9. Grounds for Marriage
Reflections and Research on an Institution
in Transition
Arlene Skolnick
“Is Marriage Finally Dead?” In August 1999, Redbook Magazine published the responses of a group of journalists to that question. One of the speakers agreed that the institution had breathed its last breath; most thought that while ailing, it was not yet in a terminal state. Worry about the impending collapse of marriage and the family has persisted in Western culture for at least a century. For a much longer time, marriage has also been the butt of countless jokes, cartoons, aphorisms, and old saws about henpecked husbands, unfaithful wives, and the general folly of those—especially the men—who allow themselves to be roped into it. Those who lamented the sorry state of marriage in earlier eras would be surprised to learn that in the twenty-first century, the institution is still here and shows no signs of disappearing.
Despite today's high divorce rates, more births to the unmarried, the rise in one-parent families, and other trends, the United States today has the highest marriage rate among the advanced industrial countries. The Census Bureau estimates that about 90 percent of Americans will eventually marry. Same-sex couples are also claiming the right to legal marriage, not merely “back of the bus” recognition as “domestic partners” (Graff 1999.)
The combination of high marriage and high divorce rates seems paradoxical but actually represents two sides of the same coin: the centrality of the emotional relationship between the partners. Marriage for love was not unknown in earlier eras. Nevertheless, in most times and places,
In the West, however, for at least two hundred years, being in love has come to be the only acceptable grounds for marriage. And love, or the emotional quality of the couple relationship, has also become increasingly important as the principal reason for staying together. Yet, even in the heyday of the marital “togetherness” ideal of the 1950s, researchers found that socalled empty shell or disengaged marriages were widespread. Such couples lived under one roof but seemed to have little or no emotional connection to one another. Some people in such relationships even considered themselves happily married; others, particularly women, lived in quiet desperation but saw no alternative.
Contemporary couples usually hold higher expectations. American attitudes toward marriage changed dramatically between the 1950s and the 1970s as part of what has been called a “psychological revolution” —a transformation in the way people perceive marriage, parenthood, and their lives in general (Veroff, Kulka, and Douvan 1981). Surveys taken by the University of Michigan found that, by the 1970s, people had become more psychologically oriented, reportedly seeking emotional warmth and intimacy in marriage.
This shift correlates to higher educational levels. In the 1950s, a psychological approach to relationships was found among the relatively few college-educated Americans. By the 1970s the psychological approach to marriage and family life had become, as the authors put it, “common coin.”
In an era when divorce has lost its stigma and remaining married has become nearly as much a choice as entering marriage, it is not surprising that a loving and rewarding relationship has become the gold standard for marital success. Even when they know the statistics, few if any couples initiate marriage expecting that their own relationship will break down. Indeed, research on newly married couples shows few expect the divorce statistics to apply to themselves. How do relationships become unhappy? What transforms happy newlyweds into emotional strangers? In this chapter, I discuss my own research in the context of what others have been learning in answer to these questions.
THE STUDY OF MARRIAGE THEN AND NOW
Over the past three decades, rising divorce rates and other dramatic changes in sexual norms, gender roles, and family life awakened a new
Self-reported ratings of happiness or satisfaction to study marriage were widely criticized. Some researchers argued that the concept “marital happiness” was hopelessly vague. Others questioned the validity of asking people to rate their own marriages, particularly since the high ratings most people gave to their own marriages seemed at odds with high divorce rates.
There were also deeper problems with these earlier studies. Even the best self-report measure can hardly capture what goes on in the private, psychosocial theater of married life. In the 1970s, a new wave of marital research began to breach the wall of marital privacy. Psychologists, clinicians, and social scientists began to observe families interacting with one another in laboratories and clinics, usually through one-way mirrors. The new technology of videotaping made it possible to preserve these interactions for later analysis. Behavioral therapists and researchers began to produce a literature on the kinds of statements and actions that differentiated between happy and unhappy couples. At the same time, social psychologists began to study close relationships of various kinds.
