75

The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially

The Case for Marriage
Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially

by Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher
Review by Richard Niolon

This is an excellent source of information for the married couple on the benefits of marriage, and why it is not the same as “living together.” they provide a wealth of statistics, sound reasoning to explain them, and detailed readings into 100s of published studies to make sense of the impact of marriage. However, while the authors avoid taking a stand in this book on the impact of marriage for gay and lesbian couples, and only acknowledge that it is a point for controversy, Maggie Gallagher has been quite outspoken against it. Prejudice aside, the work is still quite good and a basic reference in this area. They argue that the promise of permanency is what makes marriage more of a beneficial relationship than simply living together. This allows each to direct their resources to different areas, to specialize in some areas while the other specializes in other areas. Instead of having to be proficient in all areas, they can divide up their responsibilities and accomplish more by working together.

What’s So Great About Marriage?

Waite and Gallagher offer several answers:

  • Better Financial Picture
    The old saying “Two can live as cheaply as one” isn’t exactly true. Two do appear to be able to live as cheaply as one and a half persons, though. That means sharing furniture, food, insurance benefits, a car, etc…. And, when one person becomes ill, loses his or her job, or needs emotional support due to stressors, the spouse is there to help. This is cheaper too, as in home nurses, credit card debt, and therapists cost more.

    Married men are more successful in work as well, getting promoted more often and receiving higher performance appraisals. They also miss work or arrive late less often (Kostiuk and Follman, 1989, and Shaw, 1987). As for women, white married women (without children) earn 4% more and black married women earn 10% more than their single peers (Waite, 1995). While some point out that house work for married women (37 hours per week) is greater than that of single women (25 hours), half of that is due to having children (South and Spitze, 1994).

  • Longer Life
    Married people live longer as well. Single men have mortality rates that are 250% higher than married men. Single women have mortality rates that are 50% higher than married women (Ross et all, 1990). Having a spouse can decrease your risk for dying from cancer as much as knocking ten years off your life. Single people spend longer in the hospital, and have a greater risk of dying after surgery (Goodwin et al, 1987).

    Married women are 30% more likely to rate their health as excellent or very good compared to single women, and 40% less likely to rate their health as only fair or poor compared to single women. Based on life expectancies, nine of ten married men and women alive at age 48 are alive at 65, while only six of ten single men and eight of ten single women make it to 65. Married men may have better immune systems as well, either from support or from nagging to monitor blood pressure, cholesterol, weight, etc… and may be at less risk to catch colds (Cohen et al, 1997)

  • Better Mental Health
    Married men are half as likely to commit suicide as single men, and one third as likely as divorced men. Widowed men under 45 are nine times more likely to commit suicide as married men (Smith, Mercy, and Conn, 1988). Married people report lower levels of depression and distress, and 40% say they are very happy with their lives, compared to about 25% in single people. Married people were half as likely to say they were unhappy with their lives.

    Single men drink twice as much as married men, and one out of four say their drinking causes problems. Only one of seven married men says the same. One out of six single men abstains from alcohol, but one in four married men do (Miller-Tutzauer et al, 1991).

  • Greater safety
    • Studies assessing risk for violence are sometimes used to indicate that women, by being married, are at risk for violence. Waite and Gallagher counter that many studies treat husbands, boyfriends, paramours, and ex-partners all the same. Thus, “wife battering” should be separated from domestic abuse, and wife battering should refer only to abuse in the context of a marriage. Studies also do not distinguish between domestic violence and abuse. Waite and Gallagher offer that domestic violence should refer to those cases in which an argument escalates, one or both partners instigate the violence with equal likelihood, and then afterward feel bad about the incident and find ways not to repeat it. Such incidents might happen once or twice over the course of the relationship. Domestic abuse should refer to those cases in which the violence is frequent, typically instigated by one partner only, and is used to coerce and control a partner. Thus, Jacobson and Gottman say, “Women are virtually as likely to be killed by husbands, ex-husbands, boyfriends, and ex-boyfriends as by strangers.” This would not indicate marriage is the risk factor.
    • When it comes to violence, wives are five times less likely than single or divorced women to be victims of crime, and husbands are four times less likely (Kellerman, 1994; Bachman, 1994). Further, in that study, 8% of wives and 6% of husbands reported their arguments became physical in the last year. Of the wives who reported physical altercations with their husbands, 18% reported significant harm (e.g., cut, bruised, or seriously injured) for themselves and 7% for their husbands. Thus, Waite and Gallagher conclude, less than 2% of wives and less than 1% of husbands are abused by the common definition each year.
    • They also noted that about 5% of rapes in 1992 to 1993 were committed by husbands, 21% by ex-spouses, boyfriends, and ex-boyfriends, and 56% by an acquaintance, friend, or relative. Similarly, killings are more likely to happen to unmarried cohabitating women than married women. Thus, cohabitators are more likely to experience violence than married women (Jackson, 1996).

    Why is this so? Waite and Gallagher argue that married partners look out for each others’ safety and warn each other about risks. They are also less likely to be violent with each other as they have a greater investment in the relationship. They are more integrated into a network of friends and family, and are not as isolated as a result.

  • Better Sex
    About 40% of married people have sex twice a week, compared to 20-25% of single and cohabitating men and women. Over 40% of married women said their sex life was emotionally and physically satisfying, compared to about 30% of single women. For men, it’s 50% of married men are physically and emotionally contents versus 38% of cohabitating men.

Can Cohabitators Make Their Relationship Just Like Marriage?

While there were eight times as many cohabitating couples in the 1990 census as in the 1980 census, marriage and living together are not the same. Cohabitating couples do not have the same kind of commitment. Waite and Gallagher note that cohabitating couples are less likely to be sexually faithful. Faithful partners do not worry about sexually translated diseases, are more likely to work to improve their sexual relationship, and do not have to worry about sexual jealousy. Cohabitating couples are also less likely to manage their money as well. In a couple who live together, one can spend extravagantly, while the other says little about it so long as the bills are paid. On the other hand, in a married couple, if one spends extravagantly, the other may have plenty to say about it.

