想婚姻幸福？举办一个大而便宜婚礼！砖石广告商想大家相信：砖石是永恒的，越大的砖石，婚姻就越好！
但这只是童话！美国终于出版有史以来的第一个研究报告：【结婚费用】 和 【婚姻长久】 的关系（报告原文在下面），简要：
- 男人花$2,000元~4,000买订婚戒的离婚率，比男人花$500~$2,000要高1.3倍。men who spent between $2,000 and $4,000 on engagement rings were 1.3 times more likely to get divorced than men who spent between $500 and $2,000 on a ring.
- 女人花在婚礼费用超过$20,000，他们的离婚率比花5,000元~10,000元要高3.5倍。For women, if a wedding cost over $20,000, they were 3.5 times more likely to divorce than women who spent between $5,000 and $10,000, the study claims.
- wedding cost more than $20,000 divorced at a rate roughly 1.6 times higher than women whose wedding cost between $5,000 and $10,000. And couples who spent $1,000 or less on their big day had a lower than average rate of divorce.
- 那些花了500美元或更少的订婚戒指有更高的离婚率。those who spent $500 or less on an engagement ring experienced higher rates of divorce, too.
我很喜欢数据，因为数据说明事实，特别是大数据，证明一个现象有统计的数据为根据，并不是你我忽悠胡说八道，别人就相信。数据证明，婚礼花太多或太少钱都会导致更高的离婚率。至于投融资或合伙创业，我一般都用男女或婚姻关系作为一个比喻。
如果这比喻是正确的，那么投资太多或太少钱，或创业投入太多或太少资本都会导致更高的失败率！
昨天在国内开车时听电台讨论此数据，我觉得挺有意思。但我写这博客前，在Google 和 weibo.com 搜索了有关文章，居然在中文媒体没有找到任何的报道！我用英文Google：high divorce rate if wedding cost too much，马上就搜索到有关研究报告和类似CNN等的英文媒体报道了。看来中文的报道也只是几个大中文媒体报道后，其他小媒体和个人微博博客等再转发！我的结论是，虽然CNN在国内被封，但国内的电台某些海龟背景的主持人还是会看这些墙外的有趣报告然后与听众分享，而不只限制在转发官方或主流墙内媒体的报道。
创业团队和公司上下应该努力赚钱，开源节流，将命运掌握在自己手中；不要以为烧钱就可以很快赚到钱，扭亏为盈越早越好，否则会亏更多，这和大多数去赌场的人都会输是一个道理。如果不想放弃控制权，创业者就不要接受投资者太多钱，或者不要向VC融任何钱，因为投资者的钱不是无条件的，VC的条款更苛刻。
以前有位还不知自己是狂妄的创业者，或还没创业但生活在童话里的理想主义者，凭概念就想融1000万！当我问他想出让多少股份时,他非常慎重地说:“就出让20%吧,1000美元不多！”我顿时心脏几乎停顿,马上要晕掉！[晕]我本来以为1000人民币就已经是天方夜谭，这哥们是我所说的#创业者谎言#天方夜谭的6倍！
唐：美国人收入高和游戏规则健全，美国09年有二十六万活跃天使投资者投了六万个项目：软件19% 医疗17%工业能源17%零售9%生物8%，其中工业/清洁能源增长最快。收购兼并占54%退出，破产占40%退出。收购兼并和上市年均回报有23%~38%。虽然美国受到金融危机的重大创伤，但天使没畏惧，中国的天使要加油！虽然创业者以为是钱的问题，但创业初期往往需要的不仅是钱，而是众多天使和高人可以提供的创业经验和指导，VC是不可能花太多时间帮助创业者的。//@田玉波:熊皮特的“创新蜂聚”会不会变成稳定流呢//@赵成微博:新经济与大量的天使投资密不可分，是真正的供给创造需求，是创造性的破坏，而不是毁灭性破坏
当你欠银行100万，这是你的问题；当你欠1亿，是银行的问题；当你欠100亿，是国家的问题！
山西最大民营钢企海鑫钢铁30亿债务缠身，工人工资拖欠几月，富二代老板淡定政府干着急。
山西最年轻的首富 李兆会不爱实业爱投机=一夜情，迎娶演员车晓2年后付3亿离婚。
中国要学美国：富豪钱不要给富二代，ZF银行不要看表面！
7000万嫁女煤老板邢利斌破产崩盘
国内大多项目的门槛就是钱，那么投钱越多就越好？门槛越高？未必！很多垃圾项目会烧成更大的垃圾，加速灭亡！
所以投资者给钱给创业者好比给钱给我们的小孩：给您的孩子足够的钱去做点事，但不要给太多让他们一事无成！
Give enough for your children to do something, but not too much to do nothing!
山西最年轻首富30亿债务缠身：曾迎娶演员车晓
2014年03月18日 21世纪网
李兆会：我是富一代
继7000万嫁女煤老板邢利斌破产崩盘后，山西最大的民营钢企——海鑫钢铁集团日前也爆发危机。
http://bbs.webplus.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=6089
砖石是永恒的 和 其他童话： 结婚的费用 和 婚姻长久 的关系 ‘A Diamond is Forever’ and Other Fairy Tales: The Relationship between Wedding Expenses and Marriage Duration
Andrew M. Francis and Hugo M. Mialon
In this paper, we evaluate the association between wedding spending and marriage duration using data from a survey of over 3,000 ever-married persons in the United States. Controlling fora number of demographic and relationship characteristics, we find evidence that marriage duration is inversely associated with spending on the engagement ring and wedding ceremony.
file:///C:/Users/VT/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.jpg
De Beers advertisement, "Lovely Dreamer" painted by Pierre Ino, 1955
I. IntroductionIn 2014, wedding industry revenues are projected to exceed $50 billion in the United States (IBISWorld, 2014). According to a national survey conducted annually by the top wedding website TheKnot.com, the average wedding cost was $29,858 in 2013 (TheKnot, 2014). The wedding industry has grown substantially throughout the twentieth century in part due to the rise of consumerism and industry efforts to commodify love and romance. One example of this was the emergence of bridal magazines, especially Bride’s, which played an important role in developing a platform for many service providers to reach consumers and in promoting the necessity of a lavish wedding for a fairy tale marriage (Howard, 2006; Otnes and Pleck, 2003). In 1959, Bride’s recommended that couples set aside 2 months to prepare for their wedding and published a checklist with 22 tasks for them to complete. By the 1990s, the magazine recommended 12 months of wedding preparation and published a checklist with 44 tasks to complete (Otnes and Pleck, 2003).
Another example of industry efforts to commodify love and romance is that of marketing campaigns for diamond engagement rings. Several of the most well-known campaigns were by De Beers, the global diamond company. In the late 1930s, De Beers created the slogan “a diamond is forever,” which was rated the number one slogan of the century by Advertising Age (1999). The campaign aimed to link the purchase of a diamond engagement ring to the hope of a long-lasting marriage. In the 1980s, De Beers introduced another influential campaign, which sought to increase the standard for how much should be spent on an engagement ring with slogans such as “Isn’t two months’ salary a small price to pay for something that lasts forever?” (Cawley, 2014; Sullivan, 2013). These marketing efforts were effective. Prior to World War II, in Western countries, only 10% of engagement rings contained a diamond. By the end of the century, about 80% did (Cawley, 2014). In 2012, total expenditures on diamond rings were roughly $7 billion in the United States (Sullivan, 2013).
However, the industry message that associates wedding expenditures with longer-lasting marriages has never been statistically evaluated. In this paper, we estimate the relationship between wedding spending (including spending on engagement rings and wedding ceremonies) and the duration of marriages. To do so, we carried out an online survey of over 3,000 evermarried persons residing in the United States. Overall, we find little evidence that expensive weddings and the duration of marriages are positively related. On the contrary, in multivariate analysis, we find evidence that relatively high spending on the engagement ring is inversely associated with marriage duration among male respondents. Relatively high spending on the wedding is inversely associated with marriage duration among female respondents, and relatively low spending on the wedding is positively associated with duration among male and female respondents. Additionally, we find that having high wedding attendance and having a honeymoon (regardless of how much it cost) are generally positively associated with marriage duration.
A large body of literature analyzes the economic determinants of marital quality and duration (e.g., Becker, Landes, and Michael 1977; Bradbury et al. 2000; Charles and Stephens 2004; Conger et al. 1990; Dew, Britt, and Huston 2012; Easterlin 2003; Grossbard and Mukhopadhyay 2013; Hoffman and Duncan 1995; Stutzer and Frey 2004). Moreover, a handful of studies examine the economics of engagement (Brinig 1990; Farmer and Horowitz 2005) and the signaling properties of diamond rings and other premarital gifts (Bird and Smith 2005; Camerer 1988; Cronk and Dunham 2007; Sozou and Seymour 2005). To our knowledge, our study is the first to examine the potential link between wedding expenses and marriage duration.
2. Data and methods Our study’s target population is adult US residents who have ever been married to someone of the opposite sex and are not widowed. Data collection involved implementation of a survey questionnaire. The questionnaire contained approximately 40 questions and covered topics pertaining to a person’s current marriage or first marriage (if divorced or married more than once). Specifically, we gathered information on marital status, marriage duration, children, length of time dated, feelings and attitudes at the time of wedding proposal, honeymoon, engagement ring expenses, wedding attendance, total wedding expenses, age, age at marriage, gender, race/ethnicity, education, employment, household income, region of residence, religious attendance, and differences in age, race, and education between respondent and partner. The questionnaire could be completed in 5 minutes.
