research on early marriage pdf

The Economics of Early Marriage: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Solutions

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 16 February 2022
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Zaki Wahhaj 2  

172 Accesses

1 Altmetric

There is growing consensus among researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders that the practice of female early marriage has adverse consequences for the women who experience them, their families, and the wider population. While it is evident that the practice of female early marriage is entwined with longstanding customs and traditions, there is also good reason to believe that economic factors are important drivers behind current behavior and underpin a range of solutions being explored by policymakers. This chapter provides an economic perspective on the issue. It examines the literature for theories and evidence relating to the economic causes and consequences of female early marriage and the efficacy of alternative policies, and highlights current knowledge gaps.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Continuity and changes in attitudes toward marriage in contemporary Taiwan

Are We There Yet? Gender and Equality in Couple Relationships

The European marriage pattern and the sensitivity of female age at marriage to economic context. Montesquieu-Volvestre, 1660–1789

Adams A, Andrew A (2019) Preferences and beliefs in the marriage market for young brides. IFS working papers, no. W19/05

Google Scholar  

Aldashev G, Wahhaj Z (2019) Marriage timing and forward contracts in marriage markets. Working papers ECARES 2019–20. ULB – Universite Libre de Bruxelles

Amin S, Asadullah MN, Hossain S, Wahhaj Z (2017) Can conditional transfers eradicate child marriage. Economic and Political Weekly, 52(6), 11 February

Amirapu A, Asadullah MN, Wahhaj Z (2020) Can Child Marriage Law Change Attitudes and Behaviour? Experimental Evidence from an Information Intervention in Bangladesh. EDI Working Paper Series

Amin S, Saha JS, Ahmed JA (2018) Skills-building programs to reduce child marriage in Bangladesh: a randomized controlled trial. J Adolesc Health 63(3):293–300

Article   Google Scholar  

Asadullah MN, Wahhaj Z (2019) Early marriage, social networks and the transmission of norms. Economica 86(344):801–831

Baird S, McIntosh C, Ozler B (2011) Cash or condition? Evidence from a cash transfer experiment. Q J Econ 126(4):1709–1753

Baird S, McIntosh C, Ozler B (2019) When the money runs out: do cash transfers have sustained effects on human capital accumulation? J Dev Econ 140:169–185

Bandiera O, Buehren N, Burgess R, Goldstein M, Gulesci S, Rasul I, Sulaiman M (2020a) Women’s empowerment in action: evidence from a randomized control trial in Africa. Am Econ J Appl Econ 12(1):210–259

Bandiera O, Buehren N, Goldstein M, Rasul I, Smurra A (2020b) Do school closures during an epidemic have persistent effects? Evidence from Sierra Leone in the time of Ebola. Working paper. http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/-uctpimr/research/ELA_SL.pdf

Becker GS (1960) “An economic analysis of fertility.” Demographic and economic change in developed countries. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Becker GS (1973) A theory of marriage: Part I. J Polit Econ 81(4):813–846

Belles-Obrero C, Lombardi M (2020) Will you marry me, later? Age-of-marriage laws and child marriage in Mexico. J Hum Resour:1219–10621R2

Bergstrom TC, Bagnoli M (1993) Courtship as a waiting game. J Polit Econ 101(1):185–202

Buchmann N, Field E, Glennerster R, Nazneen S, Pimkina S, Sen I (2018) Power vs money: alternative approaches to reducing child marriage in Bangladesh, a randomized control trial. Unpublished manuscript

Buchmann N, Field EM, Glennerster R, Nazneen S, Wang XY (2021) A signal to end child marriage: theory and experimental evidence from Bangladesh. National Bureau of Economic Research, working paper 29052

Chari AV, Heath R, Maertens A, Fatima F (2017) The causal effect of maternal age at marriage on child wellbeing: evidence from India. J Dev Econ 127:42–55

Coles MG, Francesconi M (2011) On the emergence of toyboys: the timing of marriage with aging and uncertain careers. Int Econ Rev 52(3):825–853

Corno L, Hildebrandt N, Voena A (2020) Age of marriage, weather shocks, and the direction of marriage payments. Econometrica 88(3):879–915

Dube L (1997) Women and kinship: comparative perspectives on gender in South and South-East Asia. United Nations University Press Ltd., Tokyo

Field E, Ambrus A (2008) Early marriage, age of menarche and female schooling attainment in Bangladesh. J Polit Econ 116(5):881–930

Field E, Glennerster R, Buchmann N, Murphy K (2016) Cost-benefit analysis of strategies to reduce child marriage in Bangladesh. Copenhagen Consensus Center

Garcia-Hombrados J (2017) Child marriage and infant mortality: evidence from Ethiopia. Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School Working Paper Series

Girls Not Brides (2020) COVID-19 and child, early and forced marriage: an agenda for action

Goody J (1990) The oriental, the ancient and the primitive: systems of marriage and the family in the pre-industrial societies of Eurasia. Cambridge University Press

Book   Google Scholar  

Heath R, Mobarak AM (2015) Manufacturing growth and the lives of Bangladeshi women. J Dev Econ 115:1–15

Hicks J, Hicks DL (2019) Lucky late bloomers? Consequences of delayed marriage for women in rural Western Kenya. Available at SSRN: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2622189

Jensen R (2012) Do labor market opportunities affect young women’s work and family decisions? Experimental evidence from India. Q J Econ 127(2):753–792

