Goffman Summary - EXCELLENT - detailed

EXAMPLES OF WILLIAM T. GRANT SCHOLARS PROPOSALS
The following abstracts and proposals, submitted by recent William T. Grant Scholars award
recipients, are intended to serve as examples only. We do not intend the research and mentoring
plans they contain to be replicated by future grantees. Rather, we hope that they will serve as
examples to prospective grantees of what strong proposals look like. Please note that in some
instances, the applicants proposed enhancements to their research and/or mentoring plans during
their interviews as finalists for the award.
All content contained in these proposals is the property of the individual author and can not be
distributed or cited in any form without the express written permission of the author.

Proposals included, in order:
Christina Gibson-Davis, Ph.D., Duke University
Marriage and Parenthood in the Lives of Adolescents and Young Adults
Nikki Jones, Ph.D., University of California, Santa Barbara
Pathways to Freedom: How Young People Create a Life after Incarceration
Nonie Lesaux, Ph.D., Harvard Graduate School of Education
Language Diversity and Literacy Development: Increasing Opportunities-to-Learn in Urban
Middle Schools
Dina Okamoto, Ph.D., University of California, Davis
The Role of Community-Based Organizations in the Lives of Immigrant and Second-Generation
Youth
Sandra Simpkins, Ph.D., Arizona State University
The Determinants of Mexican-Origin Adolescents' Participation in
Organized Activities: The Role of Culture, Settings and the Individual

Please note that since the submission of the below proposals, the Foundation has
made significant changes to the format of the five-year mentoring plans. Applicants
should carefully review the most recent Scholars brochure, which includes guidance
on the mentoring plan, before moving forward with their proposals.

Marriage and Parenthood in the
Lives of Adolescents and Young Adults
Submitted By Christina M. Gibson-Davis
Abstract
The past half century has seen dramatic changes in the American family. Marriage rates have
fallen nearly 50% since 1960 (Popenoe & Whitehead, 2005), and the mean age at first marriage
has increased by five years in the past three decades (Fields, 2004). The rate of non-marital
childbearing is currently 36% (Hamilton, Ventura, Martin, & Sutton, 2005), and 40% of all
children will spend some time in a cohabiting family (Acs & Nelson, 2003; Bumpass & Lu,
2000). Yet what is particularly notable about these changes in marriage and childbearing is how
they vary by ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Nearly two-thirds of Black and one-half of
Hispanic children are now born outside the context of a marriage (Hamilton et al., 2005).
Marriage rates have fallen for all individuals, but they have fallen farther for those with less
education (Goldstein & Kenney, 2001). Finally, while all groups of women are delaying
marriage, only more educated women are also delaying childbearing (Ellwood & Jencks, 2004).
These changes in household composition and configuration, and their variation by social class,
represent a challenge to traditional economic theories of family formation. As noted in a review
by Ellwood and Jencks (2004), economic models of the family, which were designed primarily
to explain marital behavior, cannot explain the rise of fertility outside of marriage, and why
many low-income adults appear to view marriage and parenthood as independent choices. A
relatively new sociocultural thesis of marriage and childbearing, however, suggests that lowincome couples delay marriage because it is associated with an exalted state of emotional and
economic preparedness that couples do not feel that they have achieved (Edin, 2000; Edin &
Kefalas, 2005; Gibson-Davis, Edin, & McLanahan, 2005; Smock, Manning, & Porter, 2005).
Activities that were once considered the sole province of marriage–child rearing, sexual
intimacy, sharing living quarters with an opposite sex partner–are now normative outside the
bounds of marriage. Freed from these more prosaic functions, marriage has become a symbolic
reward for those who have proved themselves worthy of its economic and emotional
requirements (Cherlin, 2004; Edin, Kefalas, & Reed, 2004; Furstenberg, 2001). Childbearing, on
the other hand, for women who face a very narrow set of education and employment choices,
acts as an affirming life choice, providing a vocation and a calling for those who otherwise feel
shut out from life’s opportunities (Anderson, 1991; Edin & Kefalas, 2005). Becoming a parent
therefore represents a domain where low-income women can exercise control and demonstrate
their worth by successfully raising a child (Edin & Kefalas, 2005).
There are limits to our knowledge regarding this thesis, however. The evidence for this
sociocultural conception of marriage and childbearing has come from small, qualitative studies
and therefore the generalizability of the hypothesis is unknown. Most studies have concentrated
on young adults who have already made the transition to marriage (or a marriage-like
relationship) and/or become parents themselves, and it is therefore unclear how unattached
adolescents and young adults, particularly those at the low end of the socioeconomic spectrum,
conceive of marriage and childbearing. As a result, there is limited knowledge regarding the
acquisition of marriage and fertility beliefs, and in particular how peers and school climate
All content is the property of the author, Christina Gibson-Davis, and should not be distributed or cited in
any form without the express written permission of the author.
1

influence those beliefs. Moreover, there is very little longitudinal evidence on how
socioeconomic status may moderate adolescents’ marriage and fertility attitudes. Finally, current
studies have not attempted to model the association between changes in personal economic
circumstances and the transition to marriage or childrearing. There is thus almost no evidence as
to whether beliefs about the economic prerequisites of marriage have actually increased over
time, and if these beliefs could account for the decline and delay in marriage.
This proposed research will examine this sociocultural conception of marriage and childbearing
by combining qualitative and quantitative analysis to understand the roles of marriage and
fertility in the lives of adolescents and young adults. The specific aims of this research are:
1. To identify how socioeconomic status influences adolescent views’ towards marriage and
fertility, and to understand how these views influence the transition to marriage and
parenthood.
2. To investigate how peer group attitudes and school climate influence adolescent norms
about marriage and fertility.
3. To analyze how low-income adolescents and young adults perceive family formation
decisions, and to explore the economic and relational expectations associated with
marriage and parenthood.
4. To evaluate the extent to which economic circumstances correlated with the transition to
first marriage and first-time parenthood for young adults have changed over time.
This project will draw upon both secondary data analysis and original data collection to achieve
these aims. The secondary data sources are the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979
(NLSY-79) and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). Both of
these data sets are large and nationally representative, and include detailed information about the
marriage and fertility attitudes and decisions of its participants. The Add Health dataset contains
information on the attitudes of a respondent’s peers, as well as providing contextual information
about the sociodemographics of the adolescent’s school. The NLSY-79 has also followed the
children born to its female participants, and many have now reached adolescence and young
adulthood. This multi-generational feature of the NLSY-79 provides a unique opportunity to
analyze how decisions regarding marriage and fertility have changed over time.
I will also conduct a series of in-depth interviews with low-income adolescents and young adults
to gain an understanding of how adolescents conceive of marriage and child bearing, and their
expectations and aspirations regarding those life transitions. These interviews will both
complement and inform the quantitative analyses, by providing rich narrative information that is
not available in either Add Health or NLSY-79. The interviews will ask about the ideal economic
and relational circumstances regarding the timing of marriage and child bearing, and how those
ideals are informed by the adolescent’s family and peer group.
Contributions to the Field
This proposal will make several contributions to the field. First, it will investigate the
applicability of a sociocultural explanation of marriage and fertility, under which low-income
couples are thought to have high economic prerequisites for marriage and place a high value on
childbearing, to adolescents and young adults. Adolescence is a critical time in life course
2

development, during which an individual’s identity begins to coalesce around a set of norms,
attitudes, and behaviors (Erikson, 1959, 1968), and should not be overlooked in studies of family
formation. Second, by studying adolescents who have not yet made the transition to marriage or
parenthood, this study will measure attitudes that have not been confounded by being a spouse or
a parent, and will be able to model how these attitudes affect subsequent family formation
decisions. Third, it will use both quantitative and qualitative data to analyze the processes by
which adolescents acquire marriage and fertility norms. Utilizing both methodologies will
provide a more comprehensive view of attitudes regarding marriage and fertility than is possible
when relying on one methodology alone. Fourth, this study will be the first to quantify the
economic conditions surrounding the transition to marriage and child bearing, and if those
conditions have become more stringent over time.
As outlined below, these specific aims will be accomplished by three separate projects, but they
are all interconnected and a few key variables will be evaluated in more than one project. For
example, the importance of peer groups will be analyzed in two projects, the in-depth interviews
and the Add Health data project, and the role that economics plays in shaping marriage decisions
will be addressed by the in-depth interviews and the NLSY analyses. This synergy will result in
papers that utilize both qualitative and quantitative data to address the research questions.
Additionally, it is hoped and expected that the results from one project will inform the other. As
an example, the Add Health analyses may reveal a previously unconsidered factor that is
particularly important in determining attitudes. I could then explore those factors more fully in
my qualitative interviews. The projects are expected to form an integrated whole, and provide
knowledge that would not be possible if these projects were undertaken as separate components.
A deeper understanding of marriage and fertility issues is critical for successful implementation
of policies designed to address the role of the two-parent family. Marriage promotion is currently
receiving a great deal of policy attention, not only through current federal efforts, such as the
Healthy Marriage Initiative, but also at the state level. The Center for Law and Social Policy has
estimated that all states within the past decade have implemented at least one policy or program
towards encouraging marriage or strengthening two-parent families (Ooms, Bouchet, & Parke,
2004). The effectiveness of marriage promotion programs, however, rests on a clear
understanding of the determinants of marriage, especially among low-income couples – an
understanding that is currently lacking (Fein, Burstein, Fein, & Lindberg, 2003; Lichter, Batson,
& Brown, 2004). Furthermore, analyzing marriage formation without a concomitant
understanding of fertility decisions is insufficient (Ellwood & Jencks, 2004), as both have direct
impacts on the well-being of families and children. Therefore, the most effective policies will
address both issues, and realize that each has a bearing on the other. Additionally, these policies
must explicitly address the behaviors and attitudes of adolescents, who are navigating the
transition between childhood and adulthood and are laying the psychological groundwork for
their future roles as parents and partners (Feldman & Elliott, 1990). Understanding how
adolescents view the costs and benefits of marriage and parenthood, and the dynamic forces that
shape those views, is thus necessary for successful development of family formation policies.
Personal Career Development
Becoming a W.T. Grant scholar will further my career development in several ways. First, it
builds on previous work I have done examining the economic expectations of marriage of lowAll content is the property of the author, Christina Gibson-Davis, and should not be distributed or cited in
3