Cohabitating couples are also less likely to monitor each others’ health, remind one to go to the dentist, prepare healthy meals, and speak up about unhealthy behaviors like smoking, drinking, and reckless driving. They also do not specialize in different areas, since they know the relationship could end without strings. Further, women who were more career oriented were more likely to cohabitate (57%), as were men who rated their leisure time as more important (53%) (Clarkberg, 1995). However, cohabitators tend to hold more positive ideas about divorce, and more negative attitudes about marriage in general as well. Cohabitating women do not show the same level of high risk behaviors that single men do, but they are more likely to be accompanying such single men (Umberson, 1987). Married women are more likely to have private health insurance (about 80%) than single women (about 50%) (Hahn, 1993).

As for abuse, children in single parent homes or step-families are at a high risk for physical and sexual abuse. Step-fathers and boyfriends of the mother are the highest risk abusers. Although they typically contribute on 2% of the childcare, they are responsible for almost half the reported abuse incidents by non-parents (Margolin, 1992). One study concluded that “Living with a step-parent has turned out to be the most powerful predictor of severe child abuse yet” (Daley and Wilson, 1996).

Further, while part of making the cohabitating relationship “like marriage” rests with the couple, part of what makes marriage “like marriage” is the system and society outside the couple. For example, gender roles accepted by the larger society shape how we respond to marriage. If a wife complains her husband is not taking care of the yard, or maintaining employment, socially sanctioned sex roles reinforce her arguments that this is his job. Sex is another area where the vow to remain faithful impacts the relationship. When divorce is granted (whether in a religious institution or court of law), infidelity is often seen as a “contract violation” and so something we as a society evaluate.

Another factor is the access to knowledge about each other that spouses have. You could form a legal agreement to provide access to your bank account, health benefits, retirement savings… but you would have to watch carefully to see that the other person did not steal from you or squander this money. Spouses can monitor the others’ habits closely, and have some legal power to do so.

Does Marriage Benefit Women?

Waite and Gallagher trace this back to the 1960’s and Bernard’s work. Some of this is based on studies of mental health that used depression, anxiety, and passivity as the primary indicators of poor health, problems women were more likely to report than men. They did not study substance abuse, violence, and risk taking behaviors for example, which men would be more likely to endorse. They add that perhaps the failure of a large benefit for women was because they didn’t have as severe problems as men so the small effect for women only looks small because the effect for men was so big. When the studies reviewed by Bernard showed women reported greater happiness when married, she dismissed this as the result of social pressures that made women admit to feeling happy when they didn’t.

Further, these studies didn’t control for having children, and the differences in economic success men and women could hope for. Thus, married men could earn more than unmarried men, but little difference could be shown for poorly paid women, married or not. More modern studies show beneficial effects of marriage on both men and women, and women today have more access to education, options for higher income jobs with status, and social norms for equality. There are still inequalities, but they are not as pronounced today.

When Should Two Unhappy Married People Divorce?

They note that 86% of the married people who rated their marriages as unhappy who stayed together rated the marriage as having improved five years later.

But what if they stay unhappy? They note there is a difference between being unhappy in your marriage, which probably isn’t harmful to the children, and having a conflicted, bitter, quarrelsome, hostile marriage. The studies that link negative child outcomes to divorce that have found negative results when children stay in conflicted homes has tied child health and well-being to these specific kinds of indicators.

So how many marriages are the high conflict type, the type that need to be ended for the welfare of the children? Amato and Booth concluded about one third (1997).

Being divorced doesn’t help much. Divorced moms report more stress as single parents than they do as married parents, and often list “ongoing conflicts with ex-spouse” as one of the biggest stressors. They feel as a group they are less effective as parents, and have more trouble making their children mind them (Webster-Stratton, 1989).

Amato and Booth (1997) also point out that second marriages often aren’t any better than first marriages.

Is Divorce Inevitable?

Waite and Gallagher believe the answer is no. Cohabitators are expecting the same rights as the married, poor families are penalized for marriage, and liberal attitudes toward single parenthood, divorce, and cohabitation are at fault partially. Also to blame are professionals who make divorce more acceptable and staying together to work out problems seem less important. Family lawyers aren’t much help either, and no-fault divorced may be an “easy out” for one person to make a unilateral decision to end the marriage. They add that fears of divorce also destabilize the marriage, by weakening the commitment and investment of each person.

They offer several suggestions for improving the marriage stability rate. They state:

“Family experts, in other words, have an obligation to let the public know: Sure smoking kills, but so does divorce. Yes, a college education boosts a man’s earnings, but so does getting and keeping a wife. Of course children need parental attention, but they do best if they get it from both a father and a mother.”

Additionally, they say we should continue to do studies and collect research, alter tax benefits that work against lower income families, and make divorce a little more difficult (e.g., a “waiting period” before you can finalize the divorce). Further, better protection of spouses who put the children before their career development, and reinstatement of fault grounds for divorce and considering them in custody and alimony. Enlisting the support of clergy and mental health professionals, and supporting the roles of fathers and men as well could help slow the divorce rate.

Resources

  1. [...] against the socially reinforced belief, MARRIED PEOPLE DO HAVE BETTER SEX. According to Linda Waite’s research for “The Case for Marriage,” over 40% of married women said their sex life was emotionally and physically satisfying, compared [...]

  2. [...] marriages as unhappy who stayed together rated the marriage as having improved five years later” (PsychPage).  Granted, seeing how the author does not cite that survey, the statistic could be just as much a [...]

  3. In the past there was a lot less divorce than there is today. If you analyzed the happiness and health of married couples then as opposed to the ones now, I think it likely you’d get different results. People no longer feel they have to endure being unhappy in order to honor a commitment that is no longer true for them. On the other hand people who stick to their commitment because they believe there is still something true and real there, and are willing to work through whatever the issues are, are likely to benefit from the personal growth and deepening of themselves as individuals as well as the relationship itself.

  4. John says:

    Yes, it may statistically be true that people who are married have slightly better health and somewhat higher life expectancy (especially for men) than people who are not married. However, this statistic relies on two major, major, major assumptions that she does not want to bring up.

    The first assumption they she is making is that is that divorce never occurs. In fact, people who are divorced often have worse health and higher morality than people who never got married in the first place (e.g., Liu and Umberson, 2008; Manzoli et al., 2007;). It turns out that marriage is not such a good idea when it ends up in divorce.

    Second, the authors fail to take into account the increased mortality risk associated with being widowed (Manzoli et al., 2007). Since most women will probably ultimately end up widowed (due to the shorter life expectancy of husbands relative to wives), this consideration is not unimportant. In fact, elderly people who have never been married can actually outlive other groups of people in many studies (Nybo et al., 2003). In studies of older women in particular, the comparison of “never married versus widowed” would be more appropriate than “married versus unmarried.”