During this period I began my own research on marriage, using couples who had taken part in the longitudinal studies carried out at the Institute of Human Development (IHD) at the University of California at Berkeley. One member of the couple had been part of the study since childhood and had been born in either 1921 or 1928. Each spouse had been interviewed in depth in 1958, when the study members were thirty or thirty-seven years old. They were interviewed again in 1970 and 1982. The interviews were carried out by experienced clinical psychologists, who later rated each spouse on a large number of personality items and five aspects of marital adjustment. The participants also supplied a great deal of other information about themselves, including selfreports of marital satisfaction.
Despite the richness of the longitudinal data, it did not include observations
The newwave of research has revealed a great deal about the complex emotional dynamics of marriage and, perhaps most usefully, showed that some widespread assumptions about couple relations are incorrect. But there is still a great deal more to learn. There is as yet no grand theory of marriage, no singular road to understanding marriage, no “one size fits all” prescription for marital success. But we have gained some important insights into marital (and marriage-like) relationships. And there seems to be a striking convergence of findings emerging from different approaches to studying couples. Here are some of these insights.
For Better And For Worse
The sociologist Jesse Bernard argued that every marriage contains two marriages—the husband's and the wife's (1972), and that his is better than hers. Bernard's claims have been controversial, but in general, her idea that husbands and wives have different perspectives on their marriage has held up over time. And on a variety of subtle measures of marital satisfaction—for example, would you like your children to have a marriage like yours?—men do seem more content with their relationships than their wives (Skolnick 1993).
But apart from gender differences, marital relationships also seem to divide in another way: Every marriage contains within it both a good marriage and a bad marriage. Early studies of marital quality assumed that all marriages could be lined up along a single dimension of satisfaction, adjustment, or happiness—happy couples would be at one end of the scale, unhappy ones at the other, and most couples would fall somewhere in between. More recently, marriage researchers have found that two separate dimensions are needed to capture the quality of a marriage—a positive dimension and a negative one. In effect, the ultimate
In my own research, I came across this same “good marriage/bad marriage” phenomenon among the Berkeley longitudinal couples (Skolnick 1981). First, we identified couples ranging from high to low in marital satisfaction based on ratings of the marriage each spouse had made, combined with ratings made by clinical interviewers who had seen each separately. Later we examined transcripts of the clinical interviews to see how people who had scored high or low on measures of marital quality described their marriages.
In the course of the interview, each person was asked about his or her satisfactions and dissatisfactions in the relationship. Surprisingly, it was hard to tell the happily married from their unhappy counterparts by looking only at statements about dissatisfaction. None of the happy spouses were without some complaints or irritations. One husband went on at length at what a terrible homemaker his wife was. The wife in one of the most highly rated marriages reported having “silent arguments” —periods of not speaking to one another—which lasted about a week. “People always say you should talk over your differences,” the wife said, “but it doesn't work in our family.”
What did differentiate happier marriages from the unhappy ones could be found in the descriptions of satisfactions. The happy couples described close, affectionate, and often romantic relationships. One man remarked after almost thirty years of marriage, “I still have stars in my eyes.” A woman said, “I just can't wait for him to get home every night; just having him around is terrific.”
The most systematic evidence for this good marriage/bad marriage model emerges from the extensive program of studies of marital interaction carried out by Gottman and Levenson (1992) and Gottman et al. (1998). Their research is based on videotaped observations of couple discussions in a laboratory setting. These intensive studies not only record facial expressions, gestures, and tone of voice but also monitor heart rates and other physiological indicators of stress. The partners also watched a videotape of their conversation and were asked to use a rating dial to provide a continuous report of how they felt during their interaction.
Surprisingly, these studies do not confirm the widespread notion that anger is the great destroyer of marital relationships. Gottman and his colleagues found that anger in couple interaction does not predict
Ultimately, the key factor in the success of a marriage is not the amount of anger or other negative emotion in the relationship—no marriage always runs smoothly and cheerfully—but the balance between positive and negative feelings and actions. Indeed, Gottman gives a precise estimate of this ratio in successful marriages—five to one. In other words, the “good” marriage has to be five times better than the “bad” marriage is bad.