income parents (Gibson-Davis, 2006; Gibson-Davis et al., 2005). This work was qualitative in
nature, and this project will allow me to apply those qualitative findings to a quantitative context.
Second, it will allow me to conduct my own ethnographic study. Although I have been fortunate
enough to work on two high quality qualitative projects (the New Hope Ethnographic and the
Time, Love, Cash, Caring, and Children studies), I have not yet conducted my own qualitative
research, and I am excited to apply the skills I have gained previously to my own project. Third,
it will enhance my disciplinary knowledge and my methodological acumen. By working closely
with colleagues from developmental psychology and sociology, I will deepen my understanding
of how these two fields inform household formation decisions. Additionally, I hope to apply
methods with which I currently have little experience, such as latent class analysis, which will
further enhance my ability to conduct quantitative research.
I have chosen two senior colleagues to serve as mentors, Drs. Kenneth Dodge and Linda Burton,
both of Duke University. Dr. Dodge is the William McDougall Professor of Public Policy
Studies, Professor of Psychology, and the Director of the Center for Child and Family Policy,
Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy. Dr. Burton is currently a Professor of Human
Development and Family Studies at Penn State University, but will be joining the Duke faculty
in sociology in the fall of 2006. Both Drs. Dodge and Burton have published extensively, as well
as serving as mentors to numerous graduate students and young scholars. As a young and
developing academic, I will benefit from their tutelage and accumulated knowledge. I also hope
to learn from their disciplinary perspectives, as I seek to bring insights from both developmental
psychology and sociology to achieve the project goals.
Translation to Policy and Practice
Ultimately, I desire to translate the findings from this project into formulations that can shape
and inform public policies. Resources available through Duke’s Center for Child and Family
Policy can facilitate this process, as the Center has the infrastructure and personnel necessary to
carry out a wide range of policy engagement and translational activities and initiatives. Examples
of these activities include: publication of policy briefs stemming from research generated by the
Center; Family Impact Seminars, a series of non-partisan, research-based seminars for state
legislators and executive branch staff on current topics of interest and concern; presentations to
public bodies; participation on policy committees at the legislative, executive branch and
community levels; and interaction with representatives from the media. The Center also sponsors
occasional academic seminars and workshops on topics of interest, as well as maintaining a web
page that offers publications and resources to the public at large.
Given these resources, I envision being able to publish a series of research briefs that will be
mailed to both local and state policy makes. Additionally, depending on the nature of my
findings and the salience of peer and school effects in determining marriage and fertility
attitudes, I can also make presentations before school administrators and other interested
education groups. Finally, given current efforts at the state level to promote marriage, I could
present my findings before state legislative staff. The Center has engaged in these types of
activities in other topic areas, and therefore it will be easy to rely on the established connections
the Center has to disseminate my findings to a larger audience.

4

Achievement of the aims laid in this proposal will increase our knowledge regarding the
marriage and fertility attitudes and behaviors of adolescents and young adults, and will provide
valuable information for both academics and policy makers alike. Additionally, this proposal will
contribute to my academic growth by stimulating investigation into the mechanisms that lie
behind marriage and fertility outcomes. By focusing on adolescents, this project will complement
earlier work I have done on adults, and provide a comprehensive view of family formation
decisions.

5

References
Acs, G., & Nelson, S. (2003). Changes in family structure and child well-being: Evidence from the 2002
National Survey of America's Families. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Anderson, E. (1991). Neighborhood effects on teenage pregnancy. In C. Jencks & P. E. Peterson (Eds.),
The urban underclass (pp. 375-398). New York: Brookings Institution Press.
Bumpass, L., & Lu, H.-H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children's family contexts
in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29-41.
Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family,
66, 848-861.
Edin, K. (2000). What do low-income single mothers say about marriage? Social Problems, 47, 112-134.
Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. J. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before
marriage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Edin, K., Kefalas, M. J., & Reed, J. M. (2004). A peek inside the black box: What marriage means for
poor unmarried parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1007-1014.
Ellwood, D., & Jencks, C. (2004). The spread of single-parent families in the United States since 1960. In
D. P. Moynihan, L. Rainwater & T. Smeeding (Eds.), The future of the family (pp. 25-65). New
York: Russell Sage.
Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, 1, 18-164.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York: Norton.
Fein, D. J., Burstein, N. R., Fein, G. G., & Lindberg, L. D. (2003). The determinants of marriage and
cohabitation among disadvantaged Americans: Research findings and needs. Cambridge, MA:
Abt Associates.
Feldman, S. S., & Elliott, G. R. (Eds.). (1990). At the threshold: The developing adolescent. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Fields, J. (2004). America's families and living arrangements: 2003. Current Population Reports, P20553. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.
Furstenberg, F. F. (2001). The fading dream: Prospects for marriage in the inner city. In E. Anderson and
D. Massey (Ed.), Problem of the century: Racial stratification in the U.S. (pp. 222-247). New
York: Russell Sage.
Gibson-Davis, C. M. (2006). Expectations and the economic bar to marriage among low income couples.
Unpublished manuscript, Durham, NC: Duke University.
Gibson-Davis, C. M., Edin, K., & McLanahan, S. (2005). High hopes but even higher expectations: The
retreat from marriage among low-income couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 13011312.
Goldstein, J. R., & Kenney, K. T. (2001). Marriage delayed or marriage forgone? New cohort forecasts of
first marriage for U.S. Women. American Sociological Review, 66, 506-519.
Hamilton, B. E., Ventura, S. J., Martin, J. A., & Sutton, P. D. (2005). Preliminary births for 2004.
Retrieved April 13, 2006, from
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/prelim_births/prelim_births04.htm
Lichter, D. T., Batson, C. D., & Brown, J. B. (2004). Welfare reform and marriage promotion: The
marital expectations and desires of single and cohabitating mothers. Social Service Review, 78, 224.
Ooms, T., Bouchet, S., & Parke, M. (2004). Beyond marriage licenses: Efforts in states to strengthen
marriage and two-parent families. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
Popenoe, D., & Whitehead, B. D. (2005). The state of our unions 2005: The social health of marriage in
america. National Marriage Project. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University.
Smock, P. J., Manning, W. D., & Porter, M. (2005). "Everything's there except money": How money
shapes decisions to marry among cohabitors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 680-696.

6

Marriage and Parenthood in the
Lives of Adolescents and Young Adults
Full Proposal
A. Specific Aims
The past half century has seen dramatic changes in the American family. Marriage rates have
fallen nearly 50% since 1960 (Popenoe & Whitehead, 2005), and the mean age at first marriage
has increased by five years in the past three decades (Fields, 2004). The rate of non-marital
childbearing is currently 36% (Hamilton, Ventura, Martin, & Sutton, 2005), and 40% of all
children will spend some time in a cohabiting family (Acs & Nelson, 2003; Bumpass & Lu,
2000). Yet what is particularly notable about these changes in marriage and childbearing is how
they vary by ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Nearly two-thirds of Black and one-half of
Hispanic children are now born outside the context of a marriage (Hamilton et al., 2005).
Marriage rates have fallen for all individuals, but they have fallen farther for those with less
education (Goldstein & Kenney, 2001). Finally, while all groups of women are delaying
marriage, only more educated women are also delaying childbearing (Ellwood & Jencks, 2004).
These changes in household composition and configuration, and their variation by social class,
represent a challenge to traditional economic theories of family formation. As noted in a review
by Ellwood and Jencks (2004), economic models of the family, which were designed primarily
to explain marital behavior, cannot explain the rise of fertility outside of marriage, and why
many low-income adults appear to view marriage and parenthood as independent choices. A
relatively new sociocultural thesis of marriage and childbearing, however, suggests that lowincome couples delay marriage because it is associated with an exalted state of emotional and
economic preparedness that couples do not feel that they have achieved (Edin, 2000; Edin &
Kefalas, 2005; Gibson-Davis, Edin, & McLanahan, 2005; Smock, Manning, & Porter, 2005).
Activities that were once considered the sole province of marriage – child rearing, sexual
intimacy, sharing living quarters with an opposite sex partner – are now normative outside the
bounds of marriage. Freed from these more prosaic functions, marriage has become a symbolic
reward for those who have proved themselves worthy of its economic and emotional
requirements (Cherlin, 2004; Edin, Kefalas, & Reed, 2004; Furstenberg, 2001). Childbearing, on
the other hand, for women who face a very narrow set of education and employment choices,
acts as an affirming life choice, providing a vocation and a calling for those who otherwise feel
shut out from life’s opportunities (Anderson, 1991; Edin & Kefalas, 2005). Becoming a parent
therefore represents a domain where low-income women can exercise control and demonstrate
their worth by successfully raising a child (Edin & Kefalas, 2005).
There are limits to our knowledge regarding this thesis, however. The evidence for this
sociocultural conception of marriage and childbearing has come from small, qualitative studies
and therefore the generalizability of the hypothesis is unknown. Most studies have concentrated
on young adults who have already made the transition to marriage (or a marriage-like
relationship) and/or become parents themselves, and it is therefore unclear how unattached
adolescents and young adults, particularly those at the low end of the socioeconomic spectrum,
conceive of marriage and childbearing. As a result, there is limited knowledge regarding the
acquisition of marriage and fertility beliefs, and in particular how peers and school climate
7

