experience

second marriage disruption (figure 41).

The probability of second marriage

disruption is about 25 percent higher for

all women who have ever been forced

to have intercourse, and about one-third

greater among white women (figure 41).

Women who have ever suffered from

effect.

The probability of second marriage

disruption is significantly higher for

women with lower family income and is

lower in the Northeast and higher in the

Midwest (table 41). Other individual

characteristics did not show significant

effects, although the data suggest that

second marriage disruption may be more

likely for women without a high school

education, for women with no religious

affiliation, for women whose first birth

was before or during the first 7 months

of first marriage as opposed to after 7

months of marriage, and for women

who are older than their husbands.

Interestingly, although the probability of

first marriage disruption is higher if the

first marriage was preceded by

cohabitation, this is not the case for

second marriage; if anything,

cohabitation before remarriage may be

associated with a lower probability of

disruption, although the difference is

small and not statistically significant.

Second marriage disruption is

significantly more likely in communities

with a high percent of households below

poverty, low median family income, and

low percent college-educated (table 42

and figure 44). Other contextual
Page 26 [ Series 23, No. 22

50 50 

34 34 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

All races Non-Hispanic white 

Percent disrupted 

1 

1 

1 

GAD is generalized anxiety disorder. 

Ever had GAD Never had GAD 

Figure 42. Probability that the second marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/

ethnicity and generalized anxiety disorder: United States, 1995

32 32 

40 40 

44 

47 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

50 

All races Non-Hispanic white 

Percent disrupted 

No children Any children, none unwanted Any children, any unwanted 

Figure 43. Probability that the second marriage breaks up within 10 years by race/

ethnicity and presence of unwanted children at remarriage: United States, 1995

31 

49 

28 

33 

41 38 36 39 

45 

26 

54 

46 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

Unemployment Income Poverty Welfare 

Percent disrupted 

Low Middle High 

Figure 44. Probability that the second marriage breaks up within 10 years by community

male unemployment rate, median family income, percent below poverty, and percent

receiving public assistance: United States, 1995

variables do not show significant effects,

although the data suggest that second

marriage disruption is higher in

communities with higher unemployment,

higher percent receiving public

assistance, and higher percent of women

never-married (table 42 and figure 44).

Trends Over Time

The statistics presented thus far in

this report are based on data from Cycle

5 of the NSFG, collected in 1995.

Previous cycles of the NSFG also

collected marital histories, allowing for

an analysis of trends over time in the

probabilities of some of the marital

outcomes examined in this report. Cycle

1 of the NSFG was conducted in 1973,

Cycle 2 was conducted in 1976, Cycle 3

in 1982, and Cycle 4 in 1988. Pooling

Cycles 1, 2, 4, and 5 provides enough

cases to generate reliable estimates of

the probabilities by marriage cohort. A

marriage cohort refers to all marriages

that occurred within a particular period.

Figure 45 presents a trend analysis

of the probability of first marriage

disruption due to either separation or

divorce. The graph plots the probability

of marital disruption within 10 years of

marriage for 5-year marriage cohorts

between 1950 and 1984. The 5-year

cohorts of 1985–89 and 1990–94 are

excluded because most of the marriages

begun in those years had not had the

chance to exist for 10 years as of the

1995 Cycle 5 interview (only those that

began in the very beginning of the

1985–89 cohort would have had the

chance to last for 10 years by the 1995

interview). The plotted statistics are

presented in tabular form in table D.

Figure 45 shows that the probability

of first marriage disruption within 10

years of marriage increased over time

for marriages begun from the 1950s

through the 1970s and then leveled off

in 1975–84. Among non-Hispanic black

women, however, the leveling off did

not occur. The probability of first

marital disruption among black women

decreased for marriages begun in the

1950s, increased slightly in the 1960s,

and then increased at a greater rate

through the 1970s and early 1980s. This

sharp increase for black women resulted

in a larger gap between white and black

women such that for first marriages

begun in the 1980s, the probability of

marital disruption within 10 years was

about two-thirds greater for black than

for white women. The gap between

white and black women was smallest in

the late 1960s and largest in the 1980s.

Figure 46 shows the trend over time

in the probability that a separation from

first marriage will make the transition to

divorce. The graph shows that for

marriages begun from the 1950s through

the 1980s, the probability of completing

the divorce process within 5 years of

separation was mostly unchanged,

ranging from 85 percent to 90 percent

during the entire period (figure 46). The

probability of a separation making the
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 27

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

1950-54 1955-59 1960-64 1965-69 1970-74 1975-79 1980-84 

Marriage cohort 

Percent disrupted 

Total Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

Race/ethnicity

Non–Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Marital outcome and marriage cohort Total1 white black

First marriage disruption within 10 years

1950–54 ............................ 0.14 0.13 0.24

1955–59 ............................ 0.14 0.13 0.19

1960–64 ............................ 0.18 0.17 0.21

1965–69 ............................ 0.19 0.19 0.22

1970–74 ............................ 0.28 0.27 0.32

1975–79 ............................ 0.31 0.30 0.43

1980–84 ............................ 0.31 0.28 0.47

Separation to divorce within 5 years

1950–54 ............................ 0.85 0.90 0.50

1955–59 ............................ 0.86 0.93 0.54

1960–64 ............................ 0.88 0.93 0.57

1965–69 ............................ 0.86 0.93 0.52

1970–74 ............................ 0.90 0.96 0.65

1975–79 ............................ 0.90 0.96 0.64

1980–84 ............................ 0.86 0.93 0.64

1984–89 ............................ 0.88 0.96 0.56

Divorce to remarriage within 5 years

1950–592 ............................ 0.65 0.70 0.43

1960–69 ............................ 0.60 0.63 0.40

1970–79 ............................ 0.58 0.60 0.38

1980–89 ............................ 0.50 0.55 0.27

Second marriage disruption within 5 years

1950–59 ............................ 0.16 0.16 *

1960–69 ............................ 0.14 0.15 0.12

1970–79 ............................ 0.18 0.18 0.18

1980–89 ............................ 0.22 0.22 0.27

marriages begun in the late 1980s, and

the probability of a separated black

woman finalizing her divorce decreases

for first marriages begun in the late

1980s (figure 46). This means that

analyses that only examine divorce as

the indicator of marital disruption and

ignore separation will understate the

racial difference in marital disruption to

an even greater extent over time. It will

be important to continue to monitor

these trends through the 1990s once

Cycle 6 of the NSFG is completed in

2002.

Figure 47 shows the trend in the

probability of remarriage within 5 years

of divorce. The cohorts in this case refer

to divorce cohorts, that is, all the

divorces that occurred in a particular

10-year period. Ten-year cohorts are

used instead of 5-year cohorts because

of sample size considerations. The trend

shows that the overall pattern is one of

decreasing chances of remarriage over

time, for all women (figure 47). The

chances of remarriage were lower for

black women than for white women

throughout the period.

Figure 48 shows the trend in second

marriage disruption, again in 10-year

cohorts. The overall pattern is one of

increasing chances of second marriage

disruption over time. For non-Hispanic

white women, the chance of second

marriage disruption decreased slightly

from the 1950s to the 1960s and then

increased in the 1970s and 1980s. For

non-Hispanic black women, the

probability of second marriage

disruption was initially lower than that

of white women in the 1960s. The

probability of disruption among black

women in the 1950s cannot be shown

because there were not enough black

women whose second marriage had

begun in the 1950s in the combined

NSFG samples to generate reliable

estimates. The probability of disruption

among black women then increased

through the 1970s and 1980s, and that

Figure 45. Probability of first marriage disruption within 10 years by marriage cohort and

race/ethnicity: United States, marriages begun in 1950–84

Table D. Probabilities of first marriage disruption, of transition from separation to divorce,

of remarriage, and of second marriage disruption by race/ethnicity and cohort:

United States

Probability

* Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1Includes Asian and Pacific Islander women and American Indian women not shown separately.

2For the probability of remarriage, the cohorts refer to divorce cohorts rather than marriage cohorts.

increase was greater than that among

white women, such that by the late

1980s, the probability of second

marriage disruption was considerably

higher among black women than among

white women.

transition to divorce was much lower for

black women than for white women

throughout the period. The most

interesting feature of figure 46 is the

racial divergence that occurred for

marriages begun in the late 1980s. The

probability of a separated white woman

finalizing her divorce increases for first
Summary of Findings

for Each Independent

Variable

This section summarizes the

findings by the individual and

community variables. Table E

indicates whether each individual

characteristic is statistically significantly

related to each outcome, and table F

indicates whether each community

characteristic is statistically significantly

related to each outcome. The remainder

of this section briefly summarizes how

the characteristics are related to each

outcome.

Individual Characteristics—Age has

significant effects for some of the

marital and cohabitation outcomes

considered in this report. Women 25

years of age or over at the start of the

cohabitation are less likely to experience

cohabitation disruption than women

under 25 years of age. Likewise, higher

age at marriage is associated with a

lower probability of marital disruption.

These effects are found for the full

sample, for non-Hispanic white women,

and for non-Hispanic black women,

although the differences are not always

significant among black women,

probably due to small sample size.

Cohabitation after marriage and

remarriage after divorce are less likely

for women 25 years of age or over at

marital dissolution.

Education and family income are

correlated and typically relate to these

marital outcomes in similar ways.

Higher education, higher mother’s

education, and higher family income are

associated with a lower likelihood of

first marriage by age 18 (although

income is not related to early marriage

among black women). Higher education

and higher income are associated with a

greater probability of the first

cohabitation making the transition to

marriage, although these effects are

stronger for black women than for white

women. Higher family income is

associated with a lower likelihood of

cohabitation disruption. Higher

education and income are associated

with a lower probability of marital

disruption. Higher family income is

50

60

70

80

90

100

1950-54 1955-59 1960-64 1965-69 1970-74 1975-79 1985-89 1980-84

Marriage cohort

Percent divorced

Total Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black

Figure 46. Probability of transition from separation to divorce within 5 years by marriage

cohort and race/ethnicity: United States, marriages begun in 1950–84

20

30

40

50

60

70

1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89

Divorce cohort

Percent remarried

Total Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black

Figure 47. Probability of remarriage within 5 years by divorce cohort and race/ethnicity:

United States, divorces occurring in 1950–89

10

20

30

1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89

Marriage cohort

Percent disrupted

Total Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black

Figure 48. Probability of second marriage disruption within 5 years by marriage cohort

and race/ethnicity: United States, marriages begun in 1950–84

Page 28 [ Series 23, No. 22
associated with a higher likelihood of

postmarital cohabitation. Higher

education is associated with a lower

probability of postmarital cohabitation

among white women but not among

black women. Low education and

income suggest a lower probability of a

separation making the transition to

divorce. Higher income, but not

education, is associated with a greater

likelihood of remarriage and a lower

likelihood of second marriage

disruption.

Work status at cohabitation is

related to the probability of the

transition to marriage among black

women only: Part-time workers are

more likely to make the transition to

marriage than full-time workers or

nonworkers. White women who were

not working at cohabitation and black

women who were working part time at

cohabitation are more likely to

experience cohabitation disruption. Part

time workers are less likely to

experience first marriage disruption, and

nonworkers are less likely to make the

transition from separation to divorce.

Religious affiliation and the

importance of religion are related to

many of the marital and cohabitation

outcomes in this report. Among

Hispanic and non-Hispanic white

women, women with no religious

affiliation are less likely to marry by

age 30 than women with any religious

affiliation; women of fundamentalist

Protestant faiths are more likely than

other women to marry by any age (up to

age 30); and women who report that

their religion is not important are less

likely to marry by age 30. Women with

no religious affiliation are less likely to

make the transition from cohabitation to

marriage than women with any religious

affiliation. Women with no religious

affiliation are also more likely to

experience cohabitation disruption, are

more likely to experience first marriage

disruption, and are more likely to

cohabit after the dissolution of first

marriage. Women affiliated with

fundamentalist Protestant denominations

are less likely to cohabit after the first

marriage ends. White women who report

that religion is not important to them are

more likely to experience first marriage

disruption and are less likely to cohabit

after the first marriage ends; these

differences are not significant among

black women.

Whether the woman was raised in

an intact, two-parent family throughout

childhood is related to some of the

marital and cohabitation outcomes in

this report. The effect of family

background on first marriage varies by

race/ethnicity. Among Hispanic women,

growing up in an intact family is

associated with a higher chance of first

marriage at all ages. Among nonHispanic white women, an intact family

is associated with a lower chance of

early marriage, and the difference by

family background converges at later

ages. There is no effect of family

background among non-Hispanic black

women. Growing up with two parents

has only a small effect on the

probability of making the transition

from cohabitation to marriage. But

growing up with two parents is

associated with a lower likelihood of

cohabitation disruption, a much lower

likelihood of first marriage disruption, a

lower likelihood of postmarital

cohabitation, and a much lower

likelihood of second marriage

disruption.

Women who have ever been forced

to have intercourse have a greater

probability of cohabitation disruption

Table E. Statistical significance of each individual characteristic by outcome

Characteristic

Transition to

first marriage

(all women)

Transition

from

cohabitation

to marriage

First

cohabitation

disruption

First

marriage

disruption

Race/ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . significant significant significant significant

Age at start of interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . significant significant significant

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . significant significant significant significant

Family income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . significant significant significant significant

Work status at start of interval . . . . . . . . not significant significant significant

Religious affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . significant significant significant significant

Importance of religion . . . . . . . . . . significant significant not significant significant

Intact family of origin status . . . . . . significant significant significant significant

Forced intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . not significant significant significant

Parity at start of interval . . . . . . . . . . . . significant significant significant

Wantedness of children . . . . . . . . . . . . not significant not significant not significant

Timing of first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . significant significant significant

Generalized anxiety disorder . . . . . . significant not significant significant significant

Region of residence . . . . . . . . . . . significant not significant significant significant

Age difference with spouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . not significant

Race difference with spouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . significant

Cohabited before marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . significant

Characteristic

Postmarital

cohabitation

Transition

from

separation

to divorce Remarriage

Second

marriage

disruption

Race/ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . significant significant significant not significant

Age at start of interval . . . . . . . . . . significant not significant significant significant

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . significant significant not significant not significant

Family income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . significant significant significant significant

Work status at start of interval . . . . . significant significant not significant not significant

Religious affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . significant not significant not significant not significant

Importance of religion . . . . . . . . . . significant significant not significant not significant

Intact family of origin . . . . . . . . . . . significant significant not significant significant

Forced intercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . significant not significant not significant significant

Parity at start of interval . . . . . . . . . significant significant not significant not significant

Wantedness of children . . . . . . . . . not significant significant not significant not significant

Timing of first birth . . . . . . . . . . . . not significant significant significant significant

Generalized anxiety disorder . . . . . . not significant significant not significant significant

Region of residence . . . . . . . . . . . not significant significant significant significant

Age difference with spouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . not significant

Race difference with spouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . not significant

Cohabited before marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . significant

. . . Category not applicable.

NOTES: Statistical significance is indicated if at least one category differed significantly from at least one other category in at

least one duration interval; significance refers to findings for all women and may differ by race/ethnicity. Individual characteristics

were analyzed independently; multivariate analysis may reveal that some of these effects are influenced by unobserved factors.

Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 29
and a greater probability of first

marriage disruption. Forced intercourse

is associated with a higher likelihood of

postmarital cohabitation among black

women. Forced intercourse is not related

to the probability of remarriage but is

associated with a higher likelihood of

second marriage disruption.

Childbearing has been measured in

a variety of ways in this report,

including parity, whether any children

were unwanted, and timing of first birth.

The transition to marriage is more likely

for women with no children at the start

of the cohabitation, and for women who

had their first birth after the start of the

union compared with before the union.

These differences are not significant

among black women, however.

Cohabitation disruption is less likely for

women whose first birth was more than

7 months after cohabitation and is more

likely for women who have never had a

first birth. First marriage disruption is

more likely for women whose first birth

was before marriage compared with

afterwards. Women with no children at

the end of first marriage are more likely

to cohabit after the marriage ends. The

transition from separation to divorce is

less likely if the first birth occurred

before or during the first 7 months of

marriage, and if the woman had any

children at separation. Among women

with children, the transition from

separation to divorce is less likely if any

of the children were unwanted.

Remarriage is more likely for

women with no children at divorce than

for women with any children at divorce,

although this difference is small and not

significant. Remarriage is more likely

for women whose first birth was more

than 7 months after first marriage, and

is less likely for women whose first

birth was before first marriage or who

had never had a birth by the time of the

interview. Second marriage disruption is

more likely for women who had any

children at remarriage or whose first

birth occurred before or during the first

7 months of first marriage (although the

difference by timing of first birth is not

significant).

Women who had ever had GAD

reported that they had suffered for at

least 6 months from worry or anxiety,

including feelings of restlessness, feeling

keyed up or on edge, irritability, a

pounding or racing heart, getting tired

easily, trouble falling or staying asleep,

and feeling faint. GAD is associated

with a greater chance of first marriage,

although the difference disappears by

age 30. GAD is also associated with a

greater likelihood of cohabitation

disruption, a greater likelihood of first

marriage disruption, and a greater

likelihood of second marriage

disruption.

Women in the South tend to marry

earlier than women in other regions,

although regional differences in first

marriage converge at age 30. Region of

residence is not related to the likelihood

of the transition from cohabitation to

marriage for the full sample, but among

black women, the transition is more

likely in the South and less likely in the

Northeast. Cohabitation disruption and

first marriage disruption are more likely

in the South and, among white women,

first marriage disruption is also more

likely in the West. The transition from

separation to divorce is more likely in

the Midwest and less likely in the

Northeast. Remarriage is more likely in

the South, and second marriage

disruption is more likely in the Midwest

and less likely in the Northeast.

Community Influences—Not

surprisingly, affluence is good for the

stability of marriages and cohabitations;

poverty is not. In this report,

community-level socioeconomic status

(SES) has been measured by the male

unemployment rate, median family

income, the percent of families below

poverty, the percent of households

receiving public assistance, and the

percent of adults who are collegeeducated. Affluence is indicated by

higher median family income and

percent college-educated, and lower

unemployment, percent below poverty,

and percent receiving public assistance.

The five indicators of community SES

are almost always consistent in their

effects on cohabitation and marital

outcomes. Any lack of agreement among

the five indicators is a result of one or

more not showing a significant effect. In

no analyses in this report is there a

direct contradiction between two

indicators of community SES that

suggest two statistically significant

effects that operate in opposite

directions of the community SES

continuum.

Table F. Statistical significance of each contextual characteristic by outcome

Characteristic

Transition to

first marriage

(all women)

Transition

from

cohabitation

to marriage

First

cohabitation

disruption

First

marriage

disruption

Male unemployment rate . . . . . . . . significant significant significant significant

Median family income . . . . . . . . . . significant significant significant significant

Percent below poverty . . . . . . . . . . significant significant significant significant

Percent on public assistance . . . . . . significant significant significant significant

Percent college-educated . . . . . . . . significant significant not significant significant

Crime rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . significant not significant significant significant

Percent of women never married . . . significant significant significant significant

Metropolitan status . . . . . . . . . . . . significant significant significant significant

Characteristic

Postmarital

cohabitation

Transition

from

separation

to divorce Remarriage

Second

marriage

disruption

Male unemployment rate . . . . . . . . significant significant significant not significant

Median family income . . . . . . . . . . significant significant not significant significant

Percent below poverty . . . . . . . . . . significant significant significant significant

Percent on public assistance . . . . . . significant significant significant not significant

Percent college-educated . . . . . . . . significant significant not significant significant

Crime rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . significant significant significant not significant

Percent of women never married . . . significant significant significant not significant

Metropolitan status . . . . . . . . . . . . significant significant significant not significant

NOTES: Statistical significance is indicated if at least one category differed significantly from at least one other category in at

least one duration interval; significance refers to findings for all women, and may differ by race/ethnicity. Contextual

characteristics were analyzed independently; multivariate analysis may reveal that some of these effects are influenced by

unobserved factors.

Page 30 [ Series 23, No. 22
Higher community-level SES is

associated with a lower probability of

early first marriage (indicated by all five

community SES variables), a greater

probability of an intact cohabitation

making the transition to marriage

(indicated by all five community SES

variables), a lower probability of

cohabitation disruption (indicated by all

five community SES variables except

percent college-educated), a lower

probability of first marriage disruption

(indicated by all five), a higher

probability of cohabitation after

marriage (indicated by all five), a

greater probability of making the

transition from separation to divorce

(indicated by all five), a higher

probability of remarriage (indicated by

all five except percent college-educated),

and a lower probability of second

marriage disruption (indicated by all five,

although the effects of unemployment and

percent receiving public assistance are not

statistically significant).

This remarkable consistency is also

apparent in analyses run separately for

Hispanic women, non-Hispanic white

women, and non-Hispanic black women.

Although some or all of the effects of

these community SES indicators may

fade to nonsignificance among either

Hispanic, white, or black women, there

are still no direct contradictions to

indicate anything other than the

conclusion that affluence is good for

cohabitation and marriage. However, the

results by race/ethnicity do suggest that

community affluence may matter more

for black women than for white women

for at least some of these cohabitation

and marital outcomes. However, it is

difficult to simultaneously evaluate all

five indicators of community affluence

in this regard, because some are

significant for white women while

others are significant for black women,

depending on the outcome in question.

Other contextual characteristics

considered in this report include the

crime rate, marriage market (measured

by the percent of women nevermarried), and metropolitan status

(central city, other SMSA, or

nonmetropolitan). The crime rate was

the least successful indicator of context

in that it showed the lowest number of

significant effects. This is most likely

because of the level of context at which

it is measured. While all the other

continuous contextual variables are

measured at the census tract level, the

crime rate was only available at the

county level, and the county may be too

large an area to measure the context in

which these outcomes occur. Among

white and black women, low-crime

communities are associated with higher

chances of first marriage (although the

differences are not significant for black

women). Higher crime rates in the

county are associated with a higher

likelihood of first marriage disruption

and a lower likelihood of postmarital

cohabitation. The crime rate is not

related to the other outcomes examined

in this report.

Not surprisingly, the marriage

market context seems to matter for

cohabitation and marital outcomes. A

higher percent of women never-married

is associated with a lower probability of

first marriage, a lower probability that

the cohabitation makes the transition to

marriage, a higher probability of

cohabitation disruption, a higher

probability of first marriage disruption, a

lower probability of cohabitation after

marriage, a lower probability of the

transition from separation to divorce,

and a lower probability of remarriage.

Metropolitan status indicates

whether the woman lives in a central

city, the suburbs, or in a rural area. The

typical finding in this report is that

central cities are different from other

areas in terms of the cohabitation and

marital outcomes considered here, and

differences between suburbs and

nonmetropolitan areas are much smaller.

First marriage is more likely in

nonmetropolitan areas and less likely in

central cities. The transition from

cohabitation to marriage is less likely in

central cities. Cohabitation disruption

and first marriage disruption are more

likely in central cities. Postmarital

cohabitation is less likely in central

cities. Remarriage is much less likely in

central cities and more likely in

nonmetropolitan areas. The overall

pattern suggests that central cities have

lower rates of union formation and

higher rates of cohabitation and

marriage disruption than suburbs or

nonmetropolitan areas.

Discussion

I

n each comparison of racial/ethnic

subgroups, the results consistently

suggest that the unions of

non-Hispanic black women are less

stable than those of non-Hispanic white

or Hispanic women. Black women are

less likely to marry by age 30 and less

likely to make the transition from

cohabitation to marriage, and their

cohabitations are more likely to disrupt

than those of other women. The first

marriages of black women disrupt faster

than the first marriages of other women.

Black women are less likely to enter a

cohabitation after the dissolution of the

first marriage. The separations of black

women are less likely to make the

transition to divorce, and the interval

between divorce and remarriage is

longer for black women. The data

suggest that the remarriages of black

women disrupt faster than the

remarriages of other women. The trend

analysis suggests that, at least for some

of these marital outcomes, the

differences by race are increasing over

recent decades. The differences between

white and Hispanic women are smaller.

Some researchers have suggested

that these differences may be related to

higher rates of unemployment,

incarceration, and mortality among the

black population, their lower levels of

educational attainment and earnings,

their previous experiences as children of

unmarried or less-educated parents, and

higher rates of poverty and lack of job

opportunities in the communities in

which they live (13,19,20). The findings

in this report suggest that individual

characteristics such as race/ethnicity

may not be the sole determinants of

marital and cohabitation success. The

neighborhoods in which people live may

be important, and differences in marital

and cohabitation outcomes between

white and black women may depend to

some extent on the community

environments in which the women live.

Both non-Hispanic white women

and non-Hispanic black women who

live in neighborhoods with high levels

of poverty, receipt of welfare and

unemployment, and low levels of

income and education are more likely to

Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 31
Page 32 [ Series 23, No. 22

experience separation and divorce. Black

women live disproportionately in

low-SES neighborhoods. Whether the

lower marital success of black women is

due to their disproportionate prevalence

in low-SES neighborhoods, to individual

characteristics, or to other factors, is a

question for further study.

This report presents analyses of

eight cohabitation and marital outcomes

by a wide variety of individual and

community characteristics. This

presentation is not meant to represent a

definitive explanation of any of the

outcomes presented here. Rather, the

intention is to provide benchmark

statistics by a wide variety of

characteristics, and to encourage

researchers to consider these factors

when studying marital outcomes. Of

particular note is the presentation of

statistics on the probability of

postmarital cohabitation. The authors

know of no other study that analyzes

this facet of the marital life course with

nationally representative data.

The outcomes analyzed in this

report deserve further study using

multivariate statistical techniques. These

techniques allow the statistician to

determine whether characteristics used

in this report are less important or more

important when other characteristics are

controlled. Hazards models are one

method of controlling for multiple

characteristics simultaneously (47). For

example, a hazards model could show

the effect of income on the chances of

marital disruption, controlling for

education, race/ethnicity, age, and other

characteristics. Another possibility for

further study is multilevel modeling, to

control for the effects of the community

(or neighborhood) environment (54).

This report suggests that community

characteristics are important for a full

understanding of the outcomes analyzed

in this report.

This report has focused on changes

in the relationships between spouses (or

between cohabiting partners) and has

not dealt, in detail, with the effects of

children on these outcomes. Although

we have tried to examine the presence

of children as a characteristic that may

be associated with a marital or

cohabitation outcome, this is a topic that

deserves closer scrutiny. In many of our

analyses, the measurement of children at

the beginning of the interval is less than

satisfactory. For example, in the analysis

of first marriage disruption, it would be

better to know how many children were

present in the family at the time of the

disruption, rather than at the time the

marriage began, but because many of

the first marriages had not disrupted by

interview (were censored), it did not

make sense to code the presence of

children at the time of disruption.

Although it makes sense to measure the

number of children at the beginning of

the interval when studying the

transitions from separation to divorce,

separation to postmarital cohabitation,

and divorce to remarriage, it is less than

satisfactory for the earlier outcomes. In

addition, characteristics of the children

themselves could be studied, such as

their age, gender, and whether they are

biological, adopted, or step-children. To

do so, however, would require an

analysis specifically designed to

measure the effects of the characteristics

of children on these marital outcomes.

Finally, another avenue of further

research is non-coresidential families

(i.e., families that do not live together).

The term ‘‘fragile families’’ has been

used to describe families that do not

share a single residence and are at

higher risk of poverty and family

instability than married-couple families

(55). This report focuses on cohabitation

and marriage, both of which are

shared-residence relationships, and does

not analyze alternative forms of family

life. The stability of such families and

the effects of individual and community

characteristics on that stability, is an

important topic, especially for

understanding low-income families.

Although the statistics presented in

this report are descriptive in nature, it is

possible to draw some conclusions about

the characteristics of individuals and

communities that may contribute to the

stability of cohabitations and marriages.

Cohabitations and marriages tend to

demonstrate more stability if the woman

was older at the time the cohabitation or

marriage began, if her family income is

higher, if she has a religious affiliation

or reports that her religion is important

to her, if she was raised through

childhood in a two-parent intact family,

if she had never been forced to have

intercourse, if she had no children at the

start of the cohabitation or marriage, if

her first birth was more than 7 months

after the beginning of the cohabitation

or marriage, if she has never suffered

GAD, if she is the same race/ethnicity

as her husband, or if she lives in

communities with higher median family

income, lower male unemployment, less

poverty, less receipt of welfare, and

more adults who are college-educated.

Some of these characteristics show

stronger effects for the stability of

marriage than for the stability of

cohabitation and some of the effects

vary by race/ethnicity. With the

exception of controlling for race/

ethnicity, none of these characteristics

were tested in a multivariate context,

and it may be that some of the effects

are spurious, reflecting the effects of

other variables. Researchers are

encouraged to consider analysis of these

outcomes with a multivariate approach,

and to include controls for race/ethnicity

and community context in the analysis

of these outcomes.

References

1. Waite LJ. Does marriage matter?

Demography 32 (4): 483–507. 1995.

2. Rogers RG. Marriage, sex, and

mortality. Journal of Marriage and the

Family 57 (2):515–26. 1995.

3. Waite LJ, Gallagher M. The case for

marriage: Why married people are

happier, healthier and better off

financially. New York: Doubleday.

2000.

4. Murray JE. Marital protection and

marital selection: Evidence from a

historical-prospective sample of

American men. Demography 37

(4):511–21. 2000.

