Marital Satisfaction Among African Americans and BlackCaribbeans: Findings From the National Survey

of American Life*

Chalandra M. Bryant Robert Joseph Taylor Karen D. Lincoln Linda M. Chatters James S. Jackson**

Abstract: This study examines the correlates of marital satisfaction using data from a national probability sample ofAfrican Americans (N ¼ 962) and Black Caribbeans (N ¼ 560). Findings reveal differences between African Ameri-cans and Black Caribbeans, and men and women within those groups, in the predictors of marital satisfaction.Black Caribbean women reported overall higher levels of marital satisfaction than African American women. Thefindings amply demonstrate the significance of ethnic diversity within the Black population in the United States.Difficulties with finances (budgeting, credit issues, and debt management) are one of the key issues that generateconflict in marriages; stress generated as a result of financial problems can lower marital satisfaction. Because theseissues are salient for couples at any given time in the family life cycle, counseling at critical points in the marriage(birth of children, launching of children from home, and retirement) may be helpful.

Key Words: African American, Caribbean families, marital quality, marital satisfaction, West Indians.

Over 80% of Americans will eventually marry atsome point in their lives (U.S. Census Bureau,2002). Reflecting the importance of this social insti-tution, research on marriage and marital relation-ships enjoys a long and rich history in the areas offamily studies and family demography (Cherlin,2000). However, beyond the demographic informa-tion gleaned from Census reports, relatively little isknown about marriage and marital relationshipsamong Black Americans and even less about subcul-tural differences within them. The goal of the pres-ent study was to investigate the sociodemographiccorrelates of marital satisfaction among a nationalsample of Black adults, focusing in particular on dis-tinctions and similarities between the two major

subpopulations of African Americans and BlackCaribbeans.

The focus on Black Caribbeans (CaribbeanBlacks) is motivated by several important considera-tions. The first concerns the increasing size of thisgroup and their growing proportion of the Blackpopulation in specific metropolitan areas (e.g., NewYork, Miami, Boston) and in the U.S. Black popula-tion overall. Between 1990 and 2000, the BlackCaribbean population in the United States grew bynearly 67% (Logan & Deane, 2003). Presently,more than 1.5 million Blacks in this country areclassified as Caribbean (Logan & Deane). Thegrowth of the Black Caribbean population has sur-passed that of established minorities such as Cubans

*The data collection on which this study is based was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; U01-MH57716) with supplemental support from

the Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research at the National Institutes of Health and the University of Michigan. The preparation of this manuscript was sup-

ported by grants from the National Institute on Aging to Drs. Chatters and Taylor (R01-AG18782) and Drs. Jackson and Taylor (P30-AG15281), a grant from the

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD050045) to Dr. Bryant, and a grant from the NIMH (K01-MH69923-01) to Dr. Lincoln. The

authors would like to thank Dr. David H. Chae for his valuable assistance with the data analysis for this study.

**Chalandra M. Bryant is an associate professor of Human Development and Family Studies at The Pennsylvania State University, 105 White Building, University

Park, PA 16802-3903 (cmb34@psu.edu). Robert J. Taylor is an associate dean for Research in the School of Social Work at the University of Michigan, 1080 South

University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (rjtaylor@umich.edu). Karen D. Lincoln is an assistant professor of Social Work at the University of Southern California, 669 West

34th Street, MRF 327, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0411 (klincoln@usc.edu). Linda M. Chatters is a professor of Public Health and professor of Social Work at the Uni-

versity of Michigan, 1080 South University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (chatters@umich.edu). James S. Jackson is a professor of Psychology and director of the Institute

for Social Research, 426 Thompson Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248 (jamessj@umich.edu).

Family Relations, 57 (April 2008), 239–253. Blackwell Publishing.Copyright 2008 by the National Council on Family Relations.

and Koreans, whom Black Caribbeans now outnum-ber (Logan & Deane). The significant proportion ofBlack Caribbeans in the United States argues thattheir separate consideration as a major Black sub-group is warranted and needed.

Second, researchers have called attention to theissue of diversity within the Black population and itspotential impact on a variety of outcomes of interest(Tucker & Mitchell-Kernan, 1995). In the presentstudy, we argue that distinctive sociocultural con-texts are important in explaining differences betweenethnic groups within the Black population (i.e., Afri-can Americans, Black Caribbeans). Finally, the vastmajority of social science research approaches thestudy of Black Americans as if they were a single,monolithic group. Empirical explorations of demo-graphic variability, as well as the similarities anddifferences within and between subgroups of U.S.Blacks, provide important information about socio-demographic and cultural diversity within this popu-lation that is consequential for a variety of social andhealth outcomes.

The present study of the sociodemographic corre-lates of marital satisfaction among African Americanand Black Caribbean adults in the United Statesseeks to (a) determine overall levels of marital satis-faction within these two groups, with an emphasison possible ethnic group differences in expressed sat-isfaction, (b) explore how sociodemographic factorsand marital characteristics are associated withreported satisfaction with marriage within AfricanAmerican and Black Caribbean adults, and (c)examine whether and in what ways the correlates ofmarital satisfaction differ for women and men inthese two groups. Our substantive focus reflects sev-eral prominent issues identified in the literature onmarital relations and quality and includes demo-graphic factors, variables related to economic cir-cumstances (i.e., household income, financial strain,material hardship), and marital characteristics (i.e.,number of years married, marital history). ForCaribbean Blacks, we also examine two variablesrelated to their experiences as immigrants—countryof origin and immigration status (i.e., number ofyears in the United States).

The next sections describe the conceptual frame-work and relevant background research that informthis study. First, we present a conceptual frameworkof marriage and marital behaviors that examines theimpact of sociocultural context factors such as eth-nicity/culture, socioeconomic position, and gender.

Following this, we provide a brief summary ofresearch that examines the associations between race,marriage, and marital quality and several key factors(i.e., marriage markets, economic barriers, gender)related to the marital behaviors and attitudes of Afri-can Americans. Next, we examine information onthe socioeconomic circumstances of African Ameri-cans and Black Caribbeans. Following this, we pres-ent information on the impact of gender on maritalquality. The section ends with a discussion of the lit-erature on marital satisfaction, with particular atten-tion to work focused on African Americans andBlack Caribbeans.

Marriage and SocioculturalContext: A Conceptual Framework

This study is guided by a conceptual frameworkthat highlights the impact of sociocultural contexton marital behaviors and attitudes. Marriage andmarital behaviors are the products of many inter-acting and dynamic factors, including characteris-tics associated with the individual partnersthemselves, their relationship and history as a cou-ple, and the broader social and cultural environ-ment. Overall, there has been less emphasis in theliterature on the broader context surrounding mar-riage, despite calls for more focused investigation ofthe association between marriage and social, cul-tural, and economic forces (e.g., Timmer & Veroff,2000) and clear evidence that this context influencesmarriage rates, marital length and dissolution, aswell as marital quality and satisfaction (Adelman,Chadwick, & Baerger, 1996; Dillaway & Broman,2001; Timmer, Veroff, & Hatchett, 1996; Tucker,Taylor, & Mitchell-Kernan, 1993). The conceptualframework focuses on three sociocultural factors—ethnicity/culture, socioeconomic position, andgender—and their associations with marital satisfac-tion. As a whole, the marital satisfaction literature isfairly uneven in its treatment of these factors, pro-viding a somewhat fragmented view of the nature oftheir association with marital behaviors and atti-tudes, particularly within ethnic and racial minoritypopulations. The proposed conceptual frameworksuggests that ethnicity/culture, socioeconomic posi-tion, and gender are important predictors, in theirown right as well as in their interrelated influenceson marriage.

Family Relations � Volume 57, Number 2 � April 2008240

Ethnicity and culture are powerful lenses throughwhich individuals and couples construct notions ofmarriage, family, work-family task enactment andexpectations, and economic relations within the con-text of marriage and family. As described previously,ethnicity is of particular interest to this investigationbecause it represents a source of unacknowledgedand increasing cultural diversity within the U.S.Black population. Above and beyond the sheernumerical growth and influence of Caribbean Blacksin the United States, there are compelling reasons toexpect that ethnic identification and the cultural andhistorical background of this group will influenceissues of marriage and family in ways that are dis-tinctive from African Americans. In fact, the litera-ture suggests that motivations for immigration andthe experiences of Caribbean Black immigrants inthe United States are uniquely structured by theinterrelated influences of culture, economics, andgender (Bashi, 2007).