influence those beliefs. Moreover, there is very little longitudinal evidence on how
socioeconomic status may moderate adolescents’ marriage and fertility attitudes. Finally, current
studies have not attempted to model the association between changes in personal economic
circumstances and the transition to marriage or childrearing. There is thus almost no evidence as
to whether beliefs about the economic prerequisites of marriage have actually increased over
time, and if these beliefs could account for the decline and delay in marriage.
This proposed research will examine this sociocultural conception of marriage and childbearing
by combining qualitative and quantitative analysis to understand the roles of marriage and
fertility in the lives of adolescents and young adults. The specific aims of this research are:
parenthood.
3. To analyze how low-income adolescents and young adults perceive family formation
decisions, and to explore the economic and relational expectations associated with
4. To evaluate the extent to which economic circumstances correlated with the transition to
first marriage and first-time parenthood for young adults have changed over time.
This project will draw upon both secondary data analysis and original data collection to achieve
these aims. The secondary data sources are the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979
(NLSY-79) and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). Both of
these data sets are large and nationally representative, and include detailed information about the
marriage and fertility attitudes and decisions of its participants. The Add Health dataset contains
information on the attitudes of a respondent’s peers, as well as providing contextual information
about the sociodemographics of the adolescent’s school. The NLSY-79 has also followed the
children born to its female participants, and many have now reached adolescence and young
adulthood. This multi-generational feature of the NLSY-79 provides a unique opportunity to
analyze how decisions regarding marriage and fertility have changed over time.
I will also conduct a series of in-depth interviews with low-income adolescents and young adults
to gain an understanding of how adolescents conceive of marriage and child bearing, and their
expectations and aspirations regarding those life transitions. These interviews will both
complement and inform the quantitative analyses, by providing rich narrative information that is
not available in either Add Health or NLSY-79. The interviews will ask about the ideal economic
and relational circumstances regarding the timing of marriage and child bearing, and how those
ideals are informed by the adolescent’s family and peer group.
This proposal will make several contributions to the field. First, it will investigate the
applicability of a sociocultural explanation of marriage and fertility, under which low-income
couples are thought to have high economic prerequisites for marriage and place a high value on
childbearing, to adolescents and young adults. Adolescence is a critical time in life course
development, during which an individual’s identity begins to coalesce around a set of norms,
8

attitudes, and behaviors (Erikson, 1959, 1968), and should not be overlooked in studies of family
formation. Second, by studying adolescents who have not yet made the transition to marriage or
parenthood, this study will measure attitudes that have not been confounded by being a spouse or
a parent, and will be able to model how these attitudes affect subsequent family formation
decisions. Third, it will use both quantitative and qualitative data to analyze the processes by
which adolescents acquire marriage and fertility norms. Utilizing both types of methodologies
will provide a more comprehensive view of attitudes regarding marriage and fertility than is
possible when relying on one methodology alone. Fourth, this study will be the first to quantify
the economic conditions surrounding the transition to marriage and child bearing, and if those
conditions have become more stringent over time.
As outlined below, these specific aims will be accomplished by three separate projects, but they
are all interconnected and a few key variables will be evaluated in more than one project. For
example, the importance of peer groups will be analyzed in two projects, the in-depth interviews
and the Add Health data project, and the role that economics plays in shaping marriage decisions
will be addressed by the in-depth interviews and the NLSY analyses. This synergy will result in
papers that utilize both qualitative and quantitative data to address the research questions.
Additionally, it is hoped and expected that the results from one project will inform the other. As
an example, the Add Health analyses may reveal a previously unconsidered factor or interaction
between factors that is particularly important in determining attitudes. I could then explore those
factors more fully in my qualitative interviews. Hence, the projects are expected to form an
integrated whole, and provide knowledge that would not be possible if these projects were
undertaken as separate components.
A deeper understanding of marriage and fertility issues is critical for successful implementation
of policies designed to address the role of the two-parent family in American society. Marriage
promotion is currently receiving a great deal of public and policy attention, not only through
current federal efforts, such as the Healthy Marriage Initiative, but also at the state level. The
Center for Law and Social Policy has estimated that all states within the past decade have
implemented at least one policy or program towards encouraging marriage or strengthening twoparent families (Ooms, Bouchet, & Parke, 2004). The effectiveness of marriage promotion
programs, however, rests on a clear understanding of the determinants of marriage, especially
among low-income couples – an understanding that we currently lack (Fein, Burstein, Fein, &
Lindberg, 2003; Lichter, Batson, & Brown, 2004). Furthermore, analyzing marriage formation
without a concomitant understanding of fertility decisions is insufficient (Ellwood & Jencks,
2004), as both have direct impacts on the well-being of families and children. Therefore, the
most effective policies will address both issues, and realize that each has a bearing on the other.
Additionally, these policies must explicitly address the behaviors and attitudes of adolescents,
who are navigating the transition between childhood and adulthood and are laying the
psychological groundwork for their future roles as parents and partners (Feldman & Elliott,
1990). Understanding how adolescents view the costs and benefits of marriage and parenthood,
and the dynamic forces that shape those views, is thus necessary for successful development of
family formation policies.
B. Background and Significance
B.1 Theories of Family Formation
9

The most influential theories of family formation have focused on marriage behavior, and stem
from an economic view of marriage in which marriage is viewed as a contract that can be
mutually beneficial to both parties (Ellwood & Jencks, 2004). Three of these theories have
garnered the most attention: Becker’s (1981) work on specialization within marriage, Wilson’s
(Wilson, 1987; Wilson & Neckerman, 1986) “marriageable man” hypothesis, and
Oppenheimer’s (Oppenheimer, 2003; Oppenheimer, Kalmijn, & Lim, 1997) career maturity
thesis. As reviewed by Ellwood and Jencks (2004) and others (Cherlin, 2004; Edin & Kefalas,
2005), these theories by themselves cannot explain today’s complex patterns of marriage and
fertility. Perhaps the biggest limitation is that they were based on the presupposition that
marriage leads to childbearing, and were not designed to address fertility outside of marriage
(Ellwood & Jencks, 2004).
As an alternative to these traditional economic models, an emerging sociocultural view of
marriage and the family suggests that cultural attitudes toward the perceived economic
prerequisites for marriage, in combination with low economic resources, determine marriage and
fertility choices. A series of qualitative studies has found that respondents delayed marriage
because they believed their economic circumstances dictated that they were not ready for the
institution. These studies indicate that poor and lower middle class couples do not wish to marry
unless certain financial standards have been met (Edin & Kefalas, 2005; Edin et al., 2004; Smock
et al., 2005). For example, my own analyses of 75 couples participating in the Time, Love and
Cash Among Couples with Children (TLC3) project has shown that couples believe that
marriage requires steady incomes, significant assets, and the ability to pay for a middle-classtype wedding (Gibson-Davis et al., 2005). These beliefs remain remarkably durable, even if
couples make little to no progress in achieving their financial goals (Gibson-Davis, 2006b). Edin
and Kefalas (2005) interviewed 162 low-income mothers in Philadelphia, PA, and Camden, NJ,
and found that women viewed marriage (to a suitable man) as a marker of middle class life and
an indication of social respectability. To these poor women, marriage was a signal that they had
escaped their lower class origins. Thus, according to this evidence, marriage is no longer a
natural part of the life course, but rather a reward given to those who have met its exacting
standards (Cherlin, 2004).
The study by Edin and Kefalas also provides some indication of why low-income women are not
delaying child rearing: they look to parenthood to provide meaning to their lives, while
recognizing that the opportunity costs of having a child out of wedlock are low (Edin & Kefalas,
2005; Furstenberg, 2003). According to survey data, low-income adults, as compared to those of
a higher socioeconomic status, are more likely to believe that having a child is a fulfilling
experience, and less likely to express a preference for a life that does not include children (Sayer,
Wright, & Edin, 2004). The women that Edin and Kefalas interviewed confirmed this sentiment,
as they discussed how children provided meaning for their lives, and mothering was an active
demonstration of their worth. At the same time, the likelihood of these women being able to take
advantage of the economic opportunities available to non-poor women are slim, and evidence
suggests that women from disadvantaged backgrounds face bleak economic prospects, regardless
of the fertility choices made early in life (Furstenberg, 2003; Geronimus & Korenman, 1992;
Maynard, 1997). Therefore, this thesis suggests that poor women have little to lose and much to
gain by having a child.
10

