DOI: 10.3886/icpsr02692.v1
title: Survey on Russian Marriages, 1996
title: Version 1

description: This survey was designed to provide information on the Russian family in terms of the economic and social change experienced during the process of democratization. The survey covered urban and rural areas of Russia. The Moscow data were collected between February and November 1996, while respondents from the rural regions of Saratov and Pskov were interviewed February-March 1996 and February-April 1996, respectively. Adults aged 18 to 60 years were asked through face-to-face interviews for their views on their relationship with their spouse or cohabitating partner, including relative status, perceived marital/relationship quality, and perceived verbal and physical abuse, as well as generational differences with respect to gender attitudes and marital relationships. Cohabitating respondents were asked the same questions as married respondents, in these cases, reference was made to the partner instead of the spouse and to their relationship rather than marriage. Respondents were asked to describe their views, as well as those of their spouse or partner and of society in general, regarding women working outside the home, marital decision-making, and gender traits. Those queried also commented on their satisfaction with the division of labor in their marriage or cohabitating relationship, included housekeeping, managing family finances, earning income, raising children, and caring for parents. Married and previously married respondents were asked about their marital history, including age at first marriage, while separated, divorced, and widowed respondents were asked when and for what reason(s) their union ended. Additional topics covered attitudes towards divorce and alcohol use, the amount of conflict present in the marriage or relationship, the presence of verbal and/or physical abuse, verbal and/or physical abuse experienced from parents, family background, and description of the residence. The spouses or cohabitating partners of primary respondents were also interviewed, as well as one adult child of each primary respondent with adult children in the Moscow area sample. Only female respondents answered questions regarding domestic violence in their marriage or cohabitating relationship. Demographic variables included age, sex, marital status, number of children, employment status, religious affiliation, household income, education level, health status, alcohol usage, and occupation, as well as the sex and age of the respondent's children and household members.
description: The data contain two weight variables (WGHT1 AND WGHT2) that should be used in analyzing the data. The survey contained three types of respondents (primary, spouse/partner, and adult child) and the weights only relate to the selection of the primary respondents. WGHT1 is calculated for each primary respondent and is based on the inverse probability of selection. WGHT1 weights the data to reflect the population size for the adult population in each of the three sample locations. WGHT2 is a normalized version of WGHT1, the percentage distributions will reflect the population characteristics, though the weighted sample size will not. For couple analyses, data users should create a dataset in which the unit of analysis is the couple based on the family identification code (V003) and the marital/relationship variable (MARSTAT), either WGHT1 or WGHT2 may be used.
description: Datasets: 
 
 DS1: Survey on Russian Marriages, 1996, Dataset 0001
description: face-to-face interview 
The data available for download are not weighted, and users will need to weight the data prior to analysis.
Additional information about sampling, interviewing, sampling error, and constructed variables may be found in the codebook.
Value labels for unknown/missing codes were added in several variables.
For confidentiality reasons, variables containing exact birth dates were blanked and recoded into the variables V030CAT, V037CAT, V044CAT, V051CAT, V406CAT, V413CAT, V420CAT, V427CAT, and V434CAT. Variables containing the exact ages of household members were also blanked and recoded into age categories in variables V058CAT, V063CAT, V068CAT, V073CAT, V078CAT, V083CAT, V453CAT, V458CAT, V463CAT, V468CAT, V473CAT, and V478CAT.
The formats of variables V023, V108, V317, V327, V452, FAMINC1, FAMINC2, FAMINC3, I_INC1, PDVLAB1, ALCMONEY, and DECSMAK2 were adjusted to fit the width of the values present in these variables.
According to the project research associate, the variable ALCMONEY referred to the amount respondents spent on alcohol in the month prior to the interview reported in rubles based on 1996 values. The measure is based on the responses to variable V151 in the dataset.
The project research associate suggested that the unknown codes in variables relating to the respondent's relationship to household members may have referred to cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and non-relatives.
According to the project research associate, the unknown variable HASCHLD may have referred to whether respondents had a child 18 or younger in the household.
The CASEID variable was created for use with online analysis.
description: Adults between the ages of 18 and 60 living in the areas surrounding the Russian cities of Moscow, Pskov, and Saratov.
description: Data were collected through a multi-stage cluster probability sample of adults over 18 in the Moscow metropolitan area and in the rural areas surrounding the cities of Pskov and Saratov. For the Moscow sample, one municipality was randomly selected from all prefectures in the city except Zelenograd. One voter registration list was randomly selected from each municipality and potential respondents were then randomly selected from this list. A set of villages was randomly selected from the two rural areas of Pskov and Saratov and the voter registration lists in each village were randomly sampled for potential respondents. In Moscow, initial contacts to screen respondents were made by telephone, but were made in person in the areas of Pskov and Saratov. Since different sampling frames were used in each of the three locations, it is not advisable to combine these samples when analyzing the data.