Socioeconomic position has been identified as animportant determinant of marital behaviors and per-ceptions of marital quality (Bryant & Wickrama,2005; Conger, Rueter, & Elder, 1999), particularlyin relation to African Americans (Clark-Nicolas &Gray-Little, 1991; Cutrona et al., 2003; Tucker et al.,1993). Given the role of socioeconomic factors inthe immigration experience of Caribbean Blacks andnoted differences in the economic status of thesetwo groups, we anticipate that associations betweensuch factors and marital satisfaction will be differentfor Caribbean Blacks and African Americans.Finally, gender has long been an important stratify-ing variable in relation to women and men’s percep-tions, attitudes, expectations, and motivations formarriage. Accordingly, the conceptual frameworksuggests that gender is important in patterning mari-tal satisfaction, resulting in overall differences be-tween women and men for these assessments amongboth African Americans and Caribbean Blacks.In addition, for women and men within these twogroups, the pattern of significant predictors of mari-tal satisfaction will differ as well.

Sociocultural Context of MarriageAmong African Americans

Prior research demonstrates that race and cultureplay an important role in marital behaviors and

attitudes (Adelman et al., 1996; Dillaway &Broman, 2001; Timmer et al., 1996), as well as inshaping opportunities for marriage. Current researchsuggests that Black women face significant structuralconstraints in the likelihood of marriage (Dillaway& Broman; Harknett & McLanahan, 2004; Taylor,Tucker, Chatters, & Jayakody, 1997; Wilson,1987). Two constraints, the small pool of eligibleBlack men and economic barriers to marriage, arecommonly discussed in the literature with regard toBlack marriage rates and the overall quality of mari-tal relationships. These two factors are also related inthat the shortage of Black men is thought to nega-tively impact relationship quality; when men are inshort supply, they tend to be less committed to anygiven relationship (Harknett & McLanahan).

Although the male shortage has been associatedwith the quality of the marital relationship, it is notnecessarily linked to the degree to which Blacksvalue or approve of marriage. Blacks and Whites areno different from one another in their approval ofmarriage (Tucker, 2000). Interestingly, however,Blacks are significantly more likely than Whites todisapprove of divorce, particularly when children areinvolved (Trent & South, 1992). Despite these atti-tudes, rates of singlehood among Blacks are highand marital satisfaction tends to be low (Tayloret al., 1997; Tucker & Mitchell-Kernan, 1995).Perhaps, given the constraints they face, Blacksapproach marriage with more caution than othergroups and carefully assess its risks and rewards. Thisassessment of marriage risks and rewards is likely tohave great significance for the decision of whether ornot to marry. As a group, Blacks embarking onmarriage are likely to have poor financial prospects(a marriage risk). Consequently, from a utilitarianperspective, Black men are generally not regarded asfinancially attractive or viable as marriage partners(Tucker & Mitchell-Kernan).

This line of reasoning suggests that the economiccircumstances of potential male partners figureprominently in decisions regarding marriage and,after a consideration of likely costs and rewards,Black women may choose to forgo marriage. How-ever, this may not always be the case. Edin (2000)found that although low-income, Black womenidentify male employment as a necessary factorbefore considering marriage, it was neither a suffi-cient reason for them to marry or to remain marriedif they were dissatisfied with the relationship. Acommon and erroneous conclusion from findings

Correlates of Marital Satisfaction � Bryant et al. 241

regarding the role of partner economic viability isthat Blacks do not value marriage. On the contrary,Blacks have a great deal of respect for marriage andthe two-parent family ideal (Edin & Kefalas, 2005),as demonstrated by the fact that many still do marrydespite these significant constraints.

Socioeconomic Position AmongAfrican Americans and Black

Caribbeans

Blacks in the United States are disproportionatelyimpoverished (U.S. Census Bureau News, 2005).The economic constraints and hardships they facehave a deleterious impact on marital satisfaction. Eco-nomic hardship, operationalized as chronic economicdisadvantage, severe income loss, and heavy demandson resources, constitutes a major stressor on familiesthat compromises the quality of family life. Eco-nomic hardship leads to financial or economic strain(i.e., the inability to either pay bills or meet materialneeds) that, in turn, has a detrimental effect on psy-chological well-being and marital quality (Congeret al., 1999). Economically disadvantaged couplesmay argue more frequently and exhibit less warmthand more hostility toward one another (Conger et al.).Clearly, knowledge of economic circumstances andconstraints is essential for understanding maritalbehavior and marital relationships among BlackAmericans (Clark-Nicolas & Gray-Little, 1991;Cutrona et al., 2003; Tucker et al., 1993).

Overall, Black Caribbeans have experiencedgreater economic success than African Americans asreflected in home ownership rates, householdincome, and labor force participation rates (Kalmijn,1996; Logan & Deane, 2003). Among the explana-tions cited to account for this difference is the role ofselection factors operating within immigrant popu-lations. Namely, because the majority of people whovoluntarily migrate to the United States do so foreconomic reasons, as a group they are especiallymotivated to achieve economic success. Economicmigrants also tend to possess valued skills, abilities,and attitudes that would lead to greater financialsuccess (Kalmijn; Model, 1995; Vickerman, 2001).Similarly, economic migrants demonstrate high ratesof labor force activity (Model), and Caribbeanimmigrants, in particular, show greater labor forceparticipation than African Americans (Model) and

are more likely than African Americans to have acollege degree and higher earnings (Dodoo, 1997;Waters, 1994).

Another explanation for differences in economicachievement for these two groups concerns racialdiscrimination and ethnic stratification, as well asthe specific social and economic niche occupied byBlack Caribbean immigrants (Model, 1995; Model& Fisher, 2002; Waters, 1999). Within the compli-cated U.S. race and social hierarchy, CaribbeanBlacks have been able to establish a social identitythat gives prominence to their distinctive ethnicaffiliation and presumed cultural and social differen-ces from African Americans (Batson, Qian, &Lichter, 2006; Kalmijn, 1996; Model & Fisher).These presumed differences, particularly in therealm of employment and employee behaviors, haveworked in favor of Caribbean immigrants in theworkplace. However, the issue of racial and ethnicstratification is dynamic, complex, and highlynuanced. The dynamics of race and ethnic stratifica-tion vary by place, time, and circumstances. Thelong history of Caribbean immigration has beencharacterized by competing tendencies toward iden-tification with (on the basis of a common racialbackground) and distancing from (on the basis ofethnic distinctiveness) the native African Americanpopulation (Vickerman, 1999, 2001).

These contradictory characterizations of the socialand economic position of Caribbean immigrants can,in part, be understood in relation to generational sta-tus and time spent living in the United States(Waters, 1994). Waters (1994) argues that, over time,Caribbean Blacks’ perceptions of U.S. race relationschanged in response to their continued exposure toracism and racial discrimination in the workplaceand other social spheres. Despite reports of favorit-ism, more recent evidence suggests that CaribbeanBlacks, like African Americans, are geographicallyand socially segregated from Whites (Logan &Deane, 2003). Moreover, Caribbean Blacks andAfrican Americans, while occupying similar socialand geographic spaces, tend nonetheless to be segre-gated (i.e., ethnic enclaves within Black neighbor-hoods) from one another (Logan & Deane).

Gender and Marital Relations

Scholarship on gender suggests that the lower statusand power possessed by women in society are

Family Relations � Volume 57, Number 2 � April 2008242

mirrored in the marital relationship. This differen-tial in power and status may increase women’s vul-nerability to negative circumstances that affect themarriage, which, in turn, exacerbates the impact ofnegative circumstances on their marital satisfaction(Menaghan, 1991; Spain & Bianchi, 1996). Conse-quently, qualitative aspects of marital life may beexperienced differently by men and women. Forexample, marital strain is greater for women, parti-cularly as women get older (Umberson, Williams,Powers, Chen, & Campbell, 2005). Although a fewstudies of marital quality suggest no gender differen-ces, most research indicates that women reportlower levels of marital quality across several domains(Rogers & Amato, 2000). Further, women beginthe marital relationship with lower levels of maritalquality compared to men (Umberson et al.). How-ever, despite this initial differential, over the courseof the marriage, positive dimensions of marital qual-ity increase, whereas negative dimensions decreasefor both men and women (Umberson et al.).