This sociocultural explanation of marriage and childbearing has much to recommend it. It is
consistent with empirical studies that have found that male wages and earnings are important
determinants of marriage behavior (Brown, 2000; Carlson, McLanahan, & England, 2004;
Clarkberg, 1999; Oppenheimer, 2003; Sweeney, 2002; Xie, Raymo, Goyette, & Thornton, 2003),
and would also suggest that women with low wages do not marry because they feel they are not
themselves financially prepared for it (Clarkberg, 1999; Lichter, McLaughlin, Kephart, &
Landry, 1992; Sweeney, 2002). This theory can also plausibly explain the separation between
marriage and fertility decisions among those of low socioeconomic status. It argues that for lowincome women, marriage is viewed as an aspiration–a hope for the future–while childbearing
provides meaning and context to present-day life and is still an accepted (and expected) part of
young adulthood.
However, there are limitations to our knowledge of this theoretical construct. Quantitative
analyses correlating changes in economic circumstances with the timing of marriage and
childbearing have not yet been conducted. Outside the work of Edin and Kefalas (2005), no
study has investigated how well this theory explains both marriage and fertility decisions. It is
also true that the evidence for this view comes primarily from small samples, and it is unclear
whether this framework can be applied across the socioeconomic spectrum. A specific concern in
this regard is that studies that have concentrated on childbearing have examined low-income
women who have already become mothers (Anderson, 1991; Edin & Kefalas, 2005). It is
therefore unclear if their strong preference for motherhood reflects an actual class difference
between high and low income women, or instead reflects a post hoc explanation of the
importance of children.
This hypothesis has also not been explicitly applied to adolescents who have not yet made the
transition to marriage or parenthood. Theories of adolescent development, however, indicate that
the transitional stage between childhood and adulthood represents a critical time in the life
course and is instrumental in determining future decisions and actions (Harter, 1990). Erikson
(1959, 1968) posited that the chief task of adolescence is identity formation, in which the person
develops a cohesive, integrated sense of self that reconciles an adolescent’s personality, abilities,
and motivations into an incorporated whole. Achieving this identity formation makes continuity
of thought and action possible, as the adolescent begins to identify goals and aspirations that are
consistent with their personal identity. Arnett (2000, 2001) has argued that identity formation
becomes particularly important between the ages of 18 to 25, a period which Arnett defines as
“emerging adulthood”. It is during this time, Arnett hypothesizes, that the identity process begun
in adolescent is completed, as the emerging adult has expanded freedoms to explore
opportunities in their romantic relationships and careers, while still being somewhat sheltered
from adult responsibilities. The developmental literature would suggest, then, that it is important
to consider how those in their teens and early 20s are developing norms regarding marriage and
fertility if we wish to fully understand the family formation decisions they will make as adults.
B.2 Adolescents’ Views towards Marriage and Fertility
Marital and fertility attitudes are important to ascertain because they serve as predictors of future
actions. As explained by the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), an action, such as
marriage, is the direct result of intentions toward the action. Intentions, in turn, are determined
by personal attitudes and beliefs, prevailing social norms, and the perceived ease of performing
11

the action. Although not designed to explain marriage and childbearing decisions per se,
numerous studies have found that attitudes regarding marriage and fertility intentions serve as a
strong predictor of family formation decisions (McGinnis, 2003; Quesnel-Vallee & Morgan,
2003; Tucker, 2000; Waller & McLanahan, 2005).
Many of the empirical surveys of adolescents’ views towards family formation have
concentrated on attitudes towards premarital sex and out-of-wedlock childbearing and how these
views may explain racial and ethnic differences in teenage childbearing (Browning &
Burrington, 2006; Moore, Simms, & Betsey, 1986; St. John & Rowe, 1990; Trent, 1994b).
Generally, these studies find that African American adolescents, as opposed to Whites, are more
accepting of non-marital fertility, and report higher odds that they will experience a non-marital
birth (Browning & Burrington, 2006; Moore & Stief, 1991; Trent, 1994a; Trent & Crowder,
1997). Although fewer studies have examined Latino adolescents, those that have find that
Hispanics more closely resemble Whites than Blacks with regards to their family formation
expectations (Browning & Burrington, 2006; Crissey, 2005).
Less empirical work is available regarding adolescents views on marriage, but evidence suggests
that most teenagers hold favorable attitudes towards the institution (Axinn & Thornton, 2000;
Martin, Specter, Martin, & Martin, 2003; Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001). Black teenagers
are less sanguine about the likelihood of getting married, and report wanting to marry at older
ages than white adolescents (Crissey, 2005; Moore & Stief, 1991). East (1998), in her study of
574 teenage girls from southern California, found that in contrast to Whites and Hispanics,
African Americans wanted to marry after they had had their first child. These findings regarding
Black adolescents are consistent with survey data on African American adults, who are less
likely to say that they will marry while also being more tolerant of childrearing outside of
marriage (Bulcroft & Bulcroft, 1993; Pagnini & Morgan, 1996; Trent & South, 1992; Tucker &
Mitchell-Kernan, 1998; Waller & McLanahan, 2005).
The extent to which racial and ethnic attitudinal differences regarding fertility are confounded by
socioeconomic status remains a matter of debate (Baumer & South, 2001; Furstenberg, Morgan,
Moore, & Peterson, 1987; South & Baumer, 2000). For example, Browning and Burrington
(2006), using data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, found
no differences between adolescent Blacks and Whites in regards to fertility attitudes once family
socioeconomic status and levels of neighborhood disadvantage were taken into account. Other
research has shown that adolescents who reside in low-income households, live with only one
parent, and have parents with low educational attainment are more accepting of teenage
pregnancy and less optimistic about their chances of marriage (Crissey, 2005; East, 1998; Trent,
1994a; Trent & Crowder, 1997). Although the exact mechanism linking low socioeconomic
status to family formation attitudes is unknown, sociologists have theorized that the lack of
economic opportunity, coupled with the relative scarcity of stable, two parent married families,
have contributed to social norms that encourage early, out-of-wedlock childbearing (Browning &
Burrington, 2006; Edin & Kefalas, 2005; Wilson, 1996).
An important, but relatively unexplored, determinant of marriage and parenthood attitudes are
peer norms and school context. Peers can dictate the social acceptability of activities and
attitudes (Savin-Williams & Berndt, 1990), and serve as a part of a larger school climate in
12

which certain behaviors are viewed as normative (Entwisle, 1990). The socioeconomic
composition of the school may also inform the adolescent’s expectations about their future
opportunities (Harris, Duncan, & Boisjoly, 2002). Adolescents may be less likely to believe that
they will marry, for example, if their friends’ parents are unmarried, and they therefore have little
day-to-day interaction with many two-parent married families. To date, however, most studies on
peer norms have concentrated on their effects on an adolescent’s sexual activity (Furstenberg et
al., 1987; Kinsman, Romer, Furstenberg, & Schwarz, 1998; O'Donnell, Myint-U, O'Donnell, &
Stueve, 2003; South & Baumer, 2000) and have not investigated how peers influence attitudes
and behaviors towards marriage, or on parenthood more generally. Likewise, I am unaware of
any study that has tested how a school’s sociodemographic composition may influence
subsequent marriage and fertility decisions.
In sum, while numerous studies have assessed adolescent’s views on marriage and fertility,
several key issues remain unresolved. First, it is unclear how socioeconomic status influences
adolescent attitudes, above and beyond its correlation with race and ethnicity. Second, we know
little of the process by which adolescents acquire marriage and fertility norms, and the role that
peers and school climate have. Finally, it is worth noting that almost all of the studies referenced
above have studied high school students, while very few have concentrated on adolescents over
the age of 18. As a result, we know little of the attitudes of the “emerging adult” group.
B.3 Hypotheses
The above literature on family formation decisions and adolescent attitudes toward marriage and
fertility serves as the theoretical foundation for this proposal and lead to four major hypotheses
that will be tested.
First, it is hypothesized that low-income adolescents are less likely to believe that they will
marry, are more likely to anticipate an out-of-wedlock birth, and will put a higher value on
childbearing. These differences are likely to be driven by differences in economic opportunities,
rather than by differences in race and ethnicity. Therefore, if marriage and fertility attitudes are
affected by economic opportunities, then one would expect similar attitudes among Whites and
Blacks who reside in low-income households; likewise, both middle and upper class Blacks
should have different attitudes than lower-class Blacks. A corollary of this hypothesis is that
another proxy of economic opportunity, the socioeconomic conditions of the school, will also
inform attitudes towards marriage and fertility; namely, I expect that adolescents attending
schools with a higher percentage of single parent homes will view marriage as less likely while
being more accepting of out-of-wedlock childbirth.
Second, it is hypothesized that peer attitudes play an important role in determining individual
marriage and fertility norms. Although these attitudes are likely to be the product of many factors
(e.g., families, economic conditions, the media), given the special role that peers play in the
development of adolescents (Kimmel & Weiner, 1995), it is hypothesized that the behaviors and
expectations of friends will be particularly salient. There is, of course, an endogeneity problem in
studying peer effects, given adolescents’ tendency to choose friends who are similar to them in
attitudes and behaviors. However, longitudinal studies of adolescent friendships indicate that
peers do not simply reflect the adolescent’s values but can also dynamically influence and mold
those values (Savin-Williams & Berndt, 1990). Given the existing influence of the importance of
13