    Yet another problem with using raw statistics involves selection bias. People who are disabled (or who are severe alcoholics or are mentally ill or severely obese) may be less likely to get married in the first place. It is not surprising then if this group shows higher early mortality prior to the age of 50. Gay and lesbian people, whose health status may suffer as a result of stigmatization, are not even allowed to get married. It is clear that, when you are comparing married to never-married groups, you are comparing apples and oranges; this leads to a real problem when you are trying to establish the direction of causation.

    Recent longitudinal data (the gold standard method, since they are not affected by selection bias) in fact indicate that, contrary to what this author is saying, there is no real benefit of marriage over cohabitation (Musick and Bumpass, 2012). Furthermore, any gains in happiness and self-reported health become negligible over time relative to staying single. I recommend that you read this excellent 2012 study.

    By the way, do you know which female occupation is associated with the highest life expectancy? This has been found in study after study, and entire books have even been written on the subject. Answer: Roman Catholic nuns.

  5. John says:

    Yes, it may statistically be true that people who are married have slightly better health and somewhat higher life expectancy (especially for men) than people who are not married. However, this statistic relies on two major, major, major assumptions that she does not want to bring up.

    The first assumption they she is making is that is that divorce never occurs. In fact, people who are divorced often have worse health and higher morality than people who never got married in the first place (e.g., Liu and Umberson, 2008; Manzoli et al., 2007;). It turns out that marriage is not such a good idea when it ends up in divorce.

    Second, the authors fail to take into account the increased mortality risk associated with being widowed (Manzoli et al., 2007). Since most women will probably ultimately end up widowed (due to the shorter life expectancy of husbands relative to wives), this consideration is not unimportant. In fact, elderly people who have never been married can actually outlive other groups of people in many studies (Nybo et al., 2003). In studies of older women in particular, the comparison of “never married versus widowed” would be more appropriate than “married versus unmarried.”

    Yet another problem with using raw statistics involves selection bias. People who are disabled (or who are severe alcoholics or are mentally ill or severely obese) may be less likely to get married in the first place. It is not surprising then if this group shows higher early mortality prior to the age of 50. Gay and lesbian people, whose health status may suffer as a result of stigmatization, are not even allowed to get married. It is clear that, when you are comparing married to never-married groups, you are comparing apples and oranges; this leads to a real problem when you are trying to establish the direction of causation.

    Recent longitudinal data (the gold standard here, since they is not affected by selection bias) in fact indicate that, contrary to what this author is saying, there is no real benefit of marriage over cohabitation (Musick and Bumpass, 2012). Furthermore, any gains in happiness and self-reported health become negligible over time relative to staying single. I recommend that you read this excellent 2012 study, which pretty much disproves everything Linda Waite has ever said.

    By the way, do you know which female occupation is associated with the highest life expectancy? This has been found in study after study, and entire books have even been written on the subject. Answer: Roman Catholic nuns. Maybe they actually benefit from not not having to worry about widowhood.

  6. MikeA says:

    Married people DO NOT live longer than single people. It’s basically a statistical lie. Yes, statistically single people die more than married people. However, that is because married couples rarely, if ever, die at the same time. One spouse will inedibly outlive the other, and when that spouse dies they will be counted in the “single” column. In fact, if you look at the real statistics, men who have never married live longer than men that have. Women, on the other hand, live about the same (married or single). The reason single men live longer is because 1) They don’t live with the stress of providing for support and the well being of a family, 2) They have more time to exercise, 3) They want to stay attractive, so they eat better, 4) They have more money to invest in a healthy lifestyle, 5) More money means more savings, thus less work and less worry, 6) Far less stress in their lives overall

    According to Psychology Today, the only real study done on the subject (which is now outdated in my opinion) is the Terman Life-Cycle Study, started in 1921. The 1,528 men and women, who were 11-years old when the study started, have been followed for as long as they lived. Two groups of people lived the longest: those who got married and stayed married, and those who stayed single. People who divorced, or who divorced and remarried, had shorter lives. What mattered was consistency, not marriage.

  7. [...] The Case for Marriage by Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher Married people live longer as well. Single men have mortality rates that are 250% higher than married men. Single women have mortality rates that are 50% higher than married women (Ross et all, 1990). [...]

  8. [...] at study with over 1,000 men and determined that long-term benefits to men were significant. Benefits of a well-adjusted, long-term romantic partnership include a better financial picture, longer life, better mental [...]

  9. ChrisV says:

    You might argue that since so many marriages end in divorce, any conclusions from studies of currently married people applied to all people who ever marry would be unrepresentative. In effect you would be saying that currently married people (who likely are happy, or they would have divorced) can not represent the whole group of people who marry (as obviously some of them were unhappy enough to divorce). For this to be a sound argument, you would need for the majority of marriages to end in divorce (meaning the married sample you got doesn’t represent the majority of people who try marriage). However, 64% of first marriages last for at least 10 years (see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_028.pdf to read the CDC study based on 12,000+ men and women), so a sample of currently married people does appear to represent the larger of people who marry.

    Seriously? You think the concern here is representativeness? The concern is a massive selection bias. You’ve completely ignored the issue the commenter raised, or perhaps you don’t even understand 78888888it. Suppose a product is sold which 90% of the people who buy it take back to the shop within the first week. You survey the other 10% and discover that of those, 75% are satisfied with the product. Based on this you declare this an incredibly popular product, with 75% of product owners satisfied. The 90% of original purchasers who took the product back don’t count, as they are no longer considered product owners.

    This jaw-dropping line of reasoning is exactly what you’re doing with marriage. By excluding people who got divorced, you exclude a lot of the people who hated marriage so much that they “took it back to the shop”. The conclusion from this data can’t be that getting married is a good idea. It’s that getting married is a good idea provided that you’re going to like it. This is about as Earth-shattering a conclusion as that every career makes people happy as long as we exclude the people who were miserable and switched jobs.

    • “Seriously? You think the concern here is representativeness?”
      Yes. And apparently you do too when you argue that “75% are satisfied” doesn’t say anything about the majority of people who tried “the product,” as conclusions based on 10% of people who kept it can not accurately represent the experience of the other 90% who returned it (much less the group of people who never bought the product to start with).