Jensen R, Thornton R (2003) Early female marriage in the developing world. Gend Dev 11(2):9–19

Jones GW (2017) Changing marriage patterns in Asia. In: Routledge handbook of Asian demography. Routledge, pp 351–369

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Leeson PT, Suarez PA (2017) Child brides. J Econ Behav Org 144:40–61

Malhotra A, Elnakib S (2021) 20 years of the evidence base on what works to prevent child marriage: a systematic review. J Adolesc Health

Muchomba FM (2021) Parents’ assets and child marriage: Are mother’s assets more protective than father’s assets? World Development, 138

Ortner SB (1978) The virgin and the state. Fem Stud 4(3):19–35

Pew Research Center (2016) Many countries allow child marriage. Pew Research Center Report. Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/12/manycountries-allow-child-marriage/

Raj A, McDougal L, Rusch ML (2012) Changes in prevalence of girl child marriage in South Asia. JAMA 307(19): 2027–2029

Roychowdhury P, Dhamija G (2021) The causal impact of women’s age of marriage on domestic violence in India. Fem Econ 27(3):188–220

Save the Children (2020) The global girlhood report: how COVID-19 is putting progress in peril, save the children, London

Sekhri S, Debnath S (2014) Intergenerational consequences of early age marriages of girls: effect on children’s human capital. J Dev Stud 50(12):1670–1686

Sunder N (2019) Marriage age, social status, and intergenerational effects in Uganda. Demography 56(6):2123–2146

Trinh TA, Zhang Q (2020) Adverse shocks, household expenditure and child marriage: evidence from India and Vietnam. Empir Econ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01907-2

UNFPA (2012) Marrying too young: end child marriage. United Nations Population Fund, New York

UNFPA (2019) State of world population 2019: unfinished Business. United Nations Population Fund, New York

UNFPA (2020) State of world population 2020: against my will. United Nations Population Fund, New York

UNICEF (2018) Child marriage: latest trends and future prospects. United Nations Children's Fund, New York

Wahhaj Z (2018) An economic model of early marriage. J Econ Behav Org 152:147–176

Wodon Q, Male C, Nayihouba A, Onagoruwa A, Savadogo A, Yedan A, Edmeades J, Kes A, John N, Murithi L, Steinhaus M, Petroni S (2017) Economic impacts of child marriage: global synthesis report. The World Bank and International Center for Research on Women, Washington, DC

World Bank (2018) Piercing together the poverty puzzle. IRBD/World Bank, Washington, DC

Download references

Acknowledgment

Responsible Section Editor: M Niaz Asadullah.

The article has benefitted from valuable comments of the editor and anonymous referees. There is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Economics, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK

Zaki Wahhaj

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zaki Wahhaj .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

UNU-MERIT & Princeton University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Klaus F. Zimmermann

Section Editor information

Faculty Of Economics And Administration, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

M. Niaz Asadullah

Centre on Skills, Knowledge & Organisational Performance, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Dept of Economics, University of Reading, Reading, UK

School of Education, Environment and Development (SEED),, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

IZA Institute of Labor Economics, Bonn, Germany

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Wahhaj, Z. (2022). The Economics of Early Marriage: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Solutions. In: Zimmermann, K.F. (eds) Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57365-6_67-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57365-6_67-1

Received : 30 August 2021

Accepted : 03 January 2022

Published : 16 February 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-57365-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-57365-6

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Economics and Finance Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Early Marriage in the United States

Despite drastic changes in the American family, a significant minority of Americans marry early. Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (N = 14,165), this study evaluates the prevalence and antecedents of early marriage in the United States. The results indicate 25% of women and 16% of men marry before age 23, and early marriage varies widely across a number of characteristics. Individuals who marry earlier are more likely to be from disadvantaged families, from conservative Protestant or Mormon families, to value their religious faith more highly, to have a high-school diploma but a lower educational trajectory, and to cohabit before marriage. Scholars and policymakers interested in marriage should pay adequate attention to understanding and supporting these individuals' marriages.

Changes in marriage, cohabitation, divorce, remarriage, and nonmarital fertility over the past 60 years have fueled debates among policymakers, scholars, and laypeople alike about the future of the family. In addition to documenting these shifts and their effect on the well-being of children and adults, family scholars are thinking more critically about the causes that underlie these changes ( Seltzer et al., 2005 ). Among the more notable changes is an evident shift in the union formation patterns of young adults, marked by a delay in the age at first marriage and an increase in cohabitation. According to the U.S.

Census Bureau, the median age at first marriage has climbed to 26.7 years for men and 25.1 years for women ( Johnson & Dye, 2005 ), increases of 4 and 5 years, respectively, since 1960. The number of cohabiting households has experienced a similarly rapid and substantial increase, rising from 440,000 in 1960 to 4.9 million in 1998 ( Casper & Bianchi, 2002 ). As a result, family researchers have largely abandoned the sociological study of early marriage and chosen to focus on explanations for why people are not marrying in early adulthood. Yet a nontrivial proportion of young people continue to marry at young ages: 19% of 20 – 24 year olds — including 13% of men and 25% of women — have married ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 ). Those who marry young face significant hurdles, including impediments to their educational attainment ( Alexander & Reilly, 1981 ; Smith & Hooker, 1989 ) and the long-term success of their marriage ( Booth & Edwards, 1985 ; Teachman, 1983 ). Thus, it is important to focus not only on why people are avoiding marriage during young adulthood but also on why a significant minority of young adults continue to marry early at a time when cohabitation and premarital sex are increasingly normative and socially acceptable.