peers in determining sexual behavior (Furstenberg et al., 1987; O'Donnell et al., 2003), I
hypothesize that peers will likewise play an important role in determining marriage and
childbearing expectations.
Third, I hypothesize that low-income adolescents will believe that marriage and childbearing
result from separate decisions, and do not necessarily involve the same partner. The work of
Edin and Kefalas (2005) indicates that while women would like to marry and have children by
the same man, their economic expectations of marriage and the desire to not delay childbearing
means that in reality they often have children by and marry different people. The extent to which
these beliefs are normative, and that adolescents expect marriage and fidelity to be separate
decisions, is unclear, particularly for adolescent males. However, given the compelling
demographic trends put forth by Ellwood and Jencks (2004) showing the disconnect between
marriage and childbearing among lower class individuals, I hypothesize that most adolescents
will conceive of marriage and fertility as the result of two distinct processes.
Fourth, I hypothesize that the perceived economic prerequisites to marriage have increased over
time, and that given a comparable set of economic circumstances (and a feasible romantic
partner), that low-income young adults are less likely to marry than were their mothers. For
(intentional) childbearing, however, I would expect financial circumstances to have little effect
for either generation. These beliefs are based on the fact that the societal pressure to legitimize a
birth through marriage has largely evaporated, while the economic opportunities for low-skilled
workers have, if anything, gotten slightly worse. Therefore, there is no inherent need for couples
to marry (particularly given the acceptability of cohabitation), while childrearing remains an
attractive option for those at the bottom of the socioeconomic spectrum.
C. Previous Training and Role of Award
My training and experience will serve me well in conducting this project. A 2001 graduate of the
Human Development and Social Policy Program at Northwestern University, I have received
excellent mentoring and experienced opportunities throughout my career which have provided
me with the skills necessary to carry out the proposed research.
While in graduate school, I conducted both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the New Hope
project, an experimental, anti-poverty program conducted in Milwaukee, WI, that offered
treatment group members monetary and health care benefits in exchange for a guaranteed work
effort. On the quantitative side, I helped to analyze the program data for MDRC and the principal
investigators of the project. Qualitatively, I was one of the fieldworkers in the New Hope
Ethnographic Study, a qualitative study of 42 New Hope families. Participating in the New Hope
Ethnographic Study provided me with a wonderful opportunity to learn how to collect qualitative
data, and also demonstrated the rich contribution this method can make to our understanding of
family processes. I saw first-hand the value in applying both quantitative and qualitative methods
to the same research question, as the evaluation of New Hope was greatly enhanced by the
involvement of scholars who represented each of these methodologies. New Hope served as the
basis of my dissertation, where I relied on both quantitative and qualitative data to analyze how
program take-up affected the program’s effectiveness and impacts (Gibson, 2003; Gibson &
Weisner, 2002). Additionally, I co-authored an article with Greg Duncan based on our New
14

Hope experiences about the importance of using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies
(Gibson-Davis & Duncan, 2005).
Another seminal experience I had in graduate school was my work on the Time, Love, Cash,
Caring, and Children Project (TLC3). The TLC3 project involved in-depth interviews over a four
year period with 75 couples who had just had a child together. I served as one of the interviewers
on the first two rounds of the TLC3 project. Unlike New Hope, where we visited families on a
monthly basis and participated in their day-to-day activities, in TLC3 we used in-depth
interviews to talk to couples about their relationships and their experiences with their children.
The approaches used by New Hope and TLC3 each have their benefits and costs, but the
exposure to these two projects has greatly benefited me as a scholar.
My work with the TLC3 data has led to two articles that are directly relevant for this project.
With Kathy Edin and Sara McLanahan, I published an article on the perceived high economic
and relational prerequisites for marriage held by low-income couples, and how those
prerequisites deterred couples from walking down the aisle (Gibson-Davis et al., 2005). I have
also submitted for publication a follow-up article that used TLC3 data to demonstrate that these
economic expectations endure even if the couple remains relatively impoverished, but that
improving economic circumstances was correlated with the decision to marry (Gibson-Davis,
2006b). Writing these two articles has spurred my interest in marital behavior, and how the high
value placed on marriage may actually serve as an impediment to marriage for some couples.
After leaving graduate school, I spent one year as a post-doctoral fellow at the BendheimThoman Center for Research on Child Development at Princeton University under the
supervision of Sara McLanahan. I used my time at Princeton to continue my work on the TLC3
project, and to focus on the economic and emotional expectations that low-income couples have
for marriage. I also became interested in how relationship status may influence child and family
well-being, and began a series of papers with Jeanne Brooks-Gunn on breastfeeding. We have
since published a paper on how ethnicity and immigration determine breastfeeding behaviors
(Gibson-Davis & Brooks-Gunn, 2006b), and have also submitted for publication a paper that
examines how relationship status and the quality of the maternal-paternal relationship can
influence breastfeeding (Gibson-Davis & Brooks-Gunn, 2006a).
Since joining the tenure-track faculty in the Department of Public Policy in 2002, I have
continued to study issues that influence the well-being of low-income parents and children. In
addition to the TLC3 work, I have used data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing
study to investigate how relationship status influences parenting behaviors (Gibson-Davis,
2006a), and found that family structure had little effect on the parenting behaviors of mothers,
but contributed significantly to the variation in paternal parenting behaviors. I am also a coinvestigator for Duke’s Center for Geospatial Medicine, spearheaded by Dr. Marie Lynn
Miranda, of the Nicholas School for the Environment. The purpose of the Center is to investigate
multi-disciplinary ways to study child outcomes, by pooling expertise from faculty from multiple
departments, including genetics, medicine, statistics, public policy, and the school of the
environment. In my role as co-investigator, I have helped to institute a pilot study of primarily
low-income pregnant mothers, and I will use the pilot data to investigate how relationship
15

structure and support influence birth outcomes. We are also in the process of applying for
additional funds to expand our current sample from 250 to 900.
In sum, the work proposed here provides an extension of my work that has concentrated on the
causes and consequences of family formation decisions. First, as mentioned above, it builds on
previous work I have completed examining the economic expectations of marriage of lowincome parents (Gibson-Davis, 2006b; Gibson-Davis et al., 2005). This work was qualitative in
nature, and this project will allow me to apply those qualitative findings to a quantitative context.
Second, it will allow me to conduct my own ethnographic study. Although I have been fortunate
enough to work on two high-quality qualitative projects, I have not yet conducted my own
qualitative research, and I am excited to apply the skills I have gained previously to my own
project. Third, it will enhance my disciplinary knowledge and my methodological acumen. By
working closely with colleagues from developmental psychology and sociology, I will deepen
my understanding of how these two fields inform household formation decisions. Additionally, I
hope to apply methods with which I currently have little experience, such as latent class analysis,
which will further enhance my ability to conduct quantitative research.
D. Role of Mentors and Professional Development
I have chosen two senior colleagues as mentors: Kenneth Dodge and Linda Burton, both of Duke
University. Kenneth Dodge is the William McDougall Professor of Public Policy Studies;
Professor of Psychology, Social and Health Sciences; and Director, Center for Child and Family
Policy. Linda Burton, currently a professor at the Human Development and Family Studies
department in Penn State, will join the Duke faculty in sociology in the summer of 2006.
Dr. Dodge is a developmental psychologist who has published extensively in the field of child
aggression and delinquency. An expert on adolescent development, Dr. Dodge has also
effectively bridged the gap between science and policy by working with government and nonprofit organizations to translate his research findings into policy solutions. Dr. Dodge’s
experience with and knowledge of adolescent development will provide the necessary empirical
and theoretical perspectives to carry out these projects. To date, I have done little work with
adolescents, and my theoretical knowledge of their development is limited to one course taken in
graduate school. Therefore, I will rely on Dr. Dodge to gain a deeper understanding of adolescent
development, and how to use that knowledge to inform project construction and analyses. Dr.
Dodge has also worked with several of the quantitative models being proposed here, and I will
utilize his expertise in those areas as well. Additionally, as a skilled mentor with experience in
translating policy into practice, Dr. Dodge can advise me on how best to translate my results into
findings that are useful for a lay policy audience. This project will also represent the first time I
will work with Dr. Dodge, as we have not yet collaborated together. Dr. Dodge and I will meet
on a monthly basis to discuss my progress, and Dr. Dodge will also review and comment any
academic publications that result from this work.
Dr. Linda Burton is a sociologist who has conducted several ground-breaking qualitative studies
and is currently serving as a principal investigator (and chief ethnographer) on the “Welfare,
Children, and Families: A Three Study”. Over her career, Dr. Burton has conducted studies on
teenage fertility, marriage, and family formation, particularly as these issues effect the wellbeing of low-income families and families of color. I will rely on Dr. Burton to provide me with
16