      Suppose a product is sold which 90% of the people who buy it take back to the shop within the first week…”That’s not a reasonable comparison, as 94% of the people who marry stay married at least one year. In fact, 64% of women and 66% of men in a sample of 12,000 people interviewed by the Center for Disease Control kept “the product” of their first marriage for 10 years or more, and during that time never “took it back to the shop” and got divorced. Note that widowhood – marriages in which one partner died over this 10 year period – is not included in this number, as there’s no way to know whether those marriages would have lasted had a partner not died. Thus, including any of these marriages would only increase these numbers. In as much as a survey based on 12,000+ people drawn from various educational, income, ethnic, and geographic groups represents the larger US population, we can make statements about marriage, and when doing so describe the majority of people who get married (as the majority do not “return” their first marriage within the first 10 years).

      “The conclusion from this data can’t be that getting married is a good idea. It’s that getting married is a good idea provided that you’re going to like it.”

      Not really. Consider two points:

      • First, to address your concern about sample bias (“provided you’re going to like it”), we have to ask “How many people will marry and see if they like it?”
        • If only 5 people in 10,000 marry, even if every single one likes marriage, conclusions based on those 5 (“Marriage is great!”) don’t tell us anything about what 99.95% of people would experience – we can not say “Try it – you’ll like it!”. Thus, we would have to add the “provided you’re going to like it” piece because we’re talking about such a small group.
        • The CDC found 78.6% of the people ages 25-44 in their study married, and another 13% cohabitated (they may or may not end up marrying). Only 8.4% never married and never cohabitated. Thus, we don’t need to restrict our statements to only those who will like it since marriage is something experienced by the larger group of people.
      • Second, to address your conclusion about liking marriage, we have to ask “And just how many people will end up liking it?”
        • The CDC found that 94% of people like their first marriage well enough to keep it for at least 1 year. In other words, when we say people married for one year or more show some experience or opinion, we are talking 94% (the number still married) of 78.6% (the number who get married to start with) of the population, or 73.9% of the total population of married, divorced, widowed, cohabitating, and single people. This 73.9% does not include anyone who remarries (see below).
        • If one year seems too short of a time period to make conclusions, remember that 64% like their first marriage well enough to keep it for at least 10 years. In other words, when we say people married for ten years or more show some experience or opinion, we are talking 64% (the number still married after ten years) of 78.6% (the number who get married to start with) of the population, or 50.3% of the total population of married, divorced, widowed, cohabitating, and single people. Again, this does not include anyone who remarries.
        • Another way to answer this is to ask “And how many didn’t like their first spouse, but like marriage well-enough to try again?” The CDC found that 27% of men and 26% of women will get married again by the time they are 44. Thus, when we talk only about people who like marriage well enough to remarry, we are talking about 26% (the number who remarry) of 36% (the number who get divorced) of 78.6% (the number who get married), or an additional 7.4% of the combined population of married, divorced, remarried, widowed, cohabitating, and single people.

      So… we can conclude that getting married is a good idea provided that you’re going to like it, and 57% of the total population of married, divorced, remarried, widowed, unmarried cohabitating, and single people do seem to like it over the long haul.

  10. Marriage provides a stable context to work on the flaws in our character. Marriage exposes us, humbles us, breaks us, and in the process transforms us. It changes us from selfish people to sacrificial ones. 

  11. Donn S. says:

    The article is obviously interesting and stirring. But, it tends to over gloss their own findings. My guess is that under the heading “risk factors” one would have to consider that men live longer because of a woman’s ability to control the man’s risk factors. In other words, if her nagging makes him park the boats, motorcycles, airplanes and limits his number of trips to the Arctic Circle in the dead of winter, then I’d say that it would be less likely that he would die from one of these causes. It doesn’t mean that the man is truly “happier” unless, they are suggesting that he might be happier alive rather than dead from blunt trauma. On this point I might agree. I won’t agree that a long life with a nagging woman is some how better than an untimely death.

  12. [...] and less psychologically distressed than single, divorced, or widowed adults. According to Maggie Gallagher and  researcher/co-author Linda J. Waite  of The Case for Marriage (2001), research shows “getting divorced lowers both men’s and [...]

  13. [...] 86% of people who say they’re unhappy in a marriage but stick it out anyway report being happier further down the road. Whenever I get frustrated, I just look to my parents for the gold at the end of the [...]

  14. [...] to improve their sexual relationship, and do not have to worry about sexual jealousy.” (From a book review of The Case for [...]

  15. [...] article reminded me of another that I recently ran across for the second time entitled,  “The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially&… by Richard Niolon, PhD.  In his article, Niolon asserts that couples have several advantages over [...]

  16. [...] Studies being touted by pro-marriage factions that link marriage to adult well-being may “overstate the relative benefits of marriage,” writes Kelly Musick, associate professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell’s College of Human Ecology, who conducted the study, “Reexamining the Case for Marriage: Union Formation and Changes in Well-being,” with Larry Bumpass, a sociologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Our research shows that marriage is by no means unique in promoting well-being and that other forms of romantic relationships can provide many of the same benefits.” [...]

  17. money05 says:

    Interesting article!! Unlike SOME people on the website, I understand completely what the article is saying. Marriage is an overall benefit when two people work together as one. I’ve been a single parent and now I’m married with 2 children from my husband and I can say that I’m glad we hung in there. My perception of marriage, at first, was unrealistic. I didn’t think is was going to be such hard work. We’ve been through alot of ups and downs but we made it through and divorce was never an option. I believe in the good old bible says, “YOU REAP IN YOU FAINT NOT”……….Galations 6:9.

    • Kal says:

      It’s nice that your marriage worked out, but many don’t. Arguing that everyone should be married is a flawed premise. We are all individuals.

      Secondly, I don’t take these studies at face value. Here are a couple issues I see with them.

      1. You are relying purely on people’s testimonials that they are happy with their marriage. Many people are in denial of how bad their marriage is or are too embarassed to admit it. I am not simply pulling these facts out of thin air. I am talking about my own parents. They are clearly not happy together and my siblings and I have come to terms with the fact they should have gotten divorced a long time ago. They spend almost no time together and seem to have given up on the relationship. However, if you ask my father about the marriage he gives a cliche response about how wonderful our mother is and how he falls in love with her again every day. The way he treats her clearly shows otherwise. He has called her hateful names, ignores her and hasn’t done anything with her in a couple of years. His sugarcoated responses are clearly his attempts to convince himself he isn’t miserable.