Given that many predictors of early marriage have not been static across this recent period of significant family change ( South, 2001 ; Wolfinger, 2003 ), previously identified correlates and causes of early marriage may not predict marriage among contemporary young adults. In addition to changes in the American family, the processes leading to early marriage may also have been altered by a cultural shift towards “individuation.” That is, individuals today are less susceptible to the influence of demographic and family influences than they once were and more prone to individualized influences ( Bumpass, 1990 ; Lesthaeghe & Surkyn, 1988 ; South). Using a sample of contemporary young adults from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), this study examines the characteristics of young adults who marry early in an effort to expand and update research on marriage during the transition to adulthood. Before turning to the present study, however, we first review what previous research has revealed about early marriage.

Research has shown marital timing is affected by an individual's demographic and family background. With respect to demographic variations, women marry younger than men ( Goldscheider & Waite, 1986 ; Johnson & Dye, 2005 ). Race-ethnic differences in marital timing are also pronounced. Hispanics are the most likely to marry young, followed somewhat closely by Whites and more distantly by Asians and Blacks ( Glick, Ruf, White, & Goldscheider, 2006 ; Michael & Tuma, 1985 ; Teachman, Tedrow, & Crowder, 2000 ). Moreover, geographic location has also been found to be associated with early marriage. Individuals who live in the southern United States are more likely to marry at young ages, as are people living in nonmetropolitan areas ( Bramlett & Mosher, 2002 ; Goldscheider & Waite; McLaughlin, Lichter, & Johnson, 1993 ). These young people, especially women, may be less likely to receive economic support from their parents, to perceive viable options outside of marriage, or to perceive an undesirable marriage market (McLaughlin et al.).

The resources provided by an individual's family of origin appear to be extremely salient for a young person's decision to marry. People whose parents have higher educational attainment and financial assets are less likely to marry young ( Axinn & Thornton, 1992 ), possibly because (a) families with more abundant economic resources can provide alternative living situations for their older children, especially daughters ( Waite & Spitze, 1981 ); (b) individuals are in less of a hurry to leave these types of homes ( Thornton, 1991 ); (c) individuals from these homes desire a higher standard of living ( South, 2001 ); or (d) these young people are more likely to attend college themselves.

Although socioeconomic resources are an important way families of origin influence marital timing, they are not the only way. Some evidence suggests that family structure plays an important part in marital timing, though the evidence has hardly been conclusive. A number of studies suggest single parenting has little effect on early marriage ( Aquilino, 1991 ; Goldscheider & Goldscheider, 1998 ; Lloyd & South, 1996 ; Michael & Tuma, 1985 ), yet others find children from single-parent families are less likely to marry young ( Glick et al., 2006 ; Goldscheider & Goldscheider, 1993 ). At the same time, individuals from stepfamilies appear more likely to marry early (Glick et al.; Goldscheider & Goldscheider, 1993 ; Michael & Tuma). The weakening influence of family structure over time may explain some of these disparate findings ( Wolfinger, 2003 ).

In addition to family structure, the marital timing of parents may be an important factor that predicts marital timing among young people: Children of mothers who married young are more likely both to marry and to cohabit at earlier ages ( Thornton, 1991 ). Marital timing also varies widely by religious traditions. On one end of the spectrum are Catholics, Jews, and the religiously unaffiliated, who are prone to delay marriage. Mainline Protestants fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, whereas conservative Protestants and Mormons are the most likely to marry young ( Lehrer, 2004 ; Xu, Hudspeth, & Bartkowski, 2005 ). These patterns are generally reflective of the degree of emphasis placed on familism in these traditions (Xu et al.). (Although the official teachings of the Catholic Church are quite pro-family, Xu et al. argue that American Catholicism has downplayed the importance of marriage since the 1960s.)

Marrying young may also be subject to personal characteristics that are independent (at least in part) of demographic and family characteristics. The role of religiosity (i.e., the strength of religious commitment) in early marriage is not entirely clear. Earlier research suggested that religiosity hastened marriage ( Thornton, Axinn, & Hill, 1992 ), but evidence from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth indicates that increased religious service attendance has no effect on marital timing ( Lehrer, 2004 ). Church attendance, however, is only one aspect of religiosity. Religious salience, or an individual's self-reported importance of religion, may signal a person's internal commitment to the religion and its teachings. One reason religion may spur marriage is that religious traditions nearly universally proscribe premarital sex. Indeed, young people who sign a pledge to remain abstinent from sex until marriage — an idea with Southern Baptist origins — move more quickly into marriage ( Brückner & Bearman, 2005 ).

Young people's educational characteristics may also be important predictors of marriage in early adulthood, especially among women. Women with higher test scores and higher levels of educational engagement (i.e., being prepared for class), as well as those who graduate from high school, are less likely to marry early. The findings for men are more muted, but men's school engagement is also associated with lower rates of early marriage ( Glick et al., 2006 ). On the other hand, young adults who do not complete high school may not view marriage as a viable option ( Edin & Kefalas, 2005 ; Smock, Manning, & Porter, 2005 ).