the expertise to conduct the qualitative study. She will be an invaluable resource, as she will be
able to provide me with guidance on study design, interviewer recruitment, and question
development. Because of her previous experience in qualitative research, she will also be able to
support me in the on-going management of this project, as she will have knowledge as to how an
ethnographic study should be administered. Once the data have been collected, I will also consult
with Dr. Burton to interpret and analyze my results. During the second and third years (when this
portion of the proposal is meeting conducted), I will meet with Dr. Burton on a monthly basis; I
will also ask her to participate in any meetings I have with the interviewers.
Because latent transition analysis is a new method to me, I will employ the expertise of Dr.
Patrick Malone. Dr. Malone is a Research Scientist with the Center for Child and Family Policy
with extensive training in multileveling modeling, structural equation modeling, and longitudinal
methods. He currently serves as the chief statistician for several Center data projects. Dr. Malone
will not serve as a mentor per se, but will provide statistical assistance for these models.
E. Analyses
Specific Aims #1 and 2:
parenthood.
Research Questions
As described above, the time period covering the teens and early 20s represents an important
time in identity formation (Arnett, 2000, 2001; Erikson, 1959, 1968), when the teenager or
young adult is exploring new opportunities and experiences. To assess the marriage and fertility
beliefs of adolescents and emerging adults, the following research questions will be addressed:
1. Do marriage and fertility norms differ by socioeconomic status?
2. How important is the peer group and school climate in determining these attitudes?
3. What role do attitudes and expectations about marriage play in subsequent family
formation decisions?
4. How do these associations vary by gender and racial and ethnic sub-group?
By answering these questions, we will gain insight into the processes and factors that determine
how adolescents and emerging adults think about marriage and childbearing, and the importance
of those processes as they make the transition from teenager to adult. This study will go beyond
previous research efforts in this area by investigating attitudes towards marriage and fertility,
linking these attitudes to subsequent family formation decisions, and using a nationally
representative sample of both adolescents and emerging adults.
Data
Data for this part of the proposal will come from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health (Add Health), a nationally representative study of students in grades 7 through 12.
Originally enrolling a cohort of 20,745, the Add Health survey includes repeated measures on a
17

wide variety of school, family, and community life domains. Students were interviewed in 1995
(Wave I), 1996 (Wave II) and in 2001-2002 (Wave III); Wave IV surveys are currently being
conducted. By Wave III, the adolescents were 18 to 26 years old. The adolescent data are
supplemented by interviews conducted with the adolescent’s parents at Wave I, school
administrator data, 2,600 geographic measures collected at the state, county, tract, and block
group level, and the Add Health Picture Vocabulary Test (AHPVT) scores, an abbreviated
version of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, administered at Waves I and III.
Add Health used a stratified random design of all American high schools, where high schools
were stratified based on their characteristics (e.g., school size, urbanicity, or public versus
private, etc.). Additionally, Add Health oversampled select populations; relevant for this
proposal is that Add Health oversampled African American adolescents whose parents had at
least a college degree. I can thus compare this group with African Americans who reside in
lower class households, and thereby gain insight into the role that race and social class play in
determining marriage and fertility attitudes.
Add Health has two different data sets available: a public use data set that consists of one-half of
the core sample, and a restricted use data set that contains information on all sample members.
Duke’s Center for Child and Family Policy has obtained a copy of the restricted use data set, and
pending approval from the Internal Review Board, I will able to access this restricted data.
Measures
In all waves, the key dependent measures include questions that asked adolescents about their
expectations regarding marriage, pregnancy, and child bearing. Adolescents were asked about
the consequences of having a teenage birth, the likelihood the adolescent will marry, and the
importance of economics and education in determining marriage behavior. A full description of
these questions, including the waves when they were administered, is provided in Appendix
Table A.1. Because of the large number of items asked, I will use data reduction techniques to
decrease the number of dependent variables. For example, questions 3-8, which all deal with the
consequences of pregnancy, could be combined to create an index variable measuring
“pregnancy aversion”. Likewise, depending on their psychometric properties, items 12-14, which
also deal with marriage, could be combined into an index.
The key independent variables include household income (taken from the parent’s interview at
Wave 1 and then asked directly of the adolescent at Wave III), educational attainment, attitudes
of the peer group, and school climate. Peer group attitudes can be derived because the Add
Health data asked respondents to indicate who their friends were, and researchers can link these
identification numbers to estimate a peer group mean level response (peer groupings are not
available in Wave III). To construct the school climate variables, I will follow the strategy laid
out by Harris and colleagues (2002) and derive school-level measures based on the in-school
portion of the Add Health survey. These variables include a school-level average of those who
expect to be married by age 25 and to graduate from college, as well as the average level of
paternal educational attainment and the number of single-parent families.
As control variables, I will include race and ethnicity, sex, age, the marital status of adolescent’s
parents and/or guardians, family size, the adolescent’s religiosity, and grades in high school.
18

Models using Wave 3 attitudes (collected after the adolescents have graduated from high school)
will include employment and educational status, AHPVT scores, and marriage and parenting
status. Models using Wave 3 marriage and fertility choices will include the same covariates,
minus the controls for marriage and parenting status.
Methods and Analyses
I will use linear and logistic regression methods to test the associations among socioeconomic
status and marriage and fertility attitudes and behaviors. All models will adjust for the clustering
of observations at the school level.
I will first model the marriage and fertility attitudes of adolescents asked in Wave 1 as a function
of socioeconomic status and the control variables. In addition to treating household income as a
continuous variable, I will also divide it into a series of dummy variables to see how its influence
varies across its distribution. The next set of models will be similar, but will include the peer and
school-level variables. All of these analyses will be conducted separately by gender and racial
and ethnic sub-groups, with particular attention paid to those African American adolescents
whose parents have at least a college degree. A similar set of models will be used to model the
attitude variables collected in Wave III, although it will not be possible to measure either peer or
school effects. Consistent with my hypotheses, I expect that adolescents and young adults from
lower income homes and more disadvantaged schools (as (as measured by average parental
education and the number of single parent homes) will be less likely to believe that they will be
married by age 25, more likely to believe that a successful marriage requires money, but have
more favorable attitudes towards childbearing.
To assess the effects of adolescent marriage and fertility attitudes on the transition to marriage
and first births, I will regress Wave III marital and parenthood status on the Wave II marriage
and fertility attitudes. I will construct four dichotomous outcomes: having a child, being married,
being married and having a child, or having neither a spouse nor a child, and use multinomial
logit methods to model all four outcomes simultaneously. In addition to the control variables, I
will include in the models the measures of the respondent’s socioeconomic status as an
adolescent and the school and peer effect measures. I will replicate these models using Wave IV
marriage and parenthood outcomes when that data becomes available, and will include in those
models the Wave III attitude variables. The hypotheses guiding these models is that adolescent
marriage and fertility attitudes will be an important determinant of the transition to marriage and
parenthood, with those from more disadvantaged backgrounds being more likely to become
parents without also becoming married.
Specific Aim #3: To analyze how low-income adolescents and young adults perceive family
formation transitions, and to explore the economic and relational expectations associated with
Research Questions
To examine how norms about marriage and fertility operate in the lives of low-income
adolescents, I will conduct an ethnographic study of 50 low-income adolescents. Qualitative data
are uniquely well suited to this purpose, for, as Ambert et al. argue, “the aim of qualitative
research is to learn about how and why people behave, think, and make meaning as they do”
19

(Ambert, Adler, Adler, & Detzner, 1995, p. 880). The rich detail captured by qualitative data
provides insight and understanding that quantitative data, by its static nature, cannot reveal.
The specific research questions to be addressed are:
1. How do adolescents think about marriage and childbearing? What are their expectations
regarding each?
2. Do adolescents view marriage and fertility as the product of two separate decision
making processes?
3. What is the basis of these expectations? How are they informed by their peers, their
families, and their communities?
Answering these questions will provide important insight into how adolescents conceive of
marriage and fertility. Although qualitative studies of adolescent fertility and sexuality have been
conducted before (notable examples include Anderson, 1999, and Burton, 1990), the focus of
these interviews will not be on teenage pregnancy or sexuality per se, but rather on how
adolescents view the “ideal” life course with regards to both marriage and parenthood. The
interviews will also provide a comprehensive view of attitudes towards both marriage and
fertility in order to understand why these may be the product of independent processes.
Data
Adolescents for this sample will be recruited from 22 central Durham neighborhoods. Appendix
Figure A.2 outlines the geographic boundaries of these neighborhoods, and depicts the per capita
income by census tract. According to the 2000 Census, the poverty rate for the census tracts
covering these neighborhoods was 23%, per capita income was $15,773, and percentage of
households headed by a single female was 44%.
To enroll participants, I will largely rely on existing relationships that the Center for Child and
Family Policy has with community organizations to publicize my study and recruit adolescents
from those venues. These relationships include: 1) an ongoing neighborhood social capital
development experiment in six extremely poor Durham neighborhoods; 2) participation in the
Durham Collaborative, an organization of community leaders that seeks to reduce child abuse
among young mothers; and 3) numerous funded research studies in local schools. In addition, I
will advertise through flyers and pamphlets posted in after school organizations, Boys and Girls
clubs, and Laundromats. All of these efforts will be concentrated in specific neighborhoods in
central Durham.
The desired sample will be a group of 50 male and female adolescents, ages 16-19. The only
eligibility criterion will be that the adolescent does not have any children, and does not have a
live-in romantic partner. Income will not be used a selection criterion, as I will not know that
information until the end of the interview. Because I will be recruiting from low-resource
neighborhoods, though, I am confident that I can achieve a predominantly low to lower-middle
class sample. Because the small sample size will limit my ability to investigate racial and ethnic
differences, I will not screen for eligibility on that basis. However, based on the demographic
composition of the targeted neighborhoods, I expect to interview a sample that is approximately
20