It seems as if the “good” marriage acts like a reservoir of positive feelings that can defuse tensions and keep arguments from escalating out of control. In virtually every marriage and family, “emotional brushfires” are constantly breaking out. Whether these flare-ups develop into major bonfires depends on the balance within the marriage that makes it a good one or bad one.
Gottman identifies a set of four behavioral patterns—he calls them “the four horsemen of the apocalypse” —that constitutes a series of escalating signs of marital breakdown. These include criticism (not just complaining about a specific act but denouncing the spouse's whole character); which may be followed by contempt (insults, name calling, mockery); then defensiveness (each spouse feeling hurt, mistreated, and misunderstood by the other); and finally, stonewalling (one or both partners withdraws into silence and avoidance). Eventually, the couple may end up leading separate lives under the same roof.
Tolstoy Was Wrong: Happy Marriages Are Not All Alike
The most common approach to understanding marriage, as I have shown, is to compare or correlate ratings of marital happiness with other variables. However, some studies over the years have looked at differences among marriages at a given level of satisfaction. Among the first was a widely cited study published in 1965. John Cuber and Peggy Harroff interviewed 437 successful upper-middle-class men and women about their lives and marriages. These people had been married for at least fifteen years to their original spouses and reported themselves as
Only one out of six marriages in the sample conformed to the image of what marriage is supposed to be—that is, a relationship based on strong emotional bonds of love and friendship. The majority of others were what Cuber and Harroff called “utilitarian” relationships. These fell into three types: first, “conflict habituated” couples resembled the bickering, battling spouses often portrayed in comedy and tragedy—the kind of relationship that would today be called “dysfunctional.” Yet these couples were content with their marriages and did not define their fighting as a problem.
A second group of couples were in “devitalized” marriages—they had started out in close, loving relationships but had drifted apart over the years. In the third “passive congenial” type of relationship, the partners were never romantically in love or emotionally close. They regarded marriage as a comfortable and convenient way to live while they devoted their energy to their careers or other social commitments.
The most recent studies of marital types come from the research of John Gottman and his colleagues, described earlier. Along with identifying early warning signs of later marital trouble and divorce, Gottman also observed that happy, successful marriages were not all alike. He also found that much of the conventional wisdom about marriage is misguided. Many marital therapists and much of the public believe that a couple who argue and fight a lot have an obviously “dysfunctional” relationship. On the other hand, those spouses who sweep their conflicts under the rug and avoid communicating with one another about troublesome issues are also in a dysfunctional marriage.
Many marital counselors and popular writings on marriage advocate what Gottman calls a “validation” or “active-listening” model. They recommend that when couples have a disagreement, they should speak to one another as a therapist speaks to a client. One spouse, for example, the wife, is supposed to state her complaints directly to the husband, in the form of “I” statements; for example, “I feel you're not doing your share of the housework.” Then he is supposed to calmly respond by paraphrasing what she has said and empathize with her feelings: “Sounds like you're upset about this.”
To their surprise, Gottman and his colleagues found that very few couples actually fit this therapeutically approved, “validating” model of marriage. Gottman et al. found, like Cuber and Harroff, that people can
In my own study, I too found a great deal of variation among the longitudinal couples. Apart from the deep friendship that all the happy couples shared, they differed in other ways. Some spent virtually twentyfour hours a day together, others went their own ways, going off to parties or weekends alone. Some were very traditional in their gender patterns, others egalitarian. Some were emotionally close to their relatives, some were distant. Some had a wide circle of friends, some were virtual hermits.
They could come from happy or unhappy families. The wife in one of the happiest marriages had a very difficult relationship with her father; she grew up “hating men” and planned never to marry. Her husband also grew up in an unhappy home where the parents eventually divorced. In short, if the emotional core of marriage is good, it seems to matter very little what kind of lifestyle the couple chooses to follow.
Marriage Is a Movie, Not a Snapshot
Heroclitis once said that you can never step into a river twice because the river is always in motion. The same is true of marriage. A variety of studies show that over a relatively short period of time, families can change in the ways they interact and in their emotional atmosphere. In studies of police officer couples, described in more detail below, the same marriage could look very different from one laboratory session to the next, depending on how much stress the officer had experienced on each day. The IHD longitudinal studies made it possible to follow the same couples over several decades.