The survey was designed using Qualtrics and administered using Mechanical Turk (mTurk), an online labor market operated by Amazon. On mTurk, requesters post short tasks that workers complete for a wage. A growing number of economists and other social scientists are making use of mTurk for experimental and survey research (Arceneaux, 2012; Gorsuch, 2014; Huber, Hill, and Lenz, 2012; Kuziemko, Norton, Saez, and Stantcheva, 2013; Oster, Shoulson, and Dorsey, 2013). An advantage of mTurk is that it provides low-cost access to a large and diverse subject pool. Samples of mTurk workers have been found to be more representative of the US population than in-person convenience samples, standard internet samples, and typical college samples (Berinsky, Huber, and Lenz, 2012; Buhrmester, Kwang, and Gosling, 2011). Moreover, the internal and external validity of experiments conducted with mTurk have been shown to be comparable to that of laboratory and field experiments (Horton, Rand, and Zeckhauser, 2011). Of course, for our purposes, a large national probability sample would be preferable. However, to our knowledge, no existing national probability sample contains questions regarding wedding expenses.
Data collection was conducted in July and August 2014. We offered mTurk workers $0.50 to $0.75 to complete the survey. Altogether, 3,370 people completed the survey. We excluded respondents who had a non-US IP address, reported having a same-sex marriage, reported an age at marriage of less than 13 years old, or were above age 60. We also excluded respondents who finished the survey in less than 2 minutes and provided inconsistent responses about age of partner, which was asked at the beginning and end of the questionnaire. After these filters, the final sample consisted of 3,151 respondents.
Table 1 displays means of all variables in our Amazon mTurk sample and of available corresponding variables for ever-married persons in the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS). The summary statistics are also broken down by gender. Note that engagement ring expenses and total wedding expenses are expressed in real 2014 dollars. As the table illustrates, our sample is relatively diverse along a number of dimensions. In particular, the distributions of marital status, gender, employment, and region of residence are nearly identical in our survey and the ACS. However, some notable differences in age, race/ethnicity, education, and household income exist between the two samples. Relative to the ACS, our sample is younger, whiter, more educated, and less wealthy. This raises the issue that the sample may not be fully representative of the US population of ever-married persons. For this reason, we will run regressions with population weighting. Regressions run without population weighting are reported in Appendix Tables 1 and 2.
We employ a Cox proportional hazard model to predict marital dissolution as a function of wedding expenses and other characteristics. A diagnostic test using Schoenfeld residuals was run to confirm the validity of the proportional-hazards assumption. We run regressions on the full sample of ever-married persons (reported in Table 2). A concern that may arise is that wedding expenses may be subject to measurement error due to the retrospective nature of the survey. Respondents may not recall wedding expenses precisely, and if they do not, they may report inaccurate values or even values colored by marital experience. For this reason, our survey gave respondents the option to indicate that they were unable to remember wedding expenses. Moreover, in practice, we do not use the precise numbers reported on the survey but instead aggregate them into broad categories so that actual and reported values are likely to be in the same category. Importantly, we also run regressions on a sub-sample of recently-married persons, specifically, persons married in 2008 or more recently (Table 3). Presumably, recently married persons recall their wedding expenses more accurately.
Additionally, we investigate a potential mechanism underlying the relationship between wedding expenses and marital dissolution. A large literature suggests that financial stress is a factor that increases divorce (e.g., Becker, Landes, and Michael 1977; Conger et al. 1990; Dew, Britt, and Huston 2012). For this reason, in our survey we also asked respondents whether debt resulting from wedding expenses caused stress in their marriage. We run a logistic regression examining whether higher engagement ring and wedding expenses are associated with greater wedding-related debt stress (Table 4).
age, marriage age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, employment, household income, and region of residence. Weights are calculated as the inverse of the estimated probability of being in our sample.
3. Results Table 2 displays population-weighted results of the Cox proportional hazard model predicting marital dissolution. We present hazard ratios from bivariate models (with no controls) and multivariate models stratified by gender of respondent. An estimated hazard ratio higher (lower) than one indicates that a predictor is associated with a greater (lesser) hazard of divorce. In bivariate regressions, having no engagement ring and having wedding expenses below $1,000 are each associated with increases in the hazard of divorce, while spending $8,000 or more on an engagement ring is associated with a decrease in the hazard of divorce. This appears to be consistent with the relationship between wedding expenses and marriage duration posited by wedding industry advertising. However, the picture changes in multivariate regressions. Spending between $2,000 and $4,000 on an engagement ring is significantly associated with an increase in the hazard of divorce in the sample of men. Specifically, in the sample of men, spending between $2,000 and $4,000 on an engagement ring is associated with a 1.3 times greater hazard of divorce as compared to spending between $500 and $2,000.
Furthermore, spending $1,000 or less on the wedding is significantly associated with a decrease in the hazard of divorce in the sample of all persons and in the sample of men, and spending $20,000 or more on the wedding is associated with an increase in the hazard of divorce in the sample of women. In particular, as compared with spending between $5,000 and $10,000 on the wedding, spending less than $1,000 is associated with half the hazard of divorce in the sample of men, and spending $20,000 or more is associated with 1.6 times the hazard of divorce in the sample of women.
Table 3 displays population-weighted results of the Cox proportional hazard model predicting marital dissolution for the recently-married sub-sample. The table indicates that spending between $2,000 and $4,000 on an engagement ring is significantly associated with an increase in the hazard of divorce in the sample of all persons, while spending less than $500 is associated with an increase in the hazard of divorce in the sample of women. Moreover, spending $1,000 or less on the wedding is significantly associated with a decrease in the hazard of divorce in the sample of all persons, sample of men, and sample of women, while spending $20,000 or more is significantly associated with an increase in the hazard of divorce in the sample of women. In particular, in the sample of women, the hazard of divorce associated with spending more than $20,000 on the wedding is 3.5 times higher than the hazard of divorce associated with spending between $5,000 and $10,000.
Other interesting results emerge in Tables 2 and 3. In the sample of all persons, greater differences in age and education between husband and wife and reporting that one’s partner’s looks were important in the decision to marry are both significantly associated with a higher hazard of divorce. On the other hand, relatively high household income, regularly attending religious services, having a child with one’s partner, relatively high wedding attendance, and going on a honeymoon are all significantly associated with a lower hazard of divorce. Thus, the evidence suggests that the types of weddings associated with lower likelihood of divorce are those that are relatively inexpensive but are high in attendance.
Table 4 explores wedding-related debt stress as one possible mechanism underlying the positive associations that we find between marital dissolution and spending on the engagement ring and wedding. In the sample of women, spending between $2,000 and $4,000 on the engagement ring is associated with 2 to 3 times the odds of reporting being stressed about wedding-related debt relative to spending between $500 and $2,000. Furthermore, in the sample of all persons, sample of men, and sample of women, spending less than $1,000 on the wedding is associated with an 82% to 93% decrease in the odds of reporting being stressed about wedding-related debt relative to spending between $5,000 and $10,000. If wedding expenditures are indeed associated with debt stress, then it is possible that wedding expenses raise the likelihood of marital dissolution given that prior literature suggests a link between economic stress and marital dissolution.
The wedding industry has consistently sought to link wedding spending with long-lasting marriages. This paper is the first to examine this relationship statistically. We find that marriage duration is either not associated or inversely associated with spending on the engagement ring and wedding ceremony. Overall, our findings provide little evidence to support the validity of the wedding industry’s general message that connects expensive weddings with positive marital outcomes. In future research, it may be useful to construct a population-representative longitudinal sample of dating couples, following them through the multiple stages of their relationship and gathering prospective information on wedding expenses and marital quality.