one-third African American, one-third Latino, and one-third White. The sample will be screened
on the basis of gender, with participants evenly divided between male and female.
All interviews will be conducted one-on-one, as the goal of the interviews is to establish a
natural rapport with the respondent. Although interviews will cover a consistent set of
predetermined topics, interviewers will not read from a script, but will instead use a detailed
interview guide that outlines the interview domains. Interviews will take place in a location that
is comfortable to the adolescent. After each interview, interviewers will write detailed field
notes, describing the location of the interview, the characteristics of the adolescent, and the
interviewer’s general impressions of the interview. Thus, this naturalistic fieldwork tradition will
incorporate a number of methods, including forms of open-ended interviewing and observational
methods (Ambert et al., 1995; Belgrave, Zablotsky, & Guadagno, 2002).
Adolescents will be compensated for their time. Informed consent (from both adolescent and a
parent, if necessary) will be obtained with ethically sounds procedures that are outlined and
approved by Duke’s Internal Review Board. Participants will be free to end the interview at any
time, and may also refuse to answer any question that makes them uncomfortable.
Variables
An example of the interview guide is included as Appendix A.3. The goal of the interview is to
have a thorough understanding of how the adolescent thinks about marriage and child bearing,
their aspirations and expectations regarding family formation, and how those beliefs are
informed by their peers and their community. To accomplish this goal, the interview is divided
into five topic areas, or modules: the adolescent’s general family situation, marriage and child
bearing aspirations and expectations, their peers’ views of marriage and fertility, familial
expectations of marriage and fertility, and societal norms regarding marriage and fertility (an
additional demographic module concludes the interview). Most of the questions are open-ended,
allowing the adolescent to provide their own response. In a few instances, however, the
adolescent is asked to provide specific information. For example, the adolescent is asked to rate,
on a 1 to 10 scale, with 10 being most likely, how likely it is that they will get married. Because
close-ended questions are relatively few in number, though, it is not anticipated that they will
unduly disrupt the flow of the interview.
It is important to note that even though these questions are laid out in discrete modules, it is
expected that in the actual interview the questions will follow a natural progression. Therefore,
interviewers may not necessarily move from Module 1 to Module 2, etc., as they will be
encouraged to follow the natural thread of the conversation. The interviewers will be instructed,
however, that all topic areas of the interview must be covered, to ensure that consistent
information is available for all cases.
Because this interview guide has not been field tested, before beginning recruitment, I will
conduct three pilot interviews to test the adequacy of the interview guide. The interview guide
will be reworked based on the results of those pilot interviews, and questions will be modified,
dropped, or added as is necessary. In constructing the final interview guide, I will work closely
with Dr. Burton to ensure that the questions are capturing the intended data.
21

Although I will conduct many of the interviews myself, I will also recruit graduate students to
serve as interviewers from Duke University, Potential interviewers will not necessarily be
matched with respondents on the basis of income or race and ethnicity, but will be matched
based on gender. Graduate students will either receive course credit or monetary compensation.
Training for the interviews will be conducted by Dr. Burton and myself. There will be an
intensive two day training session where interviewers will be introduced to the project and the
methods used to conduct the interviews. After the initial training, the interviewing team will have
biweekly and monthly meetings to discuss the interviews and address any issues that arise. I will
also conduct individual meetings with the interviewers on an as-needed basis. All interviewers
will be approved by Duke’s Internal Review Board to conduct research on human subjects.
The interviews will be taped and transcribed, and following the methods as outlined by GibsonDavis et al. (2005), will be coded into categories using inductive coding techniques (Becker,
1997; Maxwell, 1996). In this process, a subset of interviews is randomly chosen, and an initial
list of categories is generated, drawn primarily from common themes that emerge in the data.
The list of categories is reviewed, and augmented if there are important, theoretical categories
that were not included in the initial list. Coding will then move on to the other interviews, and as
the process continues, the list of categories will be amended or redefined, and interviews will be
back-coded as needed. Coded data will then be stored in an electronic database, divided into
topical fields corresponding to the inductively-derived categories. The topical fields will contain
all blocks of transcript text relevant to a particular topic. Analyses will be based on these topical
fields, and through a close reading of the text, I will identify emergent themes that inform
adolescents’ views about marriage and fertility.
Although this study is limited because I am using a sample of convenience and relying on a
small sample, I hope that this project will serve as a pilot for a larger study to be conducted after
my funding from W.T. Grant has ended. This future study will involve a much larger sample
(allowing me to stratify on the basis of race, ethnicity, and gender), and will be longitudinal,
following adolescents as they make the transition for adolescents to young adulthood.
Specific Aim #4: To evaluate the extent to which economic circumstances correlated with the
transition to first marriage and first-time parenthood for young adults have changed over time.
Research Questions
One current theory regarding the timing of marriage and fertility rests on their sociocultural
value: low-income couples are eschewing marriage because of its perceived economic
requirements, while choosing to have children because childrearing provides meaning to those
who otherwise feel excluded from economic opportunities (Edin & Kefalas, 2005; Gibson-Davis
et al., 2005). To examine this theory, these research questions will be addressed:
1. How do the economic circumstances regarding the transition to marriage and
childbearing vary from one generation to the next?
2. Does a similar set of economic circumstances result in young adults making the transition
to marriage at a later age than their parents?
22

3. Have economic circumstances become less salient for the transition to parenthood than
for marriage?
4. How does income experienced as child and/or adolescent affect subsequent family
formation decisions?
Answering these questions will extend our current knowledge regarding the marriage and
parenthood behaviors of couples, and will provide an important test of the thesis that the
perceived economic prerequisites for marriage have grown over time. Additionally, by jointly
modeling both marriage and fertility decisions, these models will address a lack in the current
literature by providing a comprehensive analysis of family formation decisions.
Data
Data will come from the 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NSLY-79). The NLSY79 began as a nationally representative sample of more than 12,500 youths ages 14-21. Although
the survey was designed to collect information primarily on labor force participation and
investments in education and training, the NLSY-79 has also collected detailed information on
marriage decisions, childbearing and rearing, and changes in economic circumstances. The
cohort was surveyed annually from 1979 to 1994, and biannually from 1996 until now.
Beginning in 1994, children born to mothers of the NLSY-79 who were 15 years or older were
given their own biannual assessment (NLSY-79 assessments of a mother’s young children had
begun in 1986). Similar to the originally NLSY-79, the NLSY-Young Adult survey has collected
information on the young adult’s marriage and fertility decisions, as well as gathering
information on labor market participation and other economic data. Most children born to
NLSY-79 mothers were eligible to participate in the NLSY-Young Adult survey; exceptions
include children who did not typically reside with their mothers or who had not participated in
the previous rounds of the child survey. In 2004 (the latest year for which data is available),
5,024 young adults had participated in the survey, of which 2,077 (41%) were 22 and above.
However, by the time I begin work on this phase of the project, data from 2006 (and possible
2008) will be available, further augmenting the sample size and providing more young adults
who have transitioned into their 20s.
A limitation to using data from the NLSY-Young Adult survey is that young adults who are now
in their 20s are not representative of the entire NLSY-79 cohort, as they were born to relatively
young mothers who were more likely to be disadvantaged. For the purposes of this project, this
selection limitation may work to my advantage, as this grant is focused on the marriage and
fertility decisions of low-income adults. However, it also limits the comparisons that can be
made, for the generations I will be comparing will be disproportionately low socioeconomic
status. As the young adult cohort ages, they will become more representative of the larger
sample, but sampling bias may remain.
Measures
The primary dependent variables for this specific aim are when (if ever) the NLSY-79 mothers
and their young adult offspring made the transition to marriage and/or parenthood, and if so, at
what age the transition occurred.
23