      2. Let’s talk about selection bias. These studies only poll people who are still married. If you included more people who were divorced in your study as opposed to treating them as a seperate group then you would have a more balanced answer. The Center for Disease Control states that half of marriages end in divorce within 20 years. If 10% of remaining marriages are unhappy then you get a different take on this. This study also glosses right over a fact it alludes to that states married men are “half as likely to commit suicide as singles and a third as likely as divorced people.” This is biased to show that married men are less likely to commit suicide. It completely ignores the fact that the men in the 50% of failed marriages are actually more likely to commit suicide.

  18. [...] couples live longer, healthier & happier lives. Married People Live Longer – ABC News The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially*|*Psych… Marriage 'makes you live longer' | Worldhealth.net Anti-Aging News __________________ [...]

  19. R. Ohlinger-Johnson says:

    Great article. Loved the analysis of the stats…

    As to the previous poster who states that single men have the option of dating as many women as they damn well please, that can only be true if they have an endless supply of women actually available to them. From a casual observers standpoint at any singles bar, as you get older (and often creepier) this becomes inversely less likely, and increasingly more expensive, not to mention upping the risk factors of stds, drinking, smoking, driving while intoxicated…

    As a family law lawyer, I see all too many divorces. From experience, it is not the concept of no fault divorces creating divorces, but precisely the concept of “fault” in a marriage and subsequent divorce. This is the factor which makes otherwise sane people want to punish their estranged spouse through their children and argue over minutia. It is when the client will accept the counseling that fault is not legally relevant, that the client can let go of trying to argue who “caused” the divorce, so the divorce can become less emotionally traumatic and accordingly less expensive.

    Another prevalent contribution to divorce we see is control: when a divorce client is continually trying to control the other spouse, as in “if s/he’d just do it my way, everything would be fine.” Colloquially, we refer to this orientation as “compromise means I get my way.” Contrary to what that spouse thinks, they’re the problem in the marriage.

    But the point is that in any divorce case, the lawyer immediately sees whether the couple had the skills of self sacrifice and mutual benefit in their marriage, because those same skills are required 1) through the divorce for asset division and 2) to benefit the children in every aspect. To blame no fault divorce is to displace the lack of skills many married people have and propose that the answer is to “force” them to try to stay together. The real answer is skills. And if a grown adult wants the skills to make a relationship work, they will try to find them.

    In my experience, I love to see my clients, friends and colleagues in good relationships. I see them improve ten times over an unhappy marrige, but especially high conflict marriage. But the best is seeing my clients happily remarried in a more compatible relationship with “lessons learned” and a stronger skill set.

    And thank you for separating out domestic violence from spousal abuse. Conceptually, these are too often confused.

  20. Biochemistry says:

    The article makes no claim to the INDIVIDUAL only speaking of general population studies, you cannot make claims that “Married people only stay together because of money” because you INDIVIDUALLY have experienced or seen that. That’s not science.
    @Tracy You claim to have “Read critically” and find the article biased and not credible. While I have a PhD in Biochemistry and I am not as good at “Reading critically” or “In-between the lines,” I did take the time to look up the cited studies on Web of Science and found the studies very well performed with controls and a large study size.
    THESE STUDIES MAKE NO COMMENTS ON YOUR PERSONAL LIFE! Just because you may be happier not married doesn’t mean everyone is nor does it discredit the studies. These studies just report on the statistical data on their studies.

    • Kal says:

      I read the commenters response below. He only said that the women in HIS life were sticking together because of money. He didn’t say that applied to everyone as a whole. He didn’t claim it was a fact to everyone, just alluded to a possibility. I think some commenters may have good points that there are some variables these studies couldn’t capture.

  21. Jaclyn says:

    Thank you for the article. I enjoyed reading it. I am using it as a reference in my marriage research paper for my English class at my university.

  22. Annony says:

    Most of the research relied upon is very outdated. Conclusions based on research conducted in1987 may not be applicable to people in 2011-2012

  23. Michael O'Neill says:

    I am sorry but your article is complete fabrication. Their is no scientific study that shows married people live long than single people. On the contrary there is several studies that show their is mo difference in longevity. It is clear you are only writing your own views and not any factual research. Lifestyle, exercise, eating habits, drinking, smoking etc are the main drivers of how old a person lives. I am a clinical researcher and food nutritionalist.

  24. Hugo says:

    Contrary to a lot of the commentary, this article seems well considered and based on some fairly rigorous research. Whilst it throws up some interesting insights, it does jump to conclusions a little too easily. The problem is one of causality. For example, if indeed married men on average live longer than single men, this does not necessarily prove that marriage is the determining factor of their longer lives. It may be that healthy men are more likely to marry. However, intuitively it seems more likely to be as argued in this article, in that marriage (on average) will help to create an environment in which men (and women) live their lives in the company of someone with a vested interest and concern for their wellbeing.

    • “The problem is one of causality. For example, if indeed married men on average live longer than single men, this does not necessarily prove that marriage is the determining factor of their longer lives. It may be that healthy men are more likely to marry. ”

      You’re exactly right – correlational research can not establish what causes what, just that they occur together. This is a valid concern about the research – thanks for reminding us :)

    • Jennifer says:

      Actually, to be statistically accurate (we studied this one in my bachelors stats program) Men reap the psychological and physical health benefits irregardless of the quality of the marriage. whereas women’s health was defined by the quality of the marriage. I think to say in general, married people are happier, live longer and are more financially secure may be too general.

      There are actually alot of studies out there that suggest that the new rising trend of single professional women are happier and more fulfilled than many married women.

      Jennifer (Status-in a relationship)
      Masters of science Gerontology USC (GO TROJANS)

  25. Chris says:

    Enjoyed the article. My wife and I have been helping couple learn how to live happily ever after for nearly 15 years and can say that your findings line up with our experience. I am sorry to see so many of the comments here suggest folks disagree. I can say with nearly 100% certainty that they have been hurt in some manner with regard to marriage. To which I would say – get help from someone that will not give up on you. Divorce is never the right answer… it hurst and continues to hurt.

    I have personally seen MANY couples come back from the brink of divorce and recapture the bliss that is being in love.