References Arceneaux, Kevin. 2012. “Cognitive Biases and theStrength of Political Arguments.” AmericanJournal of Political Science. 56(2): 271-285. Becker, Gary S., Elisabeth M. Landes and Robert T.Michael. 1977. “An Economic Analysis of Marital Instability.” Journal of Political Economy. 85(6):1141-1187. Berinsky, Adam J., Gregory A. Huber,and Gabriel S. Lenz. 2012. “Evaluation Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research:Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” PoliticalAnalysis. 20: 351-368. Bird, Rebecca Bliege and Eric Alden Smith. 2005.“Signaling Theory, Strategic Interaction, and Symbolic Capital.” Current Anthropology. 46(2): 221-248. Bradbury, Thomas N., Frank D. Fincham, and StevenR.H. Beach. 2000. “Research on the Nature and Determinants of MaritalSatisfaction: A Decade in Review.” Journalof Marriage and the Family. 62(4): 964-980. Brinig, Margaret F. 1990. “Rings and Promises.” Journal of Law, Economics, &Organization. 6(1): 203-215. Buhrmester, Michael, Tracy Kwang, and Samuel D.Gosling. 2011. “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, YetHigh-Quality, Data?” Perspectives on PsychologicalScience. 6(1): 3-5. Camerer, Colin 1988. “Gifts as Economic Signals andSocial Symbols.” American Journal ofSociology. 94: S180-S214. Charles, Kerwin K. and Melvin Stephens Jr. 2004.“Job Displacement, Disability, and Divorce.” Journal of Labor Economics. 22(2): 489-522. Conger, Rand D., Glen H. Elder, Jr.,Frederick O. Lorenz, Katherine J. Conger, Ronald L. Simons, Les B. Whitbeck, Shirley Huck,and Janet N. Melby. 1990. “Linking Economic Hardship to Marital Quality andInstability.” Journal of Marriage andFamily. 52(3): 643656. Cronk, Lee and Bria Dunham. 2007. “Amounts Spent onEngagement Rings Reflect Aspects of Male and Female Mate Quality.” Human Nature. 18(4): 329-333. Dew, Jeffrey, Sonya Britt, and Sandra Huston. 2012.“Examining the Relationship Between Financial Issues and Divorce.” Family Relations. 61(October): 615-628. Easterlin, Richard A. 2003. “Explaining Happiness.” Proceeding of the National Academy ofSciences of the United States of America. 100(19): 11176-11183. Farmer, Amy and Andrew W. Horowitz. 2004. “TheEngagement Game.” Journal of PopulationEconomics. 17(4): 627-644. Gorsuch, Marina. 2014. “Gender, Sexual Orientation,and Backlash in the Labor Market.” Duke University, Sanford School of PublicPolicy, working paper. Grossbard, Shoshana and Sankar Mukhopadhyay. 2013.“Children, Spousal Love, and Happiness: an Economic Analysis.” Review of Economics of the Household.11(3): 447-467. Hoffman, Saul D. and Greg J. Duncan. 1995. “TheEffect of Incomes, Wages, and AFDC Benefits on Marital Disruption.” Journal of Human Resources. 30(1):19-41. Horton, John J., David G. Rand, and Richard J.Zeckhauser. 2011. “The Online Laboratory: Conducting Experiments in a RealLabor Market.” Experimental Economics.14: 399-425. Howard, Vicki. 2006. Brides, Inc.: American weddings and the business of tradition.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Huber, Gregory A., Seth J. Hill, and Gabriel S.Lenz. 2012. “Sources of Bias in Retrospective Decision Making: ExperimentalEvidence on Voters’ Limitations in Controlling Incumbents.” American Political Science Review.106(4): 720-741. Kuziemko, Ilyana, Michael I. Norton, Emmanuel Saez,and Stefanie Stantcheva. 2013. “How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution?Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments.” National Bureau of EconomicResearch, NBER Working Papers: 18865. Oster, Emily, Ira Shoulson, and E. Ray Dorsey.“Optimal Expectations and Limited Medical Testing: Evidence from Huntington Disease.”American Economic Review. 103(2):804-830. Otnes, Cele and Elizabeth H. Pleck. 2003. Cinderella dreams: the allure of the lavishwedding. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sozou, Peter D. and Robert M. Seymour. 2005. “Costlybut Worthless Gifts Facilitate Courtship.” Proceedingsof the Royal Society B. 272: 1877-1884. Stutzer, Alois and Bruno S. Frey. 2004. “DoesMarriage Make People Happy, or Do Happy People Get Married?” Journal of Socio-Economics. 35(2006):326-347. Sullivan, J. Courtney. 2013. “HowDiamonds Became Forever.” The New YorkTimes, May 3. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/fashion/weddings/how-americans-learned-to-lovediamonds.html?_r=3&(accessed on July 11, 2014). TheKnot. 2014. “Top 2013 WeddingStatistics.” Press Release, March 27, 2014. http://www.xogroupinc.com/press-releases-home/2014-press-releases/2014-03-27-realweddings-study-average-cost-of-wedding.aspx(accessed on July 11, 2014).
Table 1. Means for sample of ever-married persons file:///C:/Users/VT/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif Amazon mTurk sample American CommunitySurvey 2012 | | | | | | | Marital status | Married, never divorced | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.67 | 0.65 | 0.66 | 0.63 |
| Ever divorced | 0.32 | 0.30 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.34 | 0.37 | | Age (in years) |
| 34.1 | 32.9 | 35.2 | 44.0 | 44.3 | 43.6 | | Marriage age (in years) | 24.5 | 25.2 | 23.9 | 27.7 | 28.6 | 26.9 | | Female |
| 0.54 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.52 | 0.00 | 1.00 | | Race/ethnicity | White | 0.78 | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.67 |
| Black | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 |
| Hispanic | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.16 |
| Other | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | | Education | High school or less | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.37 | 0.40 | 0.34 |
| Some college | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.29 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.23 |
| 2-year college degree | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.10 |
| 4-year college degree | 0.37 | 0.39 | 0.35 | 0.20 | 0.19 | 0.21 |
| Graduate-level degree | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.12 | | Employment | Employed full-time | 0.59 | 0.73 | 0.47 | 0.59 | 0.74 | 0.46 |
| Employed part-time | 0.17 | 0.13 | 0.20 | 0.16 | 0.09 | 0.22 |
| Other | 0.24 | 0.14 | 0.32 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.32 | | Household income | $0 to $24,999 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.16 |
| $25,000 to $49,999 | 0.32 | 0.30 | 0.34 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.20 |
| $50,000 to $74,999 | 0.26 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.18 |
| $75,000 to $99,999 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.14 |
| $100,000 to $124,999 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
| $125,000 or more | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.21 | 0.22 | 0.20 |
| Don't know | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 | | Region of residence | West | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| South | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.41 | 0.38 | 0.38 | 0.38 |
| Midwest | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.22 |
| Northeast | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.15 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.17 | | Religious attendance | Never | 0.49 | 0.52 | 0.46 |
|
|
|
| Sometimes | 0.35 | 0.34 | 0.36 |
|
|
|
| Regularly | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.18 |
|
|
| | Respondent-spouse | Age difference (in years) | -0.87 | 1.14 | -2.59 |
|
|
| | differences | Race difference | 0.18 | 0.19 | 0.17 |
|
|
|
| Education difference | 0.59 | 0.55 | 0.63 |
|
|
| | Children with spouse | No children | 0.50 | 0.57 | 0.44 |
|
|
|
| First child in wedlock | 0.40 | 0.35 | 0.45 |
|
|
|
| First out of wedlock | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.10 |
|
|
| | Marriage duration (yrs) |
| 6.2 | 5.3 | 6.9 |
|
|
| | Knew spouse very well |
| 0.54 | 0.58 | 0.51 |
|
|
| | Length of time dated | Less than 1 year | 0.30 | 0.27 | 0.33 |
|
|
| | before proposal | 1-2 years | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.37 |
|
|
|
| 3 or more years | 0.33 | 0.36 | 0.30 |
|
|
| | Feelings and attitudes Partner wealth important | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
|
|
| | at time of proposal Partner looks important | 0.25 | 0.35 | 0.17 |
|
|
| | Had a honeymoon | 0.66 | 0.72 | 0.60 |
|
|
| | Proposer's engagement No ring | 0.23 | 0.18 | 0.28 |
|
|
| | ring expenses | $0 to $500 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.13 |
|
|
| | (in real dollars) | $500 to $2,000 | 0.25 | 0.29 | 0.22 |
|
|
|
| $2,000 to $4,000 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.12 |
|
|
|
| $4,000 to $8,000 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.08 |
|
|
|
| $8,000 or more | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.03 |
|
|
|
| Don't know | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.13 |
|
|
| | Wedding attendance | Only couple | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.12 |
|
|
|
| 1-10 | 0.18 | 0.13 | 0.21 |
|
|
|
| 11-50 | 0.27 | 0.29 | 0.25 |
|
|
|
| 51-100 | 0.23 | 0.27 | 0.20 |
|
|
|
| 101-200 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.15 |
|
|
|
| 200 or more | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
|
|
| | Total wedding expenses $0 to $1,000 | 0.25 | 0.18 | 0.31 |
|
|
| | (in real dollars) $1,000 to $5,000 | 0.25 | 0.26 | 0.25 |
|
|
| | $5,000 to $10,000 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.15 |
|
|
| | $10,000 to $20,000 | 0.16 | 0.18 | 0.14 |
|
|
| | $20,000 or more | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.10 |
|
|
| | Don't know | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.06 |
|
|
| | | | | | | |
Table 2. Hazard model predictingmarital dissolution as a function of wedding expenses, population-weightedregressions
| Bivariate Model file:///C:/Users/VT/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif All persons |
| |
| | | | | Age (in years) | 0.976*** (0.004) | 1.001 (0.004) | 0.992 (0.006) | 1.006 (0.005) | | Marriage age (in years) | 0.920*** (0.009) | 0.912*** (0.009) | 0.892*** (0.013) | 0.921*** (0.013) | | Female |
| 0.865** | (0.058) | 0.822** | (0.069) |
|
|
|
| | Race/ethnicity | White | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Black | 1.278** | (0.146) | 1.011 | (0.119) | 0.908 | (0.166) | 1.019 | (0.164) |
| Hispanic | 1.324* | (0.197) | 0.789 | (0.119) | 0.834 | (0.163) | 0.786 | (0.204) |
