How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST) is a study of how Americans meet their spouses and romantic partners.
The study will provide answers to the following research questions:
Universe:
The universe for the HCMST survey is English literate adults in the U.S.
**Unit of Analysis: **
Individual
**Type of data collection: **
Survey Data
**Time of data collection: **
Wave I, the main survey, was fielded between February 21 and April 2, 2009. Wave 2 was fielded March 12, 2010 to June 8, 2010. Wave 3 was fielded March 22, 2011 to August 29, 2011. Wave 4 was fielded between March and November of 2013. Wave 5 was fielded between November, 2014 and March, 2015. Dates for the background demographic surveys are described in the User's Guide, under documentation below.
Geographic coverage:
United States of America
Smallest geographic unit:
US region
**Sample description: **
The survey was carried out by survey firm Knowledge Networks (now called GfK). The survey respondents were recruited from an ongoing panel. Panelists are recruited via random digit dial phone survey. Survey questions were mostly answered online; some follow-up surveys were conducted by phone. Panelists who did not have internet access at home were given an internet access device (WebTV). For further information about how the Knowledge Networks hybrid phone-internet survey compares to other survey methodology, see attached documentation.
The dataset contains variables that are derived from several sources. There are variables from the Main Survey Instrument, there are variables generated from the investigators which were created after the Main Survey, and there are demographic background variables from Knowledge Networks which pre-date the Main Survey. Dates for main survey and for the prior background surveys are included in the dataset for each respondent. The source for each variable is identified in the codebook, and in notes appended within the dataset itself (notes may only be available for the Stata version of the dataset).
Respondents who had no spouse or main romantic partner were dropped from the Main Survey. Unpartnered respondents remain in the dataset, and demographic background variables are available for them.
**Sample response rate: **
Response to the main survey in 2009 from subjects, all of whom were already in the Knowledge Networks panel, was 71%. If we include the the prior initial Random Digit Dialing phone contact and agreement to join the Knowledge Networks panel (participation rate 32.6%), and the respondents’ completion of the initial demographic survey (56.8% completion), the composite overall response rate is a much lower .326*.568*.71= 13%. For further information on the calculation of response rates, and relevant citations, see the Note on Response Rates in the documentation. Response rates for the subsequent waves of the HCMST survey are simpler, using the denominator of people who completed wave 1 and who were eligible for follow-up. Response to wave 2 was 84.5%. Response rate to wave 3 was 72.9%. Response rate to wave 4 was 60.0%. Response rate to wave 5 was 46%. Response to wave 6 was 91.3%. Wave 6 was Internet only, so people who had left the GfK KnowledgePanel were not contacted.
**Weights: **
See "Notes on the Weights" in the Documentation section.
When you use the data, you agree to the following conditions:
The Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM) evaluation was launched in 2003 to develop, to implement, and to test the effectiveness of a program aimed at strengthening low-income couples' marriages as one approach for supporting stable and nurturing family environments and parents' and children's well-being. The evaluation was led by MDRC and was sponsored by the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation in the Administration for Children and Families, United States Department of Health and Human Services.The SHM program was a voluntary yearlong marriage education program for low-income married couples who had children or were expecting a child. The program provided a series of group workshops based on structured curricula designed to enhance couples' relationships; supplemental activities to build on workshop themes; and family support services to address participation barriers, connect families with other services, and reinforce curricular themes. The study sample consists of 6,298 couples (12,596 adult sample members) who were expecting a child or had a child under 18 years old at the time of study entry. The sample consists primarily of low-to-modest income, married couples with diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. In each family, one child was randomly selected to be the focus of any child-related measures gathered in the data collection activities. These children ranged from pre-birth to 14 years old at the time of enrollment in the study. Follow-up interviews were conducted at 12 and 30 months after baseline data collection. More detail is provided in the study documentation. Units of Response: Low-income married couples with children Type of Data: Evaluation Tribal Data: No COVID-19 Data: No Periodicity: One-time SORN: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/09/19/2022-20139/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records Data Use Agreement: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/rpxlogin Data Use Agreement Location: https://www.childandfamilydataarchive.org/cfda/archives/cfda/studies/36852/datadocumentation Equity Indicators: Sex Granularity: Household;Individual Spatial: United States Geocoding: Unavailable
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
We study how couples allocate retirement-saving contributions across each spouse's account. In a new dataset covering over a million U.S. individuals, we find retirement contributions are not allocated to the account with the highest employer match rate. This lack of coordination—which goes against the assumptions of most models of household decision-making—is common, costly, persistent over time, and cannot be explained by inertia, auto-enrollment, or simple heuristics. Complementing the administrative evidence with an online survey, we find that inefficient allocations reflect both financial mistakes as well as deliberate choices—especially when trust and commitment inside the households are weak.