Consider the following examples, based on the first two adult followups around 1960 and the early 1970s (Skolnick 1981).
Seen in 1960, when they were in their early thirties, the marriage of Jack and Ellen did not look promising. Jack was an aloof husband and uninvolved father. Ellen was overwhelmed by caring for three small children. She had a variety of physical ailments and needed a steady dose of tranquilizers to calm her anxieties. Ten years later, she was in good health and enjoying life. She and Jack had become a close couple.
Martin and Julia were a happy couple in 1960. They had two children, an active social life, and were fixing up a new home they had
Perhaps the most striking impression from following these marriages through long periods of time is the great potential for change in intimate relationships. Those early interviews suggest that many couples had “dysfunctional” marriages. It seemed at the time to spouses, as well as to the interviewers, that the source of the marital difficulties was psychological problems in the husband or wife or both, or else that they were incompatible.
For some couples, these explanations were valid. Later interviews revealed the same emotional or personality difficulties and incompatibilities. Some people had divorced and married again to people with whom they were a better fit. One man who had seemed emotionally immature all his life finally found happiness in his third marriage. He married a younger woman who was both nurturing to him and yet a “psychological age mate,” as he put it.
Although close to a third of the IHD marriages eventually did end in divorce, all of those couples were married years before the divorce revolution of the 1970s made divorce legally easier to obtain as well as more common and socially acceptable. Many unhappy couples remained married long enough to outgrow their earlier difficulties or to advance past the circumstances that were causing the difficulties in the first place. Viewed from a later time, marital distress at one period or stage in life seemed to be rooted in situational factors: problems at work, trouble with inlaws or money, bad housing, too many babies too close together. In the midst of these strains, however, it was easy to blame problems on the basic character of the husband or wife or on their incompatibility. Only later, when the situation had changed, did it seem that there was nothing inherently wrong with the couple's relationship.
The Critical Events of a Marriage May Not Be Inside the Marriage
The longitudinal data, as noted, revealed a striking amount of change for better or worse depending on a large variety of life circumstances. While the impact of such external factors remains a relatively unacknowledged source of marital distress, there has been growing interest in the impact of work and working conditions—especially job stress—
Briefly, Levenson's part of the study looked at the impact of stress on couple interaction in the laboratory. His procedures called for each spouse to keep a stress diary every day for thirty days. Once a week for four weeks, the couples went to the laboratory at the end of the work day, after eight hours of being apart. Their interaction was videotaped, and the physiological responses of each spouse were monitored continuously.
In my part of the project, we used an adaptation of the IHD clinical interview with officers and their wives in their homes. (The sample did not include female officers or police couples.) The aim was to examine their perceptions of police work and its impact on their marriages, their general life circumstances, and the sources of stress and support in their lives. I discovered that these officers and their wives were making heroic efforts to do well, against enormous odds, in their work and family. The obvious dangers and disasters police must deal with are only part of the story; sleep deprivation, frustration with the department bureaucracy, and inadequate equipment were some of the other factors adding up to enormous stress.
Moreover, some of the ways people in other occupations relieve stress were not easily available to these officers. The department offered counseling, but there was a stigma attached to using it. The officers feared any troubles they had would get back to their superiors, and they would be “hung out to dry.” Socializing with other officers was difficult because of an aspect of police culture described by the police novelist Joseph Wambaugh as “choir practice” —that is, drinking and womanizing. The men we interviewed felt they had to steer clear of this culture to protect their marriages.
Despite their difficult lives, these couples seemed to have good, wellfunctioning marriages, at home and in the laboratory—except on highstress days. Levenson's study was able to examine the direct effects of different levels of stress on the face-to-face interaction of these couples—something that had not been done before. The findings were striking.
More surprising, it was not just the police officer who showed evidence of stress but the partner as well. Even before either partner had said a word, while they were just sitting quietly, both the officer and the spouse showed signs of physiological arousal. In particular, there was a kind of “paralysis of the positive emotion system” in both partners (Levenson, Roberts, and Bellows 1998). Looking at the videotapes, you didn't need the physiological measures to see what was going on. The husband's restless agitation was clear, as was the wife's tense and wary response to it. The wives seemed frozen in their seats, barely able to move. In fact, just watching the couples on videotape is enough to make a viewer also feel tense and uneasy.