5. Amato PR. The consequences of

divorce for adults and children. Journal

of Marriage and the Family 62

(4):1269–87. 2000.

6. Duncan GJ, Hoffman SD. A

reconsideration of the economic

consequences of marital dissolution.

Demography 22 (4):485–97. 1985.

7. Smock PJ. The economic costs of

marital disruption for young women

over the past two decades. Demography

30 (3):353–71. 1993.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 33

8. Holden KC, Smock PJ. The economic

costs of marital dissolution: Why do

women bear a disproportionate cost?

Annual Review of Sociology 17

(1):51–78. 1991.

9. Coleman M, Ganong L, Fine M.

Reinvestigating remarriage: Another

decade of progress. Journal of Marriage

and the Family 62 (4):1288–1307.

2000.

10. Zill N, Nord CW. Running in place:

How American families are faring in a

changing economy and an

individualistic society. Washington, DC:

Child Trends, Inc. 1994.

11. McLanahan S, Sandefur G. Growing up

with a single-parent: What hurts, what

helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press. 1994.

12. Espenshade TJ. Marriage trends in

America: Estimates, implications, and

underlying causes. Population and

Development Review 9 (3):193–245.

1983.

13. Cherlin A. Marriage, divorce and

remarriage: Revised and enlarged

edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press. 1992.

14. Bumpass LL, Sweet JA, Cherlin A. The

role of cohabitation in declining rates

of marriage. Journal of Marriage and

the Family 53 (4):913–27. 1991.

15. Oropesa RS, Gorman BK. Ethnicity,

immigration, and beliefs about marriage

as a ‘‘tie that binds.’’ In: Waite LJ, et

al. (ed.), The ties that bind:

Perspectives on marriage and

cohabitation. New York: Aldine de

Gruyter. 2000.

16. Tucker MB. Marital values and

expectations in context: Results from a

21-city survey. In: Waite LJ, et al.

(ed.). The ties that bind: Perspectives

on marriage and cohabitation. New

York: Aldine de Gruyter. 2000.

17. Teachman JD, Tedrow LM, Crowder

KD. The changing demography of

America’s families. Journal of Marriage

and the Family 62 (4): 1234–46. 2000.

18. Schoen R. The widening gap between

black and white marriage rates: Context

and implications. In: Tucker MB and

Mitchell-Kernan C (eds.). The decline

in marriage among African Americans.

New York: Russell Sage. 1995.

19. Wilson WJ. The truly disadvantaged:

The inner city, the underclass, and

public policy. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. 1987.

20. Testa M, Krogh M. The effect of

employment on marriage among black

males in inner-city Chicago. In: Tucker

MB and Mitchell-Kernan C (eds.). The

decline in marriage among African

Americans. New York: Russell Sage.

1995.

21. White L, Rogers SJ. Economic

circumstances and family outcomes: A

review of the 1990s. Journal of

Marriage and the Family 62 (4):1035–

51. 2000.

22. Bachrach CA, Horn MC. Married and

unmarried couples, United States, 1982.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 23(15). 1987.

23. McCarthy J. A comparison of the

probability of the dissolution of first

and second marriages. Demography

15(3):345–59. 1978.

24. Menken J, Trussell J, Stempel D,

Babakol O. Proportional hazards life

table models: An illustrative analysis of

socio-demographic influences on

marriage dissolution in the United

States. Demography 18 (2): 181–200.

1981.

25. Seltzer JA. Families formed outside of

marriage. Journal of Marriage and the

Family 62 (4):1247–68. 2000.

26. Kahn JR, London KA. Premarital sex

and the risk of divorce. Journal of

Marriage and the Family 53 (4):845–

55. 1991.

27. Whisman MA, Sheldon CT, Goering P.

Psychiatric disorders and dissatisfaction

with social relationships: Does type of

relationship matter? Journal of

Abnormal Psychology 109 (4):803–8.

2000.

28. Grady WR. Remarriages of women

15–44 years of age whose first

marriages ended in divorce: United

States, 1976. Advance data from vital

and health statistics; no. 58. Hyattsville,

Maryland: National Center for Health

Statistics. 1980.

29. South SJ, Lloyd KM. Spousal

alternatives and marital dissolution.

American Sociological Review 60

(1):21–35. 1995.

30. Abma J, Chandra A, Mosher W, et al.

Fertility, family planning, and women’s

health: New data from the 1995

National Survey of Family Growth.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital and Health Stat 23 (19). 1997.

31. Bramlett MD, Mosher WD. First

marriage dissolution, divorce, and

remarriage: United States. Advance

data from vital and health statistics; no.

323. Hyattsville, Maryland: National

Center for Health Statistics. 2001.

32. Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention. Notice: Change in marriage

and divorce data available from the

National Center for Health Statistics.

Federal Register 60 (241): 64437–

64438. December 15, 1995.

33. Manning WD. Counting couples: A

research perspective. Paper presented at

Counting Couples: Improving Marriage,

Divorce, Remarriage and Cohabitation

Data in the Federal Statistical System.

National Institutes of Health, Bethesda,

MD, December 13, 2001.

34. Sweet JA, Bumpass LL. The National

Survey of Families and Households—

Waves 1 and 2: Data description and

documentation. Center for Demography

and Ecology, University of WisconsinMadison (http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/nsfh/

home.htm). 1996.

35. U.S. Census Bureau. Overview of the

Survey of Income Program

Participation (SIPP). Income Surveys

Branch-Census/DSD, United States

Census Bureau (http://

www.bls.census.gov/sipp/

sippov98.htm). 2000.

36. Weed JA. National estimates of

marriage dissolution and survivorship:

United States. National Center for

Health Statistics. Vital and Health Stat

3(19). 1980.

37. Schoen R, Urton W, Woodrow K, Baj

J. Marriage and divorce in twentieth

century American cohorts. Demography

22 (1):101–14. 1985.

38. Schoen R, Weinick RM. The slowing

metabolism of marriage: Figures from

1988 U.S. marital status life tables.

Demography 30(4):737–46. 1993.

39. Potter FJ, Iannacchione VG, Mosher

WD, et al. Sample design, sampling

weights, imputation and variance

estimation in the 1995 National Survey

of Family Growth. National Center for

Health Statistics. Vital and Health Stat

2 (124). 1988.

40. Kelly JE, Mosher WD, Duffer AP,

Kinsey SH. Plan and operation of the

1995 National Survey of Family

Growth. National Center for Health

Statistics. Vital and Health Stat 1(36).

1997.

41. Clarke SC. Advance report of final

marriage statistics, 1989 and 1990.

Monthly Vital Statistics Report 43 (12),

suppl. Hyattsville, Maryland: National

Center for Health Statistics. 1995.

42. Clarke SC. Advance report of final

divorce statistics, 1989 and 1990.

Monthly Vital Statistics Report 43 (9),

suppl. Hyattsville, Maryland: National

Center for Health Statistics. 1995.

43. London KA. Cohabitation, marriage,

marital dissolution, and remarriage:

United States, 1988. Advance data from

vital and health statistics; no. 194.
Page 34 [ Series 23, No. 22

Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center

for Health Statistics. 1990.

44. Anderson RN. United States life tables,

1997. National vital statistics reports;

vol 47 no 28. Hyattsville,

Maryland:National Center for Health

Statistics. 1999.

45. Palmore JA, Gardner RW. Measuring

mortality, fertility, and natural increase:

A self-teaching guide to elementary

measures. Honolulu: The East-West

Center. 1983.

46. Pollard AH, Yusuf F, Pollard GN.

Demographic techniques, 2nd edition.

Sydney, Australia: Pergamon Press.

1981.

47. Allison P. Event history analysis:

Regression for longitudinal event data.

Sage University Paper series on

Quantitative Applications in the Social

Sciences, 07–046. Beverly Hills and

London: Sage Publications. 1984.

48. Sweet JA, Bumpass LL. American

families and households. New York:

Russell Sage. 1987.

49. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT User’s

Guide, version 6, Fourth Edition,

Volume 2, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

1989.

50. Shaw BV, Barnwell BG, Bieler GS.

SUDAAN user’s manual, release 7.0.

Research Triangle Park, NC: Research

Triangle Institute. 1996.

51. Kreider RM, Fields JM. Number,

timing, and duration of marriages and

divorces: Fall 1996. Current Population

Reports, P70–80. U.S. Census Bureau:

Washington, DC. 2001.

52. American Psychiatric Association:

Diagnostic and statistical manual of

mental disorders, third edition, revised.

Washington, DC: American Psychiatric

Association, 1987.

53. Kunz J. The intergenerational

transmission of divorce: A nine

generation study. Journal of Divorce

and Remarriage 34 (1/2):169–75. 2000.

54. Kreft I, De Leeuw J. Introducing

Multilevel Modeling. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications. 1998.

55. Center for Research on Child

Wellbeing. Fragile families: The Fragile

Families and Child Wellbeing Study.

Center for Research on Child

Wellbeing, Princeton University

(http://crcw.princeton.edu/

fragilefamilies/index.htm). 2001.

56. Ventura SJ, Mosher WD, Curtin SC, et

al. Trends in pregnancies and

pregnancy rates by outcome: Estimates

for the United States, 1976–96.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 21 (56). 2000.

57. Schenker N, Gentleman JF. On judging

the significance of differences by

examining the overlap between

confidence intervals. The American

Statistician 55 (3):182–6. 2001.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 35

Table 1. Probability of first marriage by duration since age 15 and selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age,

United States, 1995

Probability of marriage by—

Characteristic Age 16 Age 18 Age 20 Age 25 Age 30

Total1 ............................ 0.01(0.001) 0.08(0.003) 0.25(0.006) 0.59(0.007) 0.76(0.006)

Race/ethnicity

Hispanic .......................... 0.03(0.005) 0.13(0.010) 0.29(0.014) 0.61(0.015) 0.77(0.014)

Non-Hispanic white ................... 0.01(0.002) 0.08(0.004) 0.26(0.008) 0.63(0.008) 0.81(0.007)

Non-Hispanic black ................... 0.01(0.002) 0.05(0.006) 0.16(0.010) 0.37(0.013) 0.52(0.017)

Non-Hispanic Asian ................... 0.01(0.006) 0.03(0.012) 0.13(0.028) 0.44(0.042) 0.77(0.043)

Education2

Less than HS3 ...................... 0.07(0.008) 0.27(0.014) 0.45(0.016) 0.68(0.018) 0.75(0.017)

HS3 ............................. 0.01(0.002) 0.11(0.006) 0.36(0.011) 0.69(0.010) 0.82(0.009)

More than HS3 ...................... 0.00(0.001) 0.03(0.003) 0.13(0.006) 0.50(0.009) 0.73(0.009)

Mother’s education

Less than HS3 ...................... 0.03(0.003) 0.16(0.008) 0.35(0.010) 0.64(0.011) 0.77(0.010)

HS3 ............................. 0.01(0.002) 0.06(0.004) 0.24(0.009) 0.62(0.010) 0.79(0.008)

More than HS3 ...................... 0.00(0.001) 0.03(0.003) 0.13(0.007) 0.49(0.012) 0.72(0.012)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.02(0.003) 0.10(0.006) 0.27(0.010) 0.53(0.012) 0.64(0.014)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.01(0.002) 0.09(0.005) 0.27(0.010) 0.63(0.010) 0.78(0.009)

$50,000 or more .................... 0.01(0.001) 0.05(0.004) 0.20(0.009) 0.59(0.012) 0.83(0.009)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................ 0.01(0.001) 0.08(0.003) 0.25(0.006) 0.60(0.007) 0.77(0.006)

Catholic ......................... 0.01(0.002) 0.06(0.005) 0.21(0.009) 0.57(0.010) 0.78(0.009)

Fundamentalist .................... 0.03(0.007) 0.12(0.013) 0.33(0.018) 0.69(0.018) 0.82(0.018)

Other Protestant.................... 0.01(0.002) 0.08(0.005) 0.27(0.009) 0.60(0.010) 0.76(0.009)

Other .......................... 0.00(0.002) 0.06(0.011) 0.21(0.019) 0.59(0.027) 0.76(0.024)

None ............................ 0.02(0.005) 0.09(0.010) 0.23(0.017) 0.53(0.021) 0.70(0.018)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.02(0.002) 0.08(0.004) 0.27(0.008) 0.62(0.009) 0.78(0.008)

Somewhat important .................. 0.01(0.002) 0.08(0.005) 0.23(0.008) 0.58(0.011) 0.76(0.010)

Not important ....................... 0.00(0.002) 0.06(0.008) 0.17(0.014) 0.46(0.021) 0.69(0.020)

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.01(0.002) 0.07(0.004) 0.24(0.007) 0.60(0.008) 0.79(0.007)

Otherwise ......................... 0.02(0.002) 0.09(0.006) 0.25(0.010) 0.56(0.012) 0.72(0.011)

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.01(0.001) 0.08(0.003) 0.23(0.007) 0.58(0.008) 0.76(0.007)

Ever ............................ 0.01(0.003) 0.10(0.007) 0.29(0.011) 0.63(0.013) 0.77(0.012)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.00(0.001) 0.05(0.004) 0.16(0.011) 0.50(0.013) 0.73(0.012)

Midwest .......................... 0.00(0.001) 0.06(0.006) 0.24(0.014) 0.61(0.016) 0.77(0.011)

South............................ 0.02(0.003) 0.12(0.007) 0.31(0.011) 0.63(0.013) 0.78(0.010)

West ............................ 0.01(0.002) 0.07(0.005) 0.24(0.012) 0.59(0.014) 0.76(0.015)

1Includes data for American Indian women, not shown separately. 2Based on women ages 20 and over at interview. 3HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Page 36 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 2. Probability of first marriage by duration since age 15 and selected contextual characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age,

United States, 1995

Probability of marriage by—

Characteristic Age 16 Age 18 Age 20 Age 25 Age 30

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.01(0.002) 0.06(0.005) 0.20(0.009) 0.57(0.013) 0.78(0.011)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.02(0.002) 0.08(0.005) 0.26(0.009) 0.62(0.009) 0.79(0.008)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.02(0.003) 0.10(0.007) 0.28(0.011) 0.55(0.013) 0.69(0.013)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.02(0.003) 0.11(0.006) 0.30(0.010) 0.59(0.012) 0.73(0.011)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.002) 0.08(0.004) 0.25(0.009) 0.62(0.009) 0.79(0.008)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.00(0.001) 0.03(0.004) 0.14(0.010) 0.51(0.016) 0.75(0.013)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.00(0.001) 0.04(0.004) 0.15(0.009) 0.53(0.012) 0.77(0.011)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.002) 0.08(0.004) 0.26(0.009) 0.62(0.010) 0.80(0.008)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.02(0.003) 0.12(0.007) 0.31(0.010) 0.58(0.012) 0.70(0.012)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.00(0.001) 0.04(0.004) 0.17(0.009) 0.55(0.013) 0.78(0.011)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.02(0.002) 0.09(0.004) 0.26(0.009) 0.62(0.011) 0.80(0.009)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.02(0.003) 0.11(0.006) 0.29(0.011) 0.57(0.013) 0.68(0.013)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.03(0.003) 0.13(0.007) 0.34(0.011) 0.64(0.012) 0.75(0.011)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.002) 0.07(0.004) 0.24(0.008) 0.62(0.009) 0.80(0.008)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.00(0.001) 0.03(0.004) 0.13(0.009) 0.47(0.015) 0.71(0.015)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.01(0.003) 0.10(0.008) 0.28(0.013) 0.66(0.015) 0.83(0.012)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.002) 0.07(0.004) 0.24(0.009) 0.58(0.010) 0.75(0.009)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.01(0.003) 0.07(0.006) 0.21(0.011) 0.53(0.014) 0.72(0.012)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.02(0.003) 0.12(0.007) 0.34(0.012) 0.72(0.013) 0.87(0.011)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.002) 0.07(0.004) 0.23(0.008) 0.60(0.010) 0.78(0.009)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.01(0.002) 0.05(0.004) 0.17(0.009) 0.44(0.013) 0.62(0.011)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.01(0.002) 0.06(0.005) 0.21(0.010) 0.49(0.011) 0.66(0.012)

SMSA1 other ....................... 0.01(0.002) 0.07(0.004) 0.23(0.008) 0.61(0.011) 0.79(0.008)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.02(0.004) 0.12(0.008) 0.34(0.016) 0.70(0.017) 0.84(0.013)

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 37

Table 3. Probability of first marriage by duration since age 15 and selected characteristics: Hispanic women 15–44 years of age,

United States, 1995

Probability of marriage by—

Characteristic Age 16 Age 18 Age 20 Age 25 Age 30

Total ............................ 0.03(0.005) 0.13(0.010) 0.29(0.014) 0.61(0.015) 0.77(0.014)

Education1

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.08(0.013) 0.28(0.025) 0.45(0.027) 0.72(0.027) 0.82(0.022)

HS2 ............................. 0.02(0.009) 0.11(0.016) 0.34(0.023) 0.64(0.024) 0.78(0.029)

More than HS2 ...................... 0.01(0.004) 0.03(0.009) 0.14(0.013) 0.50(0.021) 0.73(0.024)

Mother’s education

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.04(0.007) 0.16(0.014) 0.34(0.019) 0.64(0.018) 0.79(0.018)

HS2 ............................. 0.01(0.006) 0.07(0.020) 0.20(0.025) 0.56(0.040) 0.73(0.038)

More than HS2 ...................... 0.03(0.013) 0.07(0.019) 0.19(0.029) 0.55(0.045) 0.73(0.045)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.04(0.008) 0.15(0.017) 0.32(0.019) 0.63(0.024) 0.75(0.026)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.03(0.008) 0.13(0.016) 0.32(0.025) 0.62(0.024) 0.79(0.026)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.02(0.008) 0.07(0.016) 0.19(0.026) 0.56(0.032) 0.78(0.033)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................ 0.03(0.004) 0.13(0.010) 0.30(0.014) 0.62(0.014) 0.78(0.014)

Catholic ......................... 0.03(0.006) 0.13(0.011) 0.30(0.017) 0.61(0.018) 0.77(0.017)

Fundamentalist .................... 0.05(0.026) 0.16(0.032) 0.31(0.051) 0.67(0.050) 0.84(0.054)

Other Protestant.................... 0.02(0.014) 0.16(0.035) 0.32(0.040) 0.64(0.046) 0.79(0.044)

Other .......................... * * * * *

None ............................ 0.03(0.016) 0.11(0.031) 0.21(0.053) 0.47(0.054) 0.65(0.067)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.04(0.007) 0.15(0.013) 0.31(0.018) 0.62(0.018) 0.79(0.017)

Somewhat important .................. 0.03(0.009) 0.12(0.012) 0.28(0.021) 0.61(0.029) 0.74(0.028)

Not important ....................... 0.00(0.005) 0.07(0.024) 0.20(0.062) 0.50(0.064) 0.73(0.065)

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.04(0.006) 0.14(0.012) 0.31(0.017) 0.63(0.018) 0.80(0.015)

Otherwise ......................... 0.02(0.007) 0.11(0.017) 0.26(0.022) 0.57(0.028) 0.72(0.027)

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.03(0.005) 0.13(0.010) 0.28(0.014) 0.60(0.015) 0.77(0.015)

Ever ............................ 0.03(0.013) 0.11(0.022) 0.34(0.034) 0.64(0.037) 0.76(0.045)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.01(0.006) 0.09(0.027) 0.23(0.030) 0.49(0.030) 0.68(0.054)

Midwest .......................... 0.04(0.017) 0.11(0.029) 0.22(0.036) 0.55(0.054) 0.75(0.043)

South............................ 0.05(0.011) 0.20(0.017) 0.35(0.024) 0.68(0.027) 0.82(0.022)

West ............................ 0.03(0.006) 0.10(0.013) 0.29(0.021) 0.62(0.022) 0.77(0.020)

* Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1Based on women ages 20 and over at interview.

2HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Page 38 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 4. Probability of first marriage by duration since age 15 and selected contextual characteristics: Hispanic women 15–44 years of age,

United States, 1995

Probability of marriage by—

Characteristic Age 16 Age 18 Age 20 Age 25 Age 30

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.02(0.009) 0.09(0.020) 0.24(0.029) 0.58(0.041) 0.76(0.038)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.04(0.008) 0.15(0.018) 0.29(0.022) 0.62(0.022) 0.78(0.016)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.03(0.006) 0.12(0.012) 0.31(0.021) 0.61(0.023) 0.76(0.026)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.04(0.007) 0.15(0.015) 0.32(0.020) 0.63(0.020) 0.77(0.022)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.008) 0.13(0.015) 0.30(0.023) 0.62(0.025) 0.81(0.020)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.03(0.011) 0.08(0.019) 0.28(0.033) 0.51(0.033) 0.66(0.038)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.00(0.004) 0.05(0.017) 0.14(0.035) 0.51(0.043) 0.73(0.043)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.007) 0.11(0.014) 0.28(0.023) 0.61(0.020) 0.78(0.020)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.04(0.007) 0.16(0.013) 0.34(0.017) 0.63(0.018) 0.77(0.022)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.02(0.010) 0.09(0.019) 0.17(0.026) 0.54(0.051) 0.73(0.048)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.04(0.008) 0.12(0.015) 0.30(0.023) 0.64(0.022) 0.81(0.021)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.03(0.007) 0.15(0.015) 0.32(0.017) 0.61(0.022) 0.75(0.022)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.05(0.008) 0.17(0.016) 0.36(0.018) 0.65(0.025) 0.78(0.024)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.02(0.006) 0.11(0.014) 0.27(0.021) 0.62(0.020) 0.79(0.021)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.03(0.010) 0.08(0.020) 0.17(0.028) 0.47(0.043) 0.66(0.051)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.03(0.013) 0.14(0.039) 0.30(0.044) 0.62(0.046) 0.80(0.077)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.006) 0.13(0.014) 0.29(0.020) 0.61(0.022) 0.76(0.020)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.03(0.008) 0.13(0.014) 0.30(0.018) 0.61(0.022) 0.77(0.019)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.06(0.016) 0.18(0.035) 0.37(0.040) 0.73(0.036) 0.89(0.029)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.007) 0.13(0.013) 0.30(0.018) 0.61(0.022) 0.77(0.023)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.02(0.004) 0.11(0.012) 0.26(0.022) 0.57(0.021) 0.73(0.026)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.03(0.006) 0.11(0.012) 0.26(0.019) 0.57(0.029) 0.73(0.029)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.03(0.010) 0.15(0.016) 0.32(0.022) 0.64(0.020) 0.79(0.021)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.06(0.019) 0.17(0.039) 0.38(0.052) 0.71(0.043) 0.88(0.045)

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 39

Table 5. Probability of first marriage by duration since age 15 and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years of age,

United States, 1995

Probability of marriage by—

Characteristic Age 16 Age 18 Age 20 Age 25 Age 30

Total ............................ 0.01(0.002) 0.08(0.004) 0.26(0.008) 0.63(0.008) 0.81(0.007)

Education1

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.09(0.014) 0.35(0.024) 0.55(0.024) 0.80(0.022) 0.85(0.021)

HS2 ............................. 0.01(0.003) 0.11(0.008) 0.39(0.014) 0.76(0.011) 0.87(0.009)

More than HS2 ...................... 0.00(0.001) 0.03(0.003) 0.13(0.007) 0.53(0.010) 0.76(0.010)

Mother’s education

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.03(0.005) 0.19(0.012) 0.41(0.015) 0.73(0.014) 0.85(0.012)

HS2 ............................. 0.01(0.002) 0.07(0.004) 0.26(0.011) 0.67(0.011) 0.83(0.008)

More than HS2 ...................... 0.00(0.001) 0.02(0.004) 0.13(0.008) 0.50(0.013) 0.74(0.013)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.02(0.004) 0.12(0.010) 0.30(0.014) 0.59(0.016) 0.70(0.018)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.01(0.003) 0.09(0.006) 0.29(0.012) 0.67(0.013) 0.82(0.011)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.01(0.002) 0.05(0.005) 0.20(0.010) 0.62(0.012) 0.85(0.009)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.01(0.002) 0.08(0.004) 0.26(0.008) 0.64(0.008) 0.82(0.007)

Catholic ......................... 0.00(0.001) 0.04(0.005) 0.18(0.010) 0.57(0.013) 0.79(0.012)

Fundamentalist .................... 0.04(0.011) 0.15(0.020) 0.39(0.029) 0.83(0.024) 0.93(0.017)

Other Protestant.................... 0.01(0.002) 0.09(0.006) 0.30(0.011) 0.67(0.011) 0.83(0.009)

Other .......................... 0.00(0.002) 0.08(0.014) 0.23(0.020) 0.62(0.027) 0.78(0.026)

None ............................ 0.02(0.005) 0.10(0.012) 0.25(0.020) 0.57(0.024) 0.72(0.021)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.01(0.002) 0.08(0.005) 0.29(0.011) 0.70(0.010) 0.85(0.009)

Somewhat important .................. 0.01(0.002) 0.08(0.005) 0.24(0.009) 0.61(0.012) 0.80(0.011)

Not important ....................... 0.00(0.002) 0.06(0.009) 0.18(0.015) 0.48(0.023) 0.70(0.022)

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.01(0.002) 0.07(0.004) 0.25(0.009) 0.63(0.009) 0.81(0.008)

Otherwise ......................... 0.02(0.003) 0.10(0.007) 0.28(0.014) 0.63(0.014) 0.80(0.013)

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.01(0.002) 0.07(0.004) 0.25(0.009) 0.63(0.009) 0.81(0.008)

Ever ............................ 0.01(0.003) 0.10(0.008) 0.30(0.013) 0.65(0.015) 0.79(0.012)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.00(0.002) 0.05(0.005) 0.16(0.012) 0.54(0.014) 0.77(0.014)

Midwest .......................... 0.01(0.003) 0.06(0.007) 0.25(0.016) 0.65(0.017) 0.81(0.013)

South............................ 0.02(0.004) 0.13(0.009) 0.34(0.014) 0.70(0.014) 0.84(0.012)

West ............................ 0.01(0.003) 0.05(0.007) 0.23(0.016) 0.61(0.017) 0.79(0.016)

1Based on women ages 20 and over at interview.

2HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Page 40 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 6. Probability of first marriage by duration since age 15 and selected contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44

years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of marriage by—

Characteristic Age 16 Age 18 Age 20 Age 25 Age 30

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.01(0.002) 0.06(0.006) 0.21(0.010) 0.60(0.013) 0.80(0.012)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.002) 0.08(0.005) 0.27(0.010) 0.65(0.010) 0.82(0.009)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.02(0.006) 0.12(0.015) 0.34(0.022) 0.66(0.020) 0.80(0.017)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.02(0.004) 0.13(0.010) 0.34(0.015) 0.68(0.016) 0.81(0.014)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.002) 0.08(0.005) 0.27(0.011) 0.66(0.011) 0.82(0.009)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.00(0.001) 0.03(0.005) 0.14(0.011) 0.54(0.018) 0.77(0.014)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.00(0.001) 0.03(0.004) 0.15(0.009) 0.55(0.013) 0.79(0.012)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.002) 0.08(0.005) 0.28(0.011) 0.66(0.010) 0.82(0.008)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.03(0.005) 0.14(0.013) 0.37(0.018) 0.70(0.017) 0.80(0.017)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.00(0.001) 0.04(0.005) 0.18(0.010) 0.58(0.014) 0.79(0.013)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.002) 0.09(0.005) 0.27(0.011) 0.65(0.011) 0.82(0.009)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.02(0.005) 0.13(0.013) 0.36(0.022) 0.69(0.019) 0.79(0.019)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.03(0.005) 0.15(0.011) 0.40(0.015) 0.74(0.015) 0.84(0.014)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.002) 0.07(0.005) 0.25(0.010) 0.66(0.010) 0.83(0.009)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.00(0.001) 0.03(0.005) 0.13(0.010) 0.49(0.016) 0.73(0.016)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.01(0.003) 0.10(0.008) 0.28(0.014) 0.69(0.015) 0.86(0.011)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.002) 0.07(0.005) 0.26(0.011) 0.62(0.011) 0.80(0.010)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.01(0.003) 0.06(0.008) 0.20(0.014) 0.57(0.017) 0.76(0.016)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.02(0.003) 0.12(0.008) 0.34(0.013) 0.73(0.013) 0.88(0.011)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.002) 0.07(0.005) 0.24(0.009) 0.63(0.010) 0.81(0.009)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.01(0.002) 0.04(0.007) 0.16(0.014) 0.47(0.021) 0.68(0.018)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.01(0.003) 0.05(0.007) 0.22(0.015) 0.54(0.016) 0.72(0.016)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.01(0.002) 0.07(0.005) 0.23(0.009) 0.64(0.011) 0.82(0.009)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.02(0.004) 0.13(0.009) 0.35(0.018) 0.72(0.017) 0.87(0.013)

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 41

Table 7. Probability of first marriage by duration since age 15 and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic black women 15–44 years of age,

United States, 1995

Probability of marriage by—

Characteristic Age 16 Age 18 Age 20 Age 25 Age 30

Total ............................ 0.01(0.002) 0.05(0.006) 0.16(0.010) 0.37(0.013) 0.52(0.017)

Education1

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.02(0.008) 0.12(0.018) 0.21(0.026) 0.31(0.032) 0.41(0.034)

HS2 ............................. 0.01(0.004) 0.05(0.010) 0.21(0.017) 0.43(0.022) 0.56(0.025)

More than HS2 ...................... 0.01(0.003) 0.03(0.008) 0.11(0.014) 0.35(0.019) 0.54(0.023)

Mother’s education

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.02(0.005) 0.08(0.012) 0.23(0.018) 0.41(0.021) 0.54(0.023)

HS2 ............................. 0.00(0.001) 0.03(0.008) 0.13(0.018) 0.35(0.022) 0.49(0.025)

More than HS2 ...................... 0.00(0.000) 0.01(0.005) 0.08(0.015) 0.35(0.028) 0.54(0.037)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.01(0.003) 0.05(0.007) 0.17(0.015) 0.33(0.018) 0.42(0.024)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.01(0.004) 0.04(0.010) 0.13(0.015) 0.40(0.024) 0.56(0.029)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.01(0.003) 0.06(0.017) 0.18(0.026) 0.45(0.033) 0.68(0.034)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................ 0.01(0.002) 0.05(0.006) 0.16(0.010) 0.37(0.014) 0.52(0.017)

Catholic ......................... 0.00(0.000) 0.05(0.028) 0.16(0.047) 0.37(0.053) 0.50(0.048)

Fundamentalist .................... 0.01(0.005) 0.04(0.016) 0.19(0.026) 0.41(0.029) 0.56(0.040)

Other Protestant.................... 0.01(0.002) 0.05(0.007) 0.16(0.012) 0.36(0.018) 0.51(0.020)

Other .......................... 0.00(0.002) 0.03(0.017) 0.10(0.033) 0.44(0.055) 0.60(0.070)

None ............................ 0.02(0.015) 0.07(0.025) 0.14(0.038) 0.38(0.051) 0.54(0.055)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.00(0.002) 0.05(0.006) 0.17(0.011) 0.40(0.014) 0.54(0.019)

Somewhat important .................. 0.01(0.006) 0.05(0.012) 0.14(0.020) 0.31(0.026) 0.44(0.032)

Not important ....................... * * * * *

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.01(0.003) 0.05(0.009) 0.15(0.013) 0.38(0.018) 0.55(0.022)

Otherwise ......................... 0.01(0.003) 0.05(0.007) 0.17(0.014) 0.37(0.018) 0.50(0.022)

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.01(0.002) 0.04(0.005) 0.16(0.011) 0.36(0.014) 0.51(0.017)

Ever ............................ 0.00(0.002) 0.08(0.022) 0.20(0.028) 0.44(0.036) 0.58(0.043)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.00(0.003) 0.03(0.011) 0.11(0.013) 0.28(0.021) 0.44(0.040)

Midwest .......................... 0.01(0.004) 0.04(0.010) 0.17(0.023) 0.37(0.025) 0.46(0.026)

South............................ 0.01(0.003) 0.06(0.009) 0.18(0.015) 0.41(0.021) 0.56(0.026)

West ............................ 0.01(0.011) 0.05(0.018) 0.15(0.024) 0.35(0.030) 0.58(0.029)

* Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1Based on women ages 20 and over at interview. 2HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Page 42 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 8. Probability of first marriage by duration since age 15 and selected contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic black women 15–44

years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of marriage by—

Characteristic Age 16 Age 18 Age 20 Age 25 Age 30

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.01(0.007) 0.04(0.012) 0.12(0.022) 0.37(0.032) 0.55(0.041)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.004) 0.06(0.011) 0.19(0.017) 0.43(0.021) 0.58(0.026)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.01(0.002) 0.05(0.007) 0.16(0.012) 0.34(0.017) 0.48(0.020)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.00(0.002) 0.05(0.008) 0.18(0.013) 0.38(0.017) 0.50(0.019)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.005) 0.05(0.011) 0.15(0.018) 0.38(0.022) 0.53(0.027)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.00(0.000) 0.02(0.010) 0.11(0.035) 0.31(0.048) 0.59(0.044)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.00(0.000) 0.02(0.008) 0.06(0.022) 0.34(0.039) 0.54(0.044)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.006) 0.04(0.010) 0.15(0.019) 0.38(0.024) 0.57(0.029)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.01(0.002) 0.06(0.008) 0.18(0.012) 0.37(0.015) 0.49(0.018)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.00(0.000) 0.02(0.009) 0.09(0.025) 0.32(0.039) 0.56(0.049)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.006) 0.06(0.012) 0.17(0.020) 0.43(0.028) 0.58(0.034)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.01(0.002) 0.05(0.007) 0.17(0.012) 0.35(0.016) 0.48(0.020)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.00(0.002) 0.05(0.008) 0.18(0.015) 0.37(0.019) 0.50(0.020)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.005) 0.05(0.009) 0.16(0.014) 0.40(0.020) 0.56(0.028)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.00(0.000) 0.02(0.009) 0.08(0.023) 0.26(0.036) 0.48(0.050)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.01(0.005) 0.07(0.017) 0.22(0.031) 0.44(0.040) 0.57(0.043)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.00(0.003) 0.03(0.007) 0.16(0.015) 0.35(0.019) 0.50(0.023)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.01(0.004) 0.05(0.009) 0.15(0.013) 0.37(0.019) 0.52(0.024)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.00(0.003) 0.10(0.025) 0.28(0.039) 0.52(0.046) 0.66(0.048)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.005) 0.05(0.009) 0.16(0.017) 0.41(0.023) 0.60(0.028)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.01(0.002) 0.04(0.006) 0.14(0.011) 0.33(0.015) 0.46(0.020)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.01(0.003) 0.04(0.006) 0.15(0.013) 0.33(0.016) 0.48(0.019)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.00(0.002) 0.05(0.011) 0.17(0.019) 0.40(0.028) 0.56(0.028)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.01(0.010) 0.08(0.021) 0.21(0.026) 0.47(0.040) 0.58(0.042)

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
- - -

- - -

- - -

Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 43

Table 9. Probability that an intact first cohabitation makes the transition to marriage by duration of cohabitation and selected

characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of transition to marriage after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Total1 ............................ 0.30(0.010) 0.58(0.011) 0.70(0.011) 0.84(0.012) 0.89(0.016)

Race/ethnicity

Hispanic .......................... 0.28(0.032) 0.53(0.025) 0.61(0.028) 0.72(0.035) 0.84(0.048)

Non-Hispanic white ................... 0.32(0.012) 0.62(0.015) 0.75(0.014) 0.92(0.016) 0.96(0.018)

Non-Hispanic black ................... 0.20(0.018) 0.39(0.024) 0.48(0.024) 0.66(0.033) 0.69(0.037)

Age at cohabitation

Less than 18 ....................... 0.26(0.023) 0.55(0.029) 0.66(0.032) 0.80(0.033) 0.89(0.035)

18–19 ........................... 0.30(0.018) 0.53(0.023) 0.68(0.026) 0.82(0.027) 0.86(0.031)

20–24 ........................... 0.29(0.014) 0.57(0.017) 0.70(0.018) 0.87(0.023) 0.91(0.028)

25 and over ........................ 0.33(0.024) 0.68(0.025) 0.76(0.022) 0.86(0.032)

Education2

Less than HS3 ...................... 0.27(0.025) 0.48(0.028) 0.61(0.032) 0.74(0.037) 0.81(0.044)

HS3 ............................. 0.32(0.016) 0.60(0.017) 0.71(0.017) 0.86(0.019) 0.90(0.023)

More than HS3 ...................... 0.29(0.012) 0.60(0.017) 0.73(0.016) 0.88(0.020) 0.92(0.022)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.28(0.017) 0.50(0.018) 0.62(0.021) 0.78(0.028) 0.85(0.034)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.30(0.017) 0.58(0.020) 0.71(0.017) 0.85(0.023) 0.88(0.029)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.32(0.015) 0.65(0.019) 0.77(0.020) 0.91(0.020) 0.94(0.018)

Work status at cohabitation

Not working ........................ 0.28(0.017) 0.54(0.020) 0.67(0.020) 0.82(0.022) 0.87(0.026)

Part time.......................... 0.28(0.024) 0.57(0.029) 0.76(0.030) 0.91(0.041)

Full time .......................... 0.31(0.013) 0.60(0.014) 0.71(0.014) 0.85(0.016) 0.89(0.024)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................ 0.31(0.010) 0.60(0.011) 0.71(0.011) 0.85(0.013) 0.88(0.015)

Catholic ......................... 0.29(0.016) 0.60(0.019) 0.72(0.019) 0.85(0.020) 0.89(0.023)

Fundamentalist .................... 0.33(0.043) 0.56(0.045) 0.70(0.042) 0.80(0.051) 0.84(0.050)

Other Protestant.................... 0.32(0.014) 0.60(0.016) 0.69(0.018) 0.85(0.022) 0.88(0.021)

Other .......................... 0.31(0.032) 0.65(0.042) 0.76(0.035) 0.88(0.044)

None ............................ 0.23(0.023) 0.45(0.027) 0.65(0.036) 0.83(0.046) 0.96(0.038)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.32(0.014) 0.58(0.017) 0.70(0.016) 0.82(0.019) 0.85(0.020)

Somewhat important .................. 0.29(0.012) 0.60(0.016) 0.71(0.016) 0.87(0.020) 0.92(0.022)

Not important ....................... 0.23(0.023) 0.49(0.028) 0.67(0.036) 0.87(0.047) 1.00(0.000)

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.31(0.012) 0.62(0.015) 0.74(0.014) 0.87(0.014) 0.93(0.020)

Otherwise ......................... 0.28(0.014) 0.52(0.017) 0.64(0.020) 0.81(0.022) 0.85(0.026)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.30(0.011) 0.58(0.012) 0.70(0.012) 0.85(0.013) 0.89(0.016)

Yes ............................. 0.29(0.018) 0.57(0.027) 0.69(0.028) 0.83(0.033) 0.86(0.042)

Parity at cohabitation

No children ........................ 0.30(0.010) 0.59(0.013) 0.72(0.012) 0.86(0.013) 0.90(0.017)

At least one child .................... 0.26(0.025) 0.51(0.030) 0.60(0.032) 0.77(0.039) 0.78(0.041)

No unwanted...................... 0.23(0.034) 0.44(0.045) 0.52(0.050) 0.71(0.065) 0.71(0.065)

Any unwanted ..................... 0.28(0.031) 0.55(0.039) 0.65(0.043) 0.81(0.045) 0.83(0.045)

Timing of first birth

Before union ....................... 0.26(0.025) 0.51(0.030) 0.60(0.033) 0.77(0.039) 0.78(0.041)

0–7 months after..................... 0.44(0.045) 0.63(0.046) 0.70(0.047) 0.81(0.050) 0.86(0.050)

More than 7 months after ............... 0.36(0.013) 0.65(0.014) 0.77(0.014) 0.89(0.013) 0.93(0.016)

No first birth........................ 0.20(0.015) 0.46(0.023) 0.62(0.030) 0.83(0.044) 0.83(0.044)

See footnotes at end of table.
Page 44 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 9. Probability that an intact first cohabitation makes the transition to marriage by duration of cohabitation and selected

characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of transition to marriage after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.30(0.010) 0.57(0.013) 0.69(0.012) 0.83(0.014) 0.89(0.018)

Ever ............................ 0.30(0.019) 0.59(0.025) 0.72(0.026) 0.89(0.034) 0.89(0.033)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.26(0.020) 0.55(0.020) 0.67(0.023) 0.82(0.022) 0.88(0.030)

Midwest .......................... 0.33(0.018) 0.61(0.024) 0.73(0.018) 0.88(0.031) 0.90(0.033)

South............................ 0.31(0.017) 0.58(0.021) 0.71(0.021) 0.83(0.024) 0.88(0.033)

West ............................ 0.28(0.020) 0.56(0.021) 0.68(0.021) 0.85(0.026) 0.89(0.031)

- - - Data not available.

1Includes data for Asian and Pacific Islander women and American Indian women, not shown separately.

2Based on women ages 20 and over.

3HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.

Table 10. Probability that an intact first cohabitation makes the transition to marriage by duration of cohabitation and selected contextual

characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of transition to marriage after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.33(0.018) 0.66(0.022) 0.78(0.023) 0.87(0.025) 0.92(0.033)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.31(0.012) 0.60(0.017) 0.72(0.016) 0.88(0.018) 0.93(0.023)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.23(0.017) 0.44(0.022) 0.66(0.027) 0.73(0.030) 0.77(0.032)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.26(0.018) 0.49(0.022) 0.58(0.023) 0.72(0.026) 0.79(0.038)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.32(0.013) 0.60(0.016) 0.73(0.016) 0.90(0.018) 0.94(0.018)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.29(0.019) 0.64(0.027) 0.78(0.026) 0.90(0.025) 0.92(0.025)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.32(0.020) 0.67(0.027) 0.80(0.024) 0.93(0.027) 0.96(0.021)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.32(0.013) 0.59(0.015) 0.72(0.016) 0.88(0.018) 0.91(0.019)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.23(0.017) 0.47(0.021) 0.58(0.023) 0.71(0.026) 0.80(0.037)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.33(0.019) 0.66(0.021) 0.80(0.021) 0.92(0.025) 0.95(0.022)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.32(0.013) 0.61(0.015) 0.73(0.015) 0.89(0.018) 0.94(0.022)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.21(0.017) 0.45(0.021) 0.55(0.024) 0.70(0.027) 0.76(0.033)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.27(0.016) 0.52(0.021) 0.62(0.023) 0.77(0.026) 0.81(0.028)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.32(0.014) 0.60(0.017) 0.73(0.016) 0.87(0.017) 0.97(0.021)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.27(0.018) 0.60(0.024) 0.74(0.030) 0.92(0.034) 0.94(0.031)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.33(0.022) 0.63(0.023) 0.74(0.024) 0.88(0.026) 0.91(0.030)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.29(0.012) 0.56(0.012) 0.68(0.014) 0.83(0.017) 0.88(0.025)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.27(0.019) 0.55(0.024) 0.69(0.022) 0.82(0.022) 0.90(0.032)

Percent of women ever-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.38(0.019) 0.67(0.023) 0.79(0.022) 0.91(0.025) 0.91(0.025)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.30(0.013) 0.60(0.017) 0.73(0.016) 0.88(0.016) 0.94(0.018)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.22(0.014) 0.43(0.021) 0.54(0.025) 0.70(0.030) 0.74(0.033)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.25(0.014) 0.49(0.019) 0.60(0.019) 0.77(0.026) 0.84(0.036)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.31(0.013) 0.63(0.015) 0.75(0.017) 0.87(0.018) 0.92(0.022)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.34(0.028) 0.59(0.032) 0.72(0.027) 0.89(0.029) 0.89(0.029)

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - - - - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 45

Table 11. Probability that an intact first cohabitation makes the transition to marriage by duration of cohabitation and selected

characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of transition to marriage after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Total ............................ 0.32(0.012) 0.62(0.015) 0.75(0.014) 0.92(0.016) 0.96(0.018)

Age at cohabitation

Less than 18 ....................... 0.30(0.030) 0.59(0.042) 0.72(0.048) 0.90(0.043)

18–19 ........................... 0.31(0.021) 0.56(0.030) 0.73(0.033) 0.88(0.032) 0.91(0.036)

20–24 ........................... 0.32(0.016) 0.62(0.022) 0.76(0.022) 0.96(0.022) 1.00(0.000)

25 and over ........................ 0.36(0.032) 0.73(0.031) 0.80(0.027) 0.95(0.047)

Education1

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.35(0.038) 0.57(0.047) 0.76(0.053) 0.88(0.058) 0.94(0.057)

HS2 ............................. 0.34(0.020) 0.65(0.022) 0.77(0.022) 0.94(0.024) 0.96(0.026)

More than HS2 ...................... 0.30(0.014) 0.61(0.019) 0.74(0.019) 0.91(0.025)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.34(0.023) 0.57(0.027) 0.73(0.034) 0.92(0.032) 0.96(0.031)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.30(0.021) 0.61(0.026) 0.75(0.024) 0.89(0.032) 0.89(0.032)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.33(0.017) 0.65(0.023) 0.77(0.022) 0.95(0.025)

Work status at cohabitation

Not working ........................ 0.33(0.023) 0.61(0.030) 0.75(0.032) 0.92(0.030)

Part time.......................... 0.27(0.026) 0.57(0.036) 0.79(0.035)

Full time .......................... 0.33(0.015) 0.63(0.018) 0.75(0.018) 0.91(0.023) 0.95(0.025)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.34(0.012) 0.66(0.016) 0.77(0.014) 0.94(0.017) 0.96(0.018)

Catholic ......................... 0.30(0.021) 0.64(0.027) 0.78(0.024) 0.95(0.022)

Fundamentalist .................... * * * * *

Other Protestant.................... 0.35(0.018) 0.68(0.019) 0.77(0.020) 0.92(0.025) 0.94(0.026)

Other .......................... 0.34(0.037) 0.68(0.054) 0.79(0.044) 0.92(0.051)

None ............................ 0.25(0.028) 0.43(0.032) 0.65(0.042) 0.85(0.055)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.38(0.020) 0.66(0.026) 0.80(0.024) 0.93(0.029) 0.95(0.028)

Somewhat important .................. 0.31(0.014) 0.63(0.020) 0.75(0.019) 0.92(0.023)

Not important ....................... 0.24(0.027) 0.49(0.032) 0.68(0.042) 0.91(0.053)

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.33(0.013) 0.65(0.018) 0.78(0.016) 0.90(0.021) 0.97(0.027)

Otherwise ......................... 0.31(0.019) 0.57(0.025) 0.71(0.027) 0.93(0.025) 0.95(0.024)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.32(0.013) 0.62(0.017) 0.76(0.016) 0.92(0.017) 0.96(0.020)

Yes ............................. 0.34(0.023) 0.62(0.034) 0.73(0.034) 0.89(0.038)

Parity at cohabitation

No children ........................ 0.32(0.012) 0.61(0.015) 0.75(0.015) 0.91(0.017) 0.96(0.019)

At least one child .................... 0.37(0.043) 0.69(0.048) 0.76(0.050) 1.00(0.000) 1.00(0.000)

No unwanted...................... * * * * *

Any unwanted ..................... 0.40(0.050) 0.72(0.059) 0.80(0.063) 1.00(0.000) 1.00(0.000)

Timing of first birth

Before union ....................... 0.37(0.043) 0.69(0.048) 0.76(0.050) 1.00(0.000) 1.00(0.000)

0–7 months after..................... * * * * *

More than 7 months after ............... 0.38(0.016) 0.69(0.016) 0.81(0.017) 0.94(0.014) 0.97(0.015)

No first birth........................ 0.21(0.016) 0.47(0.026) 0.63(0.033) 0.88(0.046)

See footnotes at end of table.
- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

Page 46 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 11. Probability that an intact first cohabitation makes the transition to marriage by duration of cohabitation and selected

characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of transition to marriage after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.32(0.013) 0.62(0.017) 0.76(0.016) 0.91(0.018) 0.97(0.020)

Ever ............................ 0.32(0.022) 0.61(0.030) 0.75(0.030) 0.94(0.030) 0.94(0.030)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.28(0.024) 0.61(0.033) 0.75(0.032) 0.92(0.024) 0.98(0.022)

Midwest .......................... 0.35(0.019) 0.64(0.031) 0.77(0.023) 0.91(0.037) - - -

South............................ 0.34(0.025) 0.62(0.030) 0.78(0.033) 0.94(0.042) 1.00(0.000)

West ............................ 0.30(0.022) 0.59(0.028) 0.72(0.028) 0.91(0.031) 0.91(0.031)

- - - Data not available.

* Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1Based on women ages 20 and over.

2HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.

Table 12. Probability that an intact first cohabitation makes the transition to marriage by duration of cohabitation and selected contextual

characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of transition to marriage after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.34(0.019) 0.66(0.025) 0.79(0.026) 0.90(0.028) 0.97(0.033)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.32(0.016) 0.62(0.021) 0.76(0.020) 0.93(0.021) 0.97(0.023)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.28(0.030) 0.51(0.037) 0.66(0.047) 0.91(0.049)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.33(0.028) 0.55(0.034) 0.65(0.039) 0.84(0.055) 0.84(0.055)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.33(0.015) 0.62(0.020) 0.76(0.018) 0.93(0.021)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.30(0.023) 0.66(0.030) 0.82(0.034) 0.94(0.033) 0.97(0.030)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.33(0.022) 0.67(0.029) 0.82(0.028) 0.94(0.027) 0.96(0.020)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.33(0.015) 0.60(0.019) 0.74(0.019) 0.91(0.021) 0.96(0.024)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.29(0.029) 0.58(0.036) 0.72(0.041) 0.92(0.044)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.35(0.022) 0.66(0.026) 0.81(0.026) 0.93(0.024) 0.97(0.016)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.33(0.016) 0.61(0.019) 0.75(0.019) 0.93(0.022)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.25(0.028) 0.55(0.038) 0.66(0.040) 0.88(0.047) 0.88(0.047)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.32(0.024) 0.61(0.030) 0.73(0.030) 0.93(0.036) 0.93(0.036)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.34(0.015) 0.63(0.021) 0.76(0.018) 0.91(0.019) 1.00(0.000)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.28(0.022) 0.60(0.028) 0.76(0.033) 0.92(0.033) 0.96(0.025)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.35(0.024) 0.67(0.025) 0.79(0.025) 0.94(0.023) 0.97(0.021)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.31(0.014) 0.60(0.018) 0.73(0.020) 0.91(0.026) 0.96(0.030)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.30(0.027) 0.58(0.039) 0.75(0.037) 0.89(0.036)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.38(0.020) 0.67(0.026) 0.80(0.025) 0.92(0.029) 0.92(0.029)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.30(0.014) 0.62(0.021) 0.76(0.021) 0.93(0.019) 0.99(0.014)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.26(0.025) 0.50(0.039) 0.64(0.048) 0.85(0.053)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.27(0.018) 0.54(0.028) 0.68(0.029) 0.91(0.036)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.33(0.016) 0.65(0.020) 0.79(0.020) 0.91(0.020) 0.96(0.021)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.36(0.031) 0.62(0.036) 0.74(0.030) 0.96(0.034)

- - - Data not available.

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
- - -

- - -

- - -

Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 47

Table 13. Probability that an intact first cohabitation makes the transition to marriage by duration of cohabitation and selected

characteristics: Non-Hispanic black women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of transition to marriage after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Total ............................ 0.20(0.018) 0.39(0.024) 0.48(0.024) 0.66(0.033) 0.69(0.037)

Age at cohabitation

Less than 18 ....................... 0.15(0.048) 0.46(0.071) 0.57(0.065) 0.57(0.066) 0.67(0.087)

18–19 ........................... 0.21(0.034) 0.37(0.043) 0.44(0.046) 0.68(0.081) 0.68(0.081)

20–24 ........................... 0.20(0.026) 0.38(0.033) 0.46(0.039) 0.63(0.048) 0.67(0.057)

25 and over ........................ 0.24(0.040) 0.39(0.056) 0.50(0.063) 0.74(0.092)

Education1

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.11(0.027) 0.25(0.049) 0.28(0.051) 0.41(0.076) 0.47(0.087)

HS2 ............................. 0.21(0.030) 0.35(0.033) 0.47(0.039) 0.70(0.051) 0.71(0.053)

More than HS2 ...................... 0.24(0.029) 0.50(0.035) 0.60(0.036) 0.76(0.048) 0.81(0.058)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.15(0.019) 0.31(0.034) 0.39(0.033) 0.54(0.049) 0.61(0.063)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.26(0.036) 0.43(0.042) 0.50(0.046) 0.76(0.060) 0.77(0.061)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.28(0.039) 0.58(0.036) 0.71(0.050) 0.79(0.054)

Work status at cohabitation

Not working ........................ 0.17(0.024) 0.36(0.038) 0.45(0.035) 0.63(0.049) 0.69(0.057)

Part time.......................... 0.30(0.070) 0.46(0.079) 0.60(0.092) 0.75(0.116)

Full time .......................... 0.21(0.025) 0.40(0.028) 0.49(0.034) 0.67(0.047) 0.67(0.047)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.21(0.018) 0.38(0.024) 0.47(0.025) 0.65(0.034) 0.69(0.037)

Catholic ......................... * * * * *

Fundamentalist .................... 0.18(0.050) 0.40(0.063) 0.52(0.071) 0.67(0.106) 0.70(0.112)

Other Protestant.................... 0.21(0.022) 0.37(0.027) 0.45(0.031) 0.66(0.043) 0.71(0.044)

Other .......................... * * * * *

None ............................ * * * * *

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.22(0.023) 0.39(0.027) 0.48(0.026) 0.65(0.037) 0.70(0.044)

Somewhat important .................. 0.17(0.028) 0.41(0.047) 0.50(0.053) 0.68(0.071) 0.68(0.071)

Not important ....................... * * * * *

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.20(0.029) 0.38(0.039) 0.50(0.042) 0.75(0.056) 0.76(0.057)

Otherwise ......................... 0.20(0.020) 0.40(0.027) 0.47(0.030) 0.60(0.040) 0.64(0.050)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.20(0.019) 0.39(0.027) 0.48(0.029) 0.66(0.037) 0.70(0.043)

Yes ............................. 0.21(0.036) 0.39(0.050) 0.49(0.057) 0.65(0.087) 0.65(0.087)

Parity at cohabitation

No children ........................ 0.23(0.024) 0.44(0.030) 0.52(0.031) 0.67(0.036) 0.70(0.042)

At least one child .................... 0.16(0.025) 0.33(0.034) 0.44(0.040) 0.65(0.061) 0.68(0.067)

No unwanted...................... 0.19(0.042) 0.36(0.054) 0.42(0.061) 0.61(0.098) 0.61(0.098)

Any unwanted ..................... 0.15(0.025) 0.32(0.042) 0.45(0.050) 0.68(0.067) 0.73(0.070)

Timing of first birth

Before union ....................... 0.16(0.025) 0.33(0.034) 0.44(0.040) 0.65(0.061) 0.68(0.067)

0–7 months after..................... * * * * *

More than 7 months after ............... 0.22(0.028) 0.43(0.037) 0.51(0.039) 0.70(0.059) 0.72(0.065)

No first birth........................ 0.23(0.043) 0.40(0.050) 0.50(0.068) 0.64(0.067) 0.64(0.067)

See footnotes at end of table.
- - -

Page 48 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 13. Probability that an intact first cohabitation makes the transition to marriage by duration of cohabitation and selected

characteristics: Non-Hispanic black women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of transition to marriage after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.19(0.017) 0.37(0.024) 0.47(0.025) 0.63(0.035) 0.67(0.039)

Ever ............................ 0.28(0.049) 0.49(0.060) 0.53(0.064) 0.84(0.059) 0.84(0.059)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.17(0.033) 0.29(0.045) 0.33(0.058) 0.48(0.093) 0.53(0.119)

Midwest .......................... 0.19(0.037) 0.42(0.047) 0.51(0.056) 0.67(0.080) 0.77(0.094)

South............................ 0.22(0.027) 0.43(0.037) 0.54(0.032) 0.70(0.039) 0.73(0.038)

West ............................ 0.17(0.042) 0.31(0.045) 0.38(0.056) 0.73(0.104) 0.73(0.104)

- - - Data not available.

*Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1Based on women ages 20 and over.

2HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.

Table 14. Probability that an intact first cohabitation makes the transition to marriage by duration of cohabitation and selected contextual

characteristics: Non-Hispanic black women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of transition to marriage after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.33(0.057) 0.55(0.070) 0.66(0.078) 0.84(0.063) 0.84(0.063)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.22(0.029) 0.41(0.040) 0.53(0.044) 0.74(0.049) 0.74(0.049)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.15(0.017) 0.33(0.032) 0.39(0.034) 0.53(0.049) 0.61(0.060)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.16(0.019) 0.34(0.032) 0.42(0.030) 0.58(0.042) 0.63(0.046)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.24(0.030) 0.45(0.042) 0.54(0.045) 0.73(0.066) 0.73(0.066)

Top 25 percent ...................... * * * * *

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... * * * * *

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.27(0.041) 0.49(0.047) 0.59(0.052) 0.83(0.055) 0.83(0.055)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.15(0.015) 0.33(0.029) 0.41(0.030) 0.54(0.038) 0.60(0.043)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... * * * * *

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.31(0.036) 0.52(0.045) 0.59(0.047) 0.81(0.043) 0.81(0.043)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.13(0.015) 0.30(0.029) 0.37(0.031) 0.51(0.047) 0.57(0.054)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.17(0.021) 0.36(0.036) 0.41(0.035) 0.58(0.046) 0.62(0.049)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.24(0.027) 0.44(0.038) 0.56(0.045) 0.74(0.071)

Top 25 percent ...................... * * * * *

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.19(0.047) 0.29(0.057) 0.39(0.059) 0.64(0.091) 0.64(0.091)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.22(0.026) 0.38(0.034) 0.47(0.036) 0.62(0.048) 0.64(0.058)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.19(0.027) 0.44(0.038) 0.52(0.039) 0.71(0.058) 0.79(0.041)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... * * * * *

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.28(0.035) 0.45(0.038) 0.58(0.041) 0.81(0.044) 0.84(0.048)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.15(0.017) 0.32(0.029) 0.40(0.029) 0.54(0.043) 0.58(0.053)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.19(0.020) 0.35(0.027) 0.45(0.033) 0.63(0.048) 0.68(0.050)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.23(0.031) 0.47(0.041) 0.53(0.042) 0.72(0.067) 0.75(0.077)

Not SMSA1 ........................ * * * * *

- - - Data not available.

*Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 49

Table 15. Probability of first cohabitation disruption by duration of cohabitation and selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years

of age, United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Total1 ............................ 0.21(0.007) 0.39(0.009) 0.49(0.010) 0.62(0.010) 0.69(0.010)

Race/ethnicity

Hispanic .......................... 0.17(0.021) 0.32(0.023) 0.43(0.024) 0.59(0.036) 0.65(0.037)

Non-Hispanic white ................... 0.22(0.009) 0.40(0.012) 0.49(0.011) 0.61(0.012) 0.68(0.012)

Non-Hispanic black ................... 0.19(0.014) 0.43(0.020) 0.56(0.019) 0.72(0.018) 0.79(0.019)

Age at cohabitation

Less than 18 ....................... 0.20(0.018) 0.39(0.022) 0.53(0.024) 0.68(0.024) 0.75(0.024)

18–19 ........................... 0.23(0.013) 0.44(0.019) 0.53(0.019) 0.68(0.019) 0.75(0.016)

20–24 ........................... 0.22(0.013) 0.40(0.014) 0.49(0.015) 0.60(0.016) 0.67(0.018)

25 and over ........................ 0.14(0.018) 0.28(0.023) 0.35(0.027) 0.43(0.028) 0.53(0.037)

Education2

Less than HS3 ...................... 0.14(0.017) 0.31(0.024) 0.45(0.026) 0.64(0.029) 0.69(0.027)

HS3 ............................. 0.18(0.011) 0.37(0.014) 0.48(0.015) 0.61(0.015) 0.69(0.016)

More than HS3 ...................... 0.23(0.012) 0.43(0.013) 0.50(0.013) 0.61(0.015) 0.68(0.016)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.24(0.012) 0.44(0.015) 0.57(0.015) 0.74(0.017) 0.82(0.015)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.19(0.013) 0.37(0.017) 0.46(0.018) 0.59(0.020) 0.66(0.021)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.20(0.013) 0.36(0.017) 0.44(0.018) 0.53(0.019) 0.59(0.018)

Work status at cohabitation

Not working ........................ 0.22(0.013) 0.40(0.016) 0.52(0.018) 0.66(0.018) 0.75(0.017)

Part time.......................... 0.25(0.020) 0.42(0.021) 0.50(0.024) 0.59(0.025) 0.65(0.027)

Full time .......................... 0.19(0.009) 0.38(0.013) 0.46(0.013) 0.59(0.014) 0.66(0.015)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.20(0.008) 0.38(0.011) 0.47(0.010) 0.60(0.011) 0.67(0.011)

Catholic ......................... 0.18(0.013) 0.35(0.017) 0.44(0.018) 0.56(0.022) 0.62(0.025)

Fundamentalist .................... 0.20(0.029) 0.44(0.036) 0.53(0.037) 0.67(0.035) 0.72(0.033)

Other Protestant.................... 0.20(0.010) 0.39(0.014) 0.49(0.014) 0.62(0.015) 0.68(0.015)

Other .......................... 0.22(0.039) 0.36(0.045) 0.46(0.043) 0.56(0.049) 0.72(0.042)

None ............................ 0.26(0.023) 0.47(0.026) 0.58(0.028) 0.72(0.026) 0.81(0.026)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.20(0.012) 0.38(0.014) 0.48(0.015) 0.61(0.016) 0.68(0.014)

Somewhat important .................. 0.21(0.011) 0.39(0.014) 0.48(0.014) 0.60(0.015) 0.68(0.016)

Not important ....................... 0.22(0.022) 0.43(0.026) 0.54(0.030) 0.68(0.029) 0.76(0.027)

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.21(0.010) 0.37(0.012) 0.46(0.013) 0.58(0.013) 0.65(0.015)

Otherwise ......................... 0.20(0.010) 0.42(0.014) 0.53(0.014) 0.67(0.016) 0.74(0.016)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.20(0.009) 0.38(0.011) 0.47(0.011) 0.60(0.011) 0.67(0.012)

Yes ............................. 0.25(0.016) 0.44(0.019) 0.58(0.020) 0.71(0.022) 0.80(0.020)

Parity at cohabitation

No children ........................ 0.21(0.008) 0.39(0.010) 0.49(0.010) 0.61(0.010) 0.68(0.011)

At least one child .................... 0.20(0.018) 0.41(0.025) 0.50(0.026) 0.66(0.027) 0.77(0.026)

No unwanted...................... 0.14(0.027) 0.35(0.041) 0.47(0.041) 0.64(0.048) 0.77(0.049)

Any unwanted ..................... 0.23(0.024) 0.44(0.030) 0.53(0.030) 0.68(0.032) 0.78(0.031)

Timing of first birth

Before union ....................... 0.20(0.018) 0.41(0.025) 0.50(0.026) 0.66(0.027) 0.77(0.026)

0–7 months after..................... 0.12(0.030) 0.34(0.043) 0.46(0.047) 0.69(0.045) 0.75(0.039)

More than 7 months after ............... 0.16(0.010) 0.32(0.012) 0.41(0.013) 0.54(0.014) 0.61(0.014)

No first birth........................ 0.28(0.014) 0.51(0.016) 0.62(0.017) 0.73(0.021) 0.82(0.024)

See footnotes at end of table.
Page 50 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 15. Probability of first cohabitation disruption by duration of cohabitation and selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years

of age, United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.20(0.008) 0.37(0.010) 0.47(0.010) 0.60(0.011) 0.66(0.012)

Ever ............................ 0.24(0.015) 0.45(0.019) 0.54(0.019) 0.67(0.020) 0.77(0.018)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.20(0.020) 0.37(0.018) 0.47(0.018) 0.58(0.019) 0.67(0.019)

Midwest .......................... 0.20(0.012) 0.38(0.018) 0.46(0.018) 0.58(0.019) 0.66(0.022)

South............................ 0.20(0.013) 0.40(0.019) 0.52(0.020) 0.67(0.019) 0.72(0.020)

West ............................ 0.22(0.014) 0.41(0.020) 0.50(0.020) 0.62(0.019) 0.70(0.018)

1Includes data for Asian and Pacific Islander women and American Indian women, not shown separately. 2Based on women ages 20 and over.

3HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.

Table 16. Probability of first cohabitation disruption by duration of cohabitation and selected contextual characteristics: All races, women

15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.21(0.014) 0.40(0.017) 0.48(0.015) 0.58(0.017) 0.66(0.020)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.20(0.011) 0.37(0.013) 0.47(0.014) 0.60(0.015) 0.67(0.015)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.21(0.014) 0.42(0.018) 0.55(0.018) 0.69(0.017) 0.77(0.019)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.22(0.013) 0.44(0.019) 0.56(0.019) 0.71(0.017) 0.78(0.018)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.20(0.011) 0.37(0.013) 0.46(0.014) 0.59(0.015) 0.66(0.015)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.21(0.015) 0.38(0.021) 0.46(0.024) 0.55(0.024) 0.62(0.028)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.20(0.014) 0.37(0.019) 0.45(0.019) 0.54(0.020) 0.63(0.024)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.21(0.011) 0.39(0.013) 0.48(0.014) 0.61(0.015) 0.69(0.015)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.21(0.014) 0.41(0.018) 0.55(0.017) 0.69(0.017) 0.76(0.019)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.21(0.015) 0.38(0.020) 0.46(0.019) 0.56(0.020) 0.64(0.026)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.20(0.010) 0.38(0.012) 0.48(0.013) 0.61(0.014) 0.68(0.014)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.21(0.013) 0.42(0.017) 0.54(0.018) 0.69(0.018) 0.77(0.017)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.20(0.012) 0.37(0.016) 0.50(0.018) 0.63(0.019) 0.71(0.019)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.20(0.010) 0.38(0.013) 0.47(0.013) 0.60(0.014) 0.67(0.014)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.23(0.016) 0.44(0.020) 0.52(0.020) 0.64(0.020) 0.71(0.024)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.19(0.014) 0.37(0.021) 0.44(0.022) 0.56(0.023) 0.63(0.026)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.21(0.010) 0.40(0.014) 0.50(0.013) 0.61(0.014) 0.69(0.014)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.22(0.017) 0.40(0.019) 0.52(0.022) 0.68(0.020) 0.75(0.020)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.20(0.015) 0.36(0.018) 0.45(0.019) 0.56(0.019) 0.64(0.024)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.21(0.011) 0.39(0.014) 0.47(0.014) 0.59(0.016) 0.66(0.015)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.21(0.015) 0.43(0.016) 0.56(0.018) 0.72(0.017) 0.80(0.017)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.22(0.014) 0.42(0.017) 0.53(0.018) 0.67(0.017) 0.75(0.016)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.20(0.010) 0.38(0.012) 0.47(0.013) 0.60(0.014) 0.68(0.016)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.20(0.018) 0.38(0.023) 0.46(0.024) 0.58(0.023) 0.63(0.023)

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 51

Table 17. Probability of first cohabitation disruption by duration of cohabitation and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women

15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Total ............................ 0.22(0.009) 0.40(0.012) 0.49(0.011) 0.61(0.012) 0.68(0.012)

Age at cohabitation

Less than 18 ....................... 0.23(0.025) 0.42(0.030) 0.54(0.032) 0.70(0.030) 0.78(0.030)

18–19 ........................... 0.24(0.016) 0.45(0.023) 0.55(0.023) 0.68(0.022) 0.75(0.020)

20–24 ........................... 0.23(0.015) 0.40(0.017) 0.48(0.018) 0.58(0.019) 0.64(0.020)

25 and over ........................ 0.12(0.021) 0.25(0.029) 0.32(0.031) 0.39(0.033) 0.47(0.048)

Education1

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.17(0.026) 0.31(0.033) 0.45(0.036) 0.67(0.038) 0.73(0.036)

HS2 ............................. 0.18(0.014) 0.37(0.018) 0.47(0.019) 0.60(0.018) 0.68(0.020)

More than HS2 ...................... 0.24(0.015) 0.43(0.016) 0.50(0.016) 0.59(0.017) 0.66(0.018)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.27(0.017) 0.45(0.021) 0.58(0.021) 0.74(0.021) 0.83(0.021)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.20(0.016) 0.39(0.021) 0.48(0.021) 0.59(0.022) 0.66(0.023)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.19(0.015) 0.36(0.020) 0.43(0.019) 0.52(0.019) 0.58(0.020)

Work status at cohabitation

Not working ........................ 0.25(0.017) 0.41(0.022) 0.54(0.024) 0.68(0.024) 0.77(0.024)

Part time.......................... 0.25(0.024) 0.42(0.024) 0.48(0.026) 0.56(0.029) 0.62(0.032)

Full time .......................... 0.19(0.012) 0.38(0.016) 0.46(0.015) 0.58(0.016) 0.64(0.017)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.20(0.010) 0.38(0.013) 0.47(0.012) 0.58(0.012) 0.65(0.013)

Catholic ......................... 0.20(0.017) 0.38(0.021) 0.46(0.021) 0.57(0.024) 0.61(0.027)

Fundamentalist .................... * * * * *

Other Protestant.................... 0.20(0.013) 0.37(0.018) 0.47(0.017) 0.58(0.018) 0.65(0.019)

Other .......................... 0.23(0.048) 0.36(0.053) 0.47(0.048) 0.55(0.055) 0.72(0.046)

None ............................ 0.27(0.026) 0.47(0.030) 0.57(0.032) 0.71(0.031) 0.79(0.030)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.23(0.018) 0.40(0.023) 0.49(0.022) 0.60(0.020) 0.66(0.020)

Somewhat important .................. 0.21(0.013) 0.39(0.016) 0.47(0.016) 0.59(0.017) 0.67(0.018)

Not important ....................... 0.23(0.023) 0.43(0.030) 0.54(0.033) 0.67(0.033) 0.75(0.031)

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.22(0.012) 0.38(0.015) 0.46(0.015) 0.58(0.016) 0.65(0.017)

Otherwise ......................... 0.21(0.014) 0.43(0.019) 0.53(0.017) 0.64(0.019) 0.72(0.020)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.21(0.010) 0.38(0.013) 0.46(0.013) 0.58(0.013) 0.65(0.014)

Yes ............................. 0.26(0.020) 0.45(0.025) 0.60(0.026) 0.70(0.026) 0.79(0.024)

Parity at cohabitation

No children ........................ 0.22(0.009) 0.40(0.012) 0.49(0.012) 0.60(0.012) 0.67(0.013)

At least one child .................... 0.24(0.032) 0.36(0.043) 0.46(0.047) 0.63(0.050) 0.77(0.054)

No unwanted...................... * * * * *

Any unwanted ..................... 0.26(0.040) 0.40(0.054) 0.48(0.056) 0.64(0.056) 0.76(0.056)

Timing of first birth

Before union ....................... 0.24(0.032) 0.36(0.043) 0.46(0.047) 0.63(0.050) 0.77(0.054)

0–7 months after..................... * * * * *

More than 7 months after ............... 0.17(0.012) 0.33(0.015) 0.41(0.015) 0.53(0.016) 0.60(0.016)

No first birth........................ 0.28(0.016) 0.50(0.017) 0.62(0.018) 0.73(0.023) 0.81(0.024)

See footnotes at end of table.
Page 52 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 17. Probability of first cohabitation disruption by duration of cohabitation and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women

15–44 years of age, United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.20(0.010) 0.37(0.013) 0.47(0.013) 0.58(0.014) 0.64(0.015)

Ever ............................ 0.26(0.017) 0.46(0.021) 0.55(0.021) 0.67(0.022) 0.76(0.019)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.20(0.023) 0.36(0.023) 0.46(0.023) 0.56(0.020) 0.64(0.023)

Midwest .......................... 0.20(0.012) 0.37(0.021) 0.45(0.021) 0.55(0.022) 0.64(0.024)

South............................ 0.22(0.018) 0.42(0.028) 0.52(0.027) 0.67(0.025) 0.72(0.024)

West ............................ 0.24(0.018) 0.44(0.022) 0.52(0.021) 0.63(0.021) 0.71(0.022)

*Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1Based on women ages 20 and over. 2HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.

Table 18. Probability of first cohabitation disruption by duration of cohabitation and selected contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic white

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.20(0.015) 0.40(0.019) 0.47(0.017) 0.57(0.019) 0.65(0.021)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.22(0.013) 0.38(0.015) 0.48(0.015) 0.60(0.017) 0.67(0.018)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.24(0.022) 0.44(0.025) 0.56(0.028) 0.69(0.030) 0.76(0.029)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.27(0.020) 0.49(0.028) 0.60(0.027) 0.73(0.025) 0.80(0.025)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.20(0.013) 0.37(0.015) 0.46(0.015) 0.58(0.016) 0.65(0.017)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.20(0.018) 0.39(0.023) 0.46(0.027) 0.54(0.027) 0.62(0.029)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.20(0.016) 0.37(0.023) 0.45(0.022) 0.54(0.023) 0.62(0.026)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.21(0.012) 0.40(0.015) 0.48(0.015) 0.61(0.016) 0.68(0.016)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.25(0.026) 0.43(0.029) 0.57(0.029) 0.70(0.028) 0.76(0.029)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.21(0.016) 0.39(0.022) 0.46(0.021) 0.56(0.021) 0.63(0.027)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.21(0.011) 0.39(0.014) 0.48(0.016) 0.60(0.016) 0.67(0.016)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.26(0.024) 0.46(0.028) 0.56(0.029) 0.70(0.028) 0.77(0.028)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.24(0.020) 0.39(0.026) 0.52(0.025) 0.63(0.025) 0.70(0.026)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.20(0.011) 0.37(0.015) 0.45(0.015) 0.57(0.017) 0.65(0.016)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.23(0.018) 0.45(0.024) 0.53(0.023) 0.65(0.023) 0.71(0.025)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.19(0.015) 0.35(0.022) 0.42(0.023) 0.54(0.025) 0.61(0.027)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.22(0.012) 0.42(0.017) 0.51(0.016) 0.61(0.017) 0.69(0.017)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.24(0.025) 0.42(0.027) 0.54(0.028) 0.66(0.026) 0.75(0.026)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.20(0.016) 0.36(0.021) 0.45(0.022) 0.56(0.021) 0.63(0.025)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.22(0.014) 0.40(0.016) 0.49(0.015) 0.60(0.016) 0.66(0.016)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.24(0.024) 0.45(0.029) 0.56(0.031) 0.72(0.030) 0.81(0.029)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.22(0.020) 0.43(0.025) 0.54(0.025) 0.67(0.022) 0.76(0.021)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.21(0.012) 0.39(0.015) 0.48(0.015) 0.59(0.016) 0.67(0.018)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.21(0.021) 0.38(0.025) 0.45(0.027) 0.56(0.026) 0.60(0.025)

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 53

Table 19. Probability of first cohabitation disruption by duration of cohabitation and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic black women

15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Total ............................ 0.19(0.014) 0.43(0.020) 0.56(0.019) 0.72(0.018) 0.79(0.019)

Age at cohabitation

Less than 18 ....................... 0.19(0.042) 0.42(0.051) 0.63(0.051) 0.77(0.044) 0.82(0.042)

18–19 ........................... 0.20(0.032) 0.45(0.041) 0.56(0.041) 0.77(0.035) 0.81(0.032)

20–24 ........................... 0.17(0.019) 0.43(0.031) 0.56(0.031) 0.72(0.032) 0.79(0.034)

25 and over ........................ 0.19(0.034) 0.39(0.038) 0.46(0.038) 0.62(0.051) 0.70(0.067)

Education1

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.16(0.038) 0.42(0.049) 0.60(0.044) 0.75(0.047) 0.80(0.043)

HS2 ............................. 0.20(0.023) 0.44(0.027) 0.55(0.029) 0.73(0.026) 0.79(0.027)

More than HS2 ...................... 0.17(0.022) 0.40(0.028) 0.51(0.031) 0.69(0.033) 0.77(0.036)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.19(0.020) 0.49(0.030) 0.64(0.027) 0.83(0.021) 0.88(0.020)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.15(0.022) 0.35(0.037) 0.47(0.039) 0.61(0.039) 0.68(0.045)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.23(0.048) 0.35(0.044) 0.42(0.046) 0.53(0.051) 0.62(0.064)

Work status at cohabitation

Not working ........................ 0.20(0.024) 0.45(0.035) 0.58(0.031) 0.74(0.027) 0.80(0.027)

Part time.......................... 0.24(0.044) 0.46(0.058) 0.67(0.061) 0.85(0.044) 0.86(0.043)

Full time .......................... 0.17(0.019) 0.40(0.025) 0.51(0.026) 0.69(0.025) 0.77(0.031)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.18(0.015) 0.41(0.020) 0.54(0.019) 0.71(0.019) 0.78(0.021)

Catholic ......................... * * * * *

Fundamentalist .................... 0.17(0.037) 0.41(0.055) 0.55(0.056) 0.74(0.053) 0.78(0.053)

Other Protestant.................... 0.18(0.018) 0.43(0.025) 0.54(0.024) 0.72(0.020) 0.78(0.023)

Other .......................... * * * * *

None ............................ * * * * *

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.17(0.017) 0.39(0.025) 0.51(0.024) 0.71(0.023) 0.78(0.023)

Somewhat important .................. 0.23(0.028) 0.51(0.036) 0.63(0.032) 0.73(0.035) 0.79(0.038)

Not important ....................... * * * * *

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.18(0.023) 0.39(0.033) 0.52(0.032) 0.68(0.029) 0.78(0.032)

Otherwise ......................... 0.19(0.019) 0.45(0.025) 0.57(0.023) 0.75(0.025) 0.80(0.025)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.17(0.016) 0.41(0.021) 0.54(0.021) 0.71(0.019) 0.77(0.021)

Yes ............................. 0.22(0.031) 0.48(0.040) 0.59(0.042) 0.78(0.048) 0.85(0.047)

Parity at cohabitation

No children ........................ 0.18(0.019) 0.40(0.027) 0.55(0.025) 0.72(0.025) 0.77(0.026)

At least one child .................... 0.19(0.021) 0.47(0.028) 0.57(0.028) 0.73(0.025) 0.82(0.028)

No unwanted...................... 0.13(0.033) 0.38(0.048) 0.48(0.046) 0.65(0.046) 0.75(0.053)

Any unwanted ..................... 0.23(0.029) 0.51(0.033) 0.61(0.032) 0.77(0.031) 0.85(0.032)

Timing of first birth

Before union ....................... 0.19(0.021) 0.47(0.028) 0.57(0.028) 0.73(0.025) 0.82(0.028)

0–7 months after..................... * * * * *

More than 7 months after ............... 0.16(0.023) 0.35(0.034) 0.53(0.035) 0.72(0.034) 0.78(0.032)

No first birth........................ 0.23(0.033) 0.48(0.049) 0.60(0.050) 0.74(0.055) 0.75(0.057)

See footnotes at end of table.
Page 54 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 19. Probability of first cohabitation disruption by duration of cohabitation and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic black women

15–44 years of age, United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.18(0.015) 0.43(0.022) 0.55(0.021) 0.72(0.019) 0.77(0.021)

Ever ............................ 0.19(0.036) 0.43(0.047) 0.55(0.054) 0.76(0.052) 0.89(0.040)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.18(0.031) 0.45(0.031) 0.56(0.037) 0.70(0.051) 0.82(0.050)

Midwest .......................... 0.21(0.025) 0.46(0.034) 0.56(0.041) 0.76(0.032) 0.80(0.040)

South............................ 0.17(0.021) 0.39(0.032) 0.54(0.027) 0.72(0.026) 0.76(0.028)

West ............................ 0.22(0.048) 0.52(0.064) 0.59(0.070) 0.75(0.051) 0.82(0.050)

*Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1Based on women ages 20 and over. 2HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.

Table 20. Probability of first cohabitation disruption by duration of cohabitation and selected contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic black

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.22(0.048) 0.42(0.059) 0.53(0.056) 0.66(0.051) 0.76(0.057)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.16(0.024) 0.40(0.036) 0.51(0.037) 0.70(0.037) 0.73(0.036)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.19(0.016) 0.45(0.025) 0.59(0.023) 0.76(0.024) 0.83(0.027)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.19(0.020) 0.44(0.030) 0.58(0.026) 0.74(0.027) 0.80(0.028)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.18(0.024) 0.44(0.032) 0.54(0.030) 0.73(0.030) 0.79(0.031)

Top 25 percent ...................... * * * * *

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... * * * * *

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.17(0.031) 0.38(0.037) 0.48(0.038) 0.63(0.035) 0.72(0.051)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.18(0.016) 0.44(0.026) 0.59(0.023) 0.77(0.023) 0.82(0.025)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... * * * * *

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.18(0.030) 0.38(0.038) 0.52(0.038) 0.70(0.034) 0.73(0.039)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.18(0.016) 0.45(0.023) 0.59(0.022) 0.75(0.023) 0.88(0.025)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.16(0.016) 0.40(0.026) 0.53(0.025) 0.69(0.027) 0.77(0.029)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.22(0.025) 0.47(0.034) 0.61(0.032) 0.78(0.028) 0.84(0.032)

Top 25 percent ...................... * * * * *

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.17(0.038) 0.44(0.062) 0.52(0.058) 0.67(0.055) 0.75(0.067)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.20(0.021) 0.45(0.030) 0.55(0.032) 0.70(0.030) 0.79(0.031)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.17(0.021) 0.40(0.031) 0.57(0.027) 0.77(0.029) 0.80(0.025)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... * * * * *

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.16(0.026) 0.38(0.041) 0.49(0.038) 0.64(0.037) 0.66(0.037)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.19(0.017) 0.44(0.023) 0.58(0.022) 0.77(0.021) 0.84(0.023)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.21(0.019) 0.46(0.024) 0.57(0.025) 0.74(0.025) 0.81(0.026)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.15(0.025) 0.37(0.033) 0.53(0.034) 0.69(0.034) 0.76(0.034)

Not SMSA1 ........................ * * * * *

*Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 55

Table 21. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age,

United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Total1 ............................ 0.03(0.002) 0.12(0.005) 0.20(0.006) 0.33(0.007) 0.43(0.009)

Race/ethnicity

Hispanic .......................... 0.03(0.006) 0.11(0.014) 0.17(0.016) 0.34(0.025) 0.42(0.031)

Non-Hispanic white ................... 0.03(0.003) 0.12(0.006) 0.20(0.007) 0.32(0.009) 0.42(0.010)

Non-Hispanic black ................... 0.05(0.010) 0.15(0.016) 0.28(0.018) 0.47(0.023) 0.55(0.024)

Non-Hispanic Asian ................... 0.01(0.010) 0.06(0.020) 0.10(0.024) 0.20(0.042) 0.23(0.043)

Age at marriage

Less than 18 ....................... 0.04(0.010) 0.17(0.016) 0.29(0.020) 0.48(0.022) 0.59(0.023)

18–19 ........................... 0.04(0.006) 0.15(0.010) 0.24(0.012) 0.40(0.016) 0.49(0.016)

20–24 ........................... 0.02(0.002) 0.10(0.006) 0.17(0.008) 0.29(0.011) 0.36(0.014)

25 and over ........................ 0.02(0.004) 0.08(0.008) 0.15(0.012) 0.24(0.017) 0.35(0.041)

Education2

Less than HS3 ...................... 0.05(0.008) 0.15(0.015) 0.24(0.018) 0.42(0.022) 0.51(0.025)

HS3 ............................. 0.03(0.004) 0.13(0.008) 0.22(0.009) 0.36(0.011) 0.45(0.012)

More than HS3 ...................... 0.02(0.003) 0.09(0.006) 0.17(0.008) 0.29(0.010) 0.38(0.012)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.05(0.006) 0.20(0.012) 0.31(0.015) 0.53(0.016) 0.65(0.017)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.02(0.003) 0.11(0.007) 0.19(0.009) 0.31(0.011) 0.40(0.014)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.02(0.003) 0.07(0.006) 0.13(0.007) 0.23(0.009) 0.31(0.013)

Work status at marriage

Not working ........................ 0.03(0.005) 0.14(0.009) 0.23(0.011) 0.40(0.013) 0.50(0.015)

Part time.......................... 0.02(0.005) 0.10(0.012) 0.15(0.015) 0.23(0.019) 0.29(0.022)

Full time .......................... 0.03(0.003) 0.11(0.005) 0.19(0.007) 0.32(0.009) 0.40(0.012)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.03(0.003) 0.11(0.005) 0.19(0.006) 0.32(0.007) 0.41(0.009)

Catholic ......................... 0.02(0.003) 0.09(0.007) 0.17(0.008) 0.29(0.013) 0.37(0.013)

Fundamentalist .................... 0.02(0.007) 0.11(0.016) 0.18(0.022) 0.32(0.026) 0.40(0.029)

Other Protestant.................... 0.04(0.004) 0.13(0.008) 0.21(0.009) 0.35(0.011) 0.44(0.012)

Other .......................... 0.01(0.004) 0.09(0.014) 0.17(0.020) 0.29(0.023) 0.40(0.031)

None ............................ 0.03(0.008) 0.17(0.015) 0.27(0.020) 0.46(0.024) 0.56(0.027)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.02(0.003) 0.10(0.006) 0.18(0.008) 0.31(0.010) 0.39(0.011)

Somewhat important .................. 0.03(0.004) 0.13(0.009) 0.21(0.011) 0.35(0.013) 0.45(0.015)

Not important ....................... 0.04(0.011) 0.15(0.015) 0.26(0.020) 0.45(0.027) 0.54(0.029)

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.02(0.003) 0.10(0.005) 0.17(0.007) 0.29(0.009) 0.38(0.010)

Otherwise ......................... 0.04(0.005) 0.15(0.009) 0.26(0.011) 0.43(0.012) 0.52(0.015)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.02(0.002) 0.10(0.005) 0.17(0.006) 0.30(0.008) 0.39(0.009)

Yes ............................. 0.06(0.008) 0.20(0.015) 0.34(0.018) 0.53(0.020) 0.63(0.021)

Parity at marriage

No children ........................ 0.02(0.003) 0.11(0.005) 0.18(0.007) 0.31(0.008) 0.40(0.009)

At least one child .................... 0.05(0.007) 0.19(0.016) 0.29(0.017) 0.50(0.020) 0.60(0.025)

No unwanted...................... 0.06(0.013) 0.19(0.024) 0.27(0.028) 0.45(0.036) 0.56(0.046)

Any unwanted ..................... 0.05(0.010) 0.19(0.020) 0.31(0.023) 0.54(0.025) 0.63(0.027)

See footnotes at end of table.
Page 56 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 21. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age,

United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Timing of first birth

Before marriage ..................... 0.05(0.007) 0.19(0.016) 0.29(0.017) 0.50(0.020) 0.60(0.025)

0–7 months after..................... 0.03(0.009) 0.12(0.014) 0.24(0.018) 0.41(0.021) 0.49(0.022)

More than 7 months after ............... 0.02(0.003) 0.08(0.005) 0.14(0.007) 0.26(0.009) 0.36(0.010)

No first birth........................ 0.04(0.006) 0.17(0.013) 0.29(0.017) 0.45(0.024) 0.53(0.026)

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.03(0.003) 0.11(0.005) 0.19(0.006) 0.31(0.008) 0.39(0.010)

Ever ............................ 0.03(0.005) 0.14(0.010) 0.24(0.012) 0.42(0.014) 0.55(0.016)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.03(0.004) 0.08(0.008) 0.15(0.010) 0.29(0.014) 0.39(0.021)

Midwest .......................... 0.02(0.005) 0.10(0.011) 0.18(0.014) 0.29(0.016) 0.38(0.020)

South............................ 0.03(0.005) 0.15(0.010) 0.24(0.011) 0.39(0.013) 0.48(0.014)

West ............................ 0.03(0.004) 0.11(0.009) 0.19(0.013) 0.33(0.016) 0.42(0.018)

Age difference

He is 5 or more years older .............. 0.03(0.005) 0.11(0.009) 0.19(0.012) 0.33(0.015) 0.43(0.018)

He is 0–4 years older .................. 0.02(0.002) 0.10(0.006) 0.18(0.007) 0.32(0.009) 0.41(0.011)

She is older ........................ 0.02(0.006) 0.11(0.013) 0.19(0.015) 0.31(0.020) 0.38(0.023)

Race difference

Same race ........................ 0.03(0.003) 0.11(0.005) 0.18(0.006) 0.31(0.008) 0.40(0.010)

Different race ....................... 0.03(0.008) 0.14(0.016) 0.25(0.021) 0.41(0.025) 0.47(0.030)

White/other ........................ 0.03(0.009) 0.14(0.016) 0.24(0.024) 0.40(0.027) 0.46(0.033)

Black/other ........................ 0.06(0.036) 0.21(0.051) 0.34(0.058) 0.48(0.062) 0.54(0.060)

Cohabited before marriage

Did not ........................... 0.03(0.003) 0.11(0.006) 0.18(0.007) 0.31(0.009) 0.39(0.011)

Did ............................. 0.03(0.004) 0.13(0.008) 0.24(0.011) 0.40(0.013) 0.51(0.016)

1Includes data for American Indian women, not shown separately. 2Based on women ages 20 and over. 3HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 57

Table 22. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected contextual characteristics: All races, women 15–44

years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.02(0.003) 0.10(0.007) 0.17(0.010) 0.29(0.012) 0.38(0.015)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.003) 0.11(0.007) 0.19(0.009) 0.33(0.011) 0.43(0.012)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.04(0.007) 0.15(0.011) 0.25(0.014) 0.41(0.018) 0.50(0.021)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.05(0.007) 0.17(0.011) 0.27(0.014) 0.44(0.015) 0.54(0.017)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.02(0.003) 0.11(0.006) 0.19(0.008) 0.33(0.010) 0.41(0.012)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.02(0.004) 0.08(0.007) 0.13(0.010) 0.23(0.013) 0.32(0.016)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.01(0.003) 0.07(0.007) 0.14(0.010) 0.24(0.013) 0.34(0.017)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.003) 0.12(0.006) 0.20(0.009) 0.34(0.011) 0.42(0.013)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.04(0.007) 0.16(0.012) 0.25(0.013) 0.43(0.016) 0.54(0.019)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.02(0.004) 0.10(0.008) 0.16(0.010) 0.26(0.013) 0.35(0.017)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.003) 0.11(0.006) 0.20(0.009) 0.34(0.011) 0.43(0.012)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.04(0.007) 0.15(0.011) 0.24(0.012) 0.41(0.015) 0.51(0.018)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.04(0.005) 0.15(0.011) 0.24(0.012) 0.37(0.014) 0.48(0.016)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.003) 0.11(0.006) 0.19(0.009) 0.33(0.011) 0.42(0.012)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.01(0.004) 0.09(0.008) 0.16(0.012) 0.28(0.015) 0.37(0.019)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.03(0.004) 0.11(0.009) 0.16(0.010) 0.29(0.014) 0.38(0.017)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.003) 0.12(0.007) 0.20(0.009) 0.34(0.011) 0.43(0.012)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.03(0.005) 0.13(0.010) 0.23(0.014) 0.38(0.017) 0.48(0.020)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.03(0.005) 0.11(0.009) 0.18(0.012) 0.31(0.014) 0.40(0.016)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.02(0.003) 0.11(0.006) 0.19(0.008) 0.32(0.010) 0.41(0.012)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.04(0.007) 0.14(0.011) 0.25(0.013) 0.44(0.018) 0.54(0.021)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.03(0.006) 0.15(0.011) 0.24(0.013) 0.40(0.016) 0.48(0.017)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.03(0.003) 0.10(0.006) 0.18(0.008) 0.31(0.011) 0.41(0.012)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.03(0.004) 0.11(0.010) 0.19(0.013) 0.32(0.015) 0.41(0.018)

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Page 58 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 23: Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected characteristics: Hispanic women 15–44 years of age,

United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Total ............................ 0.03(0.006) 0.11(0.014) 0.17(0.016) 0.34(0.025) 0.42(0.031)

Age at marriage

Less than 18 ....................... 0.03(0.013) 0.11(0.029) 0.18(0.035) 0.33(0.040) 0.43(0.053)

18–19 ........................... 0.01(0.007) 0.11(0.025) 0.19(0.033) 0.38(0.052) 0.50(0.059)

20–24 ........................... 0.03(0.008) 0.12(0.019) 0.17(0.018) 0.31(0.034) 0.37(0.038)

25 and over ........................ 0.03(0.016) 0.08(0.023) 0.15(0.028) 0.36(0.054) 0.39(0.063)

Education1

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.04(0.010) 0.09(0.014) 0.13(0.019) 0.29(0.034) 0.39(0.046)

HS2 ............................. 0.01(0.006) 0.12(0.025) 0.19(0.024) 0.34(0.032) 0.43(0.044)

More than HS2 ...................... 0.03(0.012) 0.11(0.023) 0.20(0.026) 0.39(0.042) 0.43(0.043)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.03(0.008) 0.11(0.016) 0.18(0.022) 0.36(0.039) 0.48(0.050)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.01(0.006) 0.09(0.023) 0.15(0.022) 0.30(0.031) 0.37(0.041)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.05(0.018) 0.13(0.030) 0.18(0.032) 0.35(0.041) 0.41(0.044)

Work status at marriage

Not working ........................ 0.03(0.008) 0.10(0.014) 0.15(0.020) 0.33(0.037) 0.44(0.041)

Part time.......................... 0.03(0.012) 0.14(0.043) 0.23(0.049) 0.36(0.055) 0.36(0.055)

Full time .......................... 0.03(0.010) 0.11(0.018) 0.18(0.021) 0.33(0.027) 0.39(0.035)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.02(0.006) 0.10(0.015) 0.16(0.017) 0.32(0.027) 0.40(0.032)

Catholic ......................... 0.02(0.006) 0.09(0.017) 0.15(0.019) 0.29(0.030) 0.38(0.035)

Fundamentalist .................... * * * * *

Other Protestant.................... 0.05(0.020) 0.17(0.038) 0.21(0.037) 0.34(0.043) 0.41(0.054)

Other .......................... * * * * *

None ............................ * * * * *

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.02(0.007) 0.11(0.018) 0.17(0.020) 0.32(0.034) 0.40(0.038)

Somewhat important .................. 0.03(0.011) 0.10(0.022) 0.17(0.025) 0.32(0.033) 0.43(0.047)

Not important ....................... * * * * *

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.02(0.006) 0.09(0.014) 0.15(0.018) 0.28(0.029) 0.38(0.037)

Otherwise ......................... 0.03(0.009) 0.14(0.023) 0.22(0.025) 0.45(0.039) 0.52(0.039)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.02(0.005) 0.10(0.015) 0.16(0.017) 0.32(0.025) 0.40(0.031)

Yes ............................. 0.06(0.026) 0.15(0.036) 0.28(0.045) 0.49(0.062) 0.58(0.060)

Parity at marriage

No children ........................ 0.02(0.006) 0.10(0.016) 0.16(0.017) 0.31(0.023) 0.38(0.029)

At least one child .................... 0.05(0.016) 0.17(0.025) 0.22(0.028) 0.46(0.057) 0.68(0.085)

No unwanted...................... * * * * *

Any unwanted ..................... * * * * *

Timing of first birth

Before marriage ..................... 0.05(0.017) 0.18(0.026) 0.23(0.029) 0.44(0.056) 0.67(0.087)

0–7 months after..................... 0.02(0.013) 0.13(0.037) 0.26(0.056) 0.39(0.065) 0.45(0.074)

More than 7 months after ............... 0.01(0.005) 0.08(0.014) 0.12(0.014) 0.27(0.024) 0.34(0.029)

No first birth........................ 0.06(0.027) 0.15(0.044) 0.22(0.052) 0.54(0.090) 0.60(0.098)

See footnotes at end of table.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 59

Table 23: Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected characteristics: Hispanic women 15–44 years of

age, United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.02(0.007) 0.10(0.014) 0.16(0.015) 0.31(0.029) 0.38(0.032)

Ever ............................ 0.04(0.018) 0.14(0.037) 0.21(0.045) 0.44(0.052) 0.58(0.064)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.03(0.014) 0.13(0.014) 0.17(0.030) 0.48(0.100) 0.57(0.118)

Midwest .......................... * * * * *

South............................ 0.02(0.012) 0.11(0.027) 0.20(0.031) 0.37(0.036) 0.43(0.045)

West ............................ 0.03(0.007) 0.10(0.022) 0.15(0.024) 0.29(0.030) 0.40(0.048)

Age difference

He is 5 or more years older .............. 0.02(0.008) 0.07(0.019) 0.13(0.021) 0.31(0.035) 0.37(0.038)

He is 0–4 years older .................. 0.02(0.005) 0.09(0.015) 0.14(0.018) 0.31(0.030) 0.43(0.040)

She is older ........................ 0.01(0.008) 0.13(0.032) 0.22(0.039) 0.37(0.049) 0.40(0.052)

Cohabited before marriage

Did not ........................... 0.02(0.006) 0.10(0.018) 0.15(0.018) 0.30(0.025) 0.38(0.032)

Did ............................. 0.03(0.012) 0.12(0.016) 0.22(0.023) 0.43(0.042) 0.56(0.076)

*Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1Based on women ages 20 and over. 2HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Page 60 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 24. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected contextual characteristics: Hispanic women 15–44

years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.02(0.008) 0.06(0.023) 0.13(0.036) 0.30(0.054) 0.31(0.053)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.02(0.009) 0.11(0.020) 0.16(0.021) 0.33(0.035) 0.42(0.043)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.03(0.012) 0.12(0.021) 0.20(0.022) 0.35(0.037) 0.46(0.051)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.03(0.011) 0.12(0.021) 0.20(0.025) 0.38(0.030) 0.51(0.042)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.02(0.008) 0.12(0.022) 0.17(0.022) 0.31(0.033) 0.37(0.041)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.01(0.010) 0.04(0.018) 0.08(0.022) 0.26(0.048) 0.29(0.058)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.00(0.000) 0.06(0.030) 0.09(0.031) 0.19(0.049) 0.21(0.057)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.008) 0.11(0.018) 0.17(0.023) 0.32(0.037) 0.37(0.039)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.03(0.010) 0.12(0.022) 0.20(0.023) 0.38(0.031) 0.50(0.042)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.01(0.009) 0.06(0.023) 0.12(0.034) 0.26(0.058) 0.30(0.060)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.009) 0.11(0.021) 0.17(0.023) 0.34(0.037) 0.39(0.041)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.03(0.009) 0.12(0.021) 0.19(0.020) 0.35(0.039) 0.47(0.044)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.03(0.010) 0.11(0.019) 0.19(0.022) 0.32(0.029) 0.44(0.042)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.010) 0.11(0.021) 0.16(0.023) 0.34(0.044) 0.41(0.046)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.01(0.007) 0.07(0.025) 0.15(0.039) 0.39(0.054) 0.40(0.056)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... * * * * *

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.02(0.007) 0.10(0.022) 0.15(0.024) 0.29(0.028) 0.37(0.036)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.03(0.011) 0.11(0.022) 0.19(0.026) 0.41(0.048) 0.52(0.053)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.02(0.009) 0.09(0.026) 0.14(0.032) 0.35(0.048) 0.41(0.046)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.02(0.008) 0.11(0.017) 0.16(0.018) 0.31(0.029) 0.37(0.036)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.04(0.010) 0.12(0.023) 0.20(0.029) 0.37(0.045) 0.50(0.054)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.02(0.007) 0.11(0.018) 0.19(0.020) 0.38(0.033) 0.43(0.037)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.03(0.009) 0.10(0.017) 0.15(0.022) 0.28(0.035) 0.41(0.051)

Not SMSA1 ........................ * * * * *

*Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 61

Table 25. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44

years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Total ............................ 0.03(0.003) 0.12(0.006) 0.20(0.007) 0.32(0.009) 0.42(0.010)

Age at marriage

Less than 18 ....................... 0.05(0.012) 0.20(0.021) 0.31(0.024) 0.50(0.026) 0.62(0.026)

18–19 ........................... 0.05(0.007) 0.15(0.012) 0.25(0.015) 0.39(0.017) 0.49(0.018)

20–24 ........................... 0.02(0.003) 0.09(0.007) 0.16(0.009) 0.27(0.012) 0.34(0.015)

25 and over ........................ 0.02(0.005) 0.07(0.010) 0.14(0.015) 0.22(0.019) 0.32(0.029)

Education1

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.06(0.014) 0.18(0.022) 0.30(0.029) 0.48(0.032) 0.55(0.034)

HS2 ............................. 0.03(0.005) 0.13(0.009) 0.21(0.011) 0.35(0.013) 0.45(0.014)

More thanHS2 ...................... 0.02(0.003) 0.09(0.006) 0.16(0.009) 0.27(0.011) 0.36(0.013)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.05(0.009) 0.22(0.017) 0.34(0.020) 0.55(0.021) 0.68(0.022)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.03(0.004) 0.11(0.008) 0.19(0.011) 0.31(0.014) 0.40(0.017)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.02(0.003) 0.07(0.006) 0.13(0.008) 0.23(0.011) 0.31(0.015)

Work status at marriage

Not working ........................ 0.03(0.006) 0.15(0.012) 0.24(0.015) 0.40(0.015) 0.51(0.018)

Part time.......................... 0.02(0.006) 0.09(0.013) 0.14(0.016) 0.21(0.021) 0.26(0.023)

Full time .......................... 0.03(0.003) 0.10(0.006) 0.19(0.009) 0.31(0.011) 0.39(0.013)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.03(0.003) 0.11(0.006) 0.19(0.007) 0.31(0.009) 0.40(0.011)

Catholic ......................... 0.02(0.004) 0.09(0.008) 0.17(0.011) 0.29(0.014) 0.36(0.015)

Fundamentalist .................... 0.02(0.009) 0.11(0.023) 0.16(0.030) 0.29(0.032) 0.39(0.040)

Other Protestant.................... 0.03(0.005) 0.12(0.009) 0.20(0.010) 0.33(0.012) 0.43(0.014)

Other .......................... 0.01(0.005) 0.10(0.016) 0.18(0.023) 0.28(0.027) 0.39(0.037)

None ............................ 0.03(0.009) 0.17(0.018) 0.27(0.023) 0.45(0.026) 0.55(0.028)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.02(0.003) 0.10(0.007) 0.17(0.010) 0.28(0.012) 0.37(0.013)

Somewhat important .................. 0.03(0.005) 0.13(0.010) 0.21(0.012) 0.35(0.014) 0.46(0.016)

Not important ....................... 0.04(0.012) 0.16(0.017) 0.27(0.024) 0.45(0.029) 0.55(0.031)

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.02(0.003) 0.10(0.006) 0.17(0.008) 0.29(0.010) 0.38(0.011)

Otherwise ......................... 0.03(0.005) 0.15(0.011) 0.27(0.013) 0.41(0.015) 0.51(0.018)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.02(0.003) 0.10(0.006) 0.17(0.008) 0.29(0.009) 0.39(0.011)

Yes ............................. 0.05(0.010) 0.21(0.019) 0.34(0.022) 0.51(0.024) 0.62(0.026)

Parity at marriage

No children ........................ 0.03(0.003) 0.11(0.006) 0.19(0.008) 0.31(0.009) 0.40(0.010)

At least one child .................... 0.04(0.011) 0.19(0.024) 0.29(0.027) 0.48(0.033) 0.57(0.038)

No unwanted...................... 0.05(0.017) 0.18(0.034) 0.28(0.042) 0.44(0.051) 0.49(0.055)

Any unwanted ..................... 0.04(0.015) 0.20(0.033) 0.31(0.036) 0.52(0.041) 0.62(0.044)

Timing of first birth

Before marriage ..................... 0.04(0.011) 0.19(0.024) 0.29(0.027) 0.48(0.033) 0.57(0.038)

0–7 months after..................... 0.03(0.009) 0.12(0.015) 0.23(0.021) 0.41(0.024) 0.48(0.026)

More than 7 months after ............... 0.02(0.004) 0.09(0.006) 0.15(0.008) 0.26(0.010) 0.36(0.012)

No first birth........................ 0.04(0.008) 0.18(0.016) 0.30(0.021) 0.45(0.027) 0.53(0.030)

See footnotes at end of table.
Page 62 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 25. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44

years of age, United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.03(0.003) 0.11(0.006) 0.18(0.008) 0.30(0.010) 0.37(0.012)

Ever ............................ 0.03(0.006) 0.14(0.012) 0.24(0.016) 0.41(0.016) 0.54(0.018)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.03(0.006) 0.08(0.010) 0.15(0.013) 0.27(0.018) 0.37(0.023)

Midwest .......................... 0.02(0.005) 0.10(0.011) 0.17(0.015) 0.27(0.017) 0.36(0.022)

South............................ 0.03(0.006) 0.15(0.012) 0.23(0.014) 0.38(0.015) 0.42(0.017)

West ............................ 0.03(0.005) 0.12(0.012) 0.21(0.017) 0.35(0.020) 0.43(0.019)

Age difference

He is 5 or more years older .............. 0.03(0.007) 0.12(0.011) 0.20(0.015) 0.33(0.019) 0.44(0.023)

He is 0–4 yrs older ................... 0.02(0.003) 0.10(0.006) 0.18(0.009) 0.30(0.011) 0.40(0.013)

She is older ........................ 0.02(0.007) 0.09(0.015) 0.17(0.018) 0.28(0.024) 0.36(0.028)

Cohabited before marriage

Did not ........................... 0.03(0.004) 0.11(0.008) 0.18(0.009) 0.30(0.011) 0.39(0.013)

Did ............................. 0.03(0.005) 0.13(0.010) 0.24(0.012) 0.38(0.014) 0.49(0.017)

1Based on women ages 20 and over. 2HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 63

Table 26. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic white

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.02(0.004) 0.11(0.009) 0.18(0.011) 0.29(0.012) 0.39(0.016)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.004) 0.11(0.008) 0.20(0.011) 0.33(0.012) 0.43(0.014)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.03(0.009) 0.15(0.014) 0.26(0.020) 0.40(0.024) 0.47(0.027)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.05(0.008) 0.17(0.015) 0.27(0.019) 0.43(0.021) 0.52(0.023)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.02(0.003) 0.11(0.007) 0.20(0.010) 0.33(0.012) 0.42(0.014)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.02(0.005) 0.08(0.009) 0.14(0.011) 0.23(0.014) 0.32(0.019)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.02(0.004) 0.07(0.008) 0.14(0.011) 0.24(0.015) 0.35(0.018)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.004) 0.13(0.008) 0.21(0.010) 0.34(0.013) 0.42(0.014)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.04(0.009) 0.15(0.017) 0.25(0.018) 0.42(0.021) 0.52(0.024)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.02(0.004) 0.10(0.009) 0.16(0.012) 0.26(0.014) 0.36(0.018)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.004) 0.12(0.007) 0.21(0.010) 0.34(0.012) 0.43(0.014)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.04(0.009) 0.16(0.016) 0.23(0.017) 0.40(0.021) 0.49(0.024)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.04(0.007) 0.15(0.014) 0.23(0.015) 0.36(0.018) 0.46(0.020)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.003) 0.11(0.007) 0.19(0.010) 0.33(0.012) 0.42(0.014)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.02(0.004) 0.09(0.009) 0.17(0.013) 0.28(0.017) 0.37(0.020)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.03(0.005) 0.10(0.010) 0.16(0.011) 0.28(0.015) 0.37(0.018)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.004) 0.12(0.008) 0.21(0.010) 0.34(0.013) 0.43(0.014)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.03(0.006) 0.13(0.012) 0.22(0.018) 0.36(0.024) 0.47(0.026)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.03(0.006) 0.11(0.010) 0.19(0.013) 0.30(0.015) 0.39(0.017)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.02(0.003) 0.11(0.007) 0.19(0.009) 0.32(0.011) 0.42(0.013)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.04(0.011) 0.13(0.017) 0.25(0.020) 0.43(0.029) 0.51(0.032)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.03(0.007) 0.16(0.016) 0.25(0.019) 0.39(0.023) 0.49(0.023)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.03(0.004) 0.10(0.007) 0.18(0.009) 0.31(0.011) 0.40(0.013)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.02(0.005) 0.11(0.011) 0.18(0.014) 0.31(0.016) 0.39(0.020)

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Page 64 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 27. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic black women 15–44

years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Total ............................ 0.05(0.010) 0.15(0.016) 0.28(0.018) 0.47(0.023) 0.55(0.024)

Age at marriage

Less than 18 ....................... 0.06(0.028) 0.12(0.037) 0.34(0.060) 0.55(0.062) 0.62(0.061)

18–19 ........................... 0.05(0.029) 0.16(0.033) 0.31(0.038) 0.52(0.046) 0.62(0.046)

20–24 ........................... 0.04(0.010) 0.16(0.023) 0.28(0.027) 0.45(0.034) 0.52(0.034)

25 and over ........................ 0.05(0.019) 0.15(0.029) 0.22(0.032) 0.38(0.041) 0.48(0.047)

Education1

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.02(0.009) 0.16(0.035) 0.27(0.039) 0.49(0.050) 0.60(0.053)

HS2 ............................. 0.05(0.016) 0.17(0.024) 0.32(0.030) 0.49(0.033) 0.56(0.033)

More than HS2 ...................... 0.05(0.016) 0.13(0.021) 0.24(0.026) 0.43(0.032) 0.53(0.036)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.09(0.021) 0.24(0.029) 0.39(0.029) 0.65(0.031) 0.74(0.032)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.02(0.007) 0.11(0.020) 0.24(0.028) 0.41(0.033) 0.52(0.037)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.01(0.009) 0.06(0.017) 0.14(0.028) 0.23(0.034) 0.28(0.040)

Work status at marriage

Not working ........................ 0.05(0.018) 0.16(0.027) 0.33(0.031) 0.53(0.035) 0.60(0.032)

Part time.......................... 0.08(0.028) 0.14(0.043) 0.24(0.051) 0.46(0.071) 0.52(0.079)

Full time .......................... 0.04(0.012) 0.15(0.021) 0.24(0.023) 0.41(0.028) 0.52(0.032)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.05(0.011) 0.15(0.016) 0.26(0.019) 0.45(0.025) 0.54(0.026)

Catholic ......................... * * * * *

Fundamentalist .................... 0.04(0.018) 0.11(0.029) 0.22(0.044) 0.36(0.055) 0.41(0.058)

Other Protestant.................... 0.05(0.014) 0.16(0.019) 0.27(0.022) 0.47(0.029) 0.56(0.029)

Other .......................... * * * * *

None ............................ * * * * *

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.05(0.011) 0.16(0.018) 0.27(0.021) 0.46(0.027) 0.56(0.028)

Somewhat important .................. 0.06(0.018) 0.13(0.028) 0.28(0.040) 0.46(0.049) 0.53(0.052)

Not important ....................... * * * * *

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.04(0.009) 0.13(0.019) 0.22(0.020) 0.40(0.030) 0.49(0.035)

Otherwise ......................... 0.06(0.015) 0.18(0.023) 0.33(0.028) 0.53(0.028) 0.62(0.029)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.04(0.010) 0.15(0.017) 0.25(0.018) 0.43(0.024) 0.52(0.026)

Yes ............................. 0.08(0.028) 0.19(0.035) 0.39(0.048) 0.63(0.050) 0.71(0.052)

Parity at marriage

No children ........................ 0.04(0.013) 0.12(0.017) 0.25(0.024) 0.42(0.030) 0.51(0.032)

At least one child .................... 0.06(0.015) 0.20(0.027) 0.31(0.028) 0.53(0.031) 0.61(0.031)

No unwanted...................... 0.07(0.030) 0.22(0.042) 0.29(0.042) 0.44(0.047) 0.51(0.047)

Any unwanted ..................... 0.05(0.014) 0.19(0.030) 0.33(0.034) 0.59(0.038) 0.69(0.040)

Timing of first birth

Before marriage ..................... 0.06(0.015) 0.20(0.027) 0.31(0.028) 0.53(0.031) 0.61(0.031)

0–7 months after..................... 0.09(0.047) 0.17(0.050) 0.36(0.062) 0.53(0.059) 0.62(0.058)

More than 7 months after ............... 0.01(0.006) 0.08(0.017) 0.18(0.028) 0.38(0.035) 0.48(0.039)

No first birth........................ 0.05(0.023) 0.17(0.038) 0.28(0.054) 0.37(0.064) 0.44(0.073)

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.05(0.012) 0.16(0.017) 0.27(0.019) 0.46(0.023) 0.54(0.025)

Ever ............................ 0.06(0.020) 0.12(0.028) 0.34(0.048) 0.52(0.058) 0.64(0.062)

See footnotes at end of table.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 65

Table 27. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic black women 15–44

years of age, United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.04(0.023) 0.11(0.027) 0.15(0.029) 0.41(0.060) 0.52(0.076)

Midwest .......................... 0.06(0.032) 0.16(0.040) 0.28(0.042) 0.45(0.044) 0.53(0.043)

South............................ 0.05(0.012) 0.17(0.021) 0.30(0.023) 0.48(0.032) 0.56(0.034)

West ............................ 0.01(0.007) 0.11(0.047) 0.35(0.074) 0.51(0.070) 0.59(0.067)

Age difference

He is 5 or more years older .............. 0.04(0.015) 0.13(0.024) 0.26(0.035) 0.37(0.039) 0.51(0.048)

He is 0–4 yrs older ................... 0.04(0.012) 0.14(0.019) 0.26(0.024) 0.49(0.028) 0.55(0.029)

She is older ........................ 0.08(0.031) 0.20(0.048) 0.33(0.051) 0.47(0.051) 0.60(0.052)

Cohabited before marriage

Did not ........................... 0.06(0.015) 0.15(0.019) 0.27(0.023) 0.46(0.029) 0.55(0.029)

Did ............................. 0.03(0.008) 0.17(0.026) 0.29(0.032) 0.50(0.036) 0.58(0.039)

*Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1Based on women ages 20 and over. 2HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Page 66 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 28. Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and selected contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic black

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.02(0.008) 0.11(0.029) 0.21(0.044) 0.36(0.050) 0.43(0.059)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.011) 0.14(0.021) 0.26(0.027) 0.47(0.035) 0.52(0.036)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.07(0.020) 0.18(0.025) 0.32(0.026) 0.51(0.032) 0.63(0.035)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.07(0.019) 0.21(0.024) 0.35(0.026) 0.56(0.031) 0.65(0.031)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.008) 0.11(0.017) 0.21(0.025) 0.39(0.033) 0.46(0.035)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.01(0.010) 0.07(0.026) 0.17(0.052) 0.33(0.071) 0.45(0.080)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... * * * * *

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.01(0.007) 0.09(0.016) 0.20(0.028) 0.39(0.040) 0.48(0.043)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.07(0.017) 0.21(0.023) 0.35(0.024) 0.53(0.029) 0.62(0.028)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.01(0.008) 0.10(0.033) 0.16(0.037) 0.30(0.048) 0.37(0.070)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.03(0.009) 0.12(0.020) 0.25(0.029) 0.45(0.036) 0.52(0.039)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.07(0.019) 0.19(0.023) 0.33(0.026) 0.52(0.030) 0.62(0.031)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.06(0.015) 0.17(0.021) 0.31(0.026) 0.48(0.034) 0.58(0.034)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.04(0.015) 0.15(0.023) 0.26(0.027) 0.47(0.033) 0.56(0.036)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.02(0.010) 0.09(0.035) 0.19(0.057) 0.37(0.063) 0.41(0.067)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.04(0.016) 0.15(0.029) 0.19(0.034) 0.42(0.056) 0.50(0.049)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.05(0.017) 0.15(0.024) 0.28(0.027) 0.46(0.031) 0.56(0.035)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.05(0.015) 0.16(0.023) 0.31(0.026) 0.49(0.035) 0.58(0.038)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.06(0.025) 0.13(0.033) 0.19(0.038) 0.44(0.051) 0.51(0.057)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.04(0.010) 0.14(0.023) 0.27(0.033) 0.40(0.038) 0.48(0.039)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.05(0.018) 0.17(0.024) 0.30(0.026) 0.52(0.029) 0.62(0.033)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.06(0.016) 0.16(0.022) 0.27(0.024) 0.49(0.028) 0.57(0.032)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.03(0.012) 0.14(0.023) 0.27(0.031) 0.43(0.039) 0.52(0.040)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.06(0.019) 0.16(0.035) 0.30(0.052) 0.48(0.067) 0.56(0.051)

*Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 67

Table 29. Probability of postmarital cohabitation by duration of separation and selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of

age, United States, 1995

Probability of cohabitation after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Total1 ............................ 0.15(0.008) 0.41(0.012) 0.53(0.013) 0.70(0.014)

Race/ethnicity

Hispanic .......................... 0.09(0.025) 0.32(0.026) 0.50(0.041) 0.64(0.039)

Non-Hispanic white ................... 0.17(0.011) 0.45(0.015) 0.58(0.015) 0.76(0.017)

Non-Hispanic black ................... 0.09(0.020) 0.22(0.025) 0.31(0.027) 0.43(0.033)

Age at separation

Less than 20 ....................... 0.18(0.026) 0.45(0.034) 0.55(0.035) 0.74(0.035)

20–24 ........................... 0.17(0.014) 0.46(0.020) 0.61(0.018) 0.76(0.018)

25 and over ........................ 0.14(0.011) 0.35(0.015) 0.47(0.019) 0.63(0.026)

Education2

Less than HS3 ...................... 0.16(0.020) 0.37(0.029) 0.54(0.032) 0.69(0.034)

HS3 ............................. 0.17(0.013) 0.46(0.019) 0.56(0.018) 0.74(0.022)

More than HS3 ...................... 0.13(0.011) 0.35(0.019) 0.49(0.021) 0.65(0.028)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.13(0.014) 0.35(0.018) 0.45(0.021) 0.59(0.025)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.17(0.015) 0.42(0.020) 0.54(0.022) 0.73(0.023)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.16(0.016) 0.47(0.022) 0.62(0.023) 0.80(0.024)

Work status at separation

Not working ........................ 0.13(0.014) 0.35(0.021) 0.47(0.022) 0.66(0.026)

Part time.......................... 0.17(0.027) 0.48(0.038) 0.58(0.039) 0.73(0.047)

Full time .......................... 0.16(0.010) 0.42(0.016) 0.55(0.016) 0.71(0.018)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.14(0.009) 0.39(0.012) 0.52(0.013) 0.67(0.016)

Catholic ......................... 0.16(0.017) 0.40(0.022) 0.55(0.026) 0.70(0.028)

Fundamentalist .................... 0.10(0.028) 0.34(0.040) 0.42(0.041) 0.56(0.048)

Other Protestant.................... 0.15(0.012) 0.39(0.016) 0.51(0.018) 0.67(0.023)

Other .......................... 0.13(0.027) 0.39(0.042) 0.55(0.046) 0.63(0.052)

None ............................ 0.22(0.032) 0.51(0.036) 0.63(0.036) 0.86(0.026)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.12(0.011) 0.34(0.014) 0.47(0.017) 0.62(0.021)

Somewhat important .................. 0.18(0.014) 0.47(0.019) 0.61(0.019) 0.77(0.022)

Not important ....................... 0.23(0.030) 0.48(0.036) 0.56(0.038) 0.79(0.042)

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.13(0.010) 0.38(0.014) 0.50(0.016) 0.67(0.017)

Otherwise ......................... 0.19(0.013) 0.45(0.019) 0.58(0.019) 0.75(0.023)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.14(0.009) 0.39(0.012) 0.52(0.013) 0.68(0.016)

Yes ............................. 0.20(0.018) 0.46(0.026) 0.57(0.026) 0.74(0.027)

Presence of unwanted births at separation

No children ........................ 0.20(0.017) 0.47(0.020) 0.59(0.021) 0.77(0.023)

At least one child .................... 0.13(0.009) 0.38(0.014) 0.51(0.015) 0.66(0.018)

No unwanted...................... 0.12(0.012) 0.35(0.018) 0.48(0.022) 0.66(0.028)

Any unwanted ..................... 0.14(0.016) 0.41(0.023) 0.54(0.022) 0.67(0.026)

Parity at separation

No children ........................ 0.20(0.017) 0.47(0.020) 0.59(0.021) 0.77(0.023)

One child ......................... 0.13(0.014) 0.40(0.023) 0.53(0.023) 0.70(0.027)

Two or more ....................... 0.14(0.013) 0.36(0.019) 0.49(0.022) 0.63(0.025)

See footnotes at end of table.
Page 68 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 29. Probability of postmarital cohabitation by duration of separation and selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of

age, United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of cohabitation after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Timing of first birth

Before marriage ..................... 0.15(0.021) 0.38(0.028) 0.47(0.032) 0.60(0.033)

0–7 months after..................... 0.15(0.021) 0.41(0.027) 0.56(0.031) 0.73(0.032)

More than 7 months after ............... 0.14(0.010) 0.41(0.016) 0.55(0.017) 0.71(0.020)

No first birth........................ 0.20(0.024) 0.40(0.031) 0.49(0.030) 0.70(0.038)

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.15(0.010) 0.41(0.014) 0.52(0.014) 0.68(0.015)

Ever ............................ 0.16(0.014) 0.39(0.021) 0.55(0.024) 0.74(0.025)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.17(0.020) 0.42(0.033) 0.55(0.033) 0.70(0.040)

Midwest .......................... 0.17(0.021) 0.42(0.024) 0.53(0.023) 0.73(0.033)

South............................ 0.14(0.013) 0.40(0.020) 0.50(0.018) 0.65(0.020)

West ............................ 0.16(0.016) 0.40(0.023) 0.56(0.030) 0.75(0.028)

1Includes data for Asian and Pacific Islander women and American Indian women, not shown separately. 2Based on women ages 20 and over. 3HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 69

Table 30. Probability of postmarital cohabitation by duration of separation and selected contextual characteristics: All races, women 15–44

years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of cohabitation after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.17(0.017) 0.44(0.023) 0.56(0.025) 0.76(0.030)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.15(0.013) 0.42(0.019) 0.55(0.020) 0.73(0.020)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.15(0.015) 0.33(0.024) 0.45(0.029) 0.58(0.029)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.14(0.015) 0.36(0.019) 0.47(0.021) 0.63(0.023)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.17(0.012) 0.45(0.017) 0.58(0.018) 0.76(0.020)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.14(0.020) 0.39(0.035) 0.51(0.040) 0.67(0.043)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.12(0.018) 0.43(0.032) 0.53(0.033) 0.72(0.038)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.18(0.013) 0.44(0.016) 0.58(0.017) 0.76(0.018)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.13(0.014) 0.34(0.019) 0.45(0.022) 0.59(0.024)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.14(0.018) 0.42(0.025) 0.54(0.029) 0.72(0.033)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.17(0.013) 0.43(0.018) 0.56(0.017) 0.75(0.019)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.14(0.015) 0.35(0.021) 0.48(0.025) 0.59(0.026)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.13(0.013) 0.36(0.020) 0.48(0.021) 0.61(0.022)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.16(0.013) 0.44(0.017) 0.57(0.018) 0.77(0.018)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.17(0.022) 0.41(0.031) 0.53(0.034) 0.67(0.038)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.18(0.019) 0.48(0.025) 0.60(0.025) 0.74(0.026)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.15(0.012) 0.40(0.017) 0.51(0.018) 0.70(0.020)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.14(0.016) 0.36(0.021) 0.52(0.025) 0.67(0.025)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent ................... 0.14(0.017) 0.41(0.025) 0.53(0.023) 0.72(0.026)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.17(0.012) 0.45(0.017) 0.57(0.018) 0.75(0.017)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.13(0.020) 0.31(0.024) 0.45(0.025) 0.57(0.027)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.14(0.013) 0.36(0.022) 0.48(0.025) 0.63(0.025)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.16(0.012) 0.42(0.016) 0.55(0.017) 0.73(0.022)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.17(0.018) 0.45(0.025) 0.58(0.026) 0.73(0.026)

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Page 70 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 31. Probability of postmarital cohabitation by duration of separation and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44

years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of cohabitation after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Total ............................ 0.17(0.011) 0.45(0.015) 0.58(0.015) 0.76(0.017)

Age at separation

Less than 20 ....................... 0.20(0.032) 0.48(0.040) 0.57(0.042) 0.79(0.039)

20–24 ........................... 0.19(0.018) 0.51(0.023) 0.66(0.023) 0.82(0.021)

25 and over ........................ 0.15(0.015) 0.40(0.021) 0.51(0.024) 0.71(0.034)

Education1

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.20(0.032) 0.49(0.043) 0.66(0.044) 0.82(0.042)

HS2 ............................. 0.19(0.016) 0.51(0.022) 0.61(0.021) 0.80(0.025)

More than HS2 ...................... 0.14(0.014) 0.38(0.024) 0.52(0.025) 0.69(0.033)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.15(0.019) 0.43(0.026) 0.53(0.028) 0.67(0.036)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.20(0.019) 0.45(0.025) 0.57(0.026) 0.77(0.027)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.17(0.018) 0.48(0.024) 0.63(0.025) 0.83(0.026)

Work status at separation

Not working ........................ 0.14(0.018) 0.41(0.028) 0.53(0.030) 0.75(0.034)

Part time.......................... 0.19(0.031) 0.53(0.041) 0.64(0.044) 0.82(0.053)

Full time .......................... 0.18(0.013) 0.46(0.019) 0.59(0.018) 0.77(0.022)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.16(0.011) 0.44(0.015) 0.56(0.016) 0.73(0.020)

Catholic ......................... 0.17(0.022) 0.43(0.030) 0.56(0.035) 0.73(0.039)

Fundamentalist .................... * * * *

Other Protestant.................... 0.16(0.014) 0.44(0.020) 0.57(0.020) 0.75(0.028)

Other .......................... 0.15(0.034) 0.42(0.054) 0.58(0.061) 0.69(0.069)

None ............................ 0.24(0.038) 0.54(0.041) 0.68(0.040) 0.90(0.027)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.14(0.015) 0.40(0.020) 0.52(0.022) 0.70(0.029)

Somewhat important .................. 0.19(0.016) 0.49(0.023) 0.64(0.022) 0.81(0.024)

Not important ....................... 0.26(0.036) 0.51(0.042) 0.58(0.040) 0.80(0.046)

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.15(0.012) 0.41(0.017) 0.53(0.018) 0.71(0.022)

Otherwise ......................... 0.23(0.019) 0.53(0.025) 0.68(0.025) 0.86(0.024)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.16(0.011) 0.44(0.016) 0.57(0.017) 0.75(0.019)

Yes ............................. 0.22(0.023) 0.49(0.032) 0.61(0.031) 0.81(0.033)

Presence of unwanted births at separation

No children ........................ 0.21(0.019) 0.50(0.021) 0.61(0.022) 0.81(0.026)

At least one child .................... 0.15(0.013) 0.43(0.020) 0.56(0.020) 0.74(0.023)

No unwanted...................... 0.15(0.016) 0.38(0.025) 0.51(0.027) 0.71(0.034)

Any unwanted ..................... 0.16(0.022) 0.48(0.030) 0.62(0.027) 0.77(0.033)

Parity at separation

No children ........................ 0.21(0.019) 0.50(0.021) 0.61(0.022) 0.81(0.026)

One child ......................... 0.14(0.018) 0.43(0.029) 0.56(0.027) 0.75(0.033)

Two or more ....................... 0.16(0.018) 0.42(0.026) 0.55(0.030) 0.73(0.035)

Timing of first birth

Before marriage ..................... 0.20(0.036) 0.51(0.047) 0.61(0.045) 0.74(0.049)

0–7 months after..................... 0.19(0.027) 0.48(0.034) 0.61(0.036) 0.82(0.035)

More than 7 months after ............... 0.15(0.012) 0.44(0.019) 0.58(0.020) 0.76(0.024)

No first birth........................ 0.22(0.029) 0.44(0.033) 0.52(0.033) 0.73(0.040)

See footnotes at end of table.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 71

Table 31. Probability of postmarital cohabitation by duration of separation and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44

years of age, United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of cohabitation after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.18(0.013) 0.47(0.018) 0.58(0.017) 0.75(0.020)

Ever ............................ 0.17(0.018) 0.42(0.025) 0.58(0.027) 0.79(0.027)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.17(0.024) 0.45(0.041) 0.58(0.042) 0.75(0.046)

Midwest .......................... 0.20(0.025) 0.47(0.027) 0.58(0.027) 0.80(0.033)

South............................ 0.15(0.016) 0.45(0.024) 0.55(0.021) 0.70(0.027)

West ............................ 0.19(0.023) 0.44(0.032) 0.62(0.040) 0.83(0.033)

*Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1Based on women ages 20 and over.

2HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.

Table 32. Probability of postmarital cohabitation by duration of separation and selected contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic white

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of cohabitation after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.17(0.018) 0.45(0.024) 0.57(0.025) 0.77(0.034)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.16(0.015) 0.45(0.023) 0.58(0.025) 0.77(0.024)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.23(0.027) 0.47(0.034) 0.58(0.038) 0.73(0.036)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.19(0.023) 0.44(0.029) 0.55(0.029) 0.73(0.031)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.18(0.014) 0.48(0.021) 0.61(0.021) 0.80(0.022)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.14(0.021) 0.39(0.039) 0.53(0.046) 0.69(0.053)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.12(0.019) 0.42(0.035) 0.54(0.035) 0.75(0.044)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.19(0.015) 0.46(0.019) 0.60(0.020) 0.79(0.020)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.19(0.023) 0.46(0.030) 0.56(0.033) 0.70(0.040)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.15(0.019) 0.42(0.028) 0.55(0.030) 0.73(0.037)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.18(0.015) 0.46(0.021) 0.57(0.020) 0.79(0.023)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.20(0.025) 0.48(0.032) 0.63(0.037) 0.76(0.038)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.17(0.019) 0.45(0.028) 0.57(0.028) 0.73(0.029)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.18(0.016) 0.46(0.021) 0.59(0.021) 0.81(0.021)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.18(0.024) 0.42(0.034) 0.55(0.038) 0.71(0.046)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.19(0.021) 0.52(0.027) 0.63(0.027) 0.78(0.032)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.17(0.015) 0.43(0.020) 0.54(0.020) 0.77(0.023)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.17(0.025) 0.43(0.032) 0.61(0.032) 0.74(0.037)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.15(0.018) 0.42(0.028) 0.55(0.026) 0.76(0.029)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.19(0.015) 0.48(0.021) 0.61(0.020) 0.79(0.023)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.18(0.034) 0.42(0.038) 0.54(0.042) 0.68(0.044)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.18(0.020) 0.46(0.033) 0.54(0.037) 0.72(0.033)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.17(0.015) 0.44(0.021) 0.58(0.020) 0.77(0.024)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.17(0.020) 0.47(0.028) 0.61(0.027) 0.79(0.038)

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Page 72 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 33. Probability that a separation from first marriage makes the transition to divorce by duration of separation and selected

characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of divorce after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Total1 ............................ 0.54(0.013) 0.84(0.009) 0.91(0.007) 0.95(0.006)

Race/ethnicity

Hispanic .......................... 0.30(0.028) 0.66(0.031) 0.77(0.028) 0.85(0.028)

Non-Hispanic white ................... 0.60(0.015) 0.91(0.008) 0.97(0.005) 0.99(0.003)

Non-Hispanic black ................... 0.30(0.028) 0.57(0.032) 0.67(0.031) 0.79(0.032)

Age at separation

Less than 20 ....................... 0.58(0.035) 0.84(0.028) 0.89(0.023) 0.93(0.021)

20–24 ........................... 0.57(0.020) 0.86(0.012) 0.92(0.009) 0.96(0.007)

25 and over ........................ 0.51(0.017) 0.83(0.013) 0.90(0.010) 0.95(0.010)

Education2

Less than HS3 ...................... 0.47(0.030) 0.70(0.024) 0.81(0.020) 0.88(0.019)

HS3 ............................. 0.55(0.018) 0.86(0.013) 0.92(0.011) 0.96(0.008)

More than HS3 ...................... 0.55(0.018) 0.87(0.014) 0.93(0.010) 0.97(0.009)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.47(0.018) 0.76(0.016) 0.84(0.014) 0.90(0.013)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.58(0.020) 0.86(0.014) 0.93(0.010) 0.96(0.009)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.59(0.022) 0.92(0.013) 0.96(0.009) 0.99(0.005)

Work status at separation

Not working ........................ 0.48(0.020) 0.77(0.018) 0.86(0.015) 0.92(0.014)

Part time.......................... 0.54(0.036) 0.85(0.026) 0.92(0.023) 0.93(0.023)

Full time .......................... 0.57(0.017) 0.87(0.011) 0.93(0.008) 0.96(0.006)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.55(0.014) 0.85(0.010) 0.91(0.007) 0.95(0.007)

Catholic ......................... 0.50(0.025) 0.81(0.019) 0.90(0.014) 0.93(0.013)

Fundamentalist .................... 0.52(0.044) 0.84(0.027) 0.92(0.020) 0.96(0.016)

Other Protestant.................... 0.57(0.018) 0.86(0.012) 0.91(0.011) 0.95(0.009)

Other .......................... 0.57(0.043) 0.86(0.027) 0.93(0.023) 0.98(0.017)

None ............................ 0.49(0.032) 0.81(0.026) 0.89(0.019) 0.95(0.016)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.56(0.018) 0.84(0.012) 0.90(0.009) 0.94(0.009)

Somewhat important .................. 0.52(0.019) 0.84(0.014) 0.90(0.011) 0.95(0.010)

Not important ....................... 0.53(0.039) 0.87(0.026) 0.96(0.015) 0.96(0.014)

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.54(0.016) 0.86(0.010) 0.92(0.008) 0.95(0.007)

Otherwise ......................... 0.54(0.019) 0.80(0.016) 0.89(0.013) 0.94(0.012)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.55(0.015) 0.84(0.010) 0.90(0.008) 0.94(0.007)

Yes ............................. 0.53(0.021) 0.83(0.016) 0.91(0.012) 0.97(0.008)

Presence of unwanted births at separation

No children ........................ 0.62(0.019) 0.91(0.012) 0.94(0.010) 0.97(0.007)

At least one child .................... 0.50(0.015) 0.81(0.011) 0.89(0.009) 0.94(0.008)

No unwanted...................... 0.53(0.018) 0.85(0.013) 0.92(0.010) 0.96(0.009)

Any unwanted ..................... 0.47(0.022) 0.76(0.019) 0.86(0.016) 0.91(0.015)

Parity at separation

No children ........................ 0.62(0.019) 0.91(0.012) 0.94(0.010) 0.97(0.007)

One child ......................... 0.53(0.021) 0.85(0.014) 0.91(0.012) 0.95(0.011)

Two or more ....................... 0.48(0.020) 0.77(0.017) 0.87(0.013) 0.93(0.012)

See footnotes at end of table.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 73

Table 33. Probability that a separation from first marriage makes the transition to divorce by duration of separation and selected

characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of divorce after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Timing of first birth

Before marriage ..................... 0.41(0.029) 0.64(0.032) 0.78(0.024) 0.88(0.025)

0–7 months after..................... 0.48(0.027) 0.80(0.022) 0.90(0.019) 0.94(0.019)

More than 7 months after ............... 0.58(0.017) 0.89(0.010) 0.94(0.007) 0.97(0.006)

No first birth........................ 0.61(0.027) 0.89(0.019) 0.91(0.017) 0.96(0.014)

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.53(0.014) 0.82(0.012) 0.90(0.009) 0.94(0.008)

Ever ............................ 0.58(0.023) 0.87(0.013) 0.93(0.012) 0.96(0.009)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.40(0.034) 0.78(0.037) 0.88(0.019) 0.94(0.024)

Midwest .......................... 0.63(0.026) 0.88(0.016) 0.94(0.015) 0.96(0.014)

South............................ 0.56(0.023) 0.84(0.013) 0.90(0.011) 0.95(0.008)

West ............................ 0.53(0.017) 0.85(0.016) 0.90(0.011) 0.95(0.010)

1Includes data for Asian and Pacific Islander women and American Indian women, not shown separately. 2Based on women ages 20 and over. 3HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Page 74 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 34. Probability that a separation from first marriage makes the transition to divorce by duration of separation and selected contextual

characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of divorce after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.58(0.022) 0.91(0.012) 0.96(0.009) 0.98(0.008)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.56(0.017) 0.85(0.011) 0.92(0.009) 0.97(0.006)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.45(0.025) 0.72(0.023) 0.81(0.019) 0.87(0.020)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.53(0.019) 0.78(0.017) 0.86(0.015) 0.91(0.014)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.56(0.017) 0.87(0.011) 0.92(0.008) 0.96(0.007)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.50(0.028) 0.88(0.020) 0.96(0.014) 0.99(0.005)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.55(0.026) 0.90(0.015) 0.98(0.010) 1.00(0.000)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.59(0.017) 0.89(0.011) 0.94(0.008) 0.97(0.006)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.46(0.021) 0.72(0.019) 0.81(0.017) 0.88(0.017)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.61(0.025) 0.92(0.014) 0.96(0.011) 0.99(0.007)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.57(0.017) 0.88(0.010) 0.94(0.008) 0.97(0.006)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.43(0.022) 0.70(0.023) 0.80(0.020) 0.87(0.019)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.51(0.020) 0.78(0.020) 0.86(0.016) 0.91(0.014)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.56(0.018) 0.87(0.011) 0.92(0.009) 0.96(0.008)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.55(0.027) 0.89(0.018) 0.96(0.013) 1.00(0.000)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.54(0.028) 0.88(0.016) 0.95(0.010) 0.98(0.008)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.52(0.019) 0.83(0.013) 0.90(0.010) 0.94(0.009)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.56(0.025) 0.80(0.020) 0.87(0.016) 0.93(0.016)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.64(0.021) 0.91(0.012) 0.95(0.009) 0.98(0.006)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.53(0.017) 0.86(0.012) 0.92(0.009) 0.96(0.007)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.42(0.028) 0.71(0.027) 0.80(0.022) 0.87(0.021)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.51(0.023) 0.77(0.021) 0.85(0.017) 0.90(0.018)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.54(0.018) 0.86(0.012) 0.93(0.008) 0.96(0.006)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.60(0.027) 0.90(0.014) 0.93(0.012) 0.97(0.009)

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 75

Table 35. Probability that a separation from first marriage makes the transition to divorce by duration of separation and selected

characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of divorce after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Total ............................ 0.60(0.015) 0.91(0.008) 0.97(0.005) 0.99(0.003)

Age at separation

Less than 20 ....................... 0.63(0.037) 0.88(0.026) 0.94(0.019) 0.98(0.012)

20–24 ........................... 0.65(0.023) 0.93(0.011) 0.97(0.008) 0.99(0.004)

25 and over ........................ 0.57(0.020) 0.90(0.011) 0.97(0.007) 0.99(0.004)

Education1

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.55(0.040) 0.85(0.027) 0.95(0.018) 0.97(0.015)

HS2 ............................. 0.62(0.019) 0.92(0.011) 0.97(0.007) 0.99(0.003)

More than HS2 ...................... 0.60(0.021) 0.92(0.012) 0.97(0.009) 0.99(0.006)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.55(0.024) 0.87(0.016) 0.94(0.011) 0.98(0.008)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.64(0.023) 0.92(0.014) 0.97(0.008) 0.99(0.006)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.62(0.024) 0.95(0.011) 0.98(0.009) 0.99(0.003)

Work status at separation

Not working ........................ 0.55(0.026) 0.87(0.018) 0.96(0.011) 0.99(0.007)

Part time.......................... 0.60(0.042) 0.96(0.022) 0.98(0.017) 0.98(0.017)

Full time .......................... 0.63(0.019) 0.93(0.009) 0.97(0.006) 0.99(0.004)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.62(0.016) 0.92(0.008) 0.97(0.006) 0.99(0.003)

Catholic ......................... 0.56(0.030) 0.90(0.017) 0.96(0.011) 0.99(0.007)

Fundamentalist .................... * * * *

Other Protestant.................... 0.64(0.019) 0.93(0.009) 0.97(0.006) 0.99(0.004)

Other .......................... 0.62(0.050) 0.91(0.026) 0.96(0.019) 1.00(0.000)

None ............................ 0.53(0.034) 0.86(0.031) 0.95(0.017) 0.98(0.012)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.64(0.021) 0.92(0.010) 0.97(0.008) 0.99(0.005)

Somewhat important .................. 0.58(0.021) 0.90(0.013) 0.96(0.009) 0.99(0.005)

Not important ....................... 0.55(0.041) 0.91(0.027) 0.98(0.013) 0.98(0.013)

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.58(0.019) 0.92(0.009) 0.96(0.006) 0.99(0.004)

Otherwise ......................... 0.65(0.023) 0.90(0.015) 0.97(0.008) 0.99(0.005)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.61(0.017) 0.92(0.009) 0.97(0.006) 0.99(0.004)

Yes ............................. 0.58(0.026) 0.88(0.016) 0.96(0.011) 0.99(0.007)

Presence of unwanted births at separation

No children ........................ 0.66(0.021) 0.94(0.011) 0.97(0.009) 0.99(0.004)

At least one child .................... 0.57(0.018) 0.89(0.011) 0.96(0.006) 0.98(0.005)

No unwanted...................... 0.59(0.022) 0.91(0.012) 0.97(0.008) 0.99(0.006)

Any unwanted ..................... 0.55(0.027) 0.86(0.019) 0.95(0.011) 0.98(0.007)

Parity at separation

No children ........................ 0.66(0.021) 0.94(0.011) 0.97(0.009) 0.99(0.004)

One child ......................... 0.59(0.025) 0.91(0.015) 0.96(0.010) 0.98(0.006)

Two or more ....................... 0.56(0.024) 0.87(0.016) 0.97(0.009) 0.99(0.006)

See footnotes at end of table.
Page 76 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 35. Probability that a separation from first marriage makes the transition to divorce by duration of separation and selected

characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of divorce after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Timing of first birth

Before marriage ..................... 0.54(0.045) 0.78(0.040) 0.93(0.024) 0.95(0.020)

0–7 months after..................... 0.52(0.033) 0.86(0.024) 0.96(0.013) 0.99(0.006)

More than 7 months after ............... 0.62(0.018) 0.94(0.008) 0.98(0.006) 0.99(0.004)

No first birth........................ 0.67(0.029) 0.94(0.016) 0.96(0.015) 0.99(0.009)

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.59(0.016) 0.90(0.011) 0.96(0.007) 0.99(0.004)

Ever ............................ 0.63(0.026) 0.94(0.011) 0.97(0.008) 0.99(0.004)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.42(0.038) 0.84(0.028) 0.95(0.016) 0.99(0.009)

Midwest .......................... 0.68(0.027) 0.95(0.011) 0.99(0.005) 0.99(0.005)

South............................ 0.64(0.027) 0.91(0.012) 0.96(0.010) 0.99(0.005)

West ............................ 0.60(0.021) 0.92(0.015) 0.97(0.011) 0.98(0.010)

*Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1Based on women ages 20 and over. 2HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
- - -

Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 77

Table 36. Probability that a separation from first marriage makes the transition to divorce by duration of separation and selected contextual

characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of divorce after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.61(0.023) 0.93(0.012) 0.97(0.009) 0.99(0.006)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.61(0.021) 0.91(0.011) 0.96(0.008) 0.99(0.004)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.58(0.036) 0.88(0.022) 0.95(0.015) 0.97(0.012)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.64(0.025) 0.91(0.015) 0.97(0.009) 0.99(0.007)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.61(0.019) 0.91(0.011) 0.96(0.008) 0.99(0.005)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.52(0.029) 0.91(0.018) 0.97(0.013) 1.00(0.000)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.56(0.026) 0.92(0.016) 0.98(0.011)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.62(0.019) 0.92(0.011) 0.97(0.007) 0.99(0.004)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.60(0.029) 0.87(0.018) 0.94(0.014) 0.97(0.010)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.63(0.026) 0.94(0.013) 0.98(0.009) 0.99(0.007)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.61(0.019) 0.91(0.011) 0.97(0.007) 0.99(0.004)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.55(0.032) 0.85(0.022) 0.93(0.018) 0.97(0.013)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.63(0.025) 0.91(0.016) 0.97(0.010) 0.99(0.006)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.60(0.020) 0.91(0.011) 0.96(0.008) 0.99(0.005)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.58(0.030) 0.92(0.016) 0.98(0.010) 1.00(0.000)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.57(0.030) 0.91(0.016) 0.98(0.008) 0.99(0.005)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.59(0.022) 0.91(0.011) 0.96(0.008) 0.99(0.005)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.68(0.030) 0.91(0.018) 0.96(0.014) 0.99(0.010)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.67(0.022) 0.94(0.011) 0.98(0.007) 0.99(0.005)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.58(0.019) 0.90(0.012) 0.96(0.008) 0.99(0.005)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.53(0.041) 0.88(0.025) 0.95(0.019) 0.98(0.013)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.64(0.031) 0.90(0.018) 0.96(0.014) 0.99(0.009)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.57(0.021) 0.90(0.012) 0.97(0.008) 0.99(0.004)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.64(0.030) 0.94(0.011) 0.97(0.008) 0.99(0.005)

- - - Data not available.