Perhaps the biggest societal change that may influence early marriage is cohabitation. Nearly 60% of all women cohabit before reaching age 24, compared to just 33% who marry by age 24 ( Schoen, Landale, & Daniels, 2007 ). Much of the recent postponement of marriage has been attributed to the increase in cohabitation rates among young adults ( Bumpass, Sweet, & Cherlin, 1991 ; Raley, 2000 ). Raley (p. 20) asserts that “cohabitation in some ways substitutes for previously earlier ages at marriage.” Cohabitation, then, might be considered a viable pathway out of singlehood for young adults. Young people who cohabit during young adulthood may delay or opt out of marriage.

As ought to be evident by now, many of the studies reviewed here are either dated themselves or make use of dated samples. Most of the studies are of people who transitioned to adulthood in the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s, with only a few exceptions. Glick et al.'s (2006) study uses data from young adults of the early 1990s. Teachman et al.'s (2000) overview of family change includes data up to 1998. These studies pay particular attention to race and ethnic differences in early marriage, though Glick et al. also examine family structure and educational characteristics. Both South (2001) and Wolfinger (2003) also include data from the early 1990s in their studies, yet both of these studies reveal weakening effects of family background on early marriage that may have continued beyond that point in time. Studies using the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth ( Lehrer, 2004 ; Raley, 2000 ) examine early marriage among women in the context of cohabitation, but Schoen et al.'s (2007) analysis of 2001 - 2002 Add Health data reveals significant increases in cohabitation since 1995. Indeed, the only studies using data from the 21st century ( Bramlett & Mosher, 2002 ; Brückner & Bearman, 2005 ; Johnson & Dye, 2005 ; Schoen et al.) do not offer an in-depth look at early marriage. Given the continued increase in cohabitation cited by Schoen et al., it is important to update and expand our knowledge of early marriage in the contemporary United States.

In light of the findings summarized above, we formulate the following set of hypotheses:

• The gender and race hypothesis : Women will be more likely than men to marry early; Whites and Hispanics will be more likely than Blacks and Asians to marry early.
• The geography hypothesis : Young adults who live in the South and in rural areas will be more likely than their counterparts to marry early.
• The family socioeconomic status hypothesis : Young adults with more educated parents and from families with higher incomes will be less likely to marry early.
• The parent marital characteristics hypothesis : Young adults from single-parent families will be less likely to marry early than those whose biological parents are married, whereas those from stepfamilies and other family structures will be more likely to marry early than those whose biological parents are married. Young adults whose parents married earlier will be more likely to marry early than young adults whose parents married later or not at all.
• The religious affiliation hypothesis : Young adults who affiliate with conservative Protestantism and Mormonism will be more likely than mainline Protestants to marry early, whereas Black Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and the nonreligious will be less likely to marry early.
• The religious behaviors and attitudes hypothesis : Young adults who attend religious services more frequently, value religion more highly, and have taken an abstinence pledge will be more likely to marry early.
• The education hypothesis : Young adults who have earned a high school diploma will be more likely to marry early, but those with a higher GPA and college aspirations will be less likely to marry early.
• The cohabitation hypothesis : Young adults who have formed a cohabiting union will be less likely to marry early than those who have not.

Recent societal changes in America may lead to the rejection of some of these hypotheses. We also expect, per the individuation hypothesis mentioned above, that personal characteristics will play a play a more prominent role in early marriage than demographic and family characteristics.

Data and Sample

The data for this study come from Waves 1 and 3 of Add Health. Add Health was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and 17 other federal agencies. It is a school-based panel study of health-related behaviors and their causes, with emphasis placed on social context and social networks. Wave 1 was conducted in 1994 and 1995 and consisted of in-depth interviews with 20,745 American youth in grades 7 – 12. Schools included in the study were chosen from a sampling frame of U.S. high schools and were nationally representative with respect to size, urbanicity, ethnicity, type (e.g., public, private, religious), and region. A total of 132 schools participated in the study, ranging in size from 100 to over 3,000 students. Wave 3 was conducted in 2001 and 2002, when respondents were 18 – 27 years old, and consisted of interviews with 15,197 of the Wave 1 respondents.

We dropped the cases for the 875 respondents (6% of the full sample) who lacked a valid sample weight, the 32 respondents who lacked valid data for their marital history (0.2% of the full sample), and the 125 respondents who were older than 25 at Wave 3 (0.8% of the full sample), leaving a final analytic sample of 14,165 (93% of the full sample). Missing values for all other variables were imputed using indicator/dummy variable adjustment ( Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003 ). Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for all variables used in the analyses.

Mean, Range, and Standard Deviation of Measures ( N = 14,165)

Note: Unless otherwise noted, all variables are Wave 1 measures.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable for this study is a binary measure of whether or not the respondent married in a given person-year (or, for the table of bivariate statistics, whether or not the respondent married before age 23). Respondents reported the month and year of their first marriage. This information was compared to their date of birth to determine if the respondent married in a particular person-year. Those who married in that person-year were coded 1 and censored beyond that point; those who had not married were coded 0. Respondents who married younger than 18 ( n = 129) are grouped with those who married at age 18.

Independent Variables

Past research has identified several characteristics that are predictive of marital timing. We separate these characteristics into two different groups: (a) demographic and family characteristics and (b) personal characteristics. Except where indicated below, all independent variables are taken from the Wave 1 survey.

