Cited by 309Family Dynamics and RelationshipsGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsMarriage and Family Dynamics

The Growing Racial and Ethnic Divide in U.S. Marriage Patterns

Open access
Raley, R. Kelly, Sweeney, Megan M., Wondra, Danielle·2015·The Future of Children

Abstract

The United States shows striking racial and ethnic differences in marriage patterns. Compared to both white and Hispanic women, black women marry later in life, are less likely to marry at all, and have higher rates of marital instability. Kelly Raley, Megan Sweeney, and Danielle Wondra begin by reviewing common explanations for these differences, which first gained momentum in the 1960s (though patterns of marital instability diverged earlier than patterns of marriage formation). Structural factors-for example, declining employment prospects and rising incarceration rates for unskilled black men-clearly play a role, the authors write, but such factors don't fully explain the divergence in marriage patterns. In particular, they don't tell us why we see racial and ethnic differences in marriage across all levels of education, and not just among the unskilled. Raley, Sweeney and, Wondra argue that the racial gap in marriage that emerged in the 1960s, and has grown since, is due partly to broad changes in ideas about family arrangements that have made marriage optional. As the imperative to marry has fallen, alongside other changes in the economy that have increased women's economic contributions to the household, socioeconomic standing has become increasingly important for marriage. Race continues to be associated with economic disadvantage, and thus as economic factors have become more relevant to marriage and marital stability, the racial gap in marriage has grown.

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 · 10.1353/foc.2015.0014

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Black students may have fewer peers and be less likely to have parents that are married compared to white students.

    “compared to white students, Black students may have fewer peers and be less likely to have parents that are married, given race-based differences in marriage rates and high rates of racial homophily (McClintock 2010; Raley et al. 2015).”

    From Social Motivations for College Hookups. (2021) · cites this paper as Raley et al. 2015

    The Abstract (page not provided) reports that a much smaller share of Black children than white children lived with both biological parents, and the paper documents a Black–white marriage gap. The section on explanations for that gap by education (page not provided) describes racially homophilous social networks. It does not establish that Black students have fewer peers, and living with both biological parents is not the same measure as having married parents. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This racial pattern may reflect racial differences in marriage rates and racial homophily in friendships.

    “which may reflect racial differences in marriage rates and racial homophily in friendships (McClintock 2010; Raley et al. 2015).”

    From Social Motivations for College Hookups. (2021) · cites this paper as Raley et al. 2015

  • Blacks marry at much lower rates than whites.

    “It is well known that blacks marry at much lower rates than whites (e.g., Raley, Sweeney, and Wondra 2015).”

    From Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: an Intergenerational Perspective* (2020) · cites this paper as Raley, Sweeney, and Wondra 2015

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 67 · Cited by 309

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [46]Kao Grace Joyner Kara Do Race and Ethnicity Matter among Friends? Sociological Quarterly 45 2004 557 73 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2004.tb02303.x · DOI

Authors
Raley, R. K., Sweeney, M. M., & Wondra, D.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
The Future of Children
Publisher
Project MUSE
Published
2015
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
89-109
ISSN
  • 1054-8289 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-1558
OpenAlex
W2461235346
Cited by
309
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 7
FWCI
38.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Future of Children (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD042849)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Marriage and Family Dynamics
Keywords
marriage patterns, Black women, Hispanic women, white women, delayed marriage, marital instability, marriage formation, socioeconomic status, women's economic contribution, family arrangements, incarceration, employment prospects

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