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Page 78 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 37. Probability of remarriage by duration of divorce and selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age, United States,

1995

Probability of remarriage after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Total1 ............................ 0.15(0.010) 0.39(0.013) 0.54(0.015) 0.75(0.014)

Race/ethnicity

Hispanic .......................... 0.08(0.022) 0.29(0.034) 0.44(0.043) 0.68(0.043)

Non-Hispanic white ................... 0.17(0.012) 0.42(0.015) 0.58(0.017) 0.79(0.015)

Non-Hispanic black ................... 0.08(0.020) 0.23(0.028) 0.32(0.032) 0.49(0.045)

Age at divorce

Less than 25 ....................... 0.17(0.015) 0.41(0.021) 0.57(0.021) 0.81(0.017)

25 and over ........................ 0.14(0.013) 0.37(0.017) 0.51(0.019) 0.68(0.021)

Education2

Less than HS3 ...................... 0.17(0.025) 0.37(0.035) 0.50(0.040) 0.74(0.042)

HS3 ............................. 0.17(0.015) 0.41(0.019) 0.56(0.022) 0.78(0.019)

More than HS3 ...................... 0.13(0.014) 0.36(0.021) 0.53(0.023) 0.71(0.023)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.14(0.016) 0.30(0.023) 0.42(0.023) 0.62(0.027)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.16(0.015) 0.40(0.022) 0.54(0.026) 0.73(0.025)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.17(0.018) 0.46(0.025) 0.65(0.025) 0.87(0.017)

Work status at divorce

Not working ........................ 0.19(0.021) 0.36(0.024) 0.52(0.028) 0.76(0.026)

Part time.......................... 0.15(0.030) 0.40(0.040) 0.54(0.049) 0.77(0.043)

Full time .......................... 0.14(0.012) 0.40(0.016) 0.54(0.017) 0.74(0.016)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.16(0.011) 0.39(0.014) 0.54(0.016) 0.76(0.015)

Catholic ......................... 0.10(0.017) 0.32(0.024) 0.49(0.032) 0.71(0.031)

Fundamentalist .................... 0.20(0.043) 0.44(0.047) 0.58(0.048) 0.82(0.045)

Other Protestant.................... 0.18(0.015) 0.43(0.019) 0.57(0.019) 0.77(0.019)

Other .......................... 0.16(0.035) 0.40(0.051) 0.52(0.051) 0.79(0.047)

None ............................ 0.13(0.026) 0.34(0.035) 0.49(0.036) 0.66(0.036)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.17(0.015) 0.40(0.019) 0.54(0.020) 0.75(0.020)

Somewhat important .................. 0.14(0.014) 0.39(0.021) 0.54(0.023) 0.76(0.022)

Not important ....................... 0.13(0.025) 0.32(0.035) 0.50(0.041) 0.67(0.044)

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.15(0.013) 0.39(0.016) 0.53(0.017) 0.74(0.018)

Otherwise ......................... 0.16(0.016) 0.39(0.022) 0.55(0.022) 0.76(0.021)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.15(0.011) 0.38(0.014) 0.54(0.016) 0.75(0.016)

Yes ............................. 0.17(0.018) 0.40(0.025) 0.52(0.026) 0.75(0.024)

Presence of unwanted births at divorce

No children ........................ 0.13(0.017) 0.40(0.023) 0.56(0.022) 0.77(0.022)

At least one child .................... 0.16(0.012) 0.38(0.017) 0.52(0.018) 0.74(0.016)

No unwanted...................... 0.17(0.016) 0.37(0.020) 0.49(0.022) 0.73(0.023)

Any unwanted ..................... 0.16(0.016) 0.40(0.024) 0.56(0.025) 0.75(0.023)

Parity at divorce

No children ........................ 0.13(0.017) 0.40(0.023) 0.56(0.022) 0.77(0.022)

One child ......................... 0.15(0.016) 0.38(0.024) 0.53(0.024) 0.77(0.022)

Two or more ....................... 0.18(0.016) 0.39(0.021) 0.52(0.024) 0.70(0.026)

See footnotes at end of table.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 79

Table 37. Probability of remarriage by duration of divorce and selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age, United States,

1995—Con.

Probability of remarriage after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Timing of first birth

Before marriage ..................... 0.15(0.024) 0.34(0.033) 0.45(0.036) 0.67(0.044)

0–7 months after..................... 0.18(0.023) 0.36(0.032) 0.53(0.036) 0.76(0.031)

More than 7 months after ............... 0.16(0.014) 0.44(0.018) 0.60(0.019) 0.80(0.018)

No first birth........................ 0.11(0.024) 0.29(0.031) 0.41(0.032) 0.60(0.040)

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.16(0.011) 0.40(0.015) 0.55(0.019) 0.73(0.017)

Ever ............................ 0.14(0.017) 0.37(0.024) 0.52(0.026) 0.78(0.027)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.14(0.026) 0.32(0.030) 0.52(0.036) 0.68(0.041)

Midwest .......................... 0.11(0.021) 0.38(0.030) 0.54(0.037) 0.76(0.031)

South............................ 0.20(0.017) 0.44(0.022) 0.57(0.021) 0.77(0.021)

West ............................ 0.12(0.017) 0.34(0.024) 0.49(0.027) 0.75(0.026)

1Includes data for Asian and Pacific Islander women and American Indian women, not shown separately. 2Based on women ages 20 and over. 3HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Page 80 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 38. Probability of remarriage by duration of divorce and selected contextual characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of age,

United States, 1995

Probability of remarriage after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.15(0.018) 0.41(0.024) 0.57(0.023) 0.79(0.024)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.16(0.015) 0.40(0.018) 0.56(0.019) 0.75(0.018)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.16(0.018) 0.33(0.025) 0.45(0.029) 0.67(0.032)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.15(0.016) 0.35(0.021) 0.49(0.025) 0.71(0.026)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.17(0.014) 0.41(0.018) 0.57(0.020) 0.77(0.017)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.14(0.023) 0.39(0.031) 0.52(0.034) 0.74(0.034)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.14(0.022) 0.42(0.029) 0.55(0.028) 0.77(0.030)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.16(0.014) 0.40(0.018) 0.57(0.021) 0.78(0.018)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.16(0.018) 0.34(0.022) 0.46(0.025) 0.66(0.029)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.12(0.019) 0.39(0.026) 0.55(0.027) 0.75(0.029)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.17(0.014) 0.42(0.018) 0.57(0.020) 0.79(0.017)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.15(0.018) 0.32(0.023) 0.45(0.028) 0.65(0.030)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.19(0.017) 0.39(0.022) 0.52(0.025) 0.73(0.025)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.14(0.014) 0.40(0.018) 0.55(0.021) 0.76(0.018)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.13(0.020) 0.37(0.030) 0.53(0.029) 0.73(0.030)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.20(0.023) 0.45(0.026) 0.42(0.028) 0.79(0.028)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.14(0.013) 0.37(0.019) 0.52(0.022) 0.74(0.019)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.13(0.019) 0.35(0.023) 0.49(0.025) 0.71(0.030)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.19(0.020) 0.45(0.025) 0.60(0.025) 0.80(0.024)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.16(0.013) 0.39(0.018) 0.55(0.021) 0.76(0.020)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.09(0.018) 0.27(0.022) 0.40(0.028) 0.63(0.032)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.12(0.016) 0.32(0.021) 0.44(0.024) 0.67(0.026)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.13(0.012) 0.39(0.018) 0.54(0.019) 0.77(0.019)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.24(0.026) 0.47(0.029) 0.64(0.031) 0.81(0.026)

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 81

Table 39. Probability of remarriage by duration of divorce and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years of age,

United States, 1995

Probability of remarriage after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Total ............................ 0.17(0.012) 0.42(0.015) 0.58(0.017) 0.79(0.015)

Age at divorce

Less than 25 ....................... 0.18(0.017) 0.43(0.026) 0.59(0.025) 0.83(0.018)

25 and over ........................ 0.16(0.016) 0.42(0.020) 0.56(0.020) 0.72(0.022)

Education1

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.22(0.034) 0.44(0.042) 0.59(0.045) 0.81(0.041)

HS2 ............................. 0.18(0.017) 0.45(0.021) 0.59(0.025) 0.81(0.021)

More than HS2 ...................... 0.14(0.016) 0.38(0.023) 0.56(0.026) 0.74(0.025)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.16(0.020) 0.35(0.030) 0.49(0.028) 0.69(0.033)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.18(0.019) 0.43(0.026) 0.56(0.029) 0.74(0.027)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.17(0.019) 0.48(0.027) 0.66(0.027) 0.89(0.018)

Work status at divorce

Not working ........................ 0.23(0.026) 0.41(0.031) 0.58(0.032) 0.81(0.028)

Part time.......................... 0.17(0.035) 0.44(0.045) 0.60(0.054) 0.81(0.044)

Full time .......................... 0.15(0.014) 0.42(0.018) 0.57(0.020) 0.78(0.019)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.18(0.013) 0.43(0.016) 0.59(0.017) 0.80(0.016)

Catholic ......................... 0.12(0.022) 0.34(0.028) 0.51(0.034) 0.72(0.034)

Fundamentalist .................... * * * *

Other Protestant.................... 0.19(0.017) 0.46(0.022) 0.61(0.022) 0.82(0.020)

Other .......................... 0.19(0.041) 0.45(0.057) 0.57(0.054) 0.83(0.051)

None ............................ 0.15(0.031) 0.36(0.040) 0.52(0.040) 0.70(0.041)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.20(0.020) 0.45(0.022) 0.60(0.023) 0.82(0.019)

Somewhat important .................. 0.15(0.016) 0.42(0.023) 0.57(0.023) 0.78(0.025)

Not important ....................... 0.14(0.027) 0.33(0.039) 0.51(0.044) 0.68(0.047)

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.17(0.015) 0.41(0.018) 0.56(0.019) 0.77(0.020)

Otherwise ......................... 0.18(0.021) 0.44(0.028) 0.62(0.027) 0.82(0.022)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.17(0.013) 0.42(0.016) 0.58(0.017) 0.78(0.017)

Yes ............................. 0.18(0.021) 0.44(0.029) 0.56(0.029) 0.79(0.028)

Presence of unwanted births at divorce

No children ........................ 0.14(0.019) 0.41(0.025) 0.58(0.025) 0.78(0.024)

At least one child .................... 0.19(0.015) 0.43(0.020) 0.58(0.022) 0.79(0.019)

No unwanted...................... 0.19(0.020) 0.40(0.024) 0.53(0.025) 0.77(0.026)

Any unwanted ..................... 0.19(0.021) 0.47(0.030) 0.63(0.030) 0.82(0.026)

Parity at divorce

No children ........................ 0.14(0.019) 0.41(0.025) 0.58(0.025) 0.78(0.024)

One child ......................... 0.17(0.020) 0.41(0.030) 0.56(0.030) 0.80(0.026)

Two or more ....................... 0.20(0.020) 0.44(0.024) 0.59(0.027) 0.78(0.028)

Timing of first birth

Before marriage ..................... 0.20(0.039) 0.42(0.048) 0.54(0.050) 0.80(0.049)

0–7 months after..................... 0.19(0.027) 0.39(0.038) 0.57(0.042) 0.79(0.035)

More than 7 months after ............... 0.18(0.016) 0.47(0.020) 0.63(0.020) 0.83(0.019)

No first birth........................ 0.12(0.028) 0.31(0.035) 0.42(0.036) 0.62(0.044)

See footnotes at end of table.
Page 82 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 39. Probability of remarriage by duration of divorce and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years of age,

United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of remarriage after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.18(0.014) 0.44(0.018) 0.59(0.020) 0.78(0.018)

Ever ............................ 0.15(0.019) 0.39(0.027) 0.54(0.029) 0.79(0.029)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.17(0.030) 0.34(0.030) 0.54(0.033) 0.72(0.040)

Midwest .......................... 0.12(0.023) 0.40(0.031) 0.54(0.038) 0.77(0.034)

South............................ 0.23(0.022) 0.50(0.026) 0.63(0.024) 0.82(0.020)

West ............................ 0.12(0.020) 0.37(0.032) 0.54(0.035) 0.78(0.033)

*Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1Based on women ages 20 and over.

2HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.

Table 40. Probability of remarriage by duration of divorce and selected contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women 15–44 years

of age, United States, 1995

Probability of remarriage after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.14(0.019) 0.41(0.025) 0.58(0.024) 0.81(0.024)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.18(0.018) 0.43(0.021) 0.58(0.022) 0.77(0.021)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.21(0.028) 0.42(0.037) 0.56(0.040) 0.79(0.035)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.18(0.022) 0.42(0.028) 0.57(0.030) 0.78(0.030)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.18(0.016) 0.43(0.021) 0.59(0.022) 0.79(0.019)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.13(0.025) 0.40(0.033) 0.54(0.036) 0.78(0.039)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.14(0.023) 0.43(0.030) 0.56(0.032) 0.79(0.030)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.17(0.015) 0.42(0.021) 0.59(0.023) 0.80(0.019)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.22(0.029) 0.43(0.032) 0.57(0.034) 0.75(0.036)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.12(0.020) 0.40(0.027) 0.56(0.029) 0.77(0.030)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.19(0.016) 0.44(0.021) 0.59(0.023) 0.81(0.019)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.19(0.029) 0.39(0.035) 0.56(0.038) 0.74(0.039)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.23(0.023) 0.44(0.029) 0.59(0.030) 0.79(0.028)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.16(0.016) 0.42(0.021) 0.58(0.024) 0.79(0.020)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.13(0.023) 0.39(0.033) 0.55(0.034) 0.77(0.031)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.21(0.025) 0.47(0.028) 0.64(0.029) 0.82(0.029)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.15(0.015) 0.39(0.021) 0.54(0.025) 0.78(0.022)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.17(0.028) 0.41(0.030) 0.56(0.030) 0.76(0.030)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.20(0.022) 0.47(0.027) 0.63(0.026) 0.82(0.025)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.17(0.015) 0.42(0.019) 0.57(0.023) 0.78(0.021)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.09(0.022) 0.30(0.035) 0.48(0.041) 0.71(0.046)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.14(0.022) 0.34(0.030) 0.47(0.032) 0.70(0.035)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.15(0.015) 0.42(0.020) 0.58(0.020) 0.80(0.020)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.25(0.030) 0.50(0.032) 0.68(0.032) 0.84(0.025)

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 83

Table 41. Probability of second marriage disruption by duration of remarriage and selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of

age, United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Total1 ............................ 0.05(0.007) 0.15(0.011) 0.23(0.014) 0.39(0.019)

Race/ethnicity

Hispanic .......................... 0.05(0.020) 0.08(0.025) 0.17(0.033) 0.29(0.050)

Non-Hispanic white ................... 0.06(0.008) 0.16(0.013) 0.23(0.015) 0.39(0.021)

Non-Hispanic black ................... 0.06(0.027) 0.21(0.044) 0.32(0.058) 0.48(0.064)

Age at remarriage

Less than 25 ....................... 0.06(0.014) 0.18(0.023) 0.25(0.025) 0.47(0.032)

25 and over ........................ 0.05(0.008) 0.14(0.013) 0.22(0.017) 0.34(0.022)

Education2

Less than HS3 ...................... 0.07(0.022) 0.18(0.032) 0.27(0.040) 0.46(0.049)

HS3 ............................. 0.06(0.011) 0.16(0.019) 0.23(0.020) 0.38(0.026)

More than HS3 ...................... 0.05(0.011) 0.13(0.015) 0.20(0.020) 0.37(0.029)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.09(0.018) 0.23(0.027) 0.33(0.033) 0.53(0.039)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.05(0.012) 0.17(0.020) 0.25(0.022) 0.43(0.032)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.03(0.009) 0.08(0.014) 0.14(0.019) 0.25(0.029)

Work status at remarriage

Not working ........................ 0.08(0.018) 0.17(0.025) 0.23(0.028) 0.43(0.037)

Part time.......................... 0.04(0.027) 0.15(0.040) 0.19(0.042) 0.33(0.060)

Full time .......................... 0.05(0.007) 0.15(0.013) 0.23(0.016) 0.38(0.023)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.06(0.007) 0.15(0.012) 0.22(0.015) 0.39(0.021)

Catholic ......................... 0.06(0.018) 0.13(0.025) 0.19(0.028) 0.36(0.042)

Fundamentalist .................... 0.01(0.010) 0.13(0.036) 0.18(0.041) 0.35(0.069)

Other Protestant.................... 0.06(0.010) 0.15(0.016) 0.23(0.020) 0.40(0.025)

Other .......................... * * * *

None ............................ 0.04(0.018) 0.19(0.042) 0.29(0.047) 0.40(0.055)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.06(0.011) 0.16(0.019) 0.23(0.021) 0.39(0.026)

Somewhat important .................. 0.05(0.012) 0.13(0.017) 0.21(0.021) 0.38(0.032)

Not important ....................... 0.04(0.020) 0.16(0.039) 0.30(0.048) 0.44(0.053)

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.05(0.009) 0.14(0.015) 0.20(0.017) 0.33(0.023)

Otherwise ......................... 0.07(0.013) 0.18(0.020) 0.27(0.025) 0.49(0.033)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.05(0.008) 0.14(0.013) 0.20(0.015) 0.36(0.022)

Yes ............................. 0.05(0.014) 0.19(0.025) 0.29(0.029) 0.45(0.034)

Unwanted births at remarriage

No children ........................ 0.05(0.013) 0.14(0.018) 0.18(0.021) 0.32(0.028)

At least one child .................... 0.06(0.008) 0.16(0.014) 0.25(0.017) 0.42(0.024)

No unwanted...................... 0.07(0.014) 0.15(0.021) 0.22(0.025) 0.40(0.035)

Any unwanted ..................... 0.05(0.010) 0.17(0.019) 0.27(0.024) 0.44(0.032)

Parity at remarriage

No children ........................ 0.05(0.013) 0.14(0.018) 0.18(0.021) 0.32(0.028)

One child ......................... 0.05(0.013) 0.13(0.020) 0.23(0.025) 0.41(0.032)

Two or more ....................... 0.06(0.012) 0.18(0.019) 0.26(0.023) 0.43(0.028)

See footnotes at end of table.
Page 84 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 41. Probability of second marriage disruption by duration of remarriage and selected characteristics: All races, women 15–44 years of

age, United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Timing of first birth

Before marriage ..................... 0.04(0.017) 0.23(0.039) 0.29(0.045) 0.44(0.057)

0–7 months after..................... 0.05(0.015) 0.16(0.028) 0.28(0.035) 0.42(0.044)

More than 7 months after ............... 0.05(0.009) 0.12(0.013) 0.19(0.016) 0.37(0.024)

No first birth........................ 0.07(0.023) 0.23(0.041) 0.29(0.043) 0.35(0.050)

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.05(0.008) 0.13(0.012) 0.20(0.015) 0.34(0.022)

Ever ............................ 0.06(0.014) 0.19(0.025) 0.29(0.030) 0.50(0.035)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.02(0.012) 0.09(0.013) 0.14(0.022) 0.28(0.040)

Midwest .......................... 0.06(0.016) 0.18(0.031) 0.29(0.033) 0.45(0.038)

South............................ 0.06(0.011) 0.16(0.019) 0.23(0.022) 0.40(0.031)

West ............................ 0.06(0.016) 0.16(0.020) 0.23(0.030) 0.39(0.044)

Age difference

He is 5 or more years older .............. 0.03(0.010) 0.08(0.021) 0.11(0.023) 0.23(0.034)

He is 0–4 years older .................. 0.03(0.009) 0.09(0.014) 0.14(0.016) 0.24(0.026)

She is older ........................ 0.05(0.014) 0.12(0.021) 0.17(0.025) 0.28(0.034)

Race difference

Same race ........................ 0.04(0.007) 0.10(0.012) 0.14(0.014) 0.25(0.020)

Different race ....................... 0.02(0.013) 0.08(0.026) 0.12(0.034) 0.28(0.053)

Cohabited before marriage

Did not ........................... 0.09(0.014) 0.19(0.021) 0.27(0.024) 0.38(0.032)

Did ............................. 0.04(0.009) 0.13(0.015) 0.21(0.019) 0.40(0.025)

*Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1Includes data for Asian and Pacific Islander women and American Indian women, not shown separately. 2Based on women ages 20 and over. 3HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 85

Table 42. Probability of second marriage disruption by duration of remarriage and selected contextual characteristics: All races, women

15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.04(0.011) 0.14(0.020) 0.20(0.024) 0.31(0.033)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.05(0.010) 0.15(0.017) 0.22(0.020) 0.41(0.028)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.10(0.023) 0.19(0.028) 0.29(0.031) 0.45(0.039)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.09(0.020) 0.19(0.026) 0.29(0.029) 0.49(0.035)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.05(0.009) 0.16(0.015) 0.23(0.018) 0.38(0.025)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.02(0.010) 0.07(0.018) 0.12(0.028) 0.26(0.037)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.04(0.012) 0.11(0.021) 0.16(0.027) 0.28(0.039)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.05(0.009) 0.15(0.015) 0.22(0.018) 0.36(0.023)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.08(0.018) 0.20(0.026) 0.30(0.029) 0.54(0.038)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.05(0.013) 0.14(0.023) 0.19(0.024) 0.33(0.040)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.05(0.010) 0.15(0.017) 0.24(0.021) 0.39(0.025)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.06(0.019) 0.18(0.027) 0.26(0.031) 0.46(0.042)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.08(0.017) 0.20(0.023) 0.29(0.024) 0.46(0.031)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.05(0.010) 0.13(0.015) 0.23(0.020) 0.37(0.028)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.03(0.013) 0.07(0.020) 0.13(0.025) 0.30(0.044)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.04(0.016) 0.14(0.026) 0.20(0.027) 0.36(0.035)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.06(0.011) 0.16(0.015) 0.24(0.021) 0.39(0.027)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.04(0.012) 0.13(0.022) 0.21(0.026) 0.40(0.036)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.05(0.011) 0.14(0.019) 0.20(0.023) 0.36(0.033)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.06(0.011) 0.16(0.016) 0.24(0.020) 0.38(0.028)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.05(0.016) 0.17(0.025) 0.27(0.035) 0.49(0.048)

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.07(0.018) 0.19(0.026) 0.29(0.033) 0.42(0.040)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.05(0.009) 0.14(0.015) 0.21(0.018) 0.36(0.027)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.05(0.013) 0.13(0.025) 0.21(0.026) 0.42(0.037)

1SMSA is standard metropolitan standard area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Page 86 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 43. Probability of second marriage disruption by duration of remarriage and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women

15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Total ............................ 0.06(0.008) 0.16(0.013) 0.23(0.015) 0.39(0.021)

Age at remarriage

Less than 25 ....................... 0.06(0.015) 0.20(0.027) 0.27(0.029) 0.49(0.033)

25 and over ........................ 0.05(0.009) 0.14(0.015) 0.31(0.019) 0.33(0.026)

Education1

Less than HS2 ...................... 0.06(0.024) 0.18(0.037) 0.27(0.046) 0.47(0.058)

HS2 ............................. 0.06(0.012) 0.17(0.021) 0.23(0.022) 0.38(0.029)

More than HS2 ...................... 0.05(0.013) 0.14(0.018) 0.21(0.023) 0.38(0.033)

Family income

Less than $25,000.................... 0.09(0.021) 0.22(0.029) 0.30(0.034) 0.51(0.045)

$25,000–$49,999 .................... 0.06(0.014) 0.20(0.024) 0.28(0.025) 0.47(0.037)

$50,000 or more ..................... 0.03(0.009) 0.08(0.015) 0.14(0.021) 0.25(0.030)

Work status at remarriage

Not working ........................ 0.09(0.021) 0.19(0.029) 0.25(0.031) 0.45(0.040)

Part time.......................... * * * *

Full time .......................... 0.05(0.008) 0.15(0.014) 0.23(0.017) 0.38(0.024)

Religious affiliation

Any ............................. 0.06(0.008) 0.15(0.014) 0.23(0.016) 0.40(0.023)

Catholic ......................... 0.07(0.024) 0.13(0.033) 0.20(0.036) 0.38(0.048)

Fundamentalist .................... * * * *

Other Protestant.................... 0.05(0.011) 0.15(0.018) 0.23(0.021) 0.41(0.026)

Other .......................... * * * *

None ............................ 0.04(0.020) 0.19(0.043) 0.26(0.048) 0.37(0.057)

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 0.06(0.012) 0.18(0.021) 0.24(0.024) 0.40(0.030)

Somewhat important .................. 0.06(0.013) 0.13(0.018) 0.20(0.023) 0.39(0.033)

Not important ....................... * * * *

Intact family of origin status

Intact two-parent ..................... 0.05(0.010) 0.14(0.016) 0.21(0.018) 0.33(0.025)

Otherwise ......................... 0.07(0.015) 0.19(0.023) 0.27(0.027) 0.51(0.037)

Ever had forced premarital sex

No.............................. 0.05(0.009) 0.14(0.014) 0.19(0.016) 0.36(0.023)

Yes ............................. 0.06(0.017) 0.20(0.029) 0.31(0.033) 0.48(0.040)

Presence of unwanted births at remarriage

No children ........................ 0.05(0.013) 0.14(0.019) 0.18(0.020) 0.32(0.029)

At least one child .................... 0.06(0.010) 0.17(0.016) 0.26(0.019) 0.43(0.027)

No unwanted...................... 0.08(0.017) 0.16(0.024) 0.23(0.028) 0.40(0.038)

Any unwanted ..................... 0.05(0.011) 0.18(0.024) 0.28(0.029) 0.47(0.038)

Parity at remarriage

No children ........................ 0.05(0.013) 0.14(0.019) 0.18(0.020) 0.32(0.029)

One child ......................... 0.06(0.015) 0.14(0.023) 0.24(0.029) 0.43(0.037)

Two or more ....................... 0.04(0.014) 0.19(0.022) 0.27(0.025) 0.44(0.033)

Timing of first birth

Before marriage ..................... * * * *

0–7 months after..................... 0.05(0.015) 0.17(0.033) 0.29(0.038) 0.43(0.049)

More than 7 months after ............... 0.06(0.010) 0.13(0.014) 0.19(0.017) 0.38(0.027)

No first birth........................ 0.08(0.026) 0.24(0.043) 0.29(0.044) 0.35(0.052)

See footnotes at end of table.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 87

Table 43. Probability of second marriage disruption by duration of remarriage and selected characteristics: Non-Hispanic white women

15–44 years of age, United States, 1995—Con.

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Generalized anxiety disorder

Never............................ 0.05(0.009) 0.13(0.014) 0.19(0.016) 0.34(0.025)

Ever ............................ 0.06(0.015) 0.20(0.028) 0.30(0.033) 0.50(0.038)

Region of residence

Northeast ......................... 0.02(0.012) 0.07(0.014) 0.11(0.021) 0.26(0.046)

Midwest .......................... 0.07(0.018) 0.19(0.035) 0.30(0.037) 0.45(0.040)

South............................ 0.06(0.013) 0.17(0.020) 0.24(0.022) 0.42(0.034)

West ............................ 0.06(0.020) 0.16(0.024) 0.22(0.032) 0.38(0.047)

Age difference

He is 5 or more years older .............. 0.02(0.010) 0.07(0.024) 0.10(0.027) 0.21(0.039)

He 0–4 years older ................... 0.03(0.010) 0.09(0.017) 0.13(0.019) 0.24(0.030)

She is older ........................ 0.05(0.017) 0.10(0.024) 0.14(0.026) 0.25(0.041)

Cohabited before marriage

Did not ........................... 0.09(0.016) 0.19(0.023) 0.27(0.026) 0.39(0.036)

Did ............................. 0.04(0.010) 0.14(0.016) 0.21(0.020) 0.40(0.027)

*Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1Based on women ages 20 and over. 2HS is high school.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Page 88 [ Series 23, No. 22

Table 44. Probability of second marriage disruption by duration of remarriage and selected contextual characteristics: Non-Hispanic white

women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Probability of disruption after—

Characteristic 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Male unemployment rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.04(0.012) 0.14(0.021) 0.20(0.024) 0.31(0.035)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.05(0.011) 0.15(0.019) 0.23(0.022) 0.42(0.031)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.11(0.029) 0.21(0.036) 0.30(0.038) 0.46(0.049)

Median family income

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.09(0.025) 0.20(0.030) 0.30(0.034) 0.51(0.041)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.05(0.010) 0.17(0.017) 0.24(0.020) 0.39(0.028)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.02(0.008) 0.07(0.019) 0.11(0.026) 0.25(0.039)

Percent below poverty

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.03(0.011) 0.12(0.022) 0.16(0.028) 0.28(0.041)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.06(0.010) 0.16(0.017) 0.23(0.019) 0.38(0.025)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.08(0.022) 0.21(0.032) 0.30(0.033) 0.56(0.049)

Percent on public assistance

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.05(0.014) 0.15(0.025) 0.20(0.026) 0.35(0.043)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.06(0.011) 0.15(0.018) 0.23(0.021) 0.39(0.026)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.06(0.023) 0.18(0.034) 0.26(0.038) 0.48(0.054)

Percent college-educated

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.08(0.020) 0.21(0.027) 0.30(0.028) 0.48(0.035)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.05(0.012) 0.15(0.017) 0.22(0.021) 0.37(0.029)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.03(0.013) 0.07(0.021) 0.12(0.026) 0.31(0.049)

Crime rate

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.05(0.018) 0.14(0.027) 0.19(0.029) 0.36(0.037)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.06(0.012) 0.16(0.017) 0.24(0.023) 0.39(0.030)

Top 25 percent ...................... 0.05(0.017) 0.15(0.030) 0.24(0.033) 0.46(0.046)

Percent of women never-married

Bottom 25 percent .................... 0.06(0.012) 0.15(0.021) 0.20(0.025) 0.36(0.034)

Middle 50 percent .................... 0.06(0.012) 0.17(0.018) 0.25(0.021) 0.40(0.030)

Top 25 percent ...................... * * * *

Metropolitan status

SMSA1

, central city ................... 0.10(0.026) 0.22(0.033) 0.30(0.038) 0.43(0.047)

SMSA1

, other....................... 0.05(0.009) 0.15(0.016) 0.21(0.019) 0.37(0.029)

Not SMSA1 ........................ 0.04(0.012) 0.14(0.027) 0.21(0.028) 0.42(0.039)

* Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1SMSA is standard metropolitan statistical area.