Demographic and family characteristics

Because marital timing has varied widely by demographic characteristics, we include indicators of gender and race (White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian). The urbanicity of the respondent is measured by variables for living in an urban area, suburban area, or rural area (created from the school administrator's report of the type of school the respondent attended). We also include a dummy variable for whether the respondent lived in the South. To gauge the socioeconomic status of the respondents' family of origin, an ordinal measure of family income and a binary variable for parents' education are included. We also measure the intergenerational transmission of marital timing by tapping the respondents' parent's (usually the mom's) age at marriage and family structure. The family structure variable is based on the respondent's family structure at age 14 (or at the time of the Wave 1 survey if the respondent was younger than 14), and we differentiate among respondents living in families with two biological parents, those living with a single biological parent (and no one else), those living in a stepfamily (one biological parent and his or her spouse), and those in another type of family. Lastly, following the RELTRAD method outlined in Steensland et al. (2000) , we assign a religious affiliation variable to each respondent. Respondents fall in one of eight categories: conservative Protestant, mainline Protestant, Black Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, other religion, or no religion. As Steensland et al. explain, conservative (or evangelical), mainline, and Black Protestant groups each have a distinct religious history, theology, and culture that may lead to different social attitudes and behaviors among adherents.

Personal characteristics

An individual's decision to marry may also be affected by personal characteristics. We include two measures of the respondent's religiosity. The first measure, frequency of religious service attendance, taps an individual's involvement in a moral community and his or her level of public religiosity. This measure ranges from never (coded 1) to once a week or more (coded 4). The second measure of religiosity, self-reported importance of religion in the respondent's life, captures a more private, subjective aspect of religiosity. This measure ranges from not important at all (coded 1) to very important (coded 4). Unfortunately, respondents who indicated on the first religion section question (about affiliation) that they had “no religion” were subsequently skipped out of all religion questions. Add Health analysts have typically assigned the lowest values of attendance and salience to these respondents to avoid losing approximately 2,000 nonrandom cases; we do the same. We also incorporate a dummy variable for respondents who had taken a formal pledge to remain abstinent until marriage.

We further consider educational attainment, achievement, and aspirations. The measure of educational attainment is a dummy variable for respondents who earned their high school diploma by the Wave 3 survey (this measure is time varying, based on the date of high school completion, in the event-history analysis). Subsequent educational attainment is not measured, as it may have occurred after the respondent married. To measure educational achievement, Add Health collected transcripts from the last high school attended by the Wave 3 respondents. From this information, we calculated a cumulative high school GPA. Add Health also asked their respondents (at Wave 1) to indicate how much they wanted to attend college, on a scale of 1 to 5. This variable serves as our measure of educational aspiration.

Finally, we include a measure of the respondent's cohabitation history taken from the Wave 3 survey. Add Health asked each respondent, “Have you ever lived with someone in a marriage-like relationship for one month or more?” Respondents who had ever cohabited, either with their future spouse or with someone else, were coded 1 for this variable; all others were coded 0. For the event-history analysis, we created a time-varying cohabitation variable.

Analytic Approach

We begin by presenting the percentage of 23 – 25-year-old women and men who married before age 23 in Add Health Wave 3 by a number of demographic, family, and personal characteristics ( Table 3 ). This provides a basic and straightforward overview of the prevalence of young marriage and its correlates. We use age 23 as the cutoff for early marriage because of the large number of marriages that occur in the year after college graduation (typically around age 22). We suspect that, for many middle-class young adults, marriage following college graduation is still considered normative and “on-time,” though it is becoming statistically “early.” Thus, all the marriages considered in this first part of our analysis are both statistically and normatively early. We present these simple statistics separately for women and men because of the consistent finding that women marry earlier than men ( Goldscheider & Waite, 1986 ; Johnson & Dye, 2005 ). Although the prevalence of early marriage differs significantly by gender, Table 2 suggests and preliminary analyses confirmed that the factors associated with young marriage do not differ by gender (with the exception of race, which we discuss below). Thus, in Table 3 , which uses discrete-time proportional hazards models to predict the timing of first marriage among the full sample, we present results from a model that includes both women and men.

Percent of Young Adults Married Before Age 23, Split by Gender, 23 – 25-Year-Olds

Note: Percentages under the same heading (e.g., Race or ethnicity) that do not share subscripts differ at p < .05 according to Wald tests with Bonferroni adjustments. All values are weighted. N varies by variable in question because of missing values.

Coefficients and Odds Ratios From Logistic Regression Analysis Predicting Timing of First Marriage

Note: Reference categories are age 18, White, lives in suburban area, lives with two biological parents, parent married at age 26 or older, and mainline Protestant. Controls missing information are included in the model but are not displayed. Analysis is based on 63,889 person-years contributed by 14,165 individuals. e β = exponentiated β.

To perform the analysis in Table 3 , a person-year file was created containing multiple observations for each respondent, one for each year the respondent lived beyond his or her 18th birthday (an 18-year-old contributes one person-year, a 19-year-old contributes two person-years, etc.). The data are censored after first marriage, if applicable. We model the hazard as fully non-parametric, using a dummy variable for each year at risk from ages 19 – 25 (age 18 is the reference category). To account for the complex sampling design of the Add Health data, we generate all analyses using svy estimators in Stata, which account for the primary sampling unit (high school), the region, and the unequal probability of being included in the sample.

