Expectations to Marry Among American Youth
Youth & Society Volume XX Number X Month XXXX xx-xx © 2008 Sage Publications 10.1177/0044118X08314260 http://yas.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com
The Effects of Unwed Fertility, Economic Activity, and Cohabitation Margaret A. Gassanov Lisa M. Nicholson Amanda Koch-Turner Ohio State University
Since welfare reform in 1996, marriage has been promoted as a means to reduce welfare dependency and out-of-wedlock childbearing. Despite extensive public and academic discourse surrounding marriage promotion, a basic factor preceding and predicting marriage—expectations to marry—has received little attention. Using insights from the life course perspective and data from the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, we explore the relationship between out-of-wedlock fertility and youths’ expectations to marry within 5 years. We also consider the effect of economic activity (school and work) and cohabitation. We find that experiencing an unwed pregnancy or birth significantly increases youths’ expectations to marry, as does being employed, out of school, and in a cohabiting relationship. Keywords: expectations to marry; youth; parenthood; pregnancy; life course
I
n 1996, the United States Congress legislatively promoted marriage and the reduction of unwed childbearing by passing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The PRWORA was amended in 2004 to enable states to expand marriage promotion efforts to reach high school students, especially those who are disadvantaged, expectant, and new parents (Ooms, Bouchet, & Parke, 2004). In February 2006, Congress approved the appropriation of $100 million annually until 2010 for federal competitive grants for healthy marriage promotion. Under this Authors’ Note: The authors would like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers of Youth & Society for their helpful comments. We would also like to thank Elizabeth Cooksey, Dan Lichter, Ted Futris, and other OSU faculty for their guidance and insights. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
[email protected]. 1
2
Youth & Society
initiative, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program funds can be used to teach the value of marriage in high schools and to provide marriage education classes for unmarried parents. In addition, funds are available to study relationship development among youth, particularly low-income youth, for future programs in marriage promotion (Department of Health & Human Services, 2006). Despite the government’s focus on marriage promotion, even among youth, a basic factor preceding and predicting marriage—expectations to marry—has received little attention. Given that marriage policies are directed at young single parents, especially those who are disadvantaged, it is crucial to understand their expectations to marry. To address this gap, we examine expectations to marry among pregnant, parenting, and childless youth using the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97). In this study, expectations to marry refer to the respondents’ stated likelihood of being married in the next 5 years. Theory and empirical research have shown that expectations are good predictors of future behavior. According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), the best predictor of a person’s behavior is the intention to perform that particular activity.1 Research reaffirms the correlation between the expectation to marry and subsequent behavior (Brown, 2000; Mauldon, London, Fein, & Bliss, 2002). In fact, partners’ shared expectation to marry is the strongest predictor of subsequent marriage, according to a study by Waller and McLanahan (2005). Efforts to better understand how youths’ expectations to marry are shaped can inform whether and how marriage promotion policies should target young people. Our study has two research objectives. First, we focus on unwed fertility and its relationship to marital expectations by comparing expectations to marry among unwed parenting, pregnant/expectant, and childless youth. The case for offering education on the value of marriage rests on the assumption that the benefits of stable, healthy marriages are underappreciated in disadvantaged populations (Karney & Bradbury, 2005). Research has not, however, examined whether young parents today actually have lower expectations than their childless counterparts. Second, we consider the effect of economic activity (school enrollment and hours of employment) and cohabitation on expectations to marry. Youth who are out of school, in the workforce, and/or cohabiting are involved in adult roles, which may increase their expectations to marry during young adulthood. The life course perspective informs our line of reasoning.