Marital Satisfaction

Although there is an extremely large and rich litera-ture on marital satisfaction among Whites, there area limited number of studies addressing this issueamong Blacks. The limited work that does existindicates that African Americans tend to reportlower levels of marital satisfaction than do Whites(Adelmann et al., 1996; McLoyd, Cauce, Takeuchi,& Wilson, 2000; Timmer & Veroff, 2000) and aremore likely than Whites to think about divorce(Broman, 2002). As found in studies of Whites,higher warmth and lower hostility between AfricanAmerican spouses are associated with higher maritalquality (Cutrona et al., 2003). Efforts to understandwhy satisfaction is generally lower for Blacks havefocused on the impact of economic circumstancessuch as family income and community-level povertyon marriage (Timmer & Veroff). Brody et al.’s(1994) study of a small sample of rural Blacks founda positive association between income and maritalhappiness. Bryant and Wickrama (2005) reportedthat higher levels of community poverty were associ-ated with lower levels of marital happiness for Afri-can Americans. Similarly, Cutrona et al. (2003)found that among African Americans, communitypoverty was associated with significantly less warmth

between spouses. Residential instability, sometimesused to characterize economically deprived commu-nities, was also associated with lower marital happi-ness (Bryant & Wickrama). Interestingly, one studyfocusing on the link between economic resourcesand marital quality among Black spouses found thatperceptions of economic adequacy were more closelylinked to marital quality than objective measures ofoccupation, education, and income (Clark-Nicolas& Gray-Little, 1991).

Regrettably, research on marital satisfactionamong Caribbean Blacks in the United States is vir-tually nonexistent. For instance, several major vol-umes on Black Caribbean life do not include theterm marriage in the index (Bashi, 2007; Foner, 2001;Waters, 1999). Despite a sizable body of high-qualityresearch on Black Caribbeans in the United States,this work generally deals with issues such as migra-tion, identity, discrimination, and socioeconomicstatus (Dodoo, 1997; Foner, 2001, 2005; Waters,1999). Fundamental issues regarding marriage andmarital life are not addressed in this research, andmuch of what is known about this population isbased upon anthropological (e.g., Foner, 2005) orethnographic methods (Waters, 1999) of specificBlack Caribbean communities residing in U.S. cities(i.e., New York City).

Despite a general lack of information aboutmarriage among Black Caribbeans residing in theUnited States, there is a limited amount of researchon marriage in various Caribbean countries. Forinstance, in Barbados, marriage rates had been his-torically low; from 1891 to 1994, the marriage ratehas averaged about 5.4 per 1,000 (Barrow, 2001).Common law unions tend to be preferred overmarriage in both Barbados and Trinidad (Barrow,2001), reflecting a historical pattern of familystructure for Barbadians. Beginning with theimmediate post-Emancipation era, marriage rateswere low among Barbadians. Further, patterns offamily structure among Barbadian former slaveswere markedly different from African Americanformer slaves. During that time, African Americanslaves married in record numbers (Barrow, 2001;Staples, 1993), such that 90% of African Americanchildren were born to married parents (Barrow,2001). In subsequent years, marriage has becomemore popular among Barbadians; in 1995, the mar-riage rate increased to 13.4 and the number ofremarriages increased from 316 in 1985 to 1,470in 1995. Furthermore, from 1980 through 1995,

Correlates of Marital Satisfaction � Bryant et al. 243

about 15.5% of the petitions filed for divorceinvolved couples who had been married less than5 years. However, the majority of petitions (morethan 57%) involved couples who had been marriedfor a decade or longer, suggesting that these couplesare not ending their marriages upon the first signof trouble (Barrow, 2001). In contrast, Hamon(2003) reported that marriage is expected in theBahamas and that people believe that something iswrong if an individual is not married.

Barrow (1996) noted that research on Caribbeanfamilies has historically found that marriage is morecommon among the middle class, although morecontemporary research has found that this assump-tion was not true. For instance, Smith’s (1988) qual-itative study of family life in Jamaica and Guyanafound that marriage was not the sole province of themiddle classes. Further, she notes that among Jamai-cans, there is a strong gender differentiation inwork-family task enactment with both lower-classand middle-class Jamaican men being much lesslikely than men in North America to engage indomestic responsibilities or child care.

Discussions of marriage attitudes and behaviorsin Jamaica highlight the importance of consideringeconomic, cultural, and historical contexts. Severalcommentators have noted the emphasis on socialstatus and economic advancement within Jamaicancommunities and society more generally (Cohen,1956; Vickerman, 2001). Cohen’s study of Jamaicaduring the 1950s found that the foremost goal ofmen was to accumulate and maintain economicresources and to avoid situations that endangeredthose resources. Vickerman (2001) also noted thatamong Jamaican immigrants in the United States,achievement is measured in material terms (e.g.,income, education, home ownership) and compari-sons are made to both living standards in the UnitedStates and in Jamaica (where unemployment ratesare high).

The present study examines the correlates of mar-ital satisfaction within and across representative sam-ples of African Americans and Black Caribbeans.The analyses give special prominence to the impactof ethnicity/culture, economic factors (i.e., income,material hardship, financial strain), and gender onmarital satisfaction; the analyses also take into con-sideration factors that are unique to the situations ofBlack Caribbeans (i.e., country of origin, immigra-tion history) that may be of consequence to maritalsatisfaction.

Method

Sample

The data for these analyses come from the NationalSurvey of American Life: Coping With Stress in the21st Century (NSAL). The NSAL was directed bythe Program for Research on Black Americans at theUniversity of Michigan’s Institute for SocialResearch. The fieldwork for the study was com-pleted by the Institute of Social Research’s SurveyResearch Center in cooperation with the Programfor Research on Black Americans. A total of 6,082face-to-face interviews were conducted with personsaged 18 years or older, including 3,570 AfricanAmericans, 891 non-Hispanic Whites, and 1,621Blacks of Caribbean descent. The NSAL includesthe first major study of Black Caribbeans usinga probability sample. For the purposes of this study,Black Caribbeans are defined as persons who tracetheir ethnic heritage to a Caribbean country, butwho now reside in the United States, are raciallyclassified as Black, and who are English speaking(but may also speak another language). The overallresponse rate was 72.3%. Response rates for individ-ual subgroups were 70.7% for African Americans,77.7% for Black Caribbeans, and 69.7% for non-Hispanic Whites. This response rate is excellentconsidering that African Americans and Black Ca-ribbeans are more likely to reside in major urbanareas that are more difficult and much more expen-sive places to collect interview data.

The NSAL sample has a national multistageprobability design. The African American sample isthe core sample of the NSAL. The core sample con-sists of 64 primary sampling units. Fifty-six of theseprimary areas overlap substantially with existing Sur-vey Research Center’s National Sample primaryareas. The remaining eight primary areas were cho-sen from the South in order for the sample to repre-sent African Americans in the proportion in whichthey are distributed nationally. Both the AfricanAmerican and the White samples were selectedexclusively from these targeted geographic segmentsin proportion to the African American population.The Black Caribbean sample was selected from twoarea probability sample frames: the core NSAL sam-ple and an area probability sample of housing unitsfrom geographic areas with a relatively high densityof persons of Caribbean descent.

Family Relations � Volume 57, Number 2 � April 2008244

In both the African American and the BlackCaribbean samples, it was necessary for respondents toself-identify their race as Black. Those self-identifyingas Black were included in the Black Caribbean sam-ple if they answered affirmatively when asked if theywere of West Indian or Caribbean descent, said theywere from a country included on a list of Caribbeanarea countries presented by the interviewers, or indi-cated that their parents or grandparents were bornin a Caribbean area country (see Jackson et al.,2004, for a more detailed discussion of the NSALsample). The interviews were face-to-face and con-ducted in respondents’ homes. Respondents werecompensated for their time. Data were collectedfrom 2001 to 2003.