    Thanks for the support -

    • Lucia says:

      We are one of these couples. After 8 years of marriage, and still in love we divorced. Just to realize – after the anger for attacking each other melt away- that we made the worst mistake possible. If we would have worked in our relationship, we could have saved both of us and our child, so much pain, thousands of dollars, moving away, missing life events, and so much. Likely we could forgive each other and be true to our selves, and after 3 years of separation, 2 of those as divorcees , we are back together.

  26. RowanC says:

    Richard,

    I apologise for the graceless narks which have been so undeservedly rammed down your throat by certain peevish individuals hiding behind the safety of their PC screens. Articles, credibility and statistical bias aside I would have hoped the response to this would have carried a little more tact and structure. Internet anonymity just facilitates this rubbish, so good on you for taking the time to respond with decent counter-arguments. Not that I have statistical proof, but it’s truly amusing to witness those who cry ‘statistical bias’ when they are in a newly-entered/long-term position of vulnerability/change. What the heck I’ll say it… An article full of possible inconvenient truths (that fly in the face of the status quo) is going to fire up some people regardless of how it’s worded, compiled or referenced.

    Well done on the hard work r.e. your PhD. That is an achievement which is no mean feat. Those who makes snide remarks about how ‘easy’ it is to achieve one are just plain petulant.

    All the best.

  27. Tracy says:

    Didn’t find the article credible and reading it critically, it is plain to see why. When you force a square peg into a round hole, (biased info and poor arguments etc…) you may succeed in jamming the peg into the hole but ultimately you simply end up with stuck and distorted goods.

  28. KC says:

    Mr PhD I love your comments and the articles. Clearly there are some very grudgeful, miserable people responding to what you wrote. You go! Keep it up! PhDs given out lightly. What a comment. All the years of studying to get one. So damn rude of that person to make such a comment.

  29. Jackie says:

    This is such bullshit. I just got divorced, and am happier than I’ve been in a looooong time. I am so much happier than any married woman I know. They are all just sticking together because of money. I will NEVER get married again.

    • Nicholas says:

      You say so now. But only time will tell.

    • James says:

      As a dude, I can say that I was happier before I got married, I made career, financial, social, day-to-day lifestyle, and life goal sacrifices for marriage, and my wife did the same — but I just wasn’t enhanced by the relationship. I was diminished by it.

      Now, I’m not seeing marriage is automatically bad, or that it isn’t good for most people, even — I’m just saying that my marriage wasn’t good for me…but based on my experience, I just don’t think that marriage will ever be good for me. Just because most people are happier in a marriage doesn’t mean we all have to be.

  30. Tony says:

    Can anyone point me to statistics that compare people who choose not to be married to those who are.

    e.g. If you compare an average married person to an average divorcee or someone who hasn’t managed to find a partner, then maybe the married person gets more sex, has better mental health and is happier.

    But I’d be interested in looking at people who actively choose a single (or more precisely, a non-married) life over marrying.

    (I’d imagine Monks might live longer, have better mental health and would be safer than married people–though their finances and sex levels would be less.

    Casanovas on the other hand would probably get more sex but would be less safe.)

  31. Mjay says:

    Ridiculous article that completely ignores the fact that people in bad marriages are neither happier nor healthier and that divorce laws which overwhelmingly favor women in family court mtigate any wealth effects for men.

    Divorced people were once married, yet they are not considered as part of the “married” set. If you were writing about the benefits of riding motorcycles, would you ignore the cohort of people that were in accidents and no longer ride? No, you wouldn’t.

    The reality is that a bad marriage or a divorce, which is institutionally structured to discriminate against men and fathers, is a health and wealth nightmare for men. This article does not address at all the bias divorced men face which so often lead to higher rates of depression, suicide and other health problems in this group.

    Lastly, Maggie Gallagher was paid by the Bush administration to promote its marriage promotion initiatives and she works for an organization that receives government monies to promote marriage. This was not disclosed in the article either.

    PhDs are given out much too lightly these days.

    • Hi MJay. Let me respond with a few points:
      1) Ridiculous article that completely ignores the fact that…

      See below as to why, but you’ll have to back up this “fact” with evidence…

      2) Divorced people were once married, yet they are not considered as part of the “married” set. If you were writing about the benefits of riding motorcycles, would you ignore the cohort of people that were in accidents and no longer ride?…

      On its surface this might seem a clear point. Consider this: “If you were studying satisfaction in owners of Volkswagon Jettas, would you include people who did not own a Jetta?” Likely no, as they couldn’t experience the thing you were studying.

      I say “likely” because you might argue that since the vast majority of car owners own something other than a Jetta, any conclusions from such a study applied to the satisfaction of car owners in general would likely be unrepresentative. You still wouldn’t include non-Jetta owners in your study, though you might study them separately; rather, you would argue the results, based only on Jetta owners, are too limited to tell us anything.

      You might argue that since so many marriages end in divorce, any conclusions from studies of currently married people applied to all people who ever marry would be unrepresentative. In effect you would be saying that currently married people (who likely are happy, or they would have divorced) can not represent the whole group of people who marry (as obviously some of them were unhappy enough to divorce). For this to be a sound argument, you would need for the majority of marriages to end in divorce (meaning the married sample you got doesn’t represent the majority of people who try marriage). However, 64% of first marriages last for at least 10 years (see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_028.pdf to read the CDC study based on 12,000+ men and women), so a sample of currently married people does appear to represent the larger of people who marry.

      3) …people in bad marriages are neither happier nor healthier… The reality is that a bad marriage or a divorce… is a health and wealth nightmare for men.

      I would agree with that, but apply your motorcycle example. Say you know five people who had motorcycle accidents, serious accidents in fact that left them in very bad health. That does not mean all motorcycle owners have accidents, or have health problems as a result of riding motorcyles. If in fact the majority of motorcycle owners do not have accidents, then your statements about the ones that do would not apply to the ones that don’t (see above).

      4) This article does not address at all the bias divorced men face which so often lead to higher rates of depression, suicide and other health problems in this group.

      No, I don’t address this, but Waite and Gallagher do. You should read their work to determine what you think of their evidence/facts…

      However, if you are arguing that depression and divorce are correlated, and we can’t tell if the depression results from getting the divorce (regardless of violating social values) or from violating social values (regardless of ending a relationship), then you have a good point. Waite and Gallagher interpret the data to indicate that divorced people are depressed because of their divorce, though it could just as logically result from social stigmatization of divorced people.