Gassanov et al. / Expectations to Marry Among American Youth
3
Previous Studies Although studies have considered youths’ expectations to marry (Crissey, 2005; Starrels & Holm, 2000; Thornton & Freedman, 1982; Trent, 1994) and preferred age at marriage (Blair & Qian, 1999; East, 1998; Smith & Zabin, 1993; Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001), none have explored the role that unwed fertility may play. Youths’ fertility status is either overlooked or the sample is limited to childless youths. Studies that consider the impact of fertility on expectations to marry have been based on samples of adults. Most samples also include formerly married persons, and thus, measures of fertility may include children born in marital unions. Results of these studies vary. Manning and Smock (2002) find a statistically significant bivariate difference, where mothers are less likely to expect to marry, but this effect disappears in multivariate analyses. Similarly, Bulcroft and Bulcroft (1993) find no effect of a premarital birth on perceived likelihood of marriage. In contrast, Sweet and Bumpass (1992) find that parents are less likely to expect to marry than childless adults. Lichter, Batson, and Brown (2004) also find that mothers have lower expectations to marry than do childless women, though this effect is significant only for noncohabiting women. A significant majority of unmarried mothers still expect to marry, however: 69% of noncohabiting mothers and 74% of cohabiting mothers anticipate marriage.
Current Study Our study is unique in several ways. First, we focus on a young population between ages 15 and 21. Studies examining single parents’ expectations to marry thus far have included parents of a broad age range. Yet, in the United States, more than 15% of single-parent families are headed by young adults aged 24 and less, 305,000 by those less than age 20, and 1.6 million by those aged 20 to 24 years (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006a). Second, our data are taken from a nationally representative sample surveyed in 2000 and thus offers a reflection of today’s youth. Previous studies that have focused on young people are based on now-outdated data or limited samples (e.g., Crissey, 2005; Starrels & Holm, 2000; Trent, 1994). Our third contribution is our unique focus: How youths’ out-of-wedlock childbearing may affect their expectations to marry. This topic is especially pertinent because the most common living situation of children with young parents
4
Youth & Society
is with a single, never-married parent; today, more than 2 million children are being raised by single parents aged 24 and under (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006b).
Age and the Life Course Perspective The life course approach helps explain how expectations to marry are shaped by milestones in the transition to adulthood. A key element of the life course perspective is the timing of life events, which are influenced by age-linked expectations. Such guidelines tell us what behaviors are appropriate for individuals of different ages and relay what is considered to be proper timing and sequencing of life events and transitions. For instance, marriage is an age-graded event that is preferred and expected by youth for the early- to mid-20s (Blair & Qian, 1999; East 1998; Smith & Zabin 1993; Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001). Accordingly, a substantial proportion of young people in the United States do marry at these ages: 16.1% of men and 27.6% of women aged 20 to 24 have been married (Kreider, 2005). Not all individuals adhere strictly to age-related expectations, however. Three interrelated principles of the life course perspective explain how and why individuals vary in pace and sequencing of life course transitions. First, the life course perspective’s axiom of location in time and place tells us that social location influences timetables for life course events (Giele & Elder, 1998). For instance, socioeconomically disadvantaged respondents state earlier timetables for life course events in the transition to adulthood: approximately 40% of disadvantaged respondents believe that young people should marry before the age of 25, compared with 25% of economically advantaged respondents (Furstenberg, Kennedy, McCloyd, Rumbaut, & Settersten, 2003). Second, proponents of the life course perspective affirm the principle of human agency, namely, that persons make decisions regarding their behaviors; thus, “there is some degree of ‘loose coupling’ between their actual social transitions and life stage” (Elder, 1995, p. 110). Third, the life course’s timing in lives principle explains that individuals adapt to concrete situations and events (Giele & Elder, 1998). When changes occur, the timing and sequences of life course events alter, thereby influencing subsequent events. For instance, premarital parenthood may alter the timing and sequencing of other adult roles, such as exit from school, entry into the labor force, and marriage. Indeed, Marini (1984) finds that a premarital pregnancy facilitates taking on the adult role of marriage earlier than normatively prescribed. Chronological age may be, therefore, a
Gassanov et al. / Expectations to Marry Among American Youth
5
poor indicator of one’s social statuses and roles (Settersten & Mayer, 1997). Additionally, statuses and roles affect subjective age (Giele & Elder, 1998). For example, a parenting teenager has taken on an adult role and, hence, may feel older than his or her chronological age. Here, we examine how unwed parenthood influences youths’ expectation to marry within the next 5 years. The youth in our study are aged 15 to 21; thus, the referential ages for the 5-year timeframe are ages 20 to 26. With the average age at first marriage being 25 for women and 27 for men (Bianchi & Casper, 2000), we estimate expectations to marry at ages slightly younger than average. We expect to find a positive relationship between age and the expectation to marry: Older youth are expected to state higher expectations to marry than younger youth because they are nearing the statistical average age for marriage. Additionally, a person in the mid-20s is more likely to have completed school, begun full-time work, and established an independent residence than someone younger. Yet we expect age to have a differential effect by parenthood status. More specifically, one’s chronological age should be less salient for predicting the transition into marriage for those who are pregnant or parenting. This is because those who engage in one adult role (i.e., parenthood) are more likely to take on additional adult roles (i.e., marriage). In effect, parenthood during adolescence acts as a developmental turning point, pulling youth into adult roles. Our models include interactions between age and parenthood status to test this hypothesized differential effect of age.