Research suggests that partisans are increasingly avoiding members of the other party—in their choice of neighborhood, social network, even their spouse. Leveraging a national database of voter registration records, we analyze 18 million households in the U.S. We find that three in ten married couples have mismatched party affiliations. We observe the relationship between inter-party marriage and gender, age, and geography. We discuss how the findings bear on key questions of political behavior in the US. Then, we test whether mixed-partisan couples participate less actively in politics. We find that voter turnout is correlated with the party of one’s spouse. A partisan who is married to a co-partisan is more likely to vote. This phenomenon is especially pronounced for partisans in closed primaries, elections in which non-partisan registered spouses are ineligible to participate.
ABSTRACT: Latin America has been at the forefront of the expansion of rights for same-sex couples. Proponents of same-sex marriage frame the issue as related to human rights and democratic deepening; opponents emphasize morality tied to religious values. Elite framing shapes public opinion when frames resonate with individuals’ values and the frame source is deemed credible. Using surveys in 18 Latin American countries in 2010 and 2012, this article demonstrates that democratic values are associated with support for same-sex marriage while religiosity reduces support, particularly among strong democrats. The tension between democratic and religious values is particularly salient for women, people who live outside the capital city, and people who came of age during or before democratization.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Dementia can be difficult for married couples for many reasons, including the introduction of caregiving burden, loss of intimacy, and financial strain. In this study, we investigated the impact of dementia staging and neuropsychiatric behavioral symptoms on the likelihood of divorce or separation for older adult married couples. For this case-control study, we used data from the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) Uniform dataset (UDS) versions 2 and 3. This dataset was from 2007 to 2021 and contains standardized clinical information submitted by NIA/NIH Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers (ADRCs) across the United States (US). This data was from 37 ADRCs. We selected participants who were married or living as married/domestic partners at their initial visit. Cases were defined by a first divorce/separation occurring during the follow-up period, resulting in 291 participants. We selected 5 controls for each married/living as married case and matched on age. Conditional logistic regression estimated the association between overall Neuro Psychiatric Inventory (NPI) score and severity of individual symptoms of the NPI with case/control status, adjusted for education, the CDR® Dementia Staging Instrument score, living situation, symptom informant, sex, and race. Separate analyses were conducted for each symptom. Multiple comparisons were accounted for with the Hochberg method. Later stage of dementia was negatively associated with divorce/separation with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.68 (95%CI = 0.50 to 0.93). A higher overall NPI score was positively associated with divorce/separation AOR = 1.08 (95% CI = 1.03 to 1.12,). More severe ratings of agitation/aggression, depression/dysphoria, disinhibition, and elation/euphoria were associated with greater odds of divorce/separation. Among older adults in the US, a later stage of dementia is associated with a lower likelihood of divorce or separation, while having more severe neuropsychiatric behavioral symptoms of agitation/aggression, depression/dysphoria, disinhibition, and elation/euphoria are associated with a higher likelihood of divorce or separation.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Information couples need to know when planning a declaration ceremony as part of their civil partnership registration. You will need to book an interview appointment at https://www.qld.gov.au/law/births-deaths-marriages-and-divorces/marriage-weddings-and-civil-partnerships/civil-partnerships/declaration-ceremony-with-us.
This dataset displays the population figures for Canada according to couple families. Included in the data are population figures on couples, both married and common law. Information on couples with and without children can be found in this dataset. This information is available from Statistics Canada/ the Census of Population for 2001 and 2006. This information is available on the Census District level.
