Reuters: Marriage's Strength Depends on Its Beginning

Laurel

Kitty Mama
Joined
Aug 27, 1999
Posts
20,692
From:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010720/hl/marriage_1.html

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Diamond anniversary or divorce court? Researchers suggest that the long-term health of a marriage is rooted in a couple's level of love and commitment as they say their ``I do's.''

``A successful marriage is one that has maintained a high level of affection right from the start, where both partners behave as lovers and stay that way,'' said study lead author Dr. Ted L. Huston of the University of Texas at Austin.

Huston and his colleagues followed the long-term relationships of 168 married couples, interviewing partners when they first married, throughout the first 2 years of married life, and finally 13 years after they had taken their vows. Participants were asked about their feelings toward their spouse and the marriage in general.

Writing in the August issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science, Huston's team reports that couples who were happily together 13 years into their marriage had been deeply in love and in tune with each other from the very beginning.

In contrast, those who were unhappily married reported having a more negative and/or ambivalent relationship toward each other when interviewed as newlyweds.

The investigators also point out that, whether good or bad, the general tone of relationships did not change over time--with the exception that those who ultimately had a happy marriage ``began to see their partner as having a less contrary nature than they did when first were first married, whereas spouses in the other categories did not change their views of their partner's contrariness.''

Among couples headed for divorce, some stayed married longer because they appeared to have unrealistically romantic levels of affection and love as newlyweds. Men and women in these types of relationships seemed initially resistant to recognizing and focusing on their spouse's less appealing qualities, or on their own growing disenchantment with the marriage.

In contrast, couples who experienced friction at the very outset of a marriage headed for the exits at a much quicker pace. The authors theorize that these couples entered into marriage hoping that the simple act of ``tying the knot'' would turn discord into bliss--only to leave the relationship when this proved futile.

The researchers conclude that partners who maintain long, happy marriages carry between them a deep love, affection and attachment--feelings that first began during courtship.

``Most people think that it's unresolved differences that undermine marriages, but...it's not that at all,'' Huston told Reuters Health. ``It's the loss of the bliss and the loss of the romance that's important, rather than increasing problems or increasing conflicts.''

He added the couples headed for the rockiest road are those who had either an extremely long or extremely short courtship prior to marriage.

``Either they don't know each other very well--they fell in love too quickly and they have an unrealistic belief that the romance will continue in the same way over time,'' he said. ``Or it's a long road to marriage, not because they are learning so much about each other, but because they have real problems in the relationship that they're trying to put aside in order to marry. When they discover that marriage doesn't have any magical properties they often quickly exit the relationship.''

SOURCE: Current Directions in Psychological Science 2001;10.
 
It's odd but the couples that I know, that have been together the longest are all unmarried.

Why don't they ever have reports or studies on unmarried couples and why they saty together or fall apart?
 
That report just says if you marry for the right reasons you will stay married.

Its too hard do do unmarried coupples one would think Never simply because of sheer volumes.
 
There's also a huge volume of married people.
This was done on only 168 people, that's 84 couples - I'm certain they could follow around 84 unmarried couples as well and see if there's any difference.
 
Never said:
There's also a huge volume of married people.
This was done on only 168 people, that's 84 couples - I'm certain they could follow around 84 unmarried couples as well and see if there's any difference.
I believe its 168 couples...they must have had to hire a lot of people to cover them. geeez.

Quote:
Huston and his colleagues followed the long-term relationships of 168 married couples, interviewing partners when they first married, throughout the first 2 years of married life, and finally 13 years after they had taken their vows.
 
Oops, sorry, my bad.

Okay, but I still would like to see the same types of studies done on unmarried couples.
 
Svedish_Chef said:
That report just says if you marry for the right reasons you will stay married.

Its too hard do do unmarried coupples one would think Never simply because of sheer volumes.


Actually, it says people who stay married married for the right reasons. That doesn't mean marrying for the right reasons is WHY they stay married.

This is one of those "feel good" pieces of research that doesn't really answer the hard questions. The journal Current Directions in Psychological Science is actually Psychology Today under a new name. It's seen as "fluff" Psychology, not included in any serious review of research.


Never, since the research appears in this journal, I'd bet money on the fact that the "research" was paid for by some group that is interested in promoting marriage, family, and itself as pro-marriage and family.



White Tiger, graduate Psych. students probably did all the leg work. That's the normal routine for some researchers, particularly under publish or perish deadlines.

The article must be in the August edition and it's not online yet. Will be interesting to see when it is available. (I can't in good conscious go out and buy the thing.)
 
Last edited:
morninggirl5 said:
Never, since the research appears in this journal, I'd bet money on the fact that the "research" was paid for by some group that is interested in promoting marriage, family, and itself as pro-marriage and family.

No doubt! As a non-married person in a long-term relationship, I'd be interested in seeing a study on long-term committed non-married couples...but I have a feeling that's probably not going to happen any time soon.

I posted the article because when I read it, certain things came to my mind and I wanted to see if anyone else picked up on the same things. #1 - it doesn't seem to SAY anything, really. I'm not sure that all that research was necessary to tell us all that people who start off unhappy end up unhappy.

#2 - It was a "Top News" story on Yahoo for some bizarre reason. IMHO, the article's placement and the article itself smacks of some kind of traditionalist propaganda. I've noticed a lot of this in the media lately - article focusing on marriage and family, articles with a negative slant on unmarrieds and non-traditional lifestyles...Part of me wonders if the media is reflecting a culture that is growing more conservative, or if the media is trying to SHAPE us into a more conservative culture.

Despite the "liberal media" blather, the owners of all the major media networks are avowed conservatives - some even vocally so (i.e. Rupert Murdoch). It used to be that anti-monopoly laws prevented a corporation from owning too big of a stake in the press, but those laws are slowly being rolled back and these news giants are taking bigger chunks of the news scene. The independent news sources are all but gone, save for here on the Net. It's kinda scary.
 
Top story on Yahoo? Please.
I don't believe that the media is interested in controlling society, nor is it interested in reflecting society though in the end it does both to an extent.
Media, every media, is a business - it's only goal is to make money. The article was placed there because it's not going to offend anyone and it's a 'feel good' piece. 'Traditional' and 'conservative' articles, by their nature, don't rock the boat. An article compairing the seperation rate between married and non-married couples would offend people, no matter what the outcome. This article is like tofu, you can read into it whatever you want to because it doesn't say anything.
 
Laurel said:


No doubt! As a non-married person in a long-term relationship, I'd be interested in seeing a study on long-term committed non-married couples...but I have a feeling that's probably not going to happen any time soon.

I know this seems strange... especially coming from me

Lets say we lined em up

Married people who started going out in 95 and non-married people who started going out in 95....

I think they just picked an easy out so to speak. cause how many people would you find unmarried in a long lasting relationship (Probably quite a few) but how do you spot em?

I dont think any less of Laurel and Manu because they havent married... as it goes in my family I think the count is 5 long term married and 3 long term unmarried.

I'd like to know from both you Laurel, and you Never how do we come up with the long term together for a comparation study?
I'm all for it but tell those stupid people who did the first one how.
 
Svedish, they would find long term never married couples the SAME way they found the married couples.

Since I haven't read the article yet, I'm guessing here, but this is pretty much how it usually works. The researchers place ads in papers, magazines, and probably a sign in some of the marriage license bureaus and solicit volunteers to participate in the study. Depending on how much money they have, there may be a small payment for participating.

The ad for what would end up being long-term never married couples could ask for couples who have just made a commitment to each other, either moving in together or considering themselves "in a relationship."
 
Back
Top