| Other | 0.913 | (0.122) | 0.825 | (0.118) | 0.914 | (0.189) | 0.728 | (0.150) | | Education | High school or less | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Some college | 1.061 | (0.115) | 1.202* | (0.129) | 1.010 | (0.154) | 1.325* | (0.202) |
| 2-year college degree | 0.894 | (0.114) | 1.019 | (0.133) | 0.727* | (0.141) | 1.224 | (0.219) |
| 4-year college degree | 0.688*** (0.075) | 0.907 | (0.101) | 0.694** (0.111) | 1.069 | (0.163) |
| Graduate-level degree | 0.520*** (0.076) | 0.938 | (0.136) | 0.572*** (0.124) | 1.242 | (0.243) | | Employment | Employed full-time | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Employed part-time | 1.360*** (0.124) | 1.020 | (0.101) | 1.465*** (0.211) | 0.763** (0.098) |
| Other | 1.101 (0.086) | 0.867* | (0.074) | 1.181 (0.162) | 0.718*** (0.077) | | Household income | $0 to $24,999 | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) |
| $25,000 to $49,999 | 0.627*** (0.054) | 0.644*** (0.059) | 0.698** (0.101) | 0.614*** (0.073) |
| $50,000 to $74,999 | 0.432*** (0.044) | 0.587*** (0.069) | 0.710** (0.118) | 0.534*** (0.087) |
| $75,000 to $99,999 | 0.301*** (0.042) | 0.455*** (0.068) | 0.546*** (0.122) | 0.407*** (0.079) |
| $100,000 to $124,999 | 0.352*** (0.058) | 0.547*** (0.090) | 0.656* | (0.162) | 0.505*** (0.106) |
| $125,000 or more | 0.238*** (0.045) | 0.390*** (0.080) | 0.497** | (0.138) | 0.339*** (0.100) |
| Don't know | 0.415*** (0.105) | 0.495** (0.142) | 0.337** | (0.179) | 0.728 (0.239) | | Region of residence | West | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) |
| South | 1.062 | (0.093) | 1.132 | (0.101) | 1.014 | (0.134) | 1.406*** (0.179) |
| Midwest | 0.916 | (0.092) | 1.035 | (0.106) | 1.049 | (0.167) | 1.130 (0.162) |
| Northeast | 0.912 | (0.105) | 1.056 | (0.126) | 0.938 | (0.158) | 1.347* (0.223) | | Religious attendance | Never | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) |
| Sometimes | 0.847** (0.061) |
| 1.006 | (0.079) | 0.954 | (0.110) | 1.049 (0.119) |
| Regularly | 0.428*** (0.045) | 0.625*** (0.071) | 0.587*** (0.110) | 0.652*** (0.096) | | Respondent-spouse | Age difference (in years) | 0.994 (0.007) | 1.022*** (0.009) | 1.041** (0.017) | 1.014 (0.010) | | differences | Race difference | 1.343*** (0.114) | 1.180* (0.110) | 1.262* (0.169) | 1.124 (0.158) |
| Education difference | 1.227*** (0.086) | 1.248*** (0.091) | 1.130 (0.114) | 1.331*** (0.140) | | Children with spouse | No children | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) |
| First child in wedlock | 0.284*** (0.021) | 0.261*** (0.023) | 0.228*** (0.033) | 0.290*** (0.034) |
| First out of wedlock | 0.554*** (0.074) | 0.446*** (0.061) | 0.294*** (0.066) | 0.592*** (0.110) | | Knew spouse very well |
| 0.505*** (0.035) | 0.564*** (0.044) | 0.609*** (0.069) | 0.517*** (0.057) | | Length of time dated | Less than 1 year | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | | before proposal | 1-2 years | 0.788*** (0.059) | 0.915 (0.074) | 0.784* (0.099) | 0.997 | (0.107) |
| 3 or more years | 0.518*** (0.046) | 0.764*** (0.077) | 0.576*** (0.087) | 0.980 | (0.135) | | Feelings and attitudes Partner wealth important | 1.557*** (0.218) | 1.338* (0.208) | 1.122 (0.234) | 1.570* | (0.364) | | at time of proposal Partner looks important | 1.232*** (0.092) | 1.294*** (0.102) | 1.485*** (0.158) | 0.993 | (0.124) | | Had a honeymoon | 0.642*** (0.043) | 0.870* | (0.069) | 0.780** | (0.096) | 0.900 | (0.095) | | Proposer's engagement No ring | 1.266*** (0.111) | 1.113 | (0.107) | 1.172 | (0.185) | 1.092 | (0.139) | | ring expenses | $0 to $500 | 1.074 | (0.137) | 1.059 | (0.136) | 0.968 | (0.192) | 1.151 | (0.204) | | (in real dollars) | $500 to $2,000 | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| $2,000 to $4,000 | 0.935 | (0.103) | 1.099 | (0.119) | 1.334** | (0.194) | 0.880 | (0.144) |
| $4,000 to $8,000 | 0.791* | (0.105) | 0.976 | (0.126) | 1.193 | (0.195) | 0.892 | (0.184) |
| $8,000 or more | 0.655** | (0.132) | 0.718 | (0.169) | 0.884 | (0.296) | 0.690 | (0.230) |
| Don't know | 0.982 | (0.132) | 1.206 | (0.180) | 1.941*** (0.466) | 1.104 | (0.214) | | Wedding attendance | Only couple | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| 1-10 | 0.847 | (0.096) | 0.824 | (0.101) | 0.728 (0.145) | 0.884 | (0.140) |
| 11-50 | 0.678*** (0.078) | 0.646*** (0.089) | 0.535*** (0.112) | 0.690* | (0.131) |
| 51-100 | 0.532*** (0.062) | 0.520*** (0.079) | 0.454*** (0.105) | 0.534*** (0.112) |
| 101-200 | 0.327*** (0.044) | 0.422*** (0.072) | 0.411*** (0.104) | 0.414*** (0.099) |
| 200 or more | 0.372*** (0.068) | 0.480*** (0.104) | 0.428** (0.151) | 0.478** | (0.147) | | Total wedding expenses $0 to $1,000 | 1.367*** (0.148) | 0.642*** (0.088) | 0.492*** (0.107) | 0.697* | (0.131) | | (in real dollars) $1,000 to $5,000 | 1.212* | (0.127) | 0.853 | (0.094) | 0.782 | (0.127) | 0.913 | (0.143) | | $5,000 to $10,000 | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | | $10,000 to $20,000 | 0.896 | (0.116) | 1.049 | (0.136) | 1.067 | (0.188) | 0.970 | (0.189) | | $20,000 or more | 0.811 | (0.115) | 1.323* | (0.200) | 1.122 | (0.235) | 1.595** | (0.358) | | Don't know | 0.952 | (0.170) | 0.663** | (0.126) | 0.640* | (0.164) | 0.570* | (0.186) | | |
| |
| |
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
NOTE. Hazardratios are reported with standard errors in parentheses. ***, **, * significantat the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively. Table 3. Hazard modelpredicting marital dissolution, recently-married sub-sample,population-weighted regressions
| | | | | Age (in years) | 1.190*** (0.048) | 1.173*** (0.063) | 1.312*** (0.085) | | Marriage age (in years) | 0.751*** (0.032) | 0.735*** (0.042) | 0.699*** (0.048) | | Female |
| 0.485*** (0.079) |
|
|
|
| | Race/ethnicity | White | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Black | 1.101 | (0.211) | 1.021 | (0.236) | 0.911 | (0.368) |
| Hispanic | 0.789 | (0.191) | 0.751 | (0.228) | 0.535 | (0.273) |
| Other | 0.859 | (0.233) | 0.957 | (0.299) | 0.464 | (0.263) | | Education | High school or less | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Some college | 1.575** | (0.304) | 1.178 | (0.269) | 2.984*** (1.155) |
| 2-year college degree | 1.146 | (0.310) | 0.650 | (0.227) | 2.915** | (1.343) |
| 4-year college degree | 0.934 | (0.199) | 0.648* | (0.163) | 1.985* | (0.790) |
| Graduate-level degree | 0.668 | (0.218) | 0.362** | (0.154) | 1.694 | (0.841) | | Employment | Employed full-time | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Employed part-time | 1.216 | (0.206) | 1.398* | (0.264) | 0.789 | (0.258) |
| Other | 1.152 | (0.210) | 1.404 | (0.323) | 0.815 | (0.224) | | Household income | $0 to $24,999 | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| $25,000 to $49,999 | 0.685** | (0.117) | 0.653** | (0.138) | 0.879 | (0.275) |
| $50,000 to $74,999 | 0.616** | (0.142) | 0.604** | (0.149) | 0.739 | (0.321) |
| $75,000 to $99,999 | 0.609 | (0.186) | 0.789 | (0.259) | 0.274** | (0.162) |
| $100,000 to $124,999 | 0.577 | (0.207) | 0.632 | (0.290) | 0.496 | (0.237) |
| $125,000 or more | 0.489 | (0.252) | 0.523 | (0.272) | 0.448 | (0.501) |
| Don't know | 0.886 | (0.352) | 0.921 | (0.513) | 0.904 | (0.565) | | Region of residence | West | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| South | 1.105 | (0.188) | 1.034 | (0.211) | 1.646 | (0.581) |
| Midwest | 1.244 | (0.240) | 1.341 | (0.333) | 1.406 | (0.514) |
| Northeast | 1.587** | (0.326) | 1.375 | (0.324) | 3.038*** (1.234) | | Religious attendance | Never | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) |
| Sometimes | 1.105 | (0.161) | 0.846 | (0.150) | 1.473 (0.379) |
| Regularly | 0.539** | (0.148) | 0.431** | (0.155) | 0.662 (0.355) | | Respondent-spouse | Age difference (in years) | 1.034** | (0.015) | 1.012 | (0.029) | 1.080*** (0.026) | | differences | Race difference | 1.111 | (0.181) | 1.005 | (0.204) | 1.311 (0.447) |
| Education difference | 1.437*** (0.189) | 1.317* | (0.208) | 1.499* (0.357) | | Children with spouse | No children | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) |
| First child in wedlock | 0.231*** (0.059) | 0.209*** (0.071) | 0.188*** (0.084) |
| First out of wedlock | 0.409*** (0.114) | 0.316*** (0.116) | 0.427* (0.191) | | Knew spouse very well |
| 0.449*** (0.061) | 0.446*** (0.077) | 0.377*** (0.091) | | Length of time dated | Less than 1 year | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | | before proposal | 1-2 years | 0.791 (0.119) | 0.876 (0.168) | 0.553** (0.149) |
| 3 or more years | 0.602*** (0.109) | 0.634** (0.141) | 0.543* (0.177) | | Feelings and attitudes Partner wealth important | 1.190 (0.244) | 1.017 (0.255) | 1.860 (0.740) | | at time of proposal Partner looks important | 1.410** (0.190) | 1.643*** (0.278) | 1.216 (0.364) | | Had a honeymoon | 0.588*** (0.083) | 0.612*** (0.112) | 0.458*** (0.131) | | Proposer's engagement No ring | 1.243 | (0.258) | 1.127 | (0.312) | 1.653 | (0.622) | | ring expenses | $0 to $500 | 1.359 | (0.303) | 1.053 | (0.290) | 2.159** | (0.833) | | (in real dollars) | $500 to $2,000 | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| $2,000 to $4,000 | 1.550** | (0.294) | 1.544* | (0.361) | 1.488 | (0.630) |
| $4,000 to $8,000 | 1.241 | (0.302) | 1.588* | (0.431) | 1.095 | (0.636) |
| $8,000 or more | 0.897 | (0.540) | 1.182 | (0.750) | 2.082 | (2.502) |
| Don't know | 1.690** | (0.438) | 2.206* | (0.980) | 2.172** | (0.822) | | Wedding attendance | Only couple | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| 1-10 | 0.647** | (0.140) | 0.825 | (0.251) | 0.467** | (0.165) |
| 11-50 | 0.436*** (0.105) | 0.535** (0.165) | 0.256*** (0.112) |
| 51-100 | 0.306*** (0.081) | 0.378*** (0.132) | 0.142*** (0.066) |
| 101-200 | 0.153*** (0.055) | 0.195*** (0.091) | 0.058*** (0.042) |
| 200 or more | 0.080*** (0.041) | 0.096*** (0.058) | 0.039** (0.054) | | Total wedding expenses $0 to $1,000 | 0.462*** (0.126) | 0.479** (0.176) | 0.294*** (0.138) | | (in real dollars) $1,000 to $5,000 | 0.810 | (0.180) | 0.784 | (0.228) | 0.757 | (0.302) | | $5,000 to $10,000 | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | | $10,000 to $20,000 | 1.290 | (0.292) | 1.088 | (0.285) | 1.660 | (0.940) | | $20,000 or more | 1.467 | (0.379) | 1.011 | (0.306) | 3.523** | (2.074) | | Don't know | 0.512* | (0.182) | 0.448* | (0.218) | 0.518 | (0.349) | | |
| |
| |
|
NOTE. Hazard ratios are reported with standard errors inparentheses. ***, **, * significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.