Table 2 reports the percentage of women and men who are married before age 23 by a variety of characteristics. Table 2 reveals that early marriage did indeed decline in the last several decades, but it remained far from rare. Over 25% of women married prior to age 23, as did more than 15% of young men. Marriage in early adulthood is clearly patterned by race. Only 11% of African American women married before age 23. White and Hispanic women had the highest rates of marriage before 23 at nearly 30% each, though Hispanic women were not significantly more likely to marry by this point than Asian women. Among men, Blacks were also the least likely to marry prior to 23. Just 9% had married before this age, compared to 12% of Asian men and 16% of White men. Hispanic men were the most likely to marry early: Nearly one quarter were married before age 23.

Other demographic and family characteristics also played an important role in the marital timing of young adults. As our geography hypothesis predicted, early marriage was more common for those who grew up in the South and in rural areas. More than 30% of all women who lived in the South during adolescence married before their 23rd birthday, as did about 37% of those living in rural areas. Young men from the South also had higher rates of early marriage, though rural men were not statistically more or less likely to marry early than their counterparts. Parental socioeconomic status was also an important factor for marrying young in the United States. Only about 16% of young women with a college-educated parent and just about 10% of young men married prior to age 23, compared to 29% and 19% of young women and men, respectively, with no college-educated parent. Rates of early marriage did not differ, however, by family income level.

Parents appear to have transmitted marriage norms intergenerationally. Young women who grew up in a home with an “other” family structure (including those living with a biological parent and that parent's cohabiting partner, as well as those living with no biological parent) and young men from single-parent families avoided early marriage most often. Moreover, parents' marital timing was also a significant predictor of young marriage: For both women and men, those whose parent married before age 21 were more likely than their counterparts to be married themselves prior to age 23.

Marriage in early adulthood varied widely by religious affiliation. More than 42% of women who grew up as conservative Protestants married prior to age 23. These women were more likely to marry early than Black Protestant, mainline Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and religiously unaffiliated women. Mormon women also had a marriage rate near 40%, but courtesy of their small representation in the sample, they differed significantly from Black Protestant and Jewish women. Jewish, Black Protestant, and Catholic women, on the other hand, were among the least likely women to marry before age 23. Under 1% of Jewish women, just 11% of women from the Black Protestant tradition, and only 17% of Catholic women married early. Mainline Protestant women, unaffiliated women, and women from “other” religious traditions occupied a sort of middle ground with respect to marriage rates prior to age 23. The pattern of men's early marriage rates by their religious tradition during adolescence was similar to that for women, though there were fewer statistical differences among these groups. Nevertheless, conservative Protestants and Mormons were the most likely to marry before age 23; religiously unaffiliated men, mainline Protestant men, and men from “other” religious traditions fell in the middle of the spectrum; and Catholic, Black Protestant, and Jewish men had the lowest early marriage rates.

Thus far, we have found significant variations in the prevalence of early marriage by demographic and family characteristics. The same cannot be said, however, for variations by personal characteristics. Indeed, the only significant difference in marriage rates by personal characteristics was among those with differing educational aspirations. Both women and men who wanted very much to attend college reported a lower prevalence of marriage prior to age 23 than their counterparts. Interestingly, religious service attendance and religious salience during adolescence, abstinence pledging, high school completion, high school GPA, and even cohabitation history were not associated with marriage before age 23 among women or men.

Table 3 presents coefficients and odds ratios from a logistic regression model predicting the timing of first marriage. This event-history technique allows us to retain all individuals in the Add Health sample, irrespective of age, and to predict the timing of marriage during early adulthood, not just its occurrence. Table 3 indicates that marriage was slightly less likely at age 19 than at age 18 and substantially more likely at age 23. The hazard of marriage for other ages was similar to age 18. This baseline hazard likely demonstrates the powerful effects of school enrollment on early marriage, with a dip in the risk of early marriage in the first year of postsecondary education (age 19) and a spike in the year following a traditional college student's graduation (age 23). In interaction models (not shown), the hazard for women and respondents from the South was greater at ages 18 and 19 (just after high school) compared with men and respondents from outside the South, respectively. Additionally, respondents with a higher socioeconomic profile (higher parent education, higher income, college aspirations) were less likely to marry right after high school but more likely to marry around age 23 (after college).

The results in Table 3 also indicate that demographics and family characteristics were important predictors of early marriage at the beginning of the 21st century, as we might expect from the bivariate findings in Table 3 . Not surprisingly, women were nearly twice as likely as men to marry earlier. Despite the strong main effect of gender on early marriage, the only significant interaction effects by gender were gender and race-ethnicity interactions (not shown). As Table 3 indicates, only African Americans were at lower risk than Whites to marry earlier, though interactions suggest that Black and Hispanic women were more likely than men of these race-ethnic groups to marry early. Black men, however, were still less likely than White men to marry early, and Hispanic men were more likely to marry early than White men.

Other demographic and family characteristics played a prominent role in early marriage as well. People who grew up in the South were more likely to marry at younger ages than those from other parts of the country, net of correlated factors such as urbanicity and religious affiliation. Similarly, young adults who grew up in rural areas were also more likely to marry younger than those from the suburbs. Parental socioeconomic status and marital characteristics also influenced marital timing. The odds of a young person whose parents have a college degree marrying early were 33% lower than those of their counterparts, and young adults from families in higher income categories also had lower odds of earlier marriage. Young adults from different family structures did not vary in their marital timing, but parental marital timing did predict early marriage. People whose parent married at age 22 or younger were far more likely to marry young themselves. Notably, this was one of the strongest predictors of early marriage.