Variables of Interest Parenthood Status We hypothesize that pregnant and parenting youth are more likely than their childless counterparts to expect to marry. Single pregnant and parenting youth might perceive themselves, and be perceived by others, as mature and ready for marriage. Early entry into adult roles may have led youth to adopt adult expectations for normative behaviors. As Shanahan, Porfeli, Mortimer, and Erickson (2005) report, having a child significantly increases the odds of self-reporting as an adult. Because young parents have already attained the adult role of parenthood, they may also expect to marry earlier than their childless peers, whose transition to adulthood is delayed or protracted (Marini, 1984). Parenting and pregnant youth may also seek a marital partner sooner than childless youth because the demands of parenting
6
Youth & Society
would be better met in marriage than in when single. As Cherlin (2004) described, marriage is a relationship of enforceable trust, where a long-term contract and sharing of social and economic resources is expected. The government’s marriage promotion efforts rest on these positive evaluations of the efficacy of marriage. Unlike adult single parents, who may hold lower expectations to marry (Lichter et al., 2004; Sweet & Bumpass, 1992), young single parents may not sense a reduced chance of marriage. Adolescents are less skilled in future orientation and less aware of consequences; they may not realize that children could deter potential mates. With age, persons become increasingly aware of their chances to form romantic relationships and narrow their goals to those that are more age-appropriate or realistic (Wrosch & Heckhausen, 1999). Also, because young parents have had less time to experience failed relationships, they may hold more positive views toward marriage and, in turn, may have higher expectations to marry than their adult counterparts. Although we are unable to test these mechanisms, we suggest that they may raise expectations to marry among single pregnant and parenting youth compared with their childless counterparts. Economic activity. We expect that youth who have dropped out of high school or who are not currently enrolled in school are more likely to expect to marry than those who are currently enrolled. Being a student and spouse simultaneously are incompatible roles. Both involve demanding tasks, such as studying and household chores (Marini, 1984; Thornton, Axinn, & Teachman, 1995), which can be especially challenging for young adults, who lack economic and social resources. As the life course perspective suggests, individuals face an increased likelihood of role conflict when life course events are not carried out in sequence (Elder, 1995). Previous research supports this explanation: School enrollment has a negative impact on young people’s desire to marry (Thornton & Freedman, 1982), expectation to marry (Trent, 1994), and marital union formation (Thornton et al., 1995). We expect to find a positive relationship between hours of employment and expectations to marry. First, employment provides the means to support a household, which may increase expectations to marry. Second, youth engaged in many hours of work may have appropriated adult roles, which could encourage taking on additional adult roles (i.e., marriage). Indeed, Trent (1994) finds that hours of work are positively related to expectations to marry among youth. Research on adults demonstrates similar findings (Manning & Smock, 2002; Sweet & Bumpass, 1992).