Demographic description. The analyses for thepresent study are based on the married subsample of962 African Americans and 560 Caribbean Blacks(N ¼ 1,522). Given our interest in marital satisfac-tion, only respondents who were married at the timeof the interview were included. Of the AfricanAmericans, 46% were men and 54% were women.Of the Black Caribbeans, 49% were men and 51%were women. The mean age of the African Ameri-cans was 45.47 years (SD ¼ 14.01). The meanage of the Black Caribbean sample was 44.66 years(SD ¼ 12.83). The mean family income was slightlyhigher for Black Caribbeans (M ¼ $54,139, SD ¼$35,921) than for African Americans (M ¼$50,890, SD ¼ $42,109). The mean level of educa-tion among African Americans was 12.74 years(SD ¼ 2.48) and among Black Caribbeans, 13.05 years(SD ¼ 2.95). The majority of both the AfricanAmerican (74%) and the Black Caribbean samples(79%) had been married only once. About 13% ofAfrican Americans were married 1 year or less; 19%,2 – 5 years; 14%, 6 – 9 years; 22%, 10 – 19 years;and 32%, 20 years or longer. The mean number ofyears that African Americans were married to theircurrent spouse was 15.46 years (SD ¼ 14.41).About 10% of Black Caribbeans were married 1 yearor less; 20%, 2 – 5 years; 16%, 6 – 9 years; 28%,10 – 19 years; and 26%, 20 years or longer. Themean number of years that Black Caribbeans weremarried to their current spouses was 13.91 years (SD¼ 11.94). About 19% of the Black Caribbeans wereborn in the United States. Nineteen percent lived inthe United States for 10 years or less, 26% lived inthe United States for 11 – 20 years, and 36% livedin the United States for 21 years or longer. Of theBlack Caribbeans, 10.47% were from the Spanish

Caribbean; 19.49%, Haiti; 32%, Jamaica; 10%,Trinidad/Tobago; and 28%, other English-speakingcountries (e.g., Barbados, Bahamas; all descriptivestatistics were based on unweighted data).

Measures

Marital satisfaction was measured by the question,‘‘Taking things all together, how satisfied are youwith your marriage?’’ Response categories rangedfrom 1 (very dissatisfied) to 4 (very satisfied; AfricanAmericans, M ¼ 3.60, SD ¼ 0.65; Black Carib-beans, M ¼ 3.56, SD ¼ 0.64). It is important tonote that single-item indicators of marital satisfac-tion are relatively common in research on maritalsatisfaction, happiness, and quality (e.g., Schoen,Rogers, & Amato, 2006). Additionally, research hasfound that single-item indicators of marital satisfac-tion are highly correlated with multi-item measuresand provide similar results (Johnson, 1995). Inde-pendent variables included: age, gender, number ofmarriages (one, two, or more marriages), length ofmarriage (0 – 1, 2 – 5, 6 – 9, 10 – 19, and 20 ormore years), education, income (log income), finan-cial strain, and material hardship. Financial strainwas an index of two variables: difficulty paying billsand worrying about income. Difficulty paying billswas measured by asking, ‘‘How difficult is it for youto meet monthly payments of your family’s bills?’’rated on a 5-point Likert scale (5 ¼ extremely diffi-cult, 1 ¼ not difficult at all). Worrying about incomewas assessed by asking, ‘‘How much do you worrythat your total (family) income will not be enoughto meet your family’s expenses and bills’’—rated ona 4-point Likert scale (4 ¼ a great deal, 3 ¼ a lot,2 ¼ a little, 1 ¼ not at all; Cronbach’s a ¼ .79 forAfrican Americans, .77 for Black Caribbeans). Themean score for financial strain for African Americanswas 3.54 (SD ¼ 1.73) and for Black Caribbeans,4.10 (SD ¼ 1.84).

Material hardship was assessed by asking sevenquestions aimed at ascertaining whether or not cer-tain events occurred. For example, respondents wereasked, ‘‘In the past 12 months was there a time whenyou . . . didn’t pay full rent or mortgage; wereevicted for non-payment; had gas, electric, oil dis-connected; or had the telephone disconnected?’’Respondents replied either ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ ‘‘Yes’’replies were coded as ‘‘1’’ and were summed; higherscores reflect greater material hardship (AfricanAmericans, M ¼ 0.78, SD ¼ 1.4; Black Caribbeans,

Correlates of Marital Satisfaction � Bryant et al. 245

M ¼ 0.78, SD ¼ 1.37). Cronbach coefficient alphaswere .80 and .75 for African Americans and BlackCaribbeans, respectively.

In addition, two variables that are particularly re-levant to the Black Caribbean population in theUnited States are included in the analyses—immi-gration status and country of origin. Immigrationstatus has four categories (i.e., respondent was bornin the United States; respondent immigrated to theUnited States less than 11 years ago, 11 – 20 yearsago, 21 or more years ago). Black Caribbean respon-dents reported over 25 different countries of origin.For purposes of analysis, the variable, Country ofOrigin, was recoded into five categories: Jamaica,Trinidad-Tobago, other English-speaking country(e.g., Barbados), Spanish-speaking country (e.g.,Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic), and Haiti (cor-relations are presented in Table 1).

Analysis Strategy

Regression analyses were conducted using SUDAAN9.0. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Forselected significant relationships, effect sizes arereported using SUDAAN 9.0. To obtain effect sizes,the regression models were reanalyzed with maritalsatisfaction standardized to have a mean of 0 and

a standard deviation of 1. Thus, for each indepen-dent variable, the beta coefficients from the regres-sion models represent differences in mean scores onthe standardized dependent variable and the predic-tors. In absolute terms, these differences can be in-terpreted as effect size differences with values of .3representing small effect sizes and values of .8 repre-senting large effect sizes. All statistical analyses per-formed were design based, in that they (a) usedsampling weights accounting for both the individual-level unequal probabilities of selection into theNSAL sample and the individual nonresponse to cal-culate weighted, nationally representative populationestimates and (b) accounted for the complex multi-stage clustered design of the NSAL sample whencomputing standard errors.

Results

Sixty-eight percent of African Americans and 63%of Black Caribbeans indicated that they were verysatisfied with their marriages. Regression analysesrevealed that there was no significant differencebetween African Americans and Black Caribbeans indegree of marital satisfaction (analysis not shown).We then examined men and women separately.

Table 1. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Demographic Variables and Marital Satisfaction

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Marital

satisfaction

— .08* 20.07 20.035 .13* .04 20.10* 20.09* .03 20.00

2. Age .14*** — 20.20*** .31*** .03 20.10* 20.11* 20.17*** .13** .09*

3. Gender 20.21***20.14*** — 20.12** 20.03 .09* .02 .07 20.05 .03

4. Number

of years

married

.05 .28***20.05 — 20.03 20.06 20.02 .09* 20.04 20.02

5. Income 20.00 20.09** 20.02 .00 — .41***20.29***20.14***20.14*** .09*

6. Education 20.00** 20.24*** .12*** .01 .48*** — 20.28***20.13** 20.16***20.08

7. Financial

strain

20.19***20.09** .01 20.02 20.31***20.17*** — .42*** .13* 20.01

8. Economic

hardship

20.16***20.15*** .05 20.02 20.25***20.07* .50*** — 20.04 .06

9. Immigration

status

— .09*

10. Country

of origin

—

Note. African Americans (N ¼ 962) below diagonal and Caribbean Blacks (N ¼ 560) above diagonal.

*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001 (two tailed).

Family Relations � Volume 57, Number 2 � April 2008246

Although analyses did not reveal a significant differ-ence in marital satisfaction between African Ameri-can and Black Caribbean men, Black Caribbeanwomen reported significantly higher levels of maritalsatisfaction than did African American women (B ¼.17, p , .05, effect size ¼ .24).

Marital Satisfaction: African Americans

As indicated in Model 1 (Table 2), African Ameri-can women were less satisfied with their marriagesthan were African American men (effect size ¼2.35). Further, the correlates of marital satisfactionwere different for African American men andwomen. For African American men (Model 2), edu-cation was negatively associated with marital satis-faction. Among African American women, age,number of years married, and financial strain weresignificantly associated with marital satisfaction.Older African American women had higher levels ofmarital satisfaction than their younger counterparts.Women who were married less than 2 years (effectsize ¼ .52) and those married 6 – 9 years (effectsize ¼ .36) had higher levels of satisfaction thanwomen married 20 or more years. Lastly, AfricanAmerican women with higher levels of financialstrain were less satisfied with their marriages (effectsize ¼2.13).