Table 4. Predicting weddingdebt stress, population-weighted regressions file:///C:/Users/VT/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image003.gif Full sample Recently-marriedsub-sample
| | | | | | | Age (in years) | 0.950*** (0.008) | 0.951*** (0.012) | 0.950*** (0.012) | 0.917* (0.042) | 0.916 | (0.057) | 0.935 | (0.063) | | Marriage age (in years) | 1.031** (0.015) | 1.028 (0.021) | 1.027 | (0.021) | 1.072 (0.050) | 1.086 | (0.068) | 1.045 | (0.073) | | Female |
| 0.608*** (0.083) |
|
|
| 0.640*** (0.110) |
|
|
|
| | Race/ethnicity | White | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Black | 0.802 | (0.186) | 0.732 (0.217) | 0.840 | (0.301) | 0.853 | (0.231) | 0.739 | (0.256) | 1.049 | (0.456) |
| Hispanic | 1.462 | (0.387) | 1.402 (0.428) | 1.582 | (0.653) | 1.549 | (0.472) | 1.562 | (0.537) | 1.502 | (0.734) |
| Other | 1.332 | (0.256) | 1.621* (0.410) | 1.177 | (0.397) | 1.366 | (0.315) | 1.606 | (0.482) | 1.262 | (0.553) | | Education | High school or less | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Some college | 1.786** (0.449) | 1.778* (0.537) | 1.628 | (0.611) | 2.248*** (0.680) | 2.122** (0.766) | 2.382* (1.063) |
| 2-year college degree | 1.475 (0.418) | 2.219** (0.789) | 0.747 | (0.325) | 1.476 (0.513) | 2.448** (1.039) | 0.530 (0.289) |
| 4-year college degree | 1.868** (0.456) | 2.313*** (0.694) | 1.257 | (0.453) | 2.337*** (0.688) | 2.643*** (0.957) | 1.607 (0.706) |
| Graduate-level degree | 1.397 (0.412) | 1.675 | (0.605) | 0.840 | (0.369) | 1.298 (0.470) | 1.364 | (0.603) | 0.653 (0.363) | | Employment | Employed full-time | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) |
| Employed part-time | 0.879 (0.148) | 1.027 | (0.224) | 0.761 | (0.190) | 0.835 (0.177) | 1.088 | (0.283) | 0.545* (0.191) |
| Other | 0.644*** (0.107) | 0.976 | (0.235) | 0.497*** (0.113) | 0.630** (0.137) | 1.114 | (0.356) | 0.407*** (0.121) | | Household income | $0 to $24,999 | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) |
| $25,000 to $49,999 | 0.862 (0.191) | 0.977 | (0.251) | 0.812 (0.280) | 0.744 (0.213) | 1.073 | (0.338) | 0.495 (0.215) |
| $50,000 to $74,999 | 0.587** (0.143) | 0.549** (0.165) | 0.737 (0.270) | 0.433*** (0.138) | 0.547* (0.200) | 0.358** (0.176) |
| $75,000 to $99,999 | 0.438*** (0.123) | 0.459** (0.158) | 0.427** (0.179) | 0.335*** (0.123) | 0.519 (0.221) | 0.163*** (0.094) |
| $100,000 to $124,999 | 0.493** (0.149) | 0.482** (0.179) |
| 0.531 | (0.247) | 0.355** (0.144) | 0.399** (0.187) | 0.246** (0.155) |
| $125,000 or more | 0.421** (0.153) | 0.403** (0.183) |
| 0.502 | (0.247) | 0.322** (0.146) | 0.342* (0.190) | 0.274** (0.160) |
| Don't know | 0.649 | (0.258) | 0.836 | (0.440) | 0.591 | (0.337) | 0.410* (0.199) | 0.470 (0.288) | 0.461 | (0.323) | | Region of residence | West | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| South | 0.998 | (0.159) | 0.887 | (0.178) | 1.300 | (0.342) | 1.142 | (0.229) | 1.105 (0.274) | 1.611 | (0.563) |
| Midwest | 1.224 | (0.220) | 1.130 | (0.259) | 1.461 | (0.435) | 1.152 | (0.262) | 1.162 (0.338) | 1.551 | (0.614) |
| Northeast | 1.165 | (0.219) | 1.200 | (0.283) | 1.166 | (0.374) | 1.319 | (0.312) | 1.691* (0.488) | 1.072 | (0.456) | | Religious attendance | Never | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Sometimes | 1.493*** (0.192) | 1.369** (0.217) | 1.499** (0.293) | 1.507** (0.241) | 1.501** (0.291) | 1.224 | (0.310) |
| Regularly | 0.580*** (0.115) | 0.499*** (0.128) | 0.653 (0.205) | 0.376*** (0.110) | 0.336*** (0.121) | 0.361** (0.183) | | Respondent-spouse | Age difference (in years) | 0.984 (0.015) | 0.985 (0.022) | 0.995 (0.020) | 0.972 | (0.018) | 0.955 (0.030) | 0.997 (0.026) | | differences | Race difference | 1.264 (0.204) | 1.442* (0.292) | 0.975 (0.284) | 1.354 | (0.261) | 1.703** (0.408) | 0.926 (0.347) |
| Education difference | 1.116 (0.140) | 0.822 (0.129) | 1.934*** (0.406) | 1.198 | (0.188) | 0.760 (0.149) | 2.698*** (0.735) | | Children with spouse | No children | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| First child in wedlock | 0.775* (0.113) | 1.074 (0.204) | 0.486*** (0.108) | 0.921 | (0.198) | 1.152 (0.323) | 0.571 | (0.196) |
| First out of wedlock | 0.792 (0.183) | 1.026 (0.313) | 0.543* (0.194) | 0.668 (0.207) | 0.847 (0.336) | 0.498 | (0.234) | | Knew spouse very well |
| 0.668*** (0.094) | 0.547*** (0.095) | 0.920 (0.195) | 0.594*** (0.105) | 0.474*** (0.104) | 0.948 | (0.263) | | Length of time dated | Less than 1 year | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | | before proposal | 1-2 years | 0.952 (0.159) | 0.952 (0.193) | 0.930 (0.243) | 0.910 (0.208) | 0.847 (0.228) | 0.919 | (0.344) |
| 3 or more years | 1.038 (0.190) | 1.258 (0.282) | 0.784 (0.227) | 1.037 (0.253) | 1.237 (0.361) | 0.748 | (0.298) | | Feelings and attitudes Partner wealth important | 2.047*** (0.488) | 2.218** (0.691) | 1.929* (0.709) | 2.018** (0.562) | 2.436*** (0.834) | 1.476 | (0.679) | | at time of proposal Partner looks important | 1.352** (0.172) | 1.305* (0.199) | 1.487* (0.335) | 1.305* (0.207) | 1.177 (0.216) | 1.722* (0.559) | | Had a honeymoon | 0.555*** (0.078) | 0.575*** (0.104) | 0.469*** (0.098) | 0.486*** (0.087) | 0.510*** (0.116) | 0.315*** (0.091) | | Proposer's engagement No ring | 0.691* (0.132) | 0.506*** (0.133) | 1.060 (0.340) | 0.542** (0.145) | 0.520* (0.182) | 0.674 (0.344) | | ring expenses | $0 to $500 | 1.232 (0.259) | 1.134 | (0.298) | 1.454 (0.512) | 1.360 | (0.346) | 1.317 | (0.388) | 1.843 (0.895) | | (in real dollars) | $500 to $2,000 | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) |
| $2,000 to $4,000 | 1.366* (0.238) | 1.249 | (0.269) | 1.849** (0.558) | 1.404 | (0.308) | 1.279 | (0.342) | 2.878** (1.190) |
| $4,000 to $8,000 | 0.824 (0.177) | 0.813 | (0.216) | 0.965 (0.355) | 0.866 | (0.231) | 0.876 | (0.291) | 1.426 (0.666) |
| $8,000 or more | 0.786 (0.265) | 0.785 | (0.333) | 0.901 (0.472) | 0.676 | (0.302) | 0.731 | (0.442) | 1.311 (0.857) |
| Don't know | 1.596** (0.355) | 0.984 | (0.347) | 2.021** (0.613) | 1.601* (0.423) | 0.914 | (0.380) | 2.506** (0.978) | | Wedding attendance | Only couple | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| 1-10 | 0.944 (0.297) | 0.970 | (0.381) | 0.958 | (0.532) | 1.092 | (0.427) | 1.018 | (0.482) | 1.247 | (0.964) |
| 11-50 | 1.587 (0.497) | 1.642 | (0.608) | 1.569 | (0.915) | 1.733 | (0.679) | 1.769 | (0.799) | 1.915 | (1.567) |
| 51-100 | 1.723* (0.554) | 1.585 | (0.614) | 2.168 | (1.259) | 1.857 | (0.744) | 1.649 | (0.772) | 3.097 | (2.471) |
| 101-200 | 1.570 (0.546) | 1.417 | (0.584) | 1.796 | (1.106) | 1.908 | (0.831) | 1.730 | (0.869) | 2.638 | (2.217) |
| 200 or more | 1.180 (0.473) | 1.043 | (0.522) | 1.300 | (0.902) | 1.114 | (0.579) | 0.794 | (0.508) | 1.626 | (1.562) | | Total wedding expenses $0 to $1,000 | 0.128*** (0.040) | 0.173*** (0.062) | 0.081*** (0.046) | 0.120*** (0.048) | 0.178*** (0.080) | 0.066*** (0.054) | | (in real dollars) $1,000 to $5,000 | 0.680** (0.118) | 0.570** (0.129) | 0.742 (0.197) | 0.775 | (0.175) | 0.731 | (0.210) | 0.761 (0.275) | | $5,000 to $10,000 | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | | $10,000 to $20,000 | 1.066 (0.193) | 0.958 (0.218) | 1.269 (0.352) | 1.170 | (0.261) | 0.964 | (0.269) | 1.829* (0.643) | | $20,000 or more | 1.535** (0.328) | 1.411 (0.385) | 1.815* (0.597) | 1.549 | (0.415) | 1.461 | (0.507) | 2.104* (0.884) | | Don't know | 0.619* (0.152) | 0.541* (0.171) | 0.797 (0.293) | 0.681 | (0.198) | 0.657 | (0.257) | 0.847 (0.387) | | | | | |
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
NOTE. Odds ratios are reported with standard errors inparentheses. ***, **, * significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.
Appendix Table 1. Hazardmodel predicting marital dissolution as a function of wedding expenses, nopopulation weights
| Bivariate Model file:///C:/Users/VT/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif All persons |
| |
| | | | | Age (in years) | 0.977*** (0.004) | 0.998 (0.004) | 0.988* (0.006) | 1.005 (0.005) | | Marriage age (in years) | 0.922*** (0.008) | 0.912*** (0.008) | 0.902*** (0.012) | 0.914*** (0.011) | | Female |
| 0.884** | (0.055) | 0.847** (0.067) |
|
|
|
|
| | Race/ethnicity | White | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Black | 1.263** | (0.134) | 1.023 | (0.119) | 0.871 | (0.160) | 1.101 | (0.174) |
| Hispanic | 1.387** | (0.182) | 0.827 | (0.119) | 0.849 | (0.149) | 0.871 | (0.234) |
| Other | 1.002 | (0.129) | 0.898 | (0.123) | 0.914 | (0.183) | 0.858 | (0.170) | | Education | High school or less | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Some college | 1.098 | (0.107) | 1.144 | (0.115) | 0.945 | (0.135) | 1.280* | (0.175) |
| 2-year college degree | 0.898 (0.104) | 0.971 | (0.118) | 0.732* | (0.137) | 1.128 | (0.184) |
| 4-year college degree | 0.721*** (0.071) | 0.880 | (0.094) | 0.682** (0.104) | 1.027 | (0.148) |
| Graduate-level degree | 0.537*** (0.071) | 0.897 | (0.126) | 0.511*** (0.111) | 1.266 | (0.234) | | Employment | Employed full-time | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Employed part-time | 1.360*** (0.111) | 1.004 | (0.093) | 1.454*** (0.210) | 0.750** (0.088) |
| Other | 1.051 (0.077) | 0.843** (0.070) | 1.126 (0.150) | 0.716*** (0.074) | | Household income | $0 to $24,999 | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) |
| $25,000 to $49,999 | 0.633*** (0.051) | 0.651*** (0.058) | 0.709** (0.101) | 0.630*** (0.073) |
| $50,000 to $74,999 | 0.423*** (0.039) | 0.566*** (0.060) | 0.673** (0.108) | 0.520*** (0.074) |
| $75,000 to $99,999 | 0.282*** (0.035) | 0.430*** (0.059) | 0.475*** (0.096) | 0.416*** (0.079) |
| $100,000 to $124,999 | 0.302*** (0.046) | 0.478*** (0.074) | 0.608** | (0.145) | 0.424*** (0.089) |
| $125,000 or more | 0.293*** (0.052) | 0.452*** (0.087) | 0.540** | (0.146) | 0.446*** (0.120) |
| Don't know | 0.428*** (0.102) | 0.473*** (0.133) | 0.277** | (0.141) | 0.724 | (0.237) | | Region of residence | West | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| South | 1.043 | (0.084) | 1.122 | (0.095) | 1.024 | (0.125) | 1.345** | (0.164) |
| Midwest | 0.919 | (0.087) | 1.063 | (0.105) | 1.084 | (0.164) | 1.158 | (0.158) |
| Northeast | 0.849 | (0.089) | 1.009 | (0.112) | 0.905 | (0.145) | 1.260 | (0.194) | | Religious attendance | Never | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Sometimes | 0.830*** (0.055) |
| 1.001 | (0.073) | 0.985 | (0.108) | 1.012 | (0.102) |
| Regularly | 0.414*** (0.042) | 0.630*** (0.069) | 0.636** | (0.113) | 0.639*** (0.090) | | Respondent-spouse | Age difference (in years) | 0.998 (0.007) | 1.026*** (0.009) | 1.051*** (0.018) | 1.011 (0.010) | | differences | Race difference | 1.352*** (0.105) | 1.163* (0.103) | 1.297** (0.165) | 1.107 (0.141) |
| Education difference | 1.263*** (0.081) | 1.293*** (0.090) | 1.129 (0.111) | 1.433*** (0.145) | | Children with spouse | No children | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) |
| First child in wedlock | 0.263*** (0.018) | 0.252*** (0.020) | 0.223*** (0.029) | 0.282*** (0.030) |
| First out of wedlock | 0.521*** (0.059) | 0.417*** (0.051) | 0.304*** (0.066) | 0.520*** (0.083) | | Knew spouse very well |
| 0.577*** (0.037) | 0.621*** (0.048) | 0.665*** (0.072) | 0.581*** (0.062) | | Length of time dated | Less than 1 year | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) |
| 1.000 | (ref.) | | before proposal | 1-2 years | 0.835*** (0.058) | 0.956 (0.074) | 0.793* (0.095) |
| 1.074 | (0.108) |
| 3 or more years | 0.586*** (0.048) | 0.813** (0.080) | 0.623*** (0.090) |
| 1.028 | (0.138) | | Feelings and attitudes Partner wealth important | 1.427** (0.197) | 1.215 (0.172) | 1.075 (0.203) |
| 1.361 | (0.306) | | at time of proposal Partner looks important | 1.204*** (0.085) | 1.327*** (0.101) | 1.510*** (0.152) |
| 1.055 | (0.130) | | Had a honeymoon | 0.653*** (0.041) |
| 0.915 | (0.070) | 0.828 | (0.099) | 0.943 | (0.096) | | Proposer's engagement No ring | 1.227** | (0.102) | 1.115 | (0.102) | 1.187 | (0.172) | 1.094 | (0.134) | | ring expenses | $0 to $500 | 1.084 | (0.122) | 0.999 | (0.121) | 0.972 | (0.191) | 1.046 | (0.169) | | (in real dollars) | $500 to $2,000 | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| $2,000 to $4,000 | 0.928 | (0.097) | 1.078 | (0.112) | 1.301* | (0.181) | 0.881 | (0.140) |
| $4,000 to $8,000 | 0.781** | (0.094) | 0.964 | (0.118) | 1.198 | (0.192) | 0.876 | (0.170) |
| $8,000 or more | 0.695* | (0.136) | 0.730 | (0.166) | 0.850 | (0.268) | 0.744 | (0.239) |
| Don't know | 1.011 | (0.130) | 1.252 | (0.183) | 1.996*** (0.451) |
| 1.156 | (0.220) | | Wedding attendance | Only couple | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) |
| 1.000 | (ref.) |
| 1-10 | 0.877 | (0.093) | 0.894 | (0.104) | 0.761 (0.151) |
| 0.962 | (0.139) |
| 11-50 | 0.651*** (0.068) | 0.647*** (0.086) | 0.522*** (0.107) | 0.693** (0.124) |
| 51-100 | 0.544*** (0.060) | 0.570*** (0.084) | 0.481*** (0.109) | 0.578*** (0.116) |
| 101-200 | 0.358*** (0.046) | 0.487*** (0.081) | 0.469*** (0.115) | 0.463*** (0.107) |
| 200 or more | 0.390*** (0.070) | 0.549*** (0.116) | 0.471** (0.166) | 0.539** | (0.157) | | Total wedding expenses $0 to $1,000 | 1.472*** (0.144) | 0.722** | (0.095) | 0.591** (0.123) | 0.744 | (0.137) | | (in real dollars) $1,000 to $5,000 | 1.277** (0.124) | 0.951 | (0.099) | 0.905 | (0.138) | 0.975 | (0.148) | | $5,000 to $10,000 | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | | $10,000 to $20,000 | 0.959 (0.114) | 1.095 | (0.134) | 1.190 | (0.201) | 0.942 | (0.172) | | $20,000 or more | 0.891 (0.117) | 1.372** | (0.192) | 1.300 | (0.250) | 1.500* | (0.323) | | Don't know | 1.067 (0.180) | 0.735* | (0.135) | 0.732 | (0.173) | 0.606 | (0.199) | | | |
| |
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
NOTE. Hazard ratios are reported with standard errors inparentheses. ***, **, * significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.