Gassanov et al. / Expectations to Marry Among American Youth
7
Cohabitation. We expect that cohabiting youth will be more likely to expect to marry than noncohabitors, given that cohabitation is an adult role that can be considered a precursor to marriage. Cohabitation has a significant and positive influence on expectations to marry among adults (Manning & Smock, 2002; Waller, 2001; Waller & McLanahan, 2005), and there is little reason to doubt that this relationship will differ among youth.
Data and Methods We use data from the NLSY97. The survey is representative of people living in the United States in 1997 who were born between 1980 and 1984. The NLSY97 includes 8,984 individuals and is composed of two independent probability samples: a cross-sectional sample of 6,748 nationally representative respondents and a supplemental over-sample of 2,236 Hispanic and African American individuals. Both samples are used in this analysis. Descriptive statistics are weighted to account for the oversampling by race, but the regression analyses are run without weights because race is included as an independent variable. We exclude all respondents who did not participate in Round 4 (year 2000, when the dependent variable was measured; n = 903), the ever married (n = 233), those respondents with deceased children (n = 8), and those with missing data (listwise deletion, n = 386).2 The final sample size is 7,454. The mean age of respondents is 18, most (69%) are currently enrolled in school, and they work, on average, about 15 hours per week. Both women and men are equally represented. Of those included in the final sample, 591 are parents, 171 are pregnant/expectant, and 6,692 are childless youth.
Variables Expectation to marry. The dependent variable is the respondent’s expectation to marry within 5 years, and is measured with the question, “What is the percent chance that you will get married within the next 5 years?” Respondents could choose any percentage between 0 and 100 to indicate their chance of marriage. An advantage of this measure is the precision in the response that the youth can offer regarding the likelihood of marriage. However, there are two limitations. First, there is only one survey item to measure expectations to marry. Second, because the respondents were ages 15 to 21,3 at the time of the interview, the referential ages (i.e., 20 to 26) are slightly younger than the mean ages at first marriage in the U.S. population.
8
Youth & Society
Note that our results do not speak of the consequences of young unwed childbearing for expectations to marry over the entire life course. A frequency distribution of the dependent variable indicates high frequencies at 0%, 50%, and 100%, with little variation in frequencies between 0% and 50% or 50% and 100%. This suggests two important statistical considerations. First, independent variables may not have a linear relationship with the dependent variable; thus, logistic regression is a better approach to data analysis. Second, because many respondents report that their chances of marriage are 0%, 50%, or 100%, predictor variables should be more important to those youth who do not report one of these typical responses. Youth reporting intermediate values may be significantly different than those who reported typical responses. On the basis of these considerations, we create the dependent variable with five categories: 0%, 1% to 49%, 50%, 51% to 99%, and 100% chance of marriage within the next 5 years. The categories are labeled no chance, some chance, 50/50 chance, good chance, and certain chance, respectively. We use generalized ordered logistic regression models, which use maximum-likelihood estimation techniques to predict the likelihood of being above certain cut-points in an ordinal dependent variable. This regression technique relaxes the proportional odds assumption, allowing each of the independent variables to have a unique association with being above each cut-point on the dependent variable (Long & Freese, 2001). Given that we have a five-category dependent variable, the multivariate models have four sets of results. Each set of odds ratios states the likelihood of being in that category or higher versus the likelihood of being in any lower category. The interpretation of the dependent variable is as follows: Some chance refers to stating an expectation of greater than 0% versus 0%. A 50% chance refers to stating an expectation of at least 50% versus less than 50%. Good chance refers to an expectation of 51% or greater versus anything less than 51%. Certain chance refers to stating an expectation of 100% versus less than 100%. Parenthood status. The parental status of the respondent is measured with a three-category variable: (a) young parent, (b) currently pregnant, and (c) childless youth (omitted reference group). We classify all respondents who gave birth (n = 425) or fathered (n = 166) a child as a young parent. Respondents are coded as currently pregnant if she is currently pregnant (n = 97) or he is an expectant father (n = 74) at the time of the interview. Parenthood status takes precedence over current pregnancy status, meaning that if a currently pregnant or expectant youth already has a child then he or she is coded as a young parent.