Marital Satisfaction: Black Caribbeans

Results for Black Caribbeans differed in several waysfrom those obtained for African Americans. Therewere no gender differences with regard to maritalsatisfaction for Black Caribbeans (Model 4). Also,income was significantly associated with marital sat-isfaction for both Black Caribbean men and women(effect size ¼ .36). Analyses of Black Caribbean men(Model 5) indicated that the number of years ofmarriage and immigration status were significantlyassociated with marital satisfaction. Black Caribbeanmen who were married 20 or more years had signifi-cantly higher levels of satisfaction than those married10 – 19 years. In addition, Black Caribbean menwho had immigrated to the United States 11 – 20years ago and 21 or more years ago were more satis-fied with their marriages than Black Caribbean menwho were born in the United States. Regression analy-ses of Black Caribbean women (Model 6) indicatedthat those who were married for 20 years or morehad higher levels of satisfaction than those married 2

– 5 years. Additionally, Black Caribbean women fromJamaica had higher levels of satisfaction than thosefrom the Spanish Caribbean (i.e., Puerto Rico, Cuba,Dominican Republic) and those from Haiti.

Discussion

The study findings indicated that gender, ethnicity,and economic factors were associated with reports ofmarital satisfaction. Both African American andBlack Caribbean respondents reported relativelyhigh levels of marital satisfaction and the two groupswere no different in terms of marital satisfaction.Black Caribbean women, however, reported higherlevels of marital satisfaction than African Americanwomen. Overall, gender, in particular, displayed aninteresting pattern of relationships indicating severaldifferences in the correlates of marital satisfactionfor African American men and women, as well asBlack Caribbean men and women. Among AfricanAmerican men, education was negatively associatedwith marital satisfaction. Age, length of marriage,and financial strain were associated with satisfactionamong African American women. Among BlackCaribbeans, household income, rather than financialstrain, was associated with satisfaction. Among BlackCaribbean men, length of marriage and immigrationstatus were linked to satisfaction, whereas amongBlack Caribbean women, length of marriage andcountry of origin were associated with satisfaction.

Consistent with the general literature on AfricanAmericans, gender was significantly associated withmarital satisfaction such that women had lowerlevels of satisfaction than did men. This finding isconsistent with previous research among bothWhites (Wu & Hart, 2002) and African Americans(Blackman, Clayton, Glenn, Malone-Colon, &Roberts, 2005), which indicates that men receivemore benefits from marriage than do women and, asa consequence, women report lower levels of maritalsatisfaction (Dillaway & Broman, 2001). AmongBlack Caribbeans, however, it is interesting to notethat there were no gender differences in marital satis-faction. Additionally, Black Caribbean womenreported higher levels of satisfaction than did AfricanAmerican women. This pattern of findings for gen-der could be associated with differences betweenAfrican Americans and Black Caribbeans in maritalexpectations and beliefs, as well as actual marital andfamily behaviors.

Correlates of Marital Satisfaction � Bryant et al. 247

Tab

le2

.R

egre

ssion

Coe

ffici

ents

for

Mar

ital

Sati

sfact

ion

byE

thni

city

and

Gen

der

(SE

sin

pare

nthe

ses)

Pre

dic

tors

a

Mod

el1

:A

fric

an

Am

eric

ans

Mod

el2

:A

fric

an

Am

eric

anM

en

Mod

el3

:A

fric

an

Am

eric

anW

omen

Mod

el4

:B

lack

Car

ibb

ean

s

Mod

el5

:B

lack

Car

ibb

ean

Men

Mod

el6

:B

lack

Car

ibb

ean

Wom

en

Age

.00*

(.0

0)

.00

(.0

0)

.01*

(.0

0)

20

.00

(.0

0)

.00

(.0

0)

20

.00

(.0

0)

Gen

der

Fem

ale

20

.26***

(.0

5)

——

20

.05

(.0

9)

——

Nu

mber

ofm

arri

ages

Tw

oor

mor

e2

0.0

1(.

05

).0

2(.

06

)2

0.0

3(.

08

).0

0(.

12

).1

4(.

08)

20

.18

(.1

5)

Nu

mb

erof

year

sm

arri

ed

10

–1

92

0.0

2(.

08

)2

0.1

0(.

07

).0

9(.

13

)2

0.1

0(.

10

)2

0.2

6*

(.1

0)

.12

(.1

0)

6–

9.1

0(.

08

)2

0.0

6(.

09

).3

0**

(.1

1)

20

.08

(.1

4)

20

.09

(.1

3)

.04

(.1

0)

2–

5.0

6(.

08

)2

0.0

0(.

09

).1

7(.

11

)2

0.0

26

(.1

6)

20

.07

(.1

7)

20

.42**

(.1

5)

0–

1.2

1**

(.0

7)

.01

(.0

8)

.43***

(.1

2)

.07

(.2

6)

.05

(.2

0)

.25

(.1

7)

Log

hou

seh

old

inco

me

20

.03

(.0

3)

.00

(.0

4)

20

.05

(.0

5)

.14*

(.0

4)

.13***

(.0

4)

.12*

(.0

6)

Yea

rsof

edu

cati

on2

0.0

2**

(.0

1)

20

.02*

(.0

1)

20

.03

(.0

2)

20

.00

(.0

1)

20

.01

(.0

1)

.00

(.0

1)

Fin

anci

alst

rain

20

.06**

(.0

2)

20

.02

(.0

2)

20

.10**

(.0

4)

20

.01

(.0

3)

.01

(.0

3)

20

.04

(.0

3)

Mat

eria

lh

ard

ship

20

.03

(.0

2)

20

.04

(.0

3)

20

.02

(.0

3)

.00

(.0

3)

20

.03

(.0

3)

.01

(.0

2)

Imm

igra

tion

stat

us

(yea

rs)

Les

sth

an1

0—

——

.16

(.1

9)

.33

(.2

0)

.18

(.1

6)

11

–2

0—

——

.25

(.1

5)

.39*

(.1

5)

.23

(.1

2)

21

orm

ore

——

—.2

1(.

13

).3

2*

(.1

6)

.19

(.1

4)

Cou

ntr

yof

orig

in

Span

ish

Car

ibb

ean

——

—2

0.1

3(.

14

).2

6(.

14)

20

.76***

(.1

9)

Hai

ti—

——

20

.07

(.0

7)

.10

(.1

1)

20

.33**

(.1

0)

Tri

nid

adan

dT

obag

o—

——

20

.18

(.1

1)

20

.20

(.1

3)

.06

(.1

2)

Oth

erE

ngl

ish

——

—2

0.0

4(.

07

)2

0.0

6(.

10)

.08

(.1

1)

Con

stan

t/in

terc

ept

4.3

0***

(.3

9)

4.0

1***

(.4

6)

4.3

1***

(.7

3)

2.2

5**

(.7

5)

1.9

9**

(.6

8)

2.4

2**

(.7

8)

R2

.11

4***

.05

5***

.10

2***

.11

1***

.19

2***

.30

0***

N9

28

42

45

04

52

82

60

26

8

Not

e.U

nst

and

ard

ized

coef

fici

ents

are

pre

sen

ted*p

,.0

5.**p

,.0

1.***

p,

.001.

N¼

962

Afr

ican

Am

eric

ans

and

N¼

560

Bla

ckC

arib

bea

ns.

a Seve

ralof

the

ind

epen

den

tva

riab

les

are

rep

rese

nte

dby

du

mm

yva

riab

les.

Gen

der

:m

ale

isth

eex

clu

ded

cate

gory

;n

um

ber

ofm

arri

ages

:1

isth

eex

clu

ded

cate

gory

;n

um

ber

ofye

ars

mar

ried

:20

or

more

year

sis

the

excl

ud

edca

tego

ry;

imm

igra

tion

stat

us:

bor

nin

the

Un

ited

Stat

esis

the

excl

ud

edca

tego

ry;

and

cou

ntr

yof

orig

in:

Jam

aica

isth

eex

clu

ded

cate

gory

.

