Gender and Socioeconomic Status Differences in First and Second Marriage Formation

• Published date: 01 June 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12024
• Author: Kevin Shafer,Spencer L. James
• Date: 01 June 2013

KEVIN SHAFER Brigham Young University

SPENCER L. JAMES Brigham Young University∗

Gender and Socioeconomic Status Differences in

First and Second Marriage Formation

In this article, we address how f‌irst and sec-

ond marriages are formed by asking whether

SES has similar effects on f‌irst and second mar-

riage entry. Like many studies of f‌irst marriage,

we focus on gender, socioeconomic characteris-

tics (education, income, and employment status),

and gender differences in the effect of SES.

To examine this question, we use the NLSY79

(n=12,231 never-married and 3,695 divorced

persons), discrete-time logistic regression, and

heterogeneous choice models to test for sta-

tistically signif‌icant differences by gender and

between f‌irst and second marriages. Our models

show gender differences in f‌irst and second mar-

riage entry, that the effect of SES on marriage

entry differs between f‌irst and second marriage,

and that the interaction between gender and

SES has a unique association with marital entry

for never- and previously married individuals.

Our results have implications for understanding

marriage formation, stratif‌ication across the life

course, and the well-being of divorced persons

who remarry.

School of Social Work, Brigham Young University, 2181

JFSB, Provo, UT 84602 (kevinshafer@byu.edu).

∗School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, 2061

JFSB, Provo, UT 84602.

This paper was co-edited by Kelly Raley and Jay

Teachman.

Key Words: economics and stratif‌ication, family structure,

gender, remarriage, union formation.

Divorce and remarriage are distinctive and

prominent aspects of American family life.

Approximately one quarter of ever-married

individuals have married two or more times

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2008) and nearly half of

all new marriages involve at least one previ-

ously divorced partner (Ozawa & Yoon, 2002).

Although remarriage formation, both in the

United States and abroad, has been addressed

by scholars (Fu, 2010; Kalmijn & Graaf, 2003;

Koo, 1980; Koo, Suchindran, & Griff‌ith, 1984;

Lampard & Peggs, 1999; McNamee & Raley,

2011; Mott & Moore, 1983; Ono, 2006; Ozawa

& Yoon, 2002; Sweeney, 1997, 2002a; Wu

& Schimmele, 2005), many questions about

remarriage formation and patterns remain unan-

swered. Two understudied aspects of remarriage

formation are recent remarriage patterns in the

United States and comparisons to f‌irst marriage

(but see Dean & Gurak, 1978; Gelissen, 2004;

Jacobs & Furstenberg, 1986). We explore both

of these questions by focusing on how gender,

socioeconomic status (SES; education, income,

and employment), and the interaction of gender

and SES differ in f‌irst and second marriages

using a nationally representative longitudinal

data set from the United States.

Our central focus is on how SES may

affect f‌irst and second marriage formation

differently. Studies of f‌irst marriage consistently

demonstrate the privileged position of socio-

economically advantaged individuals in the f‌irst

marriage market (e.g., England & Farkas, 1986;

Oppenheimer, 1988, 1997, 2003; Sweeney,

544 Journal of Marriage and Family 75 (June 2013): 544 –564

DOI:10.1111/jomf.12024

Comparing First and Second Marriage Formation 545

2002b). But there is no conclusive evidence for

such a marriage advantage in second and later

marriages (Bumpass, Sweet, & Martin, 1990;

Chiswick & Lehrer, 1990; Gelissen, 2004;

Kalmijn & Graaf, 2003; Klein, 1990; Mott &

Moore, 1983; Smock, 1990; Sweeney, 1997;

Wu, 1994; Wu & Schimmele, 2005). Combined,

these f‌indings raise the possibility that SES is

associated with f‌irst and second marriage entry

differently.

We must account for a potential gender

gap in the likelihood of remarriage, as well.

Gender differences in marriage formation are

a signif‌icant aspect of our study because the

relationship between SES and (re)marriage

cannot be easily separated from gender. The

diff‌iculty in divorcing gender and SES from

one another in studies of marriage also leads

us to another important question: Are there

gender differences in the association between

SES and (re)marriage formation? And, does this

relationship differ between marriage types?

There are considerable implications for

differences between f‌irst and second marriage

formation, given the substantive advantages

associated with being married. Marriage tends

to improve physical health, psychological well-

being, and social stability (Amato, 2010; Waite

& Gallagher, 2001). These benef‌its are often

lost at divorce and can be partially reacquired

through remarriage (Waite, Luo, & Lewin,

2009). But perhaps more central to our question

of how SES can affect f‌irst and second marriage

formation differently is the role of (re)marriage

in economic well-being. First marriage tends to

increase f‌inancial stability through economies

of scale, combined resources, two incomes

(Sweeney, 2002b), and wealth accumulation,

especially through nonliquid assets such as

homes (Painter & Shafer, 2011; Vespa & Painter,

2011). Conversely, divorce has a substantial

negative inf‌luence on economic well-being

(Amato, 2010). Although a minority of men see

a slight increase in their postdissolution standard

of living, most divorced persons experience

a signif‌icant decline in their economic well-

being (Avellar & Smock, 2005; McManus &

DiPrete, 2001). Yet, the economic consequences

of divorce tend to be harsher for women

than for men because of gender differences

in work experience, earnings, and caregiving

responsibilities (Smock, Manning, & Gupta,

1999). As a result, many low-SES divorced

persons may choose to remarry quickly in

order to alleviate f‌inancial diff‌iculties, whereas

higher SES men and women can delay or forgo

remarriage. In this way, remarriage may narrow

economic differences among divorced persons.

Of course, (re)marriage formation and its effect

on economic well-being interact with myriad

factors, which we discuss in detail throughout

our article.

Motivated by the lack of literature addressing

f‌irst marriage – second marriage differences

and economic issues associated with marriage

formation, we address how gender, SES, and

the interaction of gender and SES are associated

with f‌irst and second marriage formation. Our

analysis is conducted with data from the National

Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979 cohort

(NLSY79) and heterogeneous choice event

history models (Allison, 1999; Williams, 2009).

Our study has three principal f‌indings. First,

although there is no gender gap in f‌irst marriage

entry, men are substantially more likely to

enter second marriages than women. Second,

SES has a signif‌icant association with f‌irst

marriage formation, but its role in remarriage

is markedly weaker. Third, gender differences

among low-SES and high-SES individuals exist

in f‌irst marriages, but are greater in second

marriages. These f‌indings can help broaden our

understanding of potential variation in partner

preferences across union type, the role of

marriage in social stratif‌ication across the life

course, and further development of theories for

remarriage formation.

A Framework of Marriage Formation

To understand f‌irst and second marriage for-

mation, we apply marital search theory, which

suggests that marriage markets (where individu-

als seek out suitable spouses) are similar to labor

markets for job seekers (England & Farkas,

1986; Oppenheimer, 1988). As with employ-

ment searches, individuals anticipate f‌inding a

spouse with desirable attitudes and character-

istics. A search ends when the seeker f‌inds a

partner who meets or exceeds some minimally

acceptable standard. The likelihood and timing

of marriage are a function of each partner’s

qualities and constraints in the marriage market.

For example, high levels of human capital (e.g.,

high SES) increase the likelihood of marriage

for individuals who possess that trait, whereas

those lacking this characteristic may undergo

prolonged periods of involuntary single status.