Gassanov et al. / Expectations to Marry Among American Youth
9
Economic activity. School enrollment and employment are our economic measures. We consider three categories of school enrollment: currently enrolled in school (high school or college), high school dropout, and high school completed but not currently enrolled; currently enrolled serves as the reference category. Employment is measured as the number of hours usually worked per week. Cohabitation. Cohabitation is measured by indicating whether the respondent is currently cohabiting (1 = yes; 0 = no) in 2000. The NLSY97 defines cohabitation as living with a sexual partner of the opposite gender for 1 month or more as of the survey date.4 Control variables. We include controls for the individual’s age, gender, race, mental health, religious affiliation, religiosity, and early sexual initiation. We also control for parental education, family structure when the respondent was 12 years of age, whether the respondent was born to a teenage mother, metropolitan residence, region, and unemployment rate. Results from prior research suggest that expectations to marry increase with age until approximately the mid-20s and then decrease (Manning & Smock, 2002; Sweet & Bumpass, 1992). To test for age-related differences in our sample, we run models separately for younger (less than 18) and older youth (ages 18 to 21). We find no differences in the direction or significance of predictor variables for the two age groups; thus, we present results for the full sample. As explained above, we anticipate a differential age effect based on the parenting status of the sample. For childless youth, we expect to find higher expectations to marry as age increases. We expect the age effect to be weaker for pregnant and parenting teens. Findings on youths’ expectation to marry by gender show that females are more likely than males to expect to marry during young adulthood (Starrels & Holm, 2000; Trent, 1994). Previous research that included race/ethnicity as a correlate of marital expectations shows that, generally, African Americans have the lowest expectations to marry, whereas Whites and Hispanics have similar expectations (Blair & Qian, 1999; Crissey, 2005; Manning & Smock, 2002; Trent, 1994). We compare non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, Hispanics, and persons of non-Hispanic mixed race.5 We also include a measure of the respondent’s mental health.6 Depression increases the likelihood of withdrawal from both close and casual relationships. Hagan and Wheaton (1993) find that depressive affect has a small but negative effect on age at first marriage. Therefore, we expect poor mental health to negatively affect the expectation to marry.
10
Youth & Society
We include two religious measures: religious affiliation and religiosity as measured by frequency of religious service attendance. Studies regarding the effect of religious affiliation on marriage patterns find that individuals from a fundamentalist or sectlike heritage are likely to marry earlier than mainline Protestants and that Catholics tend to marry later (Hammond, Cole, & Beck, 1993; Lehrer, 2000). Among White teens, Catholics are less likely than nonfundamentalist Protestants to expect to marry during young adulthood (Trent, 1994). Studies that consider the relationship of religiosity and expectations to marry find that religiosity is a significant and positive determinant of marital expectations (Crissey, 2005; Manning & Smock, 2002; Tucker, 2000). We expect to find similar patterns. Previous research finds that early initiators of sexual activity are more likely to marry young (Miller & Heaton, 1991). Crissey (2005) reports that youth in serious relationships and who have had sex have higher expectations to marry by age 25 than youth not romantically involved. Therefore, we anticipate that respondents who experienced early sexual initiation (before age 15) will hold higher expectations to marry during young adulthood than those who initiated later. Parental education is positively correlated with expected age at first marriage (Blair & Qian, 1999). Highly educated parents serve as role models to their children