The aim of this study was to examine the factors related to different patterns of male violence against women. Employing both intra-individual and sociocultural perspectives, the project focused on the relationship between violence against women and previously established risk factors for intimate partner violence including stressors related to work, economic status, and role transitions (e.g., pregnancy), as well as family power dynamics, status discrepancies, and alcohol use. The following research questions were addressed: (1) To what extent do Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic individuals engage in physical violence with their partners? (2) How are socioeconomic stressors associated with violent relationships among Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic couples? (3) To what extent are changes in patterns of physical violence against women associated with different stages of a relationship (e.g., cohabitation, early marriage, pregnancy, marriage)? (4) To what extent do culturally linked attitudes about family structure (family power dynamics) predict violence among Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic couples? (5) To what extent do family strengths and support systems contribute to the cessation of violence among Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic couples? (6) What is the role of alcohol use in violent relationships among Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic couples? The data used for this project came from the first and second waves of the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) conducted by the Center for Demography and Ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison [NATIONAL SURVEY OF FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS: WAVE I, 1987-1988, AND WAVE II, 1992-1994 (ICPSR 6906)]. The NSFH was designed to cover a broad range of family structures, processes, and relationships with a large enough sample to permit subgroup analysis. For the purposes of this study, the analytical sample focused on only those couples who were cohabiting or married at the time of the first wave of the study and still with the same person at the time of the second wave (N=3,584). Since the study design included oversamples of previously understudied groups (i.e., Blacks, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans), racial and ethnic comparisons were possible. In both waves of the NSFH several identical questions were asked regarding marital conflicts. Both married and cohabiting respondents were asked how often they used various tactics including heated arguments and hitting or throwing things at each other to resolve their conflicts. In addition, respondents were asked if any of their arguments became physical, how many of their fights resulted in either the respondent or their partner hitting, shoving, or throwing things, and if any injuries resulted as a consequence of these fights. This data collection consists of the SPSS syntax used to recode variables from the original NSFH dataset. In addition, new variables, including both composite variables (e.g., self-esteem, hostility, depression) and husband and wife versions of the variables (using information from both respondent and partner), were constructed. New variables were grouped into the following categories: demographic, personality, alcohol and drug use, relationship stages, gender role attitudes, division of labor, fairness in household chores, social support, and isolation. Psychological well-being scales were created to measure autonomy, positive relations with others, purpose in life, self-acceptance, environmental mastery, and personal growth. Additional scales were created to measure relationship conflict, sex role gender attitudes, personal mastery, alcohol use, and hostility. The Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) were also utilized.
Not seeing a result you expected?
Learn how you can add new datasets to our index.
How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST) is a study of how Americans meet their spouses and romantic partners.
The study will provide answers to the following research questions:
Universe:
The universe for the HCMST survey is English literate adults in the U.S.
**Unit of Analysis: **
Individual
**Type of data collection: **
Survey Data
**Time of data collection: **
Wave I, the main survey, was fielded between February 21 and April 2, 2009. Wave 2 was fielded March 12, 2010 to June 8, 2010. Wave 3 was fielded March 22, 2011 to August 29, 2011. Wave 4 was fielded between March and November of 2013. Wave 5 was fielded between November, 2014 and March, 2015. Dates for the background demographic surveys are described in the User's Guide, under documentation below.
Geographic coverage:
United States of America
Smallest geographic unit:
US region
**Sample description: **
The survey was carried out by survey firm Knowledge Networks (now called GfK). The survey respondents were recruited from an ongoing panel. Panelists are recruited via random digit dial phone survey. Survey questions were mostly answered online; some follow-up surveys were conducted by phone. Panelists who did not have internet access at home were given an internet access device (WebTV). For further information about how the Knowledge Networks hybrid phone-internet survey compares to other survey methodology, see attached documentation.
The dataset contains variables that are derived from several sources. There are variables from the Main Survey Instrument, there are variables generated from the investigators which were created after the Main Survey, and there are demographic background variables from Knowledge Networks which pre-date the Main Survey. Dates for main survey and for the prior background surveys are included in the dataset for each respondent. The source for each variable is identified in the codebook, and in notes appended within the dataset itself (notes may only be available for the Stata version of the dataset).
Respondents who had no spouse or main romantic partner were dropped from the Main Survey. Unpartnered respondents remain in the dataset, and demographic background variables are available for them.
**Sample response rate: **
Response to the main survey in 2009 from subjects, all of whom were already in the Knowledge Networks panel, was 71%. If we include the the prior initial Random Digit Dialing phone contact and agreement to join the Knowledge Networks panel (participation rate 32.6%), and the respondents’ completion of the initial demographic survey (56.8% completion), the composite overall response rate is a much lower .326*.568*.71= 13%. For further information on the calculation of response rates, and relevant citations, see the Note on Response Rates in the documentation. Response rates for the subsequent waves of the HCMST survey are simpler, using the denominator of people who completed wave 1 and who were eligible for follow-up. Response to wave 2 was 84.5%. Response rate to wave 3 was 72.9%. Response rate to wave 4 was 60.0%. Response rate to wave 5 was 46%. Response to wave 6 was 91.3%. Wave 6 was Internet only, so people who had left the GfK KnowledgePanel were not contacted.
**Weights: **
See "Notes on the Weights" in the Documentation section.
When you use the data, you agree to the following conditions: