UCLA psychologists have found that less affluent people hold more traditional values towards marriage and divorce compared with more affluent and rich people. The finding, which is published in the current issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family, raises questions on how effective the $1billion in government spending is on promoting the value of marriage amongst poorer people.

Senior study author, Benjamin Karney, an UCLA professor of psychology and UCLA’s co-director of the Relationship Institute, stated:

“A lot of government policy is based on the assumption that low-income people hold less traditional views about marriage. However, the different income groups do not hold dramatically different views about marriage and divorce – and when the views are different, they are different in the opposite direction from what is commonly assumed. People of low income hold values that are at least as traditional toward marriage and divorce, if not more so.”

Karney added: “The United States is spending money teaching people about the value of marriage and family, and we are saying, congratulations, the battle has been won.”

The research involved 6,012 people that were divided in three categories depending on their income. 29.4% of people were in the low-income group compared with 26% in the moderate and 34.7% in the high-income group. The results across 4,508 participants living in Florida, 500 living in California, and 502 living in both New York and Texas were very similar. The team conducted a telephone survey of an average duration of 27 minutes per call in which participants were asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements.

The findings revealed that compared with high-income participants, those who had a lower income tended to have more traditional views to the following questions:

  • “Divorce can be a reasonable solution to an unhappy marriage.”
  • “When there are children in the family, parents should stay married even if they no longer love each other.”
  • “It’s better for a family if the man earns a living and the woman takes care of the family.”
  • “A husband and wife should be of the same race or ethnic group.”

All groups shared equal traditional values on the following 3 statements:

  • “A happy, healthy marriage is one of the most important things in life.”
  • “Children do better when their parents are married.”
  • “People who have children together should be married.”

Karney remarked that attitudes of people with low-income were more traditional with regard to divorce and tended to see a divorce as less likely as a reasonable solution to an unhappy marriage. The one area where low-income groups were less traditional was on accepting the issue of single parenting.

The questions arising from these findings seem obvious: Why are marriage rates lower amongst low income people and rates of single parenting higher if these people have more traditional values towards marriage and divorce? According to Karney, values often fail to predict behavior, as seen in this study. For example most people think of lying as a bad trait, but most people still lie.

Karney asks: “Why are low-income women postponing marriage but having babies?” He then explains: “Because they don’t want to get divorced. They think if they marry their current partner, they are likely to get divorced -and couples that have financial strain are much more likely to have marital difficulties. It’s like these women have been reading the scientific journals about marriage; their intuition is absolutely correct.”

Many women of low-income women have no models for a successful marriage, yet they see marriages that are in trouble and chose not to trust their financial and family future into the hands of the men they know. He continued: “However, they know they can raise a child. They may have been raised by a single mother, and people all around them were raised by single mothers. They see single-parent families that succeed, and they see the role of mother is valued.”

According to Karney, affluent 18-year-old girls chose not to get pregnant because a child would interfere with their college plans, career and future husband. In contrast, poor 18-year-olds look at their options. They cannot see themselves going to college or becoming a lawyer. Karney said: “But if she becomes a mother, she gets respect, purpose and someone to love her – and she doesn’t need to be married to do that. She knows she can be a mom; she doesn’t know if she can be married forever.”

In answer to the question as to why low-income women are prepared to have children before they are prepared to get married, Karney said: “It’s not because they don’t care about marriage. They care about marriage so much that they are unwilling to do it the wrong way. In their communities, motherhood and marriage are two separate things. Girls who think they have somewhere to go in life don’t get pregnant; girls who think they have nowhere to go are less careful about contraception.”

According to leading author Thomas Trail, a UCLA psychology postdoctoral fellow, lower income partners struggle no more and no less with relationship issues than higher income partners. He said: “They have no more problems with communication, sex, parental roles or division of household chores than do higher income couples.”

Karney and Trail found no evidence that low-income people have unrealistically high standards toward marriage. Karney said: “They’re more realistic.”

He pointed out that maintaining a long-term relationship or marriage depends on how well the daily tasks in life are managed. Karney continued:

“For some people, those tasks are more challenging because of what they have to contend with. A marriage is part and parcel with the rest of your life. Your values turn out to be a pretty small factor in the success of a marriage. Even if you love marriage and are deeply committed to the institution of marriage, practical issues that are making your life difficult matter more. Low-income couples are practical and realistic in their views on marriage. We should listen to what they are telling us, rather than imposing ‘solutions’ that do not match what they really need.”

He said that the best way to reduce teenage pregnancy rates is to raise social mobility, adding that government funds would be more appropriately spent in helping low-income people with their daily challenges.

Karney concludes: “There is a lot you can do with a billion dollars to promote marriage, including helping people with child care and transportation; that is not where the money has been spent. Almost all of that money has been spent on educational curricula, which is a narrow approach, based on false assumptions. Communication and emotional connection are the same among low-income people as in more affluent group. Their unique needs are not about relationship education. None of the data support the current policy of teaching relationships values and skills. Low-income people have concrete, practical problems making ends meet.”

Written by Petra Rattue