1. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Better with Age? Patterns of Marital Positivity and Negativity Across 20 Years in Two Generations Christine M. Proulx

2. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Marriage over Time Changing marriage trends in the US Media attention on marriage Media attention Evidence for stability Survivors Implication of happiness and success Carstensen’s socioemotional selectivity theory: with aging comes a focus on those social relationships that are most meaningful and that best meet our needs

3. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Theoretical Foundations “Honeymoon is over” effect: Marital decline is inevitable after the initial high of the honeymoon years Enduring dynamics/maintenance models: Couples enter marriage with characteristics that lead to stability in marital happiness over time

4. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Research on Marriage over the Life Course Original research suggested a U-shaped curve (e.g., VanLaningham, Johnson, & Amato, 2001) Research using more advanced approaches suggested mostly marital decline, especially across the early years (e.g., DeMaris, Sanchez, & Krivickas, 2012) Contemporary work using other advanced methods (i.e., group based, person centered modeling) suggests multiple patterns of change – and stability – are evident (e.g., Lavner & Bradbury, 2010)

5. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science The Present Study Using data from the Longitudinal Study of Generations: Examine marital change (or stability) in two separate generations over 20 years Examine both positive and negative marital dimensions What patterns will emerge for each construct, and will they be the same for each generation? Examine predictors of resulting patterns

6. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Longitudinal Study of Generations Began in 1971 as a cross-sectional study Goal was to find three-generation families in which the grandchild was between the ages of 16-26 Sample was randomly selected from a population of 840,000 individuals enrolled in a southern California HMO Some selection bias Ethnic minorities were under-represented Sample was somewhat better educated than general population

7. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science LSOG Generations

8. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Current Study Sample 7 waves spanning 20 years (1984-2004) “Linemember” respondents in Generation 2 or 3 who report being continuously married or in a marriage-like relationship with the same person at each wave No within-generation relatives in dataset

9. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Sample Characteristics Generation 2: Mean age in 1984: 56.23 (SD = 4.61) Mean length of marriage: 32.42 years (SD = 8.73); range = 2 - 45 years 66% female Generation 3: Mean age in 1984: 32.75 years (SD = 2.70) Mean length of marriage: 9.15 years (SD = 4.37); range = 1 - 20 years 63% female

10. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Measures Marital quality Gilford-Bengtson Marital Satisfaction Scale 11 total items, with 2 subscales Positive interaction (5 items; e.g., You and your spouse have a good time together) and negative sentiment (6 items; e.g., You disagree about something important) Depressive symptoms CES-D 20 items assessing depressed mood, guilt and worthlessness, helplessness and hopelessness, psychomotor problems, loss of appetite, and sleep disturbance

11. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Preliminary Analyses Began with latent growth curve models on both marital outcomes (positive interaction and negative sentiment) for both generations This approach estimates the curve or trajectory that best approximates the sample mean curve Results showed little to no significant mean change over time for either generation “Curves” were relatively flat—sample mean curve provided evidence for stability over time at relatively high levels of marital quality

12. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Trajectory Analysis Trajectory analysis on each generation, for each marital outcome, using SAS PROC TRAJ This approach looks for naturally occurring clustered groups of trajectories (e.g., groups of participants whose change/stability in marital qualities is similar) Relied on the BIC, AIC, membership probabilities, (and common sense) to determine optimal number of groups

13. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Results For all 4 models (2 outcomes x 2 generations), 3 group solutions were optimal However, patterns of change in marital qualities differed slightly across generations

14. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Positive Interaction Trajectories Generation 2 (mean age of 56.23): Group 1: low stable positivity (n = 23) Group 2: mid slight increase in positivity (n = 52) Group 3: high stable positivity (n = 50) Generation 3 (mean age of 32.75): Group 1: low stable positivity (n = 24) Group 2: mid slight decrease in positivity (n = 56) Group 3: high stable positivity (n = 67)

15. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science

16. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Negative Sentiment Trajectories Generation 2: Group 1: low stable negativity (n = 57) Group 2: mid stable negativity (n = 49) Group 3: high but decreasing in negativity (n = 19) Generation 3: Group 1: low stable negativity (n = 83) Group 2: mid stable negativity (n = 51) Group 3: high and increasing in negativity (n = 13)

17. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science

18. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Predictors of Group Membership Tested gender, marital duration, and depressive symptoms as predictors (RISK command) Generation 2: Positive interaction: none were significant predictors Negative sentiment: more years married, more likely to be in the decline in negativity group Generation 3: Positive interaction: none were significant predictors Negative sentiment: higher depressive scores, more likely to be in the mid stable or high increase groups

19. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Conclusions Evidence primarily for enduring dynamics model—lots of stability in these longer term marriages Different generations exhibit slightly different patterns of marital change (or stability) Older generation has a slight edge in terms of marital quality groups Cannot know if this is a cohort/age effect or a marital duration effect Selection effects

20. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Future Directions What else predicts membership in different trajectory groups? Possibilities: Personality factors Life stressors Transition points Establish what outcomes are associated with group membership Preliminary results: self-rated health

21. University of Missouri Department of Human Development and Family Science Thank you!