and encourage and enable them to pursue higher education, delaying their expected timing of marriage (Trent, 1994). We expect that years of parental education will have a negative relationship with youths’ expectations to marry in the 5-year timeframe. Studies by Crissey (2005) and Starrels and Holm (2000), however, find no effect of parents’ education on youths’ expectation to marry by their mid-20s. The effect of family structure on youths’ expectation to marry is unclear. Some scholars find that being raised in a single-parent family or stepfamily significantly affects expectations regarding marriage timing (Blair & Qian, 1999; Crissey, 2005; Manning & Smock, 2002; Trent, 1994), whereas others find no differences in expectation by family-of-origin structure (Bulcroft & Bulcroft, 1993; Kinnaird & Gerrard, 1986). To our knowledge, the influence of being born to a teenage mother (age 19 or less) on expectations to marry has not been studied; hence, the predicted direction is unspecified. With respect to the influence of metropolitan residence on marital expectations, Bulcroft and Bulcroft (1993) find that living in an urban environment increases the expectation to marry. This may be due to the greater number of potential marriage partners in the city. Yet because nonmetropolitan individuals marry at younger ages than their metropolitan counterparts (Goldscheider & Waite, 1986; McLaughlin, Lichter, & Johnson, 1993), the predicted directional influence of this variable is unknown for our sample
Gassanov et al. / Expectations to Marry Among American Youth
11
of young people. Previous research that considered the influence of region of residence on marital behavior or expectation (Goldscheider & Waite, 1986; South, 1993; Trent, 1994) suggests that those living in the South will report higher expectations to marry during young adulthood; this may be due to closer adherence to traditional marriage norms. Finally, the local unemployment rate may influence the perceived economic viability of marriage and thus influence expectations to marry (Tucker, 2000).
Analyses Table 1 displays weighted means and proportions for all variables. We use three separate one-way analysis of variances with the Bonferroni correction to test for mean-level differences between our three samples. Table 2 shows results of the first generalized ordered logistic regression model, where we exclude the cohabitation status variable because of its potential confounding presence with parenthood. Table 3 replicates the regression model, with the addition of cohabitation as a predictor variable.
Results Mean-Level Differences Table 1 reveals significant differences between the samples. Young parents and pregnant youth are significantly more likely to expect to marry than are childless youth. The modal response category for childless youth is some chance of marriage, whereas the modal categories for parenting and pregnant youth are 50% chance and certain chance, respectively. We find that 37% of pregnant youth and 24% of parenting youth are 100% certain that they will marry within the next 5 years. In contrast, only 7% of their childless peers say the same. As expected, parenting and pregnant youth are less likely to report lower expected likelihoods, particularly in the some chance category. We also find significant differences between the samples in cohabitation and economic activity indicators. Notably, the gap in cohabitation is significant: 33% of parenting youth and 28% of pregnant youth are currently cohabiting compared with only 4% of childless youth. Parenting and pregnant youth have lower educational attainment than childless youth: 39% of parenting youth and 41% of pregnant youth are high school dropouts compared with 8% of childless youth. Young parents also work significantly more hours per week than their childless peers: 19.29 hours compared with 14.25 hours, respectively.
12
Youth & Society
Table 1 Weighted Means or Proportions of All Variables by Parenthood Status