Religious traditions were also important factors in marriage during early adulthood, even after accounting for other factors that might explain the associations, such as race, region of residence, and religiosity (among others). Young adults who grew up as conservative Protestants, Mormons, and adherents to “other” religions were all more likely to marry at younger ages than were mainline Protestants. Catholics were less likely than mainliners to do the same, whereas Black Protestants, Jews, and unaffiliated young adults had similar odds of earlier marriage as mainline Protestants (though the Jewish null finding is likely attributable to a small n problem).

Personal characteristics, such as religiosity, educational characteristics, and cohabitation history, also appeared to be associated with early marriage. Young adults who reported higher religious salience during adolescence, earned a high-school diploma, and cohabited married earlier, whereas those with higher high school GPAs and educational aspirations had a lower likelihood of earlier marriage. Although it would be easy to conclude from Table 3 that religious service attendance and abstinence pledging did not “matter” for early marriage, this is not quite true. Separate models (not shown) revealed that both church attendance and pledging did hasten marriage, but that the effect of these characteristics was attenuated by religious salience. Put differently, the influence of religious service attendance and abstinence pledging on early marriage was explained by underlying internal religious commitment. Despite the significance of all these personal characteristics, however, they did not explain away the robust effects of demographics and family characteristics.

Although much attention has been paid to the increasing age at first marriage in the United States, many Americans continue to marry at young ages. More than one quarter of young women and more than 15% of young men marry before their 23rd birthday. Given early marriage's known association with marital dissolution, it is important to pay adequate attention to these individuals who marry in early adulthood. By documenting the prevalence of early marriage and identifying the factors associated with it in a contemporary sample of young adults, this study adds to the understanding of marriage during the transition to adulthood and highlights the need to pay due attention to the segment of the population that marries young.

In general, the findings presented here suggest that despite significant and substantial changes in union formation behavior among young adults, the factors that predict early marriage have remained fairly constant across the last several decades. In the absence of trend data, it is impossible for us to say whether the effects of these factors have weakened , but they nonetheless remain evident in the Add Health study. Indeed, we found at least partial support for each of our hypotheses except the cohabitation hypothesis. The findings for gender and race-ethnicity, geography, family socioeconomic status, parent marital characteristics, religious affiliation, religious behaviors and attitudes, and education are all largely (though not perfectly) consonant with previous findings dating back to the 1970s.

A few of these findings merit further discussion. First, the finding that young adults who cohabit are more likely to marry early is the opposite of what we expected, yet is not inexplicable. Even though a decreasing proportion of cohabitations are resulting in marriage during young adulthood ( Schoen et al., 2007 ), young adults who cohabit are still more likely to move into marriage at younger ages than those who remain single. Thus, for at least a minority of cohabitators during early adulthood, cohabitation can be viewed as a precursor to marriage. Second, the finding that religious salience during adolescence leads to earlier marriage is notable for at least two reasons: It suggests that (a) previous studies that have examined only church attendance as a measure of personal religiosity (e.g., Lehrer, 2004 ) may have overlooked the multidimensional aspect of religion, and (b) religiosity's influence on early marriage may be less about the social control that comes with participation in a religious community and more about the internalization of religious teachings and norms about marriage. Third, the increased likelihood that young adults with a high-school diploma will marry early corroborates other research that suggests a stable financial status is a necessary prerequisite for marriage ( Edin & Kefalas, 2005 ; Smock et al., 2005 ).

This study also highlights the persistence of demographic and family characteristics in predicting early marriage. Although some family background factors like resources and structure may have less of an influence on marital timing now than in the past ( South, 2001 ; Wolfinger, 2003 ), demographic and family characteristics are robust to controls for a number of personal characteristics and even overshadow those personal characteristics. In other words, although young adults may be less susceptible to exogenous characteristics than in the past when it comes to early marriage, they are still quite susceptible to them. Personal characteristics, although important, do not appear to be the driving factor behind marriage in early adulthood.

Lastly, this study reveals that early marriage continues to occur predominantly among young adults from disadvantaged backgrounds. The typical early married is a White, rural southerner from a low-SES family with a relatively low educational trajectory. This is not the disadvantaged American typically addressed in sociological and demographic research, but these persons are nevertheless a significant minority of the United States population. Substantial attention has (rightly) been paid to the retreat from marriage among the disadvantaged in urban settings (e.g., Carlson, McLanahan, & England, 2004 ; Edin & Kefalas, 2005 ; Gibson-Davis, Edin, and McLanahan, 2005 ), yet comparatively little consideration has been given to the disadvantaged individuals in rural and southern areas who embrace marriage at an early age — even though they are the most likely to do so. Early marriage comes with its own set of difficulties, however, and if understanding and supporting all marriages — be they early, normative, or late — is a goal of scholarship and policy, this population should garner more attention from both researchers and policymakers. Simply put, researchers and policymakers need to ask not only why people, especially disadvantaged people, don't get married, but also why they do .

Acknowledgments

This research uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by a grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies. Special acknowledgment is due Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Persons interested in obtaining data files from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 ( ude.cnu@htlaehdda ). No direct support was received from grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis. The authors would like to thank Shannon Cavanagh, Jennifer March Augustine, and Jennifer Karas Montez for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper, as well as Mark Hayward for his helpful methodological advice. The authors also wish to recognize the NICHD center grant (5 R24 HD42849) made to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. Data access was funded in part by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development under grant R01HD40428-02 to the Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, Chandra Muller (PI).