Appendix Table 2. Hazardmodel predicting marital dissolution as a function of wedding expenses, recently-marriedsub-sample, no population weights
| | | | | Age (in years) | 1.127*** (0.042) | 1.122** (0.055) | 1.244*** (0.084) | | Marriage age (in years) | 0.792*** (0.032) | 0.775*** (0.041) | 0.739*** (0.054) | | Female |
| 0.501*** (0.077) |
|
|
|
| | Race/ethnicity | White | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Black | 1.113 | (0.198) | 0.951 | (0.204) | 1.144 | (0.410) |
| Hispanic | 0.837 | (0.175) | 0.780 | (0.212) | 0.773 | (0.351) |
| Other | 0.990 | (0.247) | 1.030 | (0.296) | 0.623 | (0.324) | | Education | High school or less | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Some college | 1.451** | (0.259) | 1.024 | (0.221) | 3.338*** (1.429) |
| 2-year college degree | 0.956 | (0.232) | 0.640 | (0.205) | 2.240 | (1.109) |
| 4-year college degree | 0.877 | (0.178) | 0.599** (0.142) | 1.955 | (0.839) |
| Graduate-level degree | 0.524* | (0.179) | 0.232*** (0.124) | 1.674 | (0.855) | | Employment | Employed full-time | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Employed part-time | 1.106 | (0.163) | 1.262 (0.234) | 0.782 | (0.231) |
| Other | 1.015 | (0.168) | 1.311 (0.277) | 0.662 | (0.174) | | Household income | $0 to $24,999 | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| $25,000 to $49,999 | 0.703** | (0.111) | 0.647** (0.127) | 0.834 | (0.265) |
| $50,000 to $74,999 | 0.525*** (0.103) | 0.531*** (0.127) | 0.587 | (0.253) |
| $75,000 to $99,999 | 0.512*** (0.130) | 0.614* | (0.181) | 0.259** | (0.150) |
| $100,000 to $124,999 | 0.486** | (0.156) | 0.540 | (0.225) | 0.365** | (0.185) |
| $125,000 or more | 0.614 | (0.293) | 0.622 | (0.315) | 0.680 | (0.625) |
| Don't know | 0.821 | (0.303) | 0.747 | (0.382) | 0.905 | (0.554) | | Region of residence | West | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| South | 1.174 | (0.182) | 1.115 | (0.205) | 1.605 | (0.578) |
| Midwest | 1.384* | (0.256) | 1.523* | (0.363) | 1.575 | (0.562) |
| Northeast | 1.499** | (0.276) | 1.405 | (0.314) | 2.428** | (0.956) | | Religious attendance | Never | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| Sometimes | 1.049 | (0.136) | 0.868 | (0.143) | 1.370 | (0.331) |
| Regularly | 0.530** | (0.133) | 0.459** | (0.150) | 0.609 | (0.306) | | Respondent-spouse | Age difference (in years) | 1.043*** (0.016) | 1.026 | (0.030) | 1.081*** (0.026) | | differences | Race difference | 1.089 (0.160) | 0.995 | (0.187) | 1.345 (0.371) |
| Education difference | 1.529*** (0.189) | 1.292* | (0.193) | 1.908** (0.488) | | Children with spouse | No children | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) |
| First child in wedlock | 0.198*** (0.043) | 0.186*** (0.056) | 0.127*** (0.051) |
| First out of wedlock | 0.344*** (0.086) | 0.362*** (0.120) | 0.265*** (0.133) | | Knew spouse very well |
| 0.512*** (0.065) | 0.464*** (0.074) | 0.469*** (0.110) | | Length of time dated | Less than 1 year | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | 1.000 (ref.) | | before proposal | 1-2 years | 0.863 (0.122) | 0.923 (0.169) | 0.660* (0.163) |
| 3 or more years | 0.684** (0.119) | 0.739 (0.153) | 0.597 (0.199) | | Feelings and attitudes Partner wealth important | 1.040 (0.193) | 0.887 (0.194) | 1.717 (0.662) | | at time of proposal Partner looks important | 1.568*** (0.192) | 1.699*** (0.255) | 1.374 (0.407) | | Had a honeymoon | 0.599*** (0.080) | 0.657** | (0.116) | 0.423*** (0.111) | | Proposer's engagement No ring | 1.077 | (0.190) | 0.989 | (0.228) | 1.283 | (0.441) | | ring expenses | $0 to $500 | 1.132 | (0.225) | 1.038 | (0.265) | 1.434 | (0.536) | | (in real dollars) | $500 to $2,000 | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| $2,000 to $4,000 | 1.432** | (0.255) | 1.464* | (0.315) | 1.477 | (0.603) |
| $4,000 to $8,000 | 1.210 | (0.273) | 1.500 | (0.384) | 0.979 | (0.519) |
| $8,000 or more | 1.003 | (0.591) | 1.259 | (0.804) | 2.238 | (2.584) |
| Don't know | 1.788** | (0.426) | 2.200** | (0.885) | 2.027** | (0.671) | | Wedding attendance | Only couple | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) |
| 1-10 | 0.700* | (0.142) | 0.888 | (0.255) | 0.483** (0.155) |
| 11-50 | 0.397*** (0.090) | 0.505** | (0.141) | 0.181*** (0.077) |
| 51-100 | 0.341*** (0.088) | 0.427*** (0.139) | 0.142*** (0.062) |
| 101-200 | 0.197*** (0.067) | 0.238*** (0.105) | 0.079*** (0.051) |
| 200 or more | 0.113*** (0.054) | 0.133*** (0.072) | 0.052** (0.069) | | Total wedding expenses $0 to $1,000 | 0.582** | (0.156) | 0.686 | (0.238) | 0.260*** (0.114) | | (in real dollars) $1,000 to $5,000 | 1.059 | (0.222) | 1.052 | (0.293) | 0.805 | (0.287) | | $5,000 to $10,000 | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | 1.000 | (ref.) | | $10,000 to $20,000 | 1.473* | (0.303) | 1.345 | (0.339) | 1.474 | (0.686) | | $20,000 or more | 1.651** | (0.384) | 1.231 | (0.341) | 2.773* | (1.568) | | Don't know | 0.559* | (0.194) | 0.510 | (0.233) | 0.442 | (0.277) | | |
| |
| |
| | | | | | | | | |
NOTE. Hazard ratios are reported with standard errors inparentheses. ***, **, * significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.
Want a happy marriage? Have a big, cheap wedding
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/13/living/wedding-expenses-study/
By Brandon Griggs, CNN October 13, 2014
(CNN) -- If you're serving burgers and Bud Light at your backyard wedding, don't worry. You and your spouse may have the last laugh.
A new study found that couples who spend less on their wedding tend to have longer-lasting marriages than those who splurge. The study, by two economics professors at Emory University, found a similar correlation between less-expensive engagement rings and lower divorce rates.
The study's authors didn't examine why, although they floated a few theories.
"It could be that the type of couples who have a ... (cheap wedding) are the type that are a perfect match for each other," said Professor Hugo M. Mialon, who co-authored the study with Andrew M. Francis.
"Or it could be that having an inexpensive wedding relieves young couples of financial burdens that may strain their marriage," he said.
The research was based on a detailed survey completed by 3,151 adults in the United States who are, or have been, married. The authors believe theirs is the first academic study to examine the correlation between wedding expenses and the length of marriages.
Specifically, the study found that women whose wedding cost more than $20,000 divorced at a rate roughly 1.6 times higher than women whose wedding cost between $5,000 and $10,000. And couples who spent $1,000 or less on their big day had a lower than average rate of divorce.
The study won't be cheered by the booming wedding industry, which encourages couples to spend freely on everything from invitations and flowers to videographers and Champagne. Couples in the United States spent an average of $29,858 for their big day in 2013 -- a record high -- according to a survey of 13,000 brides and grooms by wedding website TheKnot.com.
"The wedding industry has long associated lavish weddings with longer-lasting marriages. Industry advertising has fueled norms that create the impression that spending large amounts on the wedding is a signal of commitment or is necessary for a marriage to be successful," Francis told CNN in an e-mail.
"Overall, our findings provide little evidence to support the validity of the wedding industry's general message that connects expensive weddings with positive marital outcomes," he said.
Planning a wedding? In addition to slashing costs, you might want to invite those extra co-workers and far-flung cousins, too. The Emory study also found that the greater the number of people who attend a wedding, the lower the rate of divorce.
"This could be evidence of a community effect, i.e., having more support from friends and family may help the couple to get through the challenges of marriage," Francis said. "Or this could be that the type of couples who have a lot of friends and family are also the type that tend not to divorce as much."