Family Relations � Volume 57, Number 2 � April 2008248

Foner (2005) found that Jamaican women whomigrated to New York expressed a considerabledegree of satisfaction with the more egalitarian divi-sion of household responsibilities they encounteredin the United States. Jamaican husbands in theUnited States were more likely to provide assistancewith child care and basic household chores (e.g.,laundry), whereas in Jamaica, husbands did not per-form any household duties. Further, couples whomigrated from Jamaica spent more time together inleisurely activities after they arrived in the UnitedStates (Foner, 2005). This is attributed to a greateremphasis in the U.S. on the value of ‘‘family togeth-erness’’ as compared to Jamaica (Foner, 2005,p. 176). Collectively, the stronger emphasis on egali-tarian marital roles and behaviors as well as theexpressed value of spending more time together asa family may both serve to enhance marital satisfac-tion among Black Caribbean women.

Ethnicity and culture are important in shaping thenature of social relationships such as marriage, as wellas in shaping the beliefs, norms, and expectations ofthese relationships. Several researchers have suggestedthat, as a group, immigrants have particularly highlevels of religiosity and religious conservatism(Warner, 1998). In fact, religious expression isthought to be an important means of establishing anidentifiable and separate identity among Black Carib-bean immigrants (McAlister, 1998). Further, BlackCaribbean immigrants may also be more socially con-servative than both African Americans and Whites(Vickerman, 2001). Religious and social conservatismmay support more traditional and shared notions ofmarriage and marital role expectations that, in turn,translate into greater satisfaction with marriage.

Related to this, aspects of ethnic identity itselfmay be important in shaping a more traditional viewof marital expectations and roles among Black Car-ibbeans. For example, Black Caribbean women, inparticular, may adhere to a more traditional view ofmarriage, which emphasizes conventional genderand marital roles (e.g., division of labor, power). Incontrast, African American women may subscribe toless traditional views of marriage in which genderroles, marital roles, and marital expectations are lessclearly defined or open, or both, for negotiation intheir relationships. This may give rise to lower levelsof marital satisfaction, particularly for African Amer-ican women, and reflect the difficulty of reconcilingthe reality of their marital experiences with a diverserange of expectations and norms regarding the

marital relationship. Essentially, because the maritalrelationships of Black Caribbean women are charac-terized by more traditional views of marriage andshared goals and expectations, they are more similarto their male counterparts in their assessments ofmarital satisfaction. On the other hand, AfricanAmerican women may have expectations for mar-riage that are more firmly based on notions ofgender equality in marital roles and obligations.Consequently, they may find that the reality of mar-ried life fails to live up to idealized notions of maritalroles and norms, thus giving rise to lower levels(compared to Black Caribbean women and AfricanAmerican men) of marital satisfaction.

Study findings also indicated that, consistent withother research in this area (Kulik, 2002), the corre-lates of marital satisfaction also differed for men andwomen. Among African American men, educationwas negatively associated with marital satisfaction;however, education and marital satisfaction wereunrelated among African American women. Previousfindings regarding education and marital satisfactionare mixed, sometimes indicating a positive associationbetween education and marital quality (Lev-Wiesel& Al-Krenawi, 1999). Kulik reported a positive asso-ciation between education and marital satisfaction forhusbands but no significant association for wives. Inone study of African American couples, educationpredicted warmth observed between couples but didnot predict observed hostility between couples ormarital quality (Cutrona et al., 2003). Results fromthis study and previous research suggest that morework is needed to unravel the relationships betweeneducation and different aspects of marital quality andhow that may differ by gender and race.

Financial strain (i.e., difficulty paying bills, wor-rying about income) was negatively associated withmarital satisfaction among African Americanwomen. It is important to note that the effect sizefor this relationship was very small, 2.13, suggestingthe finding may have limited practical significance.In contrast, more behaviorally based reports ofhousehold income and material hardship were notsignificantly associated with marital satisfaction.These findings are consistent with previous work onthe detrimental effect of economic stress on maritalquality (e.g., Clark-Nicolas & Gray-Little, 1991;Conger et al., 1999). However, an entirely differentpicture emerges with respect to these relationshipsamong Caribbean Blacks. For both Black Caribbeanmen and women, household income was positively

Correlates of Marital Satisfaction � Bryant et al. 249

associated with marital satisfaction, whereas financialstrain and material hardship were not. The sole sig-nificance of household income as a predictor of mar-ital satisfaction may be rooted in a set of distinctivecultural values stressing achievement and success asa means of defining self and one’s social status. Spe-cifically, Vickerman (2001) noted that Jamaicanimmigrants hold strong cultural values that empha-size achievement as measured by educational, occu-pational, and material success. Self-perceptionssimilarly emphasize attributes such as being goal-oriented, success-driven, and hard-working (Vickerman,2001, p. 207). The attainment of tangible indicatorsof success (e.g., high incomes, home ownership) isgained through a strategy in which resources arepooled and multiple household members participatein the labor market. Given this orientation, objectivereports of household income may be the primaryway that Caribbean respondents measure their eco-nomic standing. Further, given the prominence ofobjective measures of success such as income indefining self, household income may be the criticaldeterminant of satisfaction with marriage. The pres-ent findings indicate that for Caribbean Blacks,household income is more important than percep-tions of financial strain or hardship in predictingmarital satisfaction. Collectively, these findings rein-force both the importance of including variousassessments of financial circumstances when examin-ing marital satisfaction and the need to furtherexplore the significance and meaning of these mea-sures for particular subgroups of the population.

Turning to findings for African American women,age was positively associated with marital satisfac-tion, indicating that older African American womenreported higher levels of marital satisfaction thantheir younger counterparts. This finding is consis-tent with the work of Umberson et al. (2005), whofound that older adults had higher levels of maritalsatisfaction. The unique social location of older Afri-can American women may help contextualize thisfinding. First, older married African Americanwomen have peers who are much more likely to bewidowed, divorced, or never married than married(Taylor et al., 1997). Second, married older AfricanAmerican women are one of the most religiousgroups in the United States, and religious individu-als, generally, tend to have higher levels of overallsatisfaction, as well as specifically marital satisfaction(Taylor, Chatters, & Levin, 2004). Number of yearsmarried was also associated with marital satisfaction

among African American women. Women who hadbeen married for less than 2 years and for 6 – 9 yearshad higher levels of satisfaction than women whohad been married for 21 or more years. The higherlevel of satisfaction for African American womenwho had been married for less than 2 years is clearlya honeymoon effect, whereas the higher level forthose married 6 – 9 years is less clear.

Number of years married was associated withmarital satisfaction among Black Caribbean men andwomen, although the patterns were different. AmongBlack Caribbean men, those married 11 – 20 yearshad lower levels of satisfaction than those married 21or more years. Among Black Caribbean women,those married 2 – 5 years had lower levels of satisfac-tion than those married 21 years or more. The lowerlevels of satisfaction among Black Caribbean womenwho have been married 2 – 5 years are consistentwith work indicating that this is a difficult ad-justment period for many couples and that this is aperiod in which many couples divorce (Shehan &Kammeyer, 1997). The relationship between thenumber of years married and the marital satisfactionamong Black Caribbeans is closer to the classicU-shaped pattern with individuals indicating higherlevels of satisfaction at the very beginning of the mar-riage and after a substantial number of years of mar-riage. It is important to note that this classic patternmay not be typical of more recent marital and rela-tionship patterns. Currently, many couples date orlive together for a number of years prior to marriage.For them, years of marriage, per se, underestimatesthe longevity of their relationship. Among AfricanAmericans, in particular, many couples enter mar-riages with children. These observations suggest that,for some couples, many of the major transitions andevents of married life (which are presumed to influ-ence marital satisfaction) are occurring prior to actualmarriage. As such, we are missing important oppor-tunities for understanding how a range of structural,couple and individual factors and events are associ-ated with qualitative assessments of long-term rela-tionships. Future research employing a life courseperspective and longitudinal data sets can more accu-rately examine the association between length of mar-riage/relationship and marital satisfaction.