Recall that these couples did not look or act this way on the days they were not under high job stress. However, in these sessions, the couples' behavior revealed the same warning signs that Gottman and Levenson had found in their earlier studies to be predictors of who was likely to be divorced. The “paralysis of the positive emotion system” means that the “good” aspects of the marriage were unavailable just when they were most needed. Repeated often enough, such moments can strain even a good marriage; they create an emotional climate in which tempers can easily flare, hurtful things may be said, and problems go unsolved. Police work may be an extreme example of a high-pressure occupation, but it is far from the only one. “What's the difference between a stressed-out business executive and a stressed-out police officer?” asked a New York columnist not long ago, after a terrible case of domestic violence in a police family. The officer, he went on, “brings home a loaded gun.”
CAN MARRIAGE BE SAVED?
On June 2, 1986, Newsweek Magazine featured a cover story that proclaimed that a woman over forty had a greater chance of being “killed by a terrorist” than of getting married. The story set off a media blitz and a wave of alarm and anxiety among single women. However, Newsweek had reported on a study that was later criticized by other researchers for relying on trends in earlier generations to make predictions about today's women. That is, before the 1970s, when the great majority of women married in their early twenties or even earlier, a woman who was single when she reached forty was likely to remain so. But patterns
In the summer of 1999, the National Marriage Project Report produced another alarming study of the state of marriage. Exhibit A was a finding that, between 1960 and 1990, the marriage rate among young adults had declined by 23 percent. Again, a widely publicized “finding” had to be corrected. The problem this time was the inclusion of teenagers as young as fifteen as “young adults” in 1960 and 1996. Teenagers were far more likely to marry in the 1950s than in the 1990s—or at any previous time in American history.
These periodic alarms clearly resonate with a public deeply concerned that divorce, cohabitation, single parenthood, and other recent trends signal moral decline and the unraveling of the social fabric. Many family scholars agree with these pessimistic conclusions. Other, more optimistic, scholars argue that marriage and the family are not collapsing but becoming more diverse as they adapt to new social and economic conditions.
A third possibility is that we are passing through a difficult transitional period. We are in the midst of a cultural lag between the traditional norms of marriage, which assigned sharply contrasting roles to men and women, and a rapidly changing world outside the home, which has moved toward greater gender equality. Schools, businesses, the professions, and other institutions have become increasingly neutral about gender.
Legal and political trends in modern democracies have militated against gender and other forms of castelike inequality, at least in principle. To be sure, women have not yet achieved full equality. But we have become used to seeing women in the workplace, even in such formerly all-male institutions as the police, the military, Congress, and the Supreme Court.
The family remains the one institution based on separate and distinct roles for men and women. Despite the vast social and economic changes that have transformed our daily lives, the old gender roles remain deeply rooted in our cultural assumptions and definitions of masculinity and femininity. At the same time, a more equitable or “symmetrical” model of marriage is struggling to be born. Surveys show that most Americans, especially young people, favor equal rather than traditional marriage.
But the transition to such a model has been difficult, even for those committed to the idea of equal partnerships. In a study of “peer,” or egalitarian, marriages, Pepper Schwartz found that the difficulties of
Intersecting with the gender revolution are the economic shifts of recent years—growing economic inequality, the demise of the wellpaying blue-collar job, the end of the stable career of the 1950s “organization man.” The long hours and working weeks that have replaced the nine-to-five professional or corporate workplace take their toll on relationships.
Traditionally, marriage has always been linked to economic opportunity—a young man had to be able to support a wife to be considered eligible to marry. The high rates of marriage in the 1950s were sustained in part by rising wages and a relatively low cost of living; the average thirty-year-old man could afford to buy an averagepriced house for less than 20 percent of his salary. Recent research shows that economic factors still play a large role in determining when and if a man or woman will marry. As a result, marriage is becoming something of “luxury item,” as Frank Furstenberg puts it, a form of “having” available mainly to those already enjoying economic advantages (1996). In his research on lowincome families, Furstenberg finds that men and women would like the “luxury” model but feel they can't afford it.