NOTE: See Technical Notes for definitions of characteristics.
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 89 

Appendix I

Technical Notes

Definitions of Terms

Cohabitation and Marital Status—The

categories of past and current

cohabitation and marital status were

derived from two variables in the NSFG

Cycle 5, formal marital status at

interview and informal marital status at

interview. The formal marital status

variable classifies women according to

their legal marital status at interview

(married, widowed, divorced, separated,

or never married), while the informal

marital status variable includes an

additional category, not married but

living with a partner. The category ‘‘not

married but living with a partner’’ was

derived from the household roster,

where cohabitation was listed as a

relationship. Cohabitation was defined

for respondents as being unmarried, but

‘‘having a sexual relationship while

sharing the same usual address.’’ Both

formal and informal marital statuses are

required to determine the legal marital

status of cohabiting women. An

additional variable, ever cohabited

outside of marriage, was used to

determine whether women had ever

cohabited.

Interval to First Marriage—The

interval to first marriage is calculated as

the number of months between the 15th

birthday and the date of first marriage.

If there was no first marriage, the case

is censored at interview and the duration

is calculated as the number of months

between the 15th birthday and the date

of interview.

Transition to Marriage—The transition

from cohabitation to marriage is

measured as the number of months

between the date of the beginning of the

first premarital cohabitation and the date

of first marriage, if the first cohabiting

partner is the same man as the first

husband and the couple lived together

continuously until marriage. If the

couple was still living together

unmarried at interview (censure by

interview), the date of interview is used

as the end date. If the couple had

disrupted before marriage (censure by

dissolution), the date of union

dissolution is used as the end date.

Cohabitation Duration—Cohabitation

duration is calculated as the number of

months between the beginning of the

first premarital cohabitation and the

dissolution of the union (either as

separation or as separation/divorce if the

couple married at some time during the

cohabitation and lived together

continuously until the marriage).

Alternatively, if the cohabitation had not

disrupted as of interview, the duration is

calculated as the number of months

between the beginning of the

cohabitation and the date of interview.

Marital Duration—The duration of first

marriage is calculated as the number of

months between the beginning of the

first marriage and the separation or

divorce, or alternatively, between the

beginning of the marriage and the date

of interview, if censored by interview.

The duration of the second marriage is

similarly calculated as the number of

months between the beginning of the

second marriage and the separation or

divorce, or between the beginning of the

marriage and the date of interview, if

censored by interview.

Marital Disruption/Dissolution—

Disruption and dissolution are used

interchangeably, and are defined as

either separation or divorce. Widowhood

is very rare in the age range for the

sample and is not defined as disruption.

Widowhood removes a marriage from

the risk of disruption via separation or

divorce. Because the duration of the

marriage, had the spouse survived, is

unknown, such cases are treated as

censored and the date of the spouse’s

death is used as the end date for

calculating duration.

Postmarital Cohabitation—Postmarital

cohabitation refers to the first

cohabitation that a woman enters after

the dissolution of her first marriage,

regardless of whether the partner is the

former husband or a new partner.

Separation—Separation is defined at the

date when the husband and wife stopped

living together for the last time.

Divorce—Divorce is defined at the date

the divorce became finalized.

Remarriage—Remarriage refers to the

second marriage; third and higher-order

marriages are not included in the

statistics in this report because there

were not enough of them in the sample

to produce reliable estimates.

Race and Hispanic Origin—Women

who answered ‘‘yes’’ to the following

question were classified as Hispanic:

‘‘Are you of Hispanic or Spanish

origin?’’ All other women were

classified according to race, based on

responses to the following question:

‘‘Which of the groups best describes

your racial background?’’ The response

categories were ‘‘Alaskan native or

American Indian,’’ ‘‘Asian or Pacific

Islander,’’ ‘‘Black’’ and ‘‘White.’’

Women who selected more than one

race category were asked to select the

one category that best describes them.

Non-Hispanic Alaskan native or

American Indian women are included in

the totals in this report, but there were

not enough in this sample to present

separate, reliable estimates for them.

Non-Hispanic Asian women are too

small a group for reliable estimates for

most of the analyses by racial/ethnic

subgroups and are not shown in most

analyses. In this report, non-Hispanic

white women are often referred to as

‘‘white’’ and non-Hispanic black women

are often referred to as ‘‘black.’’ The

full labels are always used in the tables

and graphs.

Age at Event (Cohabitation, Marriage,

Separation, Divorce, or Remarriage)—

The woman’s age at an event is

calculated as the number of months

between the date of birth and the date of

the event, divided by 12 and truncated

to the integer value.

Education—Education at interview is

derived from completed years of

education and highest degree received

and is categorized as less than high

school, high school, or more than high

school. If the respondent is below the

age of 20 at interview the respondent is

excluded from analysis by education.

For analysis of the transition to first

marriage for all women, mother’s
Page 90 [ Series 23, No. 22 

education is classified by the same three

categories as respondent’s education.

Family Income—Family income at

interview includes the total income of the

respondent’s family and is categorized as

less than $25,000, $25,000–$49,999, and

$50,000 or higher.

Work Status at Event (Cohabitation,

Marriage, Separation, Divorce, or

Remarriage)—Work status is derived

from the work history, which lists

beginning and ending dates of periods

of work and indicates whether that work

was part time or full time. A comparison

of dates from the work history and the

marital/cohabitation histories enables the

coding of work status at each event. The

work history begins at age 18, so

women under the age of 18 at an event

are coded as not working at the event.

Changes in work status during a specific

marital status interval are not analyzed;

the analysis focuses on work status at

the beginning of each marital status

interval (at cohabitation, at marriage, at

separation, at divorce, or at remarriage).

Religious Affiliation—Religious

affiliation is measured at interview by

the question, ‘‘What religion are you

now, if any?’’ Possible response options

include none, Catholic, Jewish, Baptist,

Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian,

Episcopal, and other (specify). ‘‘Other

(specify)’’ responses were categorized as

fundamentalist Protestant, other major

Protestant denominations, Protestant-no

specific denomination, other Protestant,

Mormon, Christian Scientist, no specific

denomination, and other. Many of these

groups are too small to analyze

separately. The categories Baptist,

Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian,

Episcopal, other major Protestant

denominations, Protestant-no specific

denomination, and other Protestant were

collapsed into one category ‘‘other

Protestant’’ (distinct from fundamental

Protestant, not included in this

category). The categories Jewish,

Mormon, Christian Scientist, no specific

denomination, and other (including all

others not mentioned, such as Muslim,

Hindu, and Buddhist) were collapsed

into one category ‘‘other.’’ The

categories Catholic, fundamental

Protestant, and none are unchanged.

Importance of Religion—The

importance of religion is measured as

responses to the question, ‘‘Currently,

how important is religion in your daily

life?’’ Response options include very

important, somewhat important, and not

important.

Intact Family of Origin Status—The

family background variable measures

whether the respondent was raised from

birth through childhood with two

parents. Two biological parents or two

adoptive parents from birth represent

‘‘intact’’ and any other situation

represents ‘‘not intact.’’

Forced Premarital Intercourse—This

variable indicates whether the

respondent had ever been forced to have

intercourse before first marriage. For the

analysis of first cohabitation disruption

or the transition from cohabitation to

marriage, the variable measures whether

the respondent had ever had forced

intercourse before the cohabitation.

These measures are derived from

comparison of the date of the first

forced intercourse with the date of the

beginning of the marriage or

cohabitation.

Parity at Event (Cohabitation,

Marriage, Separation, Divorce, or

Remarriage)—Parity at an event is

derived from the birth history and the

marital/cohabitation history. Parity

measures the number of live births the

respondent had had as of the time of the

event. For earlier events (first

cohabitation and first marriage), parity is

categorized as zero children or one or

more children. For later events, there

were sufficient numbers of women with

more than one birth to categorize parity

as zero children, one child, or two

children or more.

Wantedness of Children—Among

women with at least one child at an

event (cohabitation, marriage,

separation, divorce, or remarriage), an

indicator of whether any of the children

were unwanted by the mother at the

time they were conceived was coded.

For each conception, the respondent was

asked whether the pregnancy was

overdue, at the right time, too

soon/mistimed, unwanted, or whether

the respondent was indifferent or didn’t

care. If any of the pregnancies that

resulted in a live birth before the event

in question were reported as unwanted,

wantedness was classified as ‘‘any

unwanted children.’’ If none of the

pregnancies that resulted in a live birth

before the event in question were

reported as unwanted, wantedness was

classified as ‘‘no unwanted children.’’

Wantedness refers only to the time of

conception and does not necessarily

indicate that the children were

unwanted—children that were unwanted

at conception may still be cherished

later (56).

Timing of First Birth—Timing of first

birth relative to first cohabitation or first

marriage is derived from the birth

history and the cohabitation and

marriage history by comparison of the

date of first birth with the dates of first

cohabitation and first marriage. The

timing of first birth variable is classified

as before first marriage, within the first

7 months of first marriage, after the 7th

month of first marriage, or never. For

analysis of the first premarital

cohabitation, the timing of first birth

variable is classified as before first

cohabitation, within the first 7 months

of first cohabitation, after the 7th month

of first cohabitation, or never. The

category ‘‘never’’ refers to women who

had never had a first birth by the date of

the interview.

Women who had never had a birth

by the date of the interview are not the

same as women who had not had any

children by the time of their divorce

from first marriage. Women who had

not had any children by the time of their

divorce could still have had children

after the divorce, but before the

interview.

Generalized Anxiety Disorder—The

recode GENANX indicates whether

respondents had ever had at least one

period of generalized anxiety that lasted

6 months or more. Indicators of

generalized anxiety include restlessness,

feeling keyed up or on edge, irritability,

a pounding or racing heart, tiring easily,

trouble falling or staying asleep, and

feeling faint. Respondents who indicated

that they had ever had a period of 6
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 91 

months or longer when they felt worried

and anxious and who gave a valid

response to each of the seven indicators

of generalized anxiety were coded as

having ever suffered generalized anxiety

disorder.

Region of Residence—Region of

residence at the time of the interview

refers to the four major census regions,

Northeast, Midwest, West, and South.

The Northeast region includes Maine,

New Hampshire, Vermont,

Massachusetts, Rhode Island,

Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,and

Pennsylvania. The Midwest region

includes Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,

Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa,

Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota,

Nebraska, and Kansas. The South region

includes Delaware, Maryland, District of

Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,

Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama,

Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana,

Oklahoma, and Texas. The West region

includes Montana, Idaho, Wyoming,

Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah,

Nevada, Washington, Oregon,

California, Alaska, and Hawaii.

Age Difference with Husband—The

age difference between the respondent

and each of the first and second

husbands is derived from comparison of

the respondent’s age with that of her

first and second husbands. The variable

has three categories: The husband is 5

or more years older than the respondent;

the husband is 0–4 years older than the

respondent; and the respondent is older

than the husband. Age differences are

measured in whole years, so spouses

whose ages differ by less than a year of

age are categorized as the same age.

Race Difference with Husband—The

race difference between the respondent

and each of her first and second

husbands is derived from comparison of

the respondent’s race/ethnicity with that

of her first and second husbands. For

the respondent and for her first and

second husbands, race/ethnicity is

measured as described previously. The

five categories of race/ethnicity that are

compared consist of Hispanic,

non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black,

non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander,

and non-Hispanic Alaskan native or

American Indian. If the respondent and

her husband share the same race/

ethnicity, the marriage is coded ‘‘same

race,’’ and if the respondent and

husband do not share the same

race/ethnicity, the marriage is coded

‘‘different race.’’ For first marriages, the

sample is large enough to examine other

categories of race difference. If the

respondent is non-Hispanic white and

her husband was not or the husband was

non-Hispanic white and she is not, the

marriage is coded ‘‘white/any other.’’ If

the respondent is non-Hispanic black

and her husband was not or the husband

was non-Hispanic black and she is not,

the marriage is coded ‘‘black/any

other.’’ The categories ‘‘white/any

other’’ and ‘‘black/any other’’ are not

separate from ‘‘different race,’’ all

white/other and black/other marriages

are included in the category ‘‘different

race.’’ The sample size of second

marriages was not large enough to

examine any categories other than

‘‘same race’’ and ‘‘different race.’’

Cohabited Before Marriage—Women

were asked if they had lived together

with each of their husbands before

marriage. If they had lived together

before marriage, and they lived together

continuously until marriage, the variable

was coded ‘‘cohabited before marriage.’’

Cohabitations that disrupted before

marriage are treated as separate unions,

and these marriages are coded ‘‘did not

cohabit before marriage.’’ This variable

is only applicable to analysis of first- or

second-marriage disruption.

Context—Context refers to the

community in which the NSFG

respondents live. For most contextual

variables, the community is defined as

the census tract. For the crime rate, the

community is defined as the county.

Missing cases on variables measured at

the tract level are imputed with the

value for the county. The NSFG Cycle 5

contextual data file includes contextual

indicators for respondent addresses in

three time points: the 1990 Census, the

1993 National Health Interview Survey

interview (the NSFG sample list was

derived from National Health Interview

Survey respondents), and the 1995

NSFG interview. The time point chosen

for analysis was the one that was closest

in time to the dates when the union

(first cohabitation, first marriage, or

second marriage) existed.

Contextual Variables—The male

unemployment rate, median family

income, percent of families with income

below the poverty line, percent of

households with public assistance

income, percent of adults 25 years and

over who have a college degree, and the

percent of women 15 years and over

who are never-married are measured at

the census tract-level and are derived

from the 1990 Census of Population and

Housing, Summary Tape File 3A. The

crime rate per 100,000 is measured at

the county level and is derived from

Uniform Crime Reports provided by the

U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation.

These continuous contextual variables

are recoded into three categories: the

bottom quartile, the middle 50 percent,

and the top quartile. Specific values for

these cutoff percentiles are omitted to

eliminate the risk of respondent

disclosure. The remaining contextual

variable, metropolitan status, is the only

contextual variable in this report that

appears on the public-use data file and

is measured at the time of the 1995

interview for all respondents. This

variable categorizes residence as central

cities of metropolitan areas, suburban

parts of metropolitan areas, or

nonmetropolitan areas.

Life Table—A methodology that

estimates probabilities of death at each

duration of life, adapted for marital

stability analysis to estimate

probabilities of marital events given that

the relationship has endured intact to

specific duration values. For further

definition of term, see the ‘‘Methods’’

section.

Censored—A case is termed ‘‘censored’’

if it is removed from the risk of an

event before that event has occurred.

For a marriage that is intact at interview,

the eventual date of marital disruption is

unknown, and it is therefore referred to

as ‘‘censored by interview.’’ For a

marriage that ended in widowhood, the

eventual date of marital disruption, had

the husband survived, is unknown and it
Page 92 [ Series 23, No. 22 

is therefore referred to as ‘‘censored by ex-wife continued living together after possible comparisons are discussed in

widowhood.’’ For further explanation, the divorce was finalized, either for the the text. Standard errors are presented

see the ‘‘Methods’’ section. sake of the children or for economic for all statistics in the detailed tables,

reasons. All negative duration values enabling the reader to use the formula

Sample Sizes were reset to zero, and the time interval presented here to assess the statistical

The estimates of the interval to first

marriage are based on the full sample of

10,847 women in the 1995 NSFG. The

estimates of first cohabitation duration

and the transition to marriage are based

on 3,791 first premarital cohabitations in

until divorce (if separated) or until

remarriage (if divorced) is equal to zero

in these cases.

Sampling Errors

The statistics presented in this

significance of any comparison not

noted in the text. The statistical

significance of differences in probability

estimates between subgroups is assessed

by comparing the boundaries of

95-percent confidence intervals

constructed around each estimate. The

the 1995 NSFG. The estimates of

first-marriage duration are based on

6,841 first marriages. The estimates of

the probability of postmarital

cohabitation are based on 2,524 first

marriages that ended due to separation,

divorce, or widowhood. The estimates

of the duration of the separation until

the transition to divorce are based on

report are based on a sample survey, and

may therefore differ from statistics that

would be obtained if it were possible to

interview all of the 60.2 million women

that the survey sample represents. The

standard error of an estimate is a

measure of such differences. The

software package SUDAAN, version

7.5.4 was used to estimate the standard

confidence interval is constructed by the

formula: p +/– (1.96)(se), wherep=the

probability estimate, and se = the

standard error. If there is any overlap

between the two confidence intervals,

the difference is not statistically

significant, and if there is no overlap

between the two confidence intervals,

the difference between the two estimates

2,386 first marriages that ended due to

separation or divorce. The estimates of

errors used to test for statistical

significance. Standard errors are shown

is statistically significant at thep<=

0.05 level. There are other methods of

the duration of divorce until remarriage

are based on 2,033 first divorces. The

estimates of second marriage duration

in parentheses following each statistic in

tables 1–44.

In this report, unless otherwise

assessing statistical significance, but the

examination of the overlap between

confidence intervals is a more

are based on 1,282 second marriages.

Table I shows the sample sizes for each

of these dependent variables by

noted, text comparisons between

probability estimates that refer to

differences between subgroups in the

conservative procedure in that it is less

likely to falsely detect a significant

difference where there is no true

race/ethnicity.

There was one case in the sample

that reported a later date of divorce

from the first marriage than the date of

remarriage, resulting in a negative value

for the duration of divorce until

remarriage. This is likely either a

reporting error or a recording error. In

addition, 35 cases reported a later date

of final separation from husband than

the date of divorce. Presumably, these

are cases where the ex-husband and

probability of an event (such as marital

disruption) are statistically significant at

the 5-percent level, indicating that if the

difference were merely the result of

random chance and did not reflect a true

difference in the general population, the

difference would only be observed in

less than 5 percent of all possible

samples. Lack of comment about a

specific comparison does not necessarily

indicate a lack of a statistically

significant difference, because not all

difference (57).

Like all survey data, the data in this

report may be affected by nonsampling

error from such sources as nonresponse,

respondent misreporting due to memory

loss, misclassification of unions or

misreporting of dates, and processing

errors. Nonsampling error was

minimized by stringent quality-control

procedures incorporated into the survey

design and administration (30).

Table I. Sample sizes by race/ethnicity: 1995 National Survey of Family Growth

Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic 

Sample Total1 Hispanic white black 

All women ................. 10,847 1,553 6,433 2,430 

First premarital cohabitations ...... 3,791 487 2,254 940 

First marriages .............. 6,841 1,020 4,452 1,144 

First marriages that ended ....... 2,524 343 1,563 554 

Separations from first marriage .... 2,386 326 1,510 495 

Divorces from first marriage ...... 2,033 247 1,387 352 

Second marriages ............ 1,282 150 956 149 

1Includes Asian and Pacific Islander women and American Indian women, not shown separately. 

NOTE: The number of non-Hispanic Asian women was not sufficient to produce reliable estimates separately, except for the 

analysis of the interval until first marriage and the analysis of first marriage disruption; there were 282 non-Hispanic Asian and 

Pacific Islander women and 167 first marriages to Asian and Pacific Islander women in Cycle 5 of the National Survey of Family 

Growth. 
Series 23, No. 22 [ Page 93 

Appendix II

Appendix table II presents an

example life table for the

duration of first marriage. The

first column in table II lists the duration

intervals; in this example, the intervals

are in groups of 12 months, from 0 to

300 (300 months = 25 years). The

second column shows the number of

marriages that failed (due to separation

or divorce) within the interval. The third

column shows the number of marriages

that are censored (due to interview or

widowhood) in the interval. The fourth

column shows the ‘‘effective sample

size’’ at the midpoint of the interval.

The statistic known as the ‘‘effective

sample size’’ is not actually a measure

of sample size, it is an estimate of the

population size at the midpoint of the

interval. Because the marriages that are

censored within an interval are assumed

to be distributed evenly across the

interval, the effective sample size in a

particular interval is equal to the

effective sample size of the previous

interval, minus the failures that occurred

in the previous interval, minus one-half

of the censored cases in the previous

interval, minus one-half of the censored

cases in the current interval.

The fifth column of table II shows

the probability of failure within the

interval and is calculated as the number

of failures divided by the effective

sample size. The sixth column shows

the cumulative proportion failed as of

the beginning of the interval. The final

column in table II shows the proportion

surviving intact until the beginning of

the interval, and is simply the

complement of the cumulative

proportion failed.

Columns two–five are primarily

calculation steps to derive the final two

columns. In the analysis in this report,

for the sake of brevity, columns

two–five of each life table are not

shown, and only the cumulative

proportion failed at the beginning of

selected intervals is presented and

compared across subgroups. The

selected intervals are consistent across

the eight outcomes: after 1 year, after 3

years, after 5 years, after 10 years, and

after 15 years.

Table II. First marriage life table estimates: Women 15–44 years of age, United States, 1995

Effective Cumulative 

Number sample Probability proportion 

Duration interval x Number censored2 size3 of failure4 failed5 Survival6 

(months) failed1

(Fx) (Cx) (ESSx) (PFx) (CFx) (Sx) 

0–11 ..................... 1,033,065 1,412,535 36,777,298.5 0.0281 0.0000 1.0000 

12–23 .................... 1,471,780 1,393,281 34,341,325.5 0.0429 0.0281 0.9719 

24–35 .................... 1,605,553 1,354,446 31,495,682.0 0.0510 0.0697 0.9303 

36–47 .................... 1,357,987 1,403,071 28,511,370.5 0.0476 0.1172 0.8828 

48–59 .................... 1,209,263 1,362,065 25,770,815.5 0.0469 0.1592 0.8408 

60–71 .................... 877,368 1,470,283 23,145,378.5 0.0379 0.1987 0.8013 

72–83 .................... 908,833 1,106,335 20,979,701.5 0.0433 0.2290 0.7710 

84–95 .................... 717,709 1,039,565 18,997,918.5 0.0378 0.2624 0.7376 

96–107 ................... 543,885 1,124,049 17,198,402.5 0.0316 0.2903 0.7097 

108–119 .................. 510,398 1,066,175 15,559,405.5 0.0328 0.3127 0.6873 

120–131 .................. 404,891 1,119,949 13,955,945.5 0.0290 0.3353 0.6647 

132–143 ................... 406,272 941,474 12,520,343.0 0.0324 0.3546 0.6454 

144–155 .................. 274,994 1,049,563 11,118,552.5 0.0247 0.3755 0.6245 

156–167 .................. 236,301 988,623 9,824,465.5 0.0241 0.3910 0.6090 

168–179 .................. 298,600 878,885 8,654,410.5 0.0345 0.4056 0.5944 

180–191 ................... 177,560 794,816 7,518,960.0 0.0236 0.4261 0.5739 

192–203 ................... 217,311 785,294 6,551,345.0 0.0332 0.4397 0.5603 

204–215 ................... 136,559 775,284 5,553,745.0 0.0246 0.4583 0.5417 

216–227 ................... 94,765 810,976 4,624,056.0 0.0205 0.4716 0.5284 

228–239 .................. 109,255 694,968 3,776,319.0 0.0289 0.4824 0.5176 

240–251 ................... 36,254 674,093 2,982,533.5 0.0122 0.4974 0.5026 

252–263 .................. 53,307 651,434 2,283,516.0 0.0233 0.5035 0.4965 

264–275 ................... 46,338 599,026 1,604,979.0 0.0289 0.5151 0.4849 

276–287 .................. 14,465 407,770 1,055,243.0 0.0137 0.5291 0.4709 

288–299 .................. 8,880 374,135 649,825.5 0.0137 0.5355 0.4645 

300– ..................... – 453,878 226,939.0 0.0000 0.5419 0.4581 

– Quantity zero. 

1Marriages fail via separation or divorce. 

2Censored marriages were still intact at interview. 

3The effective sample size is an estimate of population size at the midpoint of the interval; ESSx+1 = ESSx – Fx – 1⁄2 (Cx + Cx+1)

4PFx = Fx / ESSx

5CFx =1–Sx

6Sx+1 = Sx * (1–PFx)
Vital and Health Statistics

series descriptions

SERIES 1. Programs and Collection Procedures—These reports

describe the data collection programs of the National Center

for Health Statistics. They include descriptions of the methods

used to collect and process the data, definitions, and other

material necessary for understanding the data.

SERIES 2. Data Evaluation and Methods Research—These reports are

studies of new statistical methods and include analytical

techniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected data,

and contributions to statistical theory. These studies also

include experimental tests of new survey methods and

comparisons of U.S. methodology with those of other

countries.

SERIES 3. Analytical and Epidemiological Studies—These reports

present analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and

health statistics. These reports carry the analyses further than

the expository types of reports in the other series.

SERIES 4. Documents and Committee Reports—These are final

reports of major committees concerned with vital and health

statistics and documents such as recommended model vital

registration laws and revised birth and death certificates.

SERIES 5. International Vital and Health Statistics Reports—These

reports are analytical or descriptive reports that compare U.S.

vital and health statistics with those of other countries or

present other international data of relevance to the health

statistics system of the United States.

SERIES 6. Cognition and Survey Measurement—These reports are

from the National Laboratory for Collaborative Research in

Cognition and Survey Measurement. They use methods of

cognitive science to design, evaluate, and test survey

instruments.

SERIES 10. Data From the National Health Interview Survey—These

reports contain statistics on illness; unintentional injuries;

disability; use of hospital, medical, and other health services;

and a wide range of special current health topics covering

many aspects of health behaviors, health status, and health

care utilization. They are based on data collected in a

continuing national household interview survey.

SERIES 11. Data From the National Health Examination Survey, the

National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, and

the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey—

Data from direct examination, testing, and measurement on

representative samples of the civilian noninstitutionalized

population provide the basis for (1) medically defined total

prevalence of specific diseases or conditions in the United

States and the distributions of the population with respect to

physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics, and

(2) analyses of trends and relationships among various

measurements and between survey periods.

SERIES 12. Data From the Institutionalized Population Surveys—

Discontinued in 1975. Reports from these surveys are

included in Series 13.

SERIES 13. Data From the National Health Care Survey—These reports

contain statistics on health resources and the public’s use of

health care resources including ambulatory, hospital, and longterm care services based on data collected directly from

health care providers and provider records.

SERIES 14. Data on Health Resources: Manpower and Facilities—

Discontinued in 1990. Reports on the numbers, geographic

distribution, and characteristics of health resources are now

included in Series 13.

SERIES 15. Data From Special Surveys—These reports contain

statistics on health and health-related topics collected in

special surveys that are not part of the continuing data

systems of the National Center for Health Statistics.

SERIES 16. Compilations of Advance Data From Vital and Health

Statistics—Advance Data Reports provide early release of

information from the National Center for Health Statistics’

health and demographic surveys. They are compiled in the

order in which they are published. Some of these releases

may be followed by detailed reports in Series 10–13.

SERIES 20. Data on Mortality—These reports contain statistics on

mortality that are not included in regular, annual, or monthly

reports. Special analyses by cause of death, age, other

demographic variables, and geographic and trend analyses

are included.

SERIES 21. Data on Natality, Marriage, and Divorce—These reports

contain statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce that are

not included in regular, annual, or monthly reports. Special

analyses by health and demographic variables and

geographic and trend analyses are included.

SERIES 22. Data From the National Mortality and Natality Surveys—

Discontinued in 1975. Reports from these sample surveys,

based on vital records, are now published in Series 20 or 21.

SERIES 23. Data From the National Survey of Family Growth—These

reports contain statistics on factors that affect birth rates,

including contraception, infertility, cohabitation, marriage,

divorce, and remarriage; adoption; use of medical care for

family planning and infertility; and related maternal and infant

health topics. These statistics are based on national surveys

of women of childbearing age.

SERIES 24. Compilations of Data on Natality, Mortality, Marriage,

Divorce, and Induced Terminations of Pregnancy—

These include advance reports of births, deaths, marriages,

and divorces based on final data from the National Vital

Statistics System that were published as supplements to the

National Vital Statistics Report (NVSR). These reports provide

highlights and summaries of detailed data subsequently

published in Vital Statistics of the United States. Other

supplements to the NVSR published here provide selected

findings based on final data from the National Vital Statistics

System and may be followed by detailed reports in Series 20

or 21.

For answers to questions about this report or for a list of reports published

in these series, contact:

Data Dissemination Branch

National Center for Health Statistics

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

6525 Belcrest Road, Room 1064

Hyattsville, MD 20782-2003

(301) 458–4636

E-mail: nchsquery@cdc.gov

Internet: www.cdc.gov/nchs