These analyses used two variables that were spe-cific to the Black Caribbean population, immigra-tion status and country of origin. Among BlackCaribbean men, immigration status was significantlyassociated with marital satisfaction, such that men

Family Relations � Volume 57, Number 2 � April 2008250

who immigrated to the United States 11 – 20 yearsago and 21 or more years ago had higher levelsof marital satisfaction than Caribbean Black menborn in the United States. Among Black Caribbeanwomen, women from Jamaica had higher levels ofmarital satisfaction than those from Haiti and thosefrom Spanish-speaking Caribbean countries (i.e.,Dominican Republic, Cuba, Puerto Rico). Thesefindings are consistent with the previous ethno-graphic work of Foner (2005), who found that Jamai-can women had high levels of marital satisfactionbecause of the more egalitarian division of householdresponsibilities and the greater emphasis on spendingleisure time as a couple in the United States.

Implications and Conclusions

The institution of marriage has numerous psycholog-ical, social, and economic benefits for individuals,families, and children. Throughout the life course,the marital relationship is a critical resource for socialand emotional support and confers several financial,legal, and material advantages. For example, the like-lihood of living in poverty increases for mothers andchildren as a result of divorce and nonmarital child-bearing (Waite & Gallagher, 2000). Older AfricanAmericans who are married are less likely to live inpoverty, less likely to live alone, have larger informalsocial support networks, and are more likely to havea caregiver when ill (Tucker et al., 1993). On theother hand, poorly functioning marriages can nega-tively impact both the emotional and the physicalwell-being of couples and their children (Waite &Gallagher). Ongoing basic and policy research isneeded to examine marital relationships and the fac-tors associated with the health and longevity of thoserelationships. In addition, this research should takeseveral points into consideration.

First, it is important to clearly acknowledge thatrates of nonmarital unions and single-parent familiesare increasing and that currently a plurality of rela-tionship forms exists. The eagerness to uphold mar-riage should not be at the expense of our attentionto and efforts on behalf of single-parent families andnonmarital unions and families. To do so wouldonly further privilege marital relationships, discreditand stigmatize single-parent families and nonmaritalunions, and effectively relegate them to second-classstatus. Innovative research and public policy areneeded to buttress marriages, as well as address the

needs of a growing number of nonmarried adultsand nonmarital relationships and families. Second,an important part of our research and policy agendashould be to examine the meaning and status ofmarriage within diverse groups of the population tobetter understand the impact of factors such as race,culture, and socioeconomic status on marriage lon-gevity and dissolution. Finally, too little attention ispaid to the impact of broader contextual factors,institutions, and environments (e.g., neighborhood,community) on marriage. For the most part, ourcurrent research paradigms and policy responses tothe marriage crisis are largely concentrated on themarital dyad and on the psychological and social fac-tors inherent to the couple or factors that impingeon them as stressors or resources. However, marriagedoes not occur in a vacuum; the broader social envi-ronment (e.g., norms, expectations) makes a numberof contributions to the health of marriages. In addi-tion, it is important to consider how economic con-cerns and trends (e.g., wage structures, labor markettrends, rates of employment, unemployment, under-employment) inform the broader context of marriageand the extent to which these factors affect the maritalstrategies and decisions that individuals and couplesmake. Fortunately, recent research and policy havebegun to take economic considerations into account.

The reauthorization of Temporary Assistance forNeedy Families included $150 million for programsdesigned to foster the development and maintenanceof healthy marriages and to promote father involve-ment (U.S. Department of Health and Human Serv-ices, 2006). The Healthy Marriage Initiative wascreated in 2002, as a means of facilitating access tomarriage education services for couples (U.S. Depart-ment of Health and Human Services). In addition toincreasing the proportion of couples in healthy mar-riages, several of the other goals of the initiativeinclude: (a) enhancing public awareness about thevalue of healthy marriages, (b) increasing the propor-tion of people living in nonviolent homes, and (c)increasing the proportion of children living in homeswith two parents who are in healthy marriages. Spe-cifically, grants and funding are provided for servicessuch as premarital and marriage education, marriageenhancement training, parenting skills, financialmanagement, conflict resolution, and job/careeradvancement for couples who are married and forthose who intend to marry (e.g., engaged).

An important feature of the Healthy MarriageInitiative centers on developing financial literacy

Correlates of Marital Satisfaction � Bryant et al. 251

and management skills. Financial circumstances cer-tainly improve with marriage, but this does notmean that once married, couples are without finan-cial concerns. On the contrary, difficulties in thearea of finances are one of the key issues that gener-ate conflict in marriages. Stress generated as a resultof financial problems can lower marital satisfaction,which, in turn, can lead to marital dissolution.Given the prominence of financial concerns in manymarriages, financial counseling should be a requiredcomponent of all marital and premarital counselingprograms. Financial counseling could include topicssuch as budgeting, credit issues, debt management,and wealth generation. Further, because these issuesare salient for couples at any given time in the familylife cycle, counseling at critical points in the mar-riage (birth of children, launching of children fromhome, and retirement) may be helpful in addressingthe various financial demands experienced.

These analyses benefited from the availability ofa nationally representative sample of African Ameri-cans and Black Caribbeans (adjusting for complexsample design) and the use of several measures ofsocioeconomic status. The analyses and results are animportant complement to the small group of studieson marital satisfaction among African Americans andprovide one of the first examinations of marital satis-faction among Black Caribbeans. However, despitethese advantages, it is important to recognize that oneof the limitations of this sample is that it excludesindividuals who do not speak English. In this case,non–English-speaking Black Caribbeans (i.e., personswho speak Spanish, Haitian-French, or Creole dia-lects) are not included in the sample, and as a conse-quence, the study findings are not generalizable tothese groups. The analyses do not include measuresof work-family ideology, the division of householdlabor, or marital conflict, which are known to impactmarital satisfaction, and it uses a single-item measureof marital satisfaction. Nonetheless, this study pro-vides an unparalleled opportunity to begin importantexplorations into the nature of marital satisfactionwithin these two groups.

Marriage is a salient aspect of emotional andfinancial well-being. However, by itself, it is not suf-ficient to ensure the well-being of Black Americans.Basic structural issues such as poverty, lack of healthinsurance, and insecure employment do not becomeinsignificant once individuals marry. The enduringvulnerabilities of working poor families who areheaded by a married couple—irrespective of race

and ethnicity—make it clear that these basic struc-tural issues will not be resolved by marriage alone. Itwill take more than marital unions to improve—ina real, practical sense—the financial well-being ofindividuals living well below the poverty level. We,as a society, have a responsibility to those individualsthat should go beyond the rhetoric and the disingen-uous suggestion that marriage is a cure-all.

In conclusion, the present study’s findings dem-onstrated heterogeneity in the Black population formarital satisfaction, as well as gender and ethnicgroup differences in the variables associated withmarital satisfaction for African Americans and BlackCaribbeans. Future research should explore otherdimensions of marital quality among the various eth-nic groups within the Black American population,with specific attention to within-group differences.Future research should also explore the types, extent,and qualitative aspects (e.g., satisfaction, perceptions,expectations) of various types of intimate relation-ships (e.g., dating, cohabiting, long-term nonmaritalrelationships) among individuals in these groups.

References

Adelman, P. K., Chadwick, K., & Baerger, D. R. (1996). Marital quality ofBlack and White adults over the life course. Journal of Social and Per-sonal Relationships, 13, 361–384.

Barrow, C. (1996). Family in the Caribbean: Themes and perspectives. King-ston, Jamaica: Ian Randle.

Barrow, C. (2001). Contesting the rhetoric of �black family breakdown’from Barbados. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32, 419–441.

Bashi, V. F. (2007). Survival of the knitted: Immigrant social networks ina stratified world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Batson, C. D., Qian, Z., & Lichter, D. T. (2006). Interracial and intraracialpatterns of mate selection among America’s diverse Black populations.Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 658–672.

Blackman, L., Clayton, O., Glenn, N., Malone-Colon, L., & Roberts, A.(2005). The consequences of marriage for African Americans: A comprehen-sive literature review. New York: Institute for American Values.

Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., Flor, D., McCrary, C., Hastings, L., &Conyers, O. (1994). Financial resources, parent psychological function-ing, parent co-caregiving, and early adolescent competence in rural two-parent African-American families. Child Development, 65, 590–605.