Inside marriage, conflicts stemming from gender issues have become the leading cause of divorce (Nock 1999). Studies of couples married since the 1970s reveal the dynamics of these conflicts. Arlie Hochschild (1997), for example, has found that the happiest marriages are those in which the husband does his share of the “second shift” —the care of home and children. Another recent study shows that today's women also expect their husbands to do their share of the emotional work of marriage—monitoring and talking about the relationship itself; this “marital work ethic” has emerged in middle-class couples married since the 1970s, in response to easy and widespread divorce (Hackstaff 2000).
Dominance is another sore point in many of today's marriages. Gottman and his colleagues (1998) have found that a key factor in predicting marital happiness and divorce is a husband's willingness to accept influence from his wife, but many men experience a loss of dominance in marriage not as equality but as a shift in power that leaves their wives dominant over them. Studies of battered women show that domestic violence may be the extreme form of this common problem—it often reflects the man's attempt to assert what he sees as his prerogative to dominate and control his partner.
Still, change is happening, even while men lag behind in the gender revolution. Today's men no longer expect to be waited on in the home the way their grandfathers were by their grandmothers. Middle-class norms demand a more involved kind of father than those of a generation ago. The sight of a man with a baby in his arms or on his back is no longer unusual.
In sum, marriage and family life today are passing through a difficult transition to a new economy and a new ordering of gender relations. Those who sermonize about “family values” need to recall that the family is also about bread-and-butter issues and back up their words with resources. And while some people believe that equality and stable marriage are incompatible, the evidence seems so far to show the opposite. As one therapist and writer puts it: “The feminist revolution of this century has provided the most powerful challenge to traditional patterns of marriage. Yet paradoxically, it may have strengthened the institution by giving greater freedom to both partners, and by allowing men to accept some of traditionally female values” (Rubinstein 1990).
REFERENCES
Bernard, Jessie. The Future of Marriage. New York: Bantam Books, 1972.
Cuber, John F., and Peggy Harroff. Sex and the Significant Americans. Baltimore: Penguin, 1965.
Furstenberg, Frank. “The Future of Marriage.”American Demographics (June 1996):34–40.
Gottman, John M., and Robert W. Levenson. “Marita. Processes Predictive of Later Dissolution: Behavior, Physiology and Health.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology63 (1992):221–33.
Gottman, John M., et al. “Predicting Marital Happiness and Stability from Newlywed Interactions.”Journal of Marriage and the Family60 (1998):5–22.
Graff, E. J.What Is Marriage For. Boston: Beacon Press, 1999.
Hackstaff, Karla. Marriage in a Culture of Divorce. Boston: Beacon Press, 2000.
Hochschild, Arlie. The Time Bind. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1997.
Levenson, Robert W., Nicole Roberts, and Sally Bellows. “Report on Police Marriage and Work Stress Study.”University of California, Berkeley, 1998.
National Marriage Project. Report on Marriage. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1999.
Nock, Steven L.“The Problem with Marriage.”Society36, 5 (July/August 1999):20–30.
Rubinstein, Helge. The Oxford Book of Marriage. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Schwartz, Pepper. Love between Equals: How Peer Marriage Really Works. New York: Free Press, 1995.
Skolnick, Arlene. “Marrie, Lives: Longitudinal Perspectives on Marriage.” In Present and Past in Middle Life, edited by D. H. Eichorn et al., 269–98. New York: Academic Press, 1981.
Skolnick, Arlene. “His and Her Marriage in Longitudinal Perspective.” In Feminine/Masculine: Gender and Social Change. Compendium of Research Summaries. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation, 1993.
Skolnick, Arlene. “Sources and Processes of Police Marital Stress.”Paper presented at the National Conference on Community Policing, Arlington, Va., November1998.
Veroff, J. G., Elizabeth Douvan, and Richard A. Kulka. The Inner American: A Self-Portrait from 1957–1976. New York: Basic Books, 1981.