      5) Lastly, Maggie Gallagher was paid by the Bush administration…

      This is an ad hominem attack (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). “I think this person is bad, so therefore I can conclude their statements are wrong.” It’s not an ethical or scientific approach to reasonable arguments. I could counter that Linda Waite did not accept money from the Bush administration, which you did not note. That would be appealing to ab homine reasoning (if I understand the use of the latin), or “I think this person is good, so their arguments must be right.”

      6) PhDs are given out much too lightly these days.

      Maybe… maybe there are not enough PhDs…

  32. Big Ron says:

    Marraige works fine for middle, upper class Americans. The tools are in place for these folks to succeed. However, marraige fails for the poor and you’ll notice as the gap between the wealthy and poor increases, divorce rates increase.

  33. A says:

    I completely agree,….i think if you marry the right person then being married will make you much happier. At the moment im struggling alot and i just wish it would be an easier life for me., i wish i had a nice loving partner!

  34. Reed says:

    Thank god I’ve stumbled on an academic article and review on this topic for once. I LOVE research based on STATISTICS and FACTS. All these rednecks bemoaning ‘not ALL ______ are like that': This is just showing you majorities and consistencies. You people need an education. You need minorities to have majorities, which shows there are different situations but THIS is the big consistency. Just because you aren’t happy with a statistical majority doesn’t mean you need to shoot the messenger.
    I am so sick of stupid people who don’t understand what they’re reading.
    Don’t even know why you people are taught to read in the first place.

  35. Eddie says:

    Hey mister PhD, every time you pipe in, it’s to try to refute what the disagreeing men are saying, disputing their views, while at the same time trying to substantiate what those two researchers have claimed with further arguments of your own, or providing your opinion of what they ‘would’ say, displaying a defensive attitude of the article. But it’s never to say, ‘Yeah, that’s another way to look at the situation, valid points’. All you do is demonstrate your biased perspective for the ‘scientific research’ in question here. Your slant is very transparent and characteristic of an advanced degree academic know-it-all, but not very useful to the discussion. Why don’t you consider taking more of an objective stance, and hey, that might even come across as mature participation on the subject.

    • So I guess I should say, “Yeah, that’s another way to look at citing studies and research…”?

      Using only the cases of people you personally know, or only your own experience is -not- objective or scientific. It’s true for you, sure but not necessarily for everyone else. You loved the food at some restaurant, and someone else didn’t like it. So we just say, “Well, sometimes it is good and sometimes it isn’t…” You can, and whether it’s good for you Saturday night is not a huge deal.

      You had some problem and a certain approach to helping you worked, but for someone else it didn’t. So we just say, “Well, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t…” You can, but whether it will work for your very distressed best friend is unclear, and likely is more important.

      You can also do something better. Poll a number of people and see how many rated the food poor/average/good… how many say they would go back there… how many actually do…. that kind of thing. Likewise, poll a number of people with the problem who were treated with this approach, and see how many say they got better… how much better they got… and how long that improvement lasted. That can lead to being able to say which sometimes it works, and which sometimes it doesn’t work, and maybe even why.

      Do you want your distressed friend to see a therapist who says, “Well, sometimes what I do helps people and sometimes it doesn’t…”? Or do you want your distressed friend to see a therapist who says, “-This- approach helps a large number of people suffering the same kind of distress you are and seems to help them quickly, while -that- approach isn’t reported to be helpful by a large number of people, or at least if it is helpful it takes much longer… so I recommend we start with -this- approach…”? I’d choose the second for my friend.

      I AM an academic (know-it-all or just know-some-of-it), and that’s the kind of view that I present here. If you want more personal opinions and experiences (and academics call that qualitative research), there’s plenty of other sites out there with those.

  36. [...] Married people experience less incidence of [...]

  37. [...] been proven in research that due to the emotional support provided by the partners to each other, married people tend to live much longer (or do they) and suffer from less health complications than individuals who have never married. Not [...]

  38. [...] This is an excellent source of information for the married couple on the benefits of marriage, and why it is not the same as “living together.” they provide a wealth of statistics, sound reasoning to explain them, and detailed readings into 100s of published studies to make sense of the impact of marriage. via psychpage.com [...]

  39. Diane says:

    This article is excellent is very to the point. Five years ago or so, I was living in a unhappy marriage. Now, I am happily marriage. Marriage takes work and it’s give or take. Marriage is not advanced dating and mundane and routine versus excitement are part of marriage. The love in marriage is doing what ever it takes to make the other person happy. It also makes you ponder what you are doing wrong and what YOU need to do to make the marriage work. When I now see divorce people and they start blaming the other person -I view this as selfish and thank god I was never married to that person. Marriage is about recognizing the differences between men and women and WORKING THEM OUT. Marriage is about two independent people becoming one and not two ambivelent people becoming two.

  40. John says:

    I am divorcing my wife now. All of the points you list for marriage seem strategic. You never mention the notion of love and sacrifice which is what we are taught is the foundation of marriage. Why not portray marriage in these terms to young people rather than with the normal mumbo-jumbo of society and the church? If you are so keen on marriage, why in this paper did you not question these traditional ideas? I know many many married people that don’t seem happy to me at all. It seems like their lives have the peaks and valleys removed and are all rather dull and average; neither particularly happy or sad. Many of my friends are scared to go back to that world and I am too.

    • Love and sacrifice are key points in marriage. As to why I don’t mention them in this post, I was mainly reviewing Waite and Gallagher’s work. They integrate the research about marriage and discuss it at the “forest” level. Any individual marriage (where understanding love would seem to fit) would be the “tree” level.

      The closest they come is in discussing that 86% of the married people who rated their marriages as unhappy (and loss of love would be one cause of unhappiness for sure) who stayed together rated the marriage as having improved five years later. “Improved” is a tricky thing though, as “better than terrible” is “improved.” This has been a concern of many researchers like Gottman and Jacobson (see the post on Family Research).

      As to research on love … I don’t think we really have any. We can define satisfaction with specific issues, or a sense of well-being, or a ratio of pluses and minus that members of couples weigh when they evaluate their relationship… and study these things. Love, however, isn’t so easy to define for research. The Gottmans and others also talk about sacrifice in the sense of exchange – you do some things for your partner not because you expect something back, but instead because you give it as a gift to your partner. This exchange ebbs and flows of course, but in happy marriages is strong.

