Journalof Studieson Alcohol,Vol. 52, No.
5, 1991
Marriage and Alcohol Use: A Longitudinal Study of
"Maturing Out"*
CAROL MILLER-TUTZAUER, M.A., KENNETH E. LEONARD, PH.D., MICHAEL WINDLE, PH.D.
ResearchInstituteon Alcoholism,1021Main Street,Buffalo,New York14203
ABSTRACT.Earlierfindingshavesuggested thatmarriagemaypro-
vide protectionfrom a variety of physicaland psychological
prob-
lems. In particular,numerousstudieshave demonstrated a consistent
relationshipbetweenmarital statusand alcohol use. To examinethis
relationshipmorecarefully,we performeda longitudinalanalysisof
datacollectedon the YouthCohortof the NationalLongitudinalSur-
veyof LaborMarketExperience.
Fourmaritaltransition
groupswere
constructed
baseduponmaritalstatusacrossa 3-yearperiod:stably
ARRIAGE,
although by numerousologicalstudiesalsodemonstratea lower risk for alcohol-
accompanied
stressesand challenges,nevertheless providespro-
tection from a host of physicaland psychological prob-
lems. In general,married individualsexhibitlower rates
of depression and fewerdepressive symptoms than indi-
vidualswho are single,divorcedor widowed(Vernonand
Roberts, 1982; Weissman,1987; Weissmanand Myers,
1980).Similarly,suicideratesare particularlylow among
married men and women(Dublin, 1963). The married in-
dividual,maleor female,is at a considerably lowerrisk
of beingthe victimof a varietyof crimes,includingrob-
bery, rape and assault(Flanaganand McGarrell, 1986).
Traffic and other accidentsresultin more injuriesamong
singleanddivorcedthanmarriedpersons(Collins, 1985).
Indeed,mortalityoverallappearsto be lowerfor married
thanfor singleindividuals(Kotler and