• Alexander KL, Reilly TW. Estimating the effects of marriage timing on educational attainment: Some procedural issues and substantive clarifications. American Journnal of Sociology. 1981; 87 :143–156. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aquilino WS. Family structure and home-leaving: A further specification of the relationship. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1991; 53 :999–1010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Axinn WG, Thornton A. The influence of parental resources on the timing of the transition to marriage. Social Science Research. 1992; 21 :261–285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth A, Edwards JN. Age at marriage and marital instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1985; 47 :67–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bramlett MD, Mosher WD. Vital and Health Statistics. 22. Vol. 23. National Center for Health Statistics; Hyattsville, MD: 2002. Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brückner H, Bearman PS. After the promise: The STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2005; 36 :271–278. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bumpass LL. What's happening to the family? Interactions between demographic and institutional change. Demography. 1990; 27 :483–498. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bumpass LL, Sweet JA, Cherlin A. The role of cohabitation in declining rates of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1991; 53 :913–927. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carlson M, McLanahan S, England P. Union formation in fragile families. Demography. 2004; 41 :237–261. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casper LM, Bianchi SM. Continuity and change in the American family. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J, Cohen P, West S, Aiken L. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd ed. Erlbaum; Mahwah, NJ: 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edin K, Kefalas MJ. Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. University of California Press; Berkeley, CA: 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibson-Davis CM, Edin K, McLanahan S. High hopes but even higher expectations: The retreat from marriage among low-income couples. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005; 67 :1301–1312. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glick JE, Ruf SD, White MJ, Gold-scheider F. Educational engagement and early family formation: Differences by ethnicity and generation. Social Forces. 2006; 84 :1391–1415. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldscheider FK, Goldscheider C. Leaving home before marriage: Ethnicity, familism, and generational relationships. University of Wisconsin Press; Madison, WI: 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldscheider FK, Goldscheider C. The effects of childhood family structure on leaving and returning home. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1998; 60 :745–756. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldscheider FK, Waite LJ. Sex differences in the entry into marriage. American Journal of Sociology. 1986; 92 :91–109. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson T, Dye J. Indicators of marriage and fertility in the United States from the American Community Survey: 2000 to 2003. 2005. Retrieved April 13, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/fertility/mar-fert-slides.html .
• Lehrer EL. The role of religion in union formation: An economic perspective. Population Research and Policy Review. 2004; 23 :161–185. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesthaeghe R, Surkyn J. Cultural dynamics and economic theories of fertility change. Population and Development Review. 1988; 14 :1–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lloyd KM, South SJ. Contextual influences on young men's transition to first marriage. Social Forces. 1996; 74 :1097–1119. [ Google Scholar ]
• McLaughlin DK, Lichter DT, Johnston GM. Some women marry young: Transitions to first marriage in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1993; 55 :827–838. [ Google Scholar ]
• Michael RT, Tuma NB. Entry into marriage and parenthood by young men and women: The influence of family background. Demography. 1985; 22 :515–544. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raley RK. Recent trends in marriage and cohabitation: The United States. In: Waite L, Bachrach C, Hindin M, Thomson E, Thornton A, editors. Ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation. Aldine de Gruyter; Hawthorne, CA: 2000. pp. 19–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schoen R, Lansdale NS, Daniels K. Family transitions in young adulthood. Demography. 2007; 44 :807–820. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seltzer JA, Bachrach CA, Bianchi SM, Bledsoe CH, Casper LM, Chase-Lansdale PL, et al. Explaining family change and variation: Challenges for family demographers. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005; 67 :908–925. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith TE, Hooker E. Sex differences in marriage and parenthood as factors impeding educational attainment. Sociological Inquiry. 1989; 59 :343–354. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smock PJ, Manning WD, Porter M. “Everything's there except money”: How money shapes decisions to marry among cohabitors. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005; 67 :680–696. [ Google Scholar ]
• South SJ. The variable effects of family background on the timing of first marriage: United States, 1969 – 1993. Social Science Research. 2001; 30 :606–626. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steensland B, Park J, Regnerus M, Robinson L, Wilcox B, Woodberry R. The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces. 2000; 79 :291–318. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teachman JD. Early marriage, premarital fertility, and marital dissolution: Results for Blacks and Whites. Journal of Family Issues. 1983; 4 :105–126. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teachman JD, Tedrow LM, Crowder KD. The changing demography of America's families. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2000; 62 :1234–1246. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thornton A. Influence of the marital history of parents on the marital and cohabitational experiences of children. American Journal of Sociology. 1991; 96 :868–894. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thornton A, Axinn WG, Hill DH. Reciprocal effects of religiosity, cohabitation, and marriage. American Journal of Sociology. 1992; 98 :628–651. [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Census Bureau America's families and living arrangements, 2006. 2006. Retrieved December 18, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2006.html .
• Waite LJ, Spitze GD. Young women's transition to marriage. Demography. 1981; 18 :681–694. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolfinger NH. Parental divorce and off-spring marriage: Early or late? Social Forces. 2003; 82 :337–353. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu X, Hudspeth CD, Bartkowski JP. The timing of first marriage: Are there religious variations? Journal of Family Issues. 2005; 26 :584–618. [ Google Scholar ]