      Couples can become “gridlocked” or locked into a position of butting heads over an issue with seems to be impossible to resolve. In these cases, the Gottmans work with the couple to manage the problem (not resolve it, as a complete solution that removes any disagreement may simply not be possible). Gottman has found that the majority of marriages can manage these conflicts, and only a minority can not. The problem is that the conflicted issue may go on for so long that the members of the couple are worn out by the conflict, and so may not feel able or willing to compromise any more.

      In a way, moving beyond the “mumbo-jumbo of society” is exactly what Waite and Gallagher are trying to do. In a culture in which divorce is on the rise, they feel many couples don’t enter marriage with the same commitment to making the relationship work. If the odds your marriage will end in divorce is 50%, then you naturally are likely to think of it rather differently than your parents did. They hope to show that marriage is worth the work (sacrifice if you will).

      I’m sorry you’re getting a divorce, and moving back to “the single world” is scary – it’s like moving to a new country and having to learn the language, customs, social norms… from scratch, largely by trial and error. It’s harder because the change comes after the moving company has lost half your possessions too. Many do seek therapy during this transition, but many seek out their pastors, friends, family, and supportive groups as well to help them make sense of the questions you are asking, both to help them move on, as well as to help them have a second marriage that is happier.

  41. Amanda Crismon says:

    Also if it is not in this article, you should put on here or find one about what to do to accomplish a good marriage.

  42. Ed says:

    I don’t care what your stats say, this article lumps every guy into the same category. You’re also not including the real possibility of divorce. Let’s look at your points:

    Better Financial Picture: If you’re a woman, this is true. Men make more money. A man would do just fine without having to support a woman’s desire for a big home, a big car, and kids (plus the occasional shopping spree). Also, come divorce time, a 50% chance, the woman is going to win a substantial amount of the assets, if any.

    Longer Life: I’ve heard this over and over. This is true if the single man smokes and drinks his entire life (which by the way married people do also). If you’re a self-respecting single man, you take care of yourself. Also, without a wife that demands all kinds of expensive things, the single man doesn’t have to work long hours at a job he hates just to pay the car payments on her Escalade. A relatively stress-free lifestyle will most certainly allow the single man to live not only a longer life, but a much higher quality of life.

    Better Mental Health: This is the biggest lie. Once a man has the epiphany that he doesn’t have to be married to be happy like society tells him, he is satisfied with who he is and not who he has to be. The freedom of not being in a bad relationship, not being in the midst of a divorce and not being broke promotes sanity way beyond that of a wife. Loneliness happens. It happens to single guys. It happens to married guys. The determining factor of being happy is if you like yourself, not if you’re codependant.

    Greater Safety: This may be true if you’re a woman. It makes no sense if you’re a guy. Unless you perpetually hang out at bars and are intoxicated all of the time or if you’re a doper and hang out with shady individuals, there is no reason why a single man isn’t pretty safe.

    Better Sex: Ah, the sex part. Married couples may go at it like rabbits during the honeymoon phase of their wedding. When the excitement and especially the kids come, it’s all over. Single guys on the other hand have the option of dating as many women as they damn well please. New women are much more exciting in bed than a wife of ten years. When it comes to sex, I’d take excitement over predictable every day of the week.

    If you’re a woman, marriage is the next logical step. If you’re a man, marriage is a very risky proposal.

    • Waite and Gallagher would respond that across the majority of men, which is where large studies look, their data stands. Keep in mind that not every marriage follows the traditional sex roles you describe (he brings home the bacon, she cooks it), and if someone is “a doper” or “codependent” then neither marriage nor single life are the determining factor in their happiness.

    • Lando Joven says:

      Yes! Someone that truly gets it. I’m single, and loving/living my life to the fullest. I’m in excellant health. Workout 5-6x a week. Eat very healthy meals. Get a physical bi-annually. Which my Doctor is always impressed with my lab results for such diseases as high blood pressure, colon cancer, hypertension etc. I should say lack of any of these diseases. I travel out of the country at least 2-3x a year. Why? Because I can truly afford it! Talk about financially sound. Thanks again guy. You are truly a wise man!

    • TMGF says:

      I get a lot of what you are saying, and I certainly believe that you don’t have to be married to be happy, healthy or necessarily live longer. Do you find, however, that your views change on some of your comments, mental health, safety, sex as you get older?

  43. Ardee says:

    I heard about this study a few years ago, before my husband and I started having problems and he decided to divorce me. I told him about this study at the time. For reasons of his own, he decided to give the marriage another chance. We got some good counseling and worked really hard for about a year. Now the things we were going to divorce over, are all very minor in our marriage and our relationship is so much better than it was. The key for us was that we stuck it out and worked through it! Thanks for the great insights from this article.

  44. Queso says:

    I think your article should have stated “couples who are happily married” and singles who are discontent. I live with my best friend and family. We are just a few years apart in age, he being about 5 years older than I. I am single, never married, never had a child…he has been married for about 18 years with a teen daughter.

    He drinks more than I, he visits the doctor more, he is on different meds, I don’t even take a headache pill, he spends a lot of time knit picking and complaining about every little thing, I enjoy the peace and content I have with myself as happiness is a state of the mind. I enjoy the freedom to do what I want with MY MONEY, go where I want to go when I feel like etc etc. I have no baggages or burdens, except to keep pushing to find ways of boosting my income as towards retirement, in other words, how to invest. Yes, would I love to be in love and be loved, sure, but I also humbly learn to deal with singularity and still find joy in the life God has given me. I watch people buoild what they call happiness around someone else,,,,and then suddenly the walls come crashing down,,,then they go off chasing another one and the cycle repeats itself. Why is the divorce rate so high? Your article was entertaining but where I’m concerned, it’s not factual.

    • Thanks for your post. There’s a difference between the facts we know from our own lives (often based on only a few cases) and the facts we know from research (generally based on a large number of cases). I am sorry your friend is unhappily married, but glad you’re happily single.

  45. [...] Married people experience less incidence of [...]

  46. [...] it's benefits, what is getting lost in this new lifestyle should not be overlooked. According to statistics, married people of both sexes enjoy longer, fuller, happier lives than those of single people. They [...]

  47. Quora says:

    Are unmarried couples happier than married couples?…

    Hmmm. In researching this topic, I found an interesting article about the book: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially by Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher. It was recently reviewed (http://www.psychpage.com/family/libr

  48. Bob says:

    Very well written article. Great number usage