Broman, C. (2002). Thinking of divorce, but staying married: The inter-play of race and marital satisfaction. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage,37(1/2), 151–162.

Bryant, C. M., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (2005). Marital relationships of Afri-can Americans: A contextual approach. In V. McLoyd, N. Hill, &K. A. Dodge (Eds.), African American family life: Ecological and culturaldiversity (pp. 111–134). New York: Guilford Press.

Cherlin, A. J. (2000). Toward a new home socioeconomics of unionformation. In L. Waite, C. Bachrach, M. Hindin, E. Thomson, & A.Thornton (Eds.), Ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation(pp. 126–144). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyer.

Clark-Nicolas, P., & Gray-Little, B. (1991). Effect of economic resourceson marital quality in Black married couples. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 53, 645–655.

Family Relations � Volume 57, Number 2 � April 2008252

Cohen, Y. A. (1956). Structure and function: Family organization andsocialization in a Jamaican community. American Anthropologist, 58,664–686.

Conger, R., Rueter, M., & Elder, G. (1999). Couple resilience to economicpressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 54–71.

Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D. W., Abraham, W. T., Gardner, K. T., Melby,J. N., Bryant, C., & Conger, R. D. (2003). Neighborhood context andfinancial strain as predictors of marital interaction and marital qualityin African American couples. Personal Relationships, 10, 389–409.

Dillaway, H., & Broman, C. (2001). Race, class, and gender differences inmarital satisfaction and divisions of household labor among dual-earnercouples: A case for intersectional analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 22,309–327.

Dodoo, F. N. (1997). Assimilation differences among Africans in America.Social Forces, 76, 527–546.

Edin, K. (2000). What do low-income single women say about marriage?Social Problems, 47, 112–133.

Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women putmotherhood before marriage. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Foner, N. (2001). Islands in the city: West Indian migration to New York.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Foner, N. (2005). In a new land: A comparative view of immigration. NewYork: New York University Press.

Hamon, R. (2003). It’s better in the Bahamas: From relationship initiationto marriage. In R. Hamon & B. Ingoldsby (Eds.), Mate selection acrosscultures (pp. 21–41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Harknett, K., & McLanahan, S. (2004). Racial and ethnic differences inmarriage after the birth of a child. American Sociological Review, 69,790–811.

Jackson, J. S., Torres, M., Caldwell, C. H., Neighbors, H. W., Nesse,R. M., Taylor, R. J., et al. (2004). The National Survey of AmericanLife: A study of racial, ethnic and cultural influences on mental disor-ders and mental health. International Journal of Methods in PsychiatricResearch, 13, 196–207.

Johnson, D. R. (1995). Assessing marital quality in longitudinal andlife course studies. In J. C. Conoley & E. B. Werth (Eds.), Familyassessment (pp. 155–202). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of MentalMeasurements.

Kalmijn, M. (1996). The socioeconomic assimilation of Caribbean Ameri-can Blacks. Social Forces, 74, 911–930.

Kulik, L. (2002). Marital equality and the quality of long-term marriage inlater life. Aging & Society, 22, 459–481.

Lev-Wiesel, R., & Al-Krenawi, A. (1999). Attitudes towards marriage andmarital quality: A comparison among Israeli Arabs differentiated by reli-gion. Family Relations, 48, 51–56.

Logan, J. R., & Deane, G. (2003). Black diversity in metropolitan America. FromLewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research,University of Albany. Retrieved July 5, 2007, from http://mumford.albany.edu/census/BlackWhite/BlackDiversityReport/blackdiversity01.htm

McAlister, E. (1998). The Madonna of 115th street revisited: Vodou andHaitian Catholicism in the age of transnationalism. In R. S. Warner &J. G. Wittner (Eds.), Gatherings in diaspora: Religious communities andthe new immigration (pp. 123–160). Philadelphia: Temple UniversityPress.

McLoyd, V. C., Cauce, A. M., Takeuchi, D., & Wilson, L. (2000). Maritalprocesses and parental socialization in families of color: A decade reviewof research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1070–1093.

Menaghan, E. G. (1991). Work experiences and family interaction pro-cesses: The long reach of the job? Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 419–444.

Model, S. (1995). West Indian prosperity: Fact or fiction? Social Problems,42, 535–553.

Model, S., & Fisher, G. (2002). Unions between Blacks and Whites: Eng-land and the US compared. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25, 728–754.

Rogers, S. J., & Amato, P. R. (2000). Have changes in gender relationsaffected marital quality? Social Forces, 79, 731–753.

Schoen, R., Rogers, S. J., & Amato, P. R. (2006). Wives’ employment andspouses’ marital happiness: Assessing the direction of influence usinglongitudinal couple data. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 506–528.

Shehan, C., & Kammeyer, K. (1997). Marriages and families: Reflections ofa gendered society. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Smith, R. T. (1988). Kinship and class in the West Indies: A genealogical studyof Jamaica and Guyana. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Spain, D., & Bianchi, S. M. (1996). Balancing act: Motherhood, mar-riage, and employment among American women. New York: Russell SageFoundation.

Staples, R. (1993). Black men/Black women: Changing roles in relation-ships. In A. Minas (Ed.), Gender basics: Feminist perspectives on womenand men (pp. 238–247). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Taylor, R. J., Chatters, L. M., & Levin, J. S. (2004). Religion in the lives ofAfrican Americans: Social, psychological and health perspectives. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Taylor, R. J., Tucker, M. B., Chatters, L. M., & Jayakody, R. (1997).Recent demographic trends in African American family structure. InR. J. Taylor, J. S. Jackson, & L. M. Chatters (Eds.), Family life in BlackAmerica (pp. 14–62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Timmer, S., & Veroff, J. (2000). Family ties and the discontinuity ofdivorce in Black and White newlywed couples. Journal of Marriage andthe Family, 62, 349–361.

Timmer, S. G., Veroff, J., & Hatchett, S. (1996). Family ties and maritalhappiness: The different marital experiences of Black and White newly-wed couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 335–359.

Trent, K., & South, S. J. (1992). Sociodemographic status, parental back-ground, childhood family structure, and attitudes toward family forma-tion. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 427–439.

Tucker, M. B. (2000). Marital values and expectations in context: Resultsfrom a 21 City Survey. In L. Waite, C. Bacharach, M. Hindin, E.Thomson, & A. Thornton (Eds.), The ties the bind: Perspectives on mar-riage and cohabitation (pp. 166–187). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Tucker, M. B., & Mitchell-Kernan, C. (Eds.). 1995). The decline in mar-riage among African Americans. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Tucker, M. B., Taylor, R. J., & Mitchell-Kernan, C. (1993). Marriageand romantic involvement among aged African Americans. Journal ofGerontology, 48, 123–132.

Umberson, D., Williams, K., Powers, D. A., Chen, M. D., & Campbell, A.M. (2005). As good as it gets? A life course perspective on marital qual-ity. Social Forces, 84, 493–511.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Number, timing, and duration of marriagesand divorces: Fall 1996 (Current population reports, P70-80). Washing-ton, DC. Retrieved July 3, 2007, from www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau News. (2005). Income. Retrieved July 3, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Welfare reformreauthorized: Healthy marriage, fatherhood initiative approved; workrequirement strengthened. Retrieved June 8, 2007, from http://dhhs.gov/news/press/2006press/20060208.html

Vickerman, M. (1999). Crosscurrents: West Indian immigrants and race.New York: Oxford University Press.

Vickerman, M. (2001). Jamaicans: Balancing race and ethnicity. InN. Foner (Ed.), New immigrants in New York (pp. 201–228). New York:Columbia University Press.

Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage: Why marriedpeople are happier, healthier, and better off economically. New York:Broadway Books.

Warner, R. S. (1998). Immigration and religious communities in theUnited States. In R. S. Warner & J. G. Wittner (Eds.), Gatherings indiaspora: Religious communities and the new immigration (pp. 3–34).Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Waters, M. C. (1994). Ethnic and racial identities of second-generationBlack immigrants in New York City. International Migration Review,28, 795–820.

Waters, M. (1999). Black identities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass,and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wu, Z., & Hart, R. (2002). The effects of marital and nonmarital uniontransition on health. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 420–432.

Correlates of Marital Satisfaction � Bryant et al. 253