Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 406

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Marriage protection and marriage selection—Prospective evidence for reciprocal effects of marital status and health

Open access
Waldron, Ingrid, Hughes, Mary Elizabeth, Brooks, Tracy L.·1996·Social Science & Medicine

Abstract

Married adults are generally healthier than unmarried adults. It has been hypothesized that marriage is associated with good health because marriage has beneficial effects on health (marriage protection effects) and/or because healthier individuals are more likely to marry and to stay married (marriage selection effects). To investigate these hypotheses, this study analyzes prospective panel data for a large national sample of women in the U.S. (the National Longitudinal Surveys of Young Women). The women were aged 24-34 yr at the beginning of two successive five-year follow-up intervals. Analyses of the prospective data indicate that there were significant marriage protection effects, but only among women who were not employed. Specifically, for women who were not employed, married women had better health trends than unmarried women in each follow-up interval. It appears that marriage had beneficial effects on health for women who did not have a job which could provide an alternative source of financial resources and social support. In addition, analyses of the prospective data provide limited evidence for marriage selection effects. Specifically, women who had better health initially were more likely to marry and less likely to experience marital dissolution, but only for women who were not employed full-time and only during the first follow-up interval. Thus, the prospective evidence suggests that, for women who were not employed, both marriage protection and marriage selection effects contributed to the marital status differential in health observed in cross-sectional data. In contrast, neither marriage protection nor marriage selection effects were observed for women who were employed full-time. As would be expected, the cross-sectional data show that marital status differentials in health were large and highly significant for women who were not employed, whereas marital status differentials in health were much smaller and often not significant for employed women. Women who were neither married nor employed had particularly poor health. Additional evidence indicates that the women who were neither married nor employed suffered from multiple interacting disadvantages, including poor health, low incomes, and sociodemographic characteristics which contributed to difficulty in obtaining employment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00347-9

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 406

Metadata

Authors
Waldron, I., Hughes, M. E., & Brooks, T. L.
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1996-07
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
113-123
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2032732638
Cited by
406
References
29
FWCI
16.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Marriage protection and marriage selection—Prospective evidence for reciprocal effects of marital status and health. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00347-9
The paper
Waldron, I., Hughes, M. E., & Brooks, T. L. (1996). Marriage protection and marriage selection—Prospective evidence for reciprocal effects of marital status and health. Social Science & Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00347-9

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.