5-Year expectations to marry No chance Some chance 50% chance Good chance Certain chance Cohabiting Educational status Currently enrolled High school dropout High school graduate Hours of employment Gender Female Race Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic Non-Hispanic mixed race Age (in years) Mental health Religion Nonfundamentalist Protestant Fundamentalist Catholic Other religion No religion Religiosity Never attends Sometimes attends Often attends Early first sex Years of parent education Family structure at age 12 Both biological parents One step parent Single parent Other guardian
Childless Youth (n = 6,692)
Parenting Youth (n = 591)
Pregnant Youth (n = 171)
Total Youth (N = 7,454)
0.15 0.29 0.27 0.21 0.07 0.04
0.17 0.14a 0.29 0.16 0.24a 0.33a
0.18 0.14a 0.16a 0.15 0.37a 0.28ab
0.15 0.28 0.27 0.21 0.09 0.06
0.73 0.08 0.19 14.25
0.23a 0.39a 0.37a 19.29a
0.33ab 0.41a 0.26b 17.21
0.69 0.11 0.20 14.61
0.46
0.72a
0.56ab
0.48
0.73 0.14 0.12 0.01 17.90 15.39
0.47a 0.33a 0.18a 0.02 18.90a 14.59a
0.55ab 0.31a 0.13 0.01 18.17ab 14.67a
0.71 0.16 0.12 0.01 17.97 15.33
0.32 0.24 0.28 0.04 0.13
0.20a 0.40a 0.18a 0.01a 0.21a
0.29 0.33a 0.18a 0.01 0.19a
0.31 0.25 0.27 0.03 0.14
0.47 0.25 0.28 0.29 13.82
0.61a 0.27 0.12a 0.71a 12.31a
0.64a 0.19 0.18a 0.74a 12.33
0.48 0.25 0.26 0.33 13.69
0.52 0.05 0.33 0.05
0.22a 0.07 0.54a 0.10a
0.23a 0.07 0.55a 0.06
0.50 0.05 0.35 0.05 (continued)
Gassanov et al. / Expectations to Marry Among American Youth
Table 1
Born to young mother Metropolitan South Local unemployment rate Low (0% to 2.9%) Medium (3% to 5.9%) High (≥ 6%)
13
(continued)
Childless Youth (n = 6,692)
Parenting Youth (n = 591)
Pregnant Youth (n = 171)
Total Youth (N = 7,454)
0.09 0.80 0.34
0.24a 0.81 0.42a
0.25b 0.78 0.45a
0.11 0.80 0.34
0.23 0.64 0.13
0.19 0.65 0.16
0.20 0.66 0.14
0.23 0.64 0.13
Note: Unless otherwise specified, dummy variables are coded 1 = yes and 0 = no. a. Significantly different from childless youth at α ≤ .05. b. Significantly different from parenting youth at α ≤ .05.
Parenting youth are more likely than their childless counterparts to be female, Black or Hispanic, and of older age. They are also more likely to have lower mental health, to have had sex at an early age, and to live in the South. Finally, they are more likely to have been born to a young mother, have less-educated parents, and to live with a single parent or guardian. Results comparing pregnant youth to childless youth generally show similar differences.
Multivariate Analyses Multivariate analyses in Tables 2 and 3 reveal that unwed parenthood and pregnancy are positively correlated with expectations to marry for youth, net of other factors. The results in Table 2 show the effect of young parenthood and pregnancy on expectations to marry without the confounding influence of cohabitation. In this model, being a young parent increases the odds of reporting a certain chance of marriage by 77%, and being pregnant increases the odds of reporting a certain chance of marriage by 241%. These multivariate analyses support our hypothesis that pregnant and parenting youth will report significantly higher expectations to marry compared with their childless peers, net of other factors. Table 3 adds cohabitation as a predictor variable for expectations to marry. In this model, the odds of reporting a certain chance of marriage are 28% higher for young parents and 167% higher for pregnant youth than their childless counterparts. A comparison of the results in Tables 2 and 3 shows that parenthood loses some of its significance when cohabitation is
14
Parenthood Status Childless (r) Parenting Pregnant Cohabiting Educational Status Currently enrolled (r) HS dropout HS graduate Hours of employment Gender Female Race Non-Hispanic White (r) Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic Non-Hispanic mixed race Age Mental health Religion Nonfundamentalist Protestant (r) Fundamentalist Catholic 0.13 0.20 —
0.10 0.11 0.00 0.00
0.09 0.10 0.33 0.03 0.01
0.09 0.09
−0.37*** 0.14 0.01***
0.34***
−0.77*** −0.25* −0.23 0.27*** −0.01
0.06 −0.11
SE
−0.07 0.15 —
B
Some Chance Versus No Chance
1.06 0.90
0.46 0.78 0.79 1.32 0.99
1.41
0.69 1.15 1.01
0.93 1.16 —
eB
0.27*** −0.13
−0.42*** 0.08 −0.20 0.29*** 0.00
0.44***
−0.05 0.16* .01***
0.06 0.21 —
B
0.07 0.07
0.07 0.07 0.25 0.02 0.01
0.05
0.08 0.08 0.00
0.10 0.17 —
SE
50% Chance Versus