The more you spend on wedding, the more likely divorce - research
Oct 15, 2014
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11342603
"A diamond is forever," according to De Beers, but if a couple spends too much on their engagement ring then their marriage might not be.
A new study in the US has found that the more people spend on their weddings and engagement rings, the more likely they are to divorce.
Economic professors at Emory University carried out a study on over 3000 US men and women who had been married to a member of the opposite sex.
Professors Andrew M Francis and Hugo M Mialon found that men who spent between $2,000 and $4,000 on engagement rings were 1.3 times more likely to get divorced than men who spent between $500 and $2,000 on a ring.
For women, if a wedding cost over $20,000, they were 3.5 times more likely to divorce than women who spent between $5,000 and $10,000, the study claims.
Trying to cheat the system may not work for couples either; those who spent $500 or less on an engagement ring experienced higher rates of divorce, too.
The professors claim in their work that in 2014, wedding industry revenues are projected to exceed $50 billion in America. According to wedding site TheKnot, the average American wedding cost is $29,858.
"In 1959, Bride's recommended that couples set aside two months to prepare for their wedding and published a checklist with 22 tasks for them to complete. By the 1990s, the magazine recommended 12 months for wedding preparation and published a checklist with 44 tasks to complete," the professors said in their work.
They suggest that the high spend on weddings and rings and its relation to divorce rates could be due to the stress couples experience from the debt their wedding day can place them in.
But all is not lost; the study suggests that the key to marital bliss is to invite as many people to the big day as possible, and to take a honeymoon. It found that high wedding attendance and any kind of honeymoon, regardless of cost, was positively associated with the length of a marriage.
Does a big engagement ring equal divorce?
http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/news/features/2014/10/huge-engagement-rings-more-likely-to-divorce
9 OCTOBER 2014
Bad news if your husband proposed with a diamond as big as the Ritz. Why? Academics are saying that the bigger the engagement ring, the more likely a couple is to divorce.
Today reported a recent study at Emory University, where economics professors looked to dispel myths about the wedding industry. Top of the agenda: If you spend a load of money on the ring, are you more, or less likely to have a happy marriage?
Does a big engagement ring equal divorce?
A Diamond is Forever and Other Fairy Tales: The Relationship between Wedding Expenses and Marriage Duration, looked at 3,000 US couples who had been married to a member of the opposite sex (the study did not look at gay marriage). They found that men who spent between £1,200-$2,400 on engagement rings were 1.3 times more likely to get divorced than men who spent between £300 and £1,200.
But it's not just those who spend a wad of cash on a sparkler that were at risk of avoiding marital bliss - those that spent £300 on a ring also experienced higher divorce rates.
Flying the flag for more modest weddings, the survey also reported that women with weddings that cost more than £12,000 divorced 3.5 times as often as women who paid £3000 to £6000, and that "Relatively low spending on the wedding is positively associated with duration among male and female respondents."
But the study also found that high wedding attendance (so a lot of guests) and a flashy honeymoon "are positively associated with marriage duration." So spend a lot on a trip to the Maldives, and invite a lot of people, but then don't spend TOO much on a ring or your big day?!
As with all marriage surveys telling you how to tie the knot and avoid divorce, we're spectical. DO WHAT THE HELL YOU WANT is this bride-to-be's motto.
weibo 搜索：礼金 离婚
上元立春 ：#笑一笑十年少# 有一哥们屌丝一枚。前几天，这哥们说他年底结婚。我说：“你结婚我给你500大洋礼金。”他说：“还是你敞亮！”我随后又说了一句欠抽的话：“离婚的时候记得还给我！”。。。
上海书虫 ：回复@voiceyaya:原博的观点很新颖，如果处理好了，礼金不失为一种互助。//@voiceyaya:是有互助的意思，但也暗含价值观褒贬。结婚的人未必有经济困难，即使不富裕，但负担也不大；离婚的人却常有，尤其有孩子需要抚养时，但却无人给红包，帮助他们过渡到一个新的家庭。离婚结婚都是家庭形式的一种变迁，
@掩墙而行 ：睡了一觉，醒来后第一个念头却是“原来婚礼送红包是一种社会自发的互助形式。”婚礼后意味着一个新家的诞生，是人用钱的时候，多么好的社会习俗。不过礼金制度因为人的攀比心理而变质，想起佛教说的攀缘，此攀与彼攀是一样的意思吗？
哈SUJU的小娘子 ：#全世界最好的李晟敏#哒哒哒！不管怎样，SJ其他偶吧要准备礼金啦~记得给我晟敏偶吧包个大红包！今天终于知道了什么叫“世事难料”从没想过敏子是第一个结婚的！自己能谈恋爱还不允许偶吧结婚了？那怎么行！？偶吧！祝福你！会依然爱你！反正我相信既然能结婚，也有可能离婚
半洋石帆 ：据28岁的桂某交代，他与死者李某3年前在西安打工时认识，并产生感情同居，李某也曾打算离婚与他结婚，但当时因为李某家人索要礼金太高，双方发生争执而分开。对此，犯罪嫌疑人桂某心生怨恨，并计划实施报复行为。
@半洋石帆 ：男子因结婚礼金惹争执 GPS定位找到女友将其掐死:商洛一名未婚男与咸阳一名已婚女婚外恋三年，不料却因结婚礼金问题发生争执，两人关系也成为泡影，由此心生怨恨，男子在网络上购买追踪器跟踪女友将其掐死家中。
慕名莫名：身边发生了个狗血剧情。。我堂哥通过介绍交了个女友，因为在同一家医院工作（之前没见过面）半年就领证了。原打算在10月14办酒席的，结果在办酒席前2天那女的说不结婚了，今天去办离婚证了。我妈还提醒我堂哥等女方退了礼金再办证，结果堂哥太相信女方导致先办了证，现在女方不愿退礼金，现全亲戚商讨
我是旅行女王 ：今天参加朋友婚礼，新郎在证婚环节上跟主持人重复了天长地久、海枯石烂、生老病死、不离不弃…… 一堆客套话之后，突然振臂一挥大喊道：“请大家见证，如果离婚，所收礼金双倍奉还！” 顿时下面欢声雷动。。。（转）.(笑了请关注@笑点很低有木有 )
普洱茶博士 ：婚姻是否幸福？和#婚礼#隆重否礼金多不多婚车档次高不高结婚戒指几克拉等等半分钱的关系都没有滴...死要面子活受罪的事情是中国脑残者的最爱...反正现在国人一线城市90后的离婚率高达37%二婚都是普遍现象啦每个人都无所谓滴。可是我初婚都没有请你你现在三婚了也好意思给我喜帖？？... 天啊 ... 奇葩人
会计自媒体 ：【笑话 结婚 礼金】闺蜜在微信上说：不知道五一假期去哪儿......我回复：你不是前天举行婚礼时说，准备五一去巴厘岛浪漫蜜月双人游吗？闺蜜：是啊，可是取消了。就因为我一句话说得不好，他就要跟我离婚，这种小气男人，不要也罢。我追问：..详:http://t.cn/R77ZuOU
静夜风痕泊 ：离婚还叫老婆给钱，不然不给儿子，好吧，老婆给钱了，孩子不管了，现在周岁了，想用孩子办酒席收礼金，这有意思吗？这真的对孩子
直播山东 微博机构认证：第一晨报：枣庄小伙国庆结婚却添堵，礼金收11张百元假币；黄金周后烟台现离婚高潮 一天内22对夫妻办离婚；提取被扣车辆被收高额停车费，济南车主申请行政复议讨说法； 第一现场：云南景谷地震救援进入第三天，直播山东为您带来前方最新灾情报道； 首先进入这一时段新闻整点报。
淘宝网罗定豆豉 ：#告示#辛燕红于2012年年底同2013年初吵着要离婚，丈夫多次劝说不成，在气愤之下对其打骂。他多次调查，而事实上辛燕红外出打工时认识第三者：叫陈松华。开始时经常使用手机通话与通信息。在第三者的教唆下与丈夫吵离婚，其夫不同意，但辛燕红父母却盲目同意了。也不愿退还礼金。@罗定最八卦focus
断书安 ：#我有话说#【男子6年偷380万礼金 曾致受害酒店关门夫妻离婚】 派美国去，把奥巴马的核皮包偷了，天下就太平了！[哈哈][哈哈]、
fsz1215_d0205e ：儿子要结婚女方奶奶提出要上门提亲（女方家在福州），还要备至少十三万三千三百三十三元的礼金。注：女孩儿爸妈早已离婚，女孩儿跟着妈妈。 这似乎不合我的做事原则。 红专路政六街站
苦咖啡里夭折的玫瑰 ：记得我们结婚时带礼金一共下来花的不到两万，过得还好吧！他在玩不管怎么胡作非为，我都忍了，为了孩子，生了儿子，还是那样，有了女儿，进产房没看到他，自己迷迷糊糊签了生死状，昏睡三天，他犯了错，等了三年，回来后他有钱了，要离婚，呵呵，而我存折只有不到五十元 新华路
乌尤廖：很多人一提男方给礼金就砸舌 恨的牙痒痒 说到底还是穷 人傻钱多是你的主观意识 是你把你自己的物质量强架到别人消费观 这样不好 建议结婚了的必须参照图中数目补上 未结婚的以后必须参照图中数目只增不少 离婚了下次结婚参照第二条 都是为你们好啊 姑娘们 乐山市大佛剧院
阿腸 ：論選擇另一半的重要性...我第一次甘想某人同某人離婚...甘岩前晚聽阿花她們講起10萬禮金已經算多，今晚就聽到15萬禮金呢件事（不排除其實我聽過但唔記得左），嚇我一跳...呢個簡直就係「貼錢買難受」，米飯班主大人他們太可憐了...
|