The key independent variables are the mother’s and young adult’s economic circumstances, as
measured by total household income, earnings, money received from other sources (such as
welfare cash grants or unemployment insurance), and the earnings and income of a respondent’s
romantic live-in partner (this variable is available from 1990 onwards for the mothers, and for all
years for the young adults). The young adult’s economic circumstances will refer to their
earnings and income; because some young adults may still live with their parents, and therefore
have household incomes that far exceed their earnings, I will construct two economic measures.
The first will consist of household income, and the second will include only personal earnings
and other moneys (e.g., public assistance). When possible, I will combine the earnings of both
partners to derive a couple-level earnings variable.
The set of control variables will include race and ethnicity, employment (including number of
jobs worked and hours employed), educational attainment, household size, health, and religious
affiliation and practices.
The NLSY also collected information on the intentionality of a birth (this variable is collected
after the birth has occurred). Although all births will be included in the analyses, I will do subgroup analyses in which I only include births that were intended to ensure that I am not
confounding accidental with intentional pregnancies.
All of these measures are available for both mothers and their young adult offspring, and unless
otherwise noted, are available for all survey years. In most cases, measures were collected in a
similar way across years and across cohorts, making it relatively easy to construct comparable
measures for the mothers and the young adults.
To examine these questions, I will utilize a variant of latent transition analysis (Collins, Hyatt, &
Graham, 2000) to conduct what is, in essence, a bivariate survival analysis. Latent transition
analysis is an extension of latent class analysis (Lanza, Flaherty, & Collins, 2003). Latent class
analysis is a "mixture model," in which an observed sample is assumed to contain a mixture of
different populations (Collins & Flaherty, 2002). A conventional latent class analysis, akin to a
cluster analysis, identifies relatively homogeneous subgroups in the sample. A latent transition
analysis, then, models two latent class variables at different points in time, and can be used to
estimate the probabilities of moving from a given class (e.g., unmarried) at Time 1 to a given
class (married) at Time 2 (Lanza et al., 2003). In the current work, all of the class memberships
and transitions are known, based directly on observed family status variables. However, the
latent class modeling framework is useful for survival analysis, as many of the same principles of
transition modeling apply.
The first step will be to create a scale for time for the longitudinal analysis based on the calendar
ages (vs. study waves) of the mothers and offspring. Data on marriages, births, and economic
status will be scaled according to two-year age increments (e.g., 16-17, 18-19, 20-21) according
to the schedule of NLSY data collection. Marriage and birth data will be scored as in survival
analysis a 0 for each biennium in which the event has not yet occurred, and 1 for the biennium in
which it has first occurred and all subsequent variables. Analyses will be conducted in the latest
24

version of Mplus (currently version 4.0, Muthén & Muthén, 2006), using its facility for latent
class and latent transition analysis.
To test how the importance of economics in determining family transitions has changed over
time, a latent class variable will be defined for whether the first birth has occurred since the
previous measurement, and a separate variable for whether the first marriage has occurred in the
same timeframe. Each variable will be regressed on cohort (mother vs. offspring), current
economic status, and the previous status and recent change of the other control variables. If the
logistic regression coefficient predicting family change (either marriage or first birth) from
economic status differs by cohort, then this will provide evidence that the economic conditions
surrounding family change has changed from one generation to the next. For example, if the
coefficient predicting marriage from household income is smaller for the young adults than for
the mothers, then this will provide evidence that similar levels of income are less likely to induce
a marriage in young adults than in the mothers. Additionally, by comparing the appropriate
logistic regression coefficients, it is possible to test if economic conditions have a similar effect
on both marriage and birth outcomes, and if this varies by cohort. I would expect that the
economic expectations to marriage have increased over time, and that income is more salient in
dictating the transition to marriage than parenthood.
Ideally, I could also compare the effect that childhood household income has on the adult
transition to marriage and childbearing, as children who experience relative economic
deprivation may be less likely to marry as adults. However, this data is available only for the
young adults, but not the mothers. In separate analyses, however, I will model the effect of
household income experienced in their family of origin on the adolescent’s transition to marriage
and/or parenthood. In these analyses, I will measure income in several ways: as an average
across all childhood and adolescent years (e.g., birth to age 18), and as an average over discrete
time periods: e.g., ages 0 to 5, 6 to 10, 10 to 14, and 15 to 18.
F. Implications and Transitions to Policy and Practice
Ultimately, I desire to translate the findings from this project into formulations that can shape
and inform public policies. Resources available through Duke’s Center for Child and Family
Policy can facilitate this process, as the Center has the infrastructure and personnel necessary to
carry out a wide range of policy engagement and translational activities and initiatives. Examples
of these activities include: publication of policy briefs stemming from research generated by the
Center; Family Impact Seminars, a series of non-partisan, research-based seminars for state
legislators and executive branch staff on current topics of interest and concern; presentations to
public bodies; participation on policy committees at the legislative, executive branch and
community levels; and interaction with representatives from the media. The Center also sponsors
occasional academic seminars and workshops on topics of interest, as well as maintaining a web
page that offers publications and resources to the public at large.
Given these resources, I envision being able to publish a series of research briefs that will be
mailed to both local and state policy makes. Additionally, depending on the nature of my
findings and the salience of peer and school effects in determining marriage and fertility
attitudes, I can also make presentations before school administrators and other interested
education groups. Finally, given current efforts at the state level to promote marriage, I can
25

present my findings before state legislative staff. The Center has engaged in these types of
activities in other topic areas, and therefore it will be easy to rely on the established connections
the Center has to disseminate my findings to a larger audience.
G. Timeline and Expected Results
During the first year and a half of funding, I will conduct the Add Health analyses. I expect to
produce the following papers for presentation at academic conferences and to be submitted for
publication: “Socioeconomic Differences in Marriage and Fertility Attitudes of Adolescents”,
which will examine how attitudes towards marriage and fertility differ by household income and
the socioeconomic status of the school, and “The Influence of Marriage and Fertility Attitudes on
the Household Formation Decisions of Young Adults”, which will investigate how attitudes and
norms expressed during adolescent influence later marriage and childbearing decisions.
During the second year, I will also begin the process of getting IRB approval for the qualitative
study and begin to recruit interviewers and conduct pilot interviews. In the third year, the
interviews will begin in earnest. I anticipate that it will take several months to a year to do
recruitment and conduct the interviews, so I will spend the entire third year on this project.
However, I also hope to be able to revise papers that were submitted previously.
The fourth year will be spent analyzing the results of the qualitative data. This should result in
two papers: “The Importance of Friends: Peer Attitudes in Determining Marriage and Fertility
Norms”, in which I will combine data from the qualitative and the Add Health studies to
investigate the role that peers play in determining attitudes, and “The Expectations of Marriage
and Childbearing: The Views of Low-Income Adolescents” which will explore the aspirations
and expectations that adolescents have towards marriage and childbearing, and how the
expectations for marriage coincide with those of childbearing.
During the fifth year, I will begin work investigating how the economic conditions to marriage
have changed over time, utilizing NLSY data. This will result in the production of two papers,
“The Importance of Economics: An Intergenerational Comparison of the Transitions to
Marriage and Childbearing”, which will analyze how economic circumstances governing the
family formation decisions have changed from mothers to their children; and “Children Don’t
Need Money? Economic Circumstances and the Transition to Marriage and Parenthood”, which
will explore whether economic factors have become less salient in making the transition to
parenthood than to marriage.
H. Conclusion
Achievement of the aims laid in this proposal will increase our knowledge regarding the
marriage and fertility attitudes and behaviors of adolescents and young adults, and will provide
valuable information for both academics and policy makers alike. Additionally, this proposal will
contribute to my academic growth by stimulating investigation into the mechanisms that lie
behind marriage and fertility outcomes. By focusing on adolescents, this project will complement
earlier work I have done on adults, and provide a comprehensive view of family formation
decisions.

26

References
Acs, G., & Nelson, S. (2003). Changes in family structure and child well-being: Evidence from
the 2002 National Survey of America's Families. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ambert, A.-M., Adler, P. A., Adler, P., & Detzner, D. F. (1995). Understanding and evaluating
qualitative research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 879-893.
Anderson, E. (1991). Neighborhood effects on teenage pregnancy. In C. Jencks & P. E. Peterson
(Eds.), The urban underclass (pp. 375-398). New York: Brookings Institution Press.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through
the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.
Arnett, J. J. (2001). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Axinn, W. G., & Thornton, A. (2000). The transformation in the meaning of marriage. In L. J.
Waite (Ed.), The ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 147165). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Baumer, E. P., & South, S. J. (2001). Community effects on youth sexual activity. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 63, 540-554.
Becker, G. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Belgrave, L. L., Zablotsky, D., & Guadagno, M. A. (2002). How do we talk to each other?
Writing qualitative research for quantitative readers. Qualitative Health Research 12,
1427-1439
Brown, S. L. (2000). Union transitions among cohabitors: The significance of relationship
assessments and expectations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 833-846.
Browning, C. R., & Burrington, L. A. (2006). Racial differences in sexual and fertility attitudes
in an urban setting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 236-251.
Bulcroft, R. A., & Bulcroft, K. A. (1993). Race differences in attitudinal and motivational factors
in the decision to marry. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 338-355.

27

Goffman Summary - EXCELLENT - detailed

Goffman Summary - EXCELLENT - detailed

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (19)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Goffman Summary - EXCELLENT - detailed

Semelhante a Goffman Summary - EXCELLENT - detailed (20)

Último

Último (20)

Goffman Summary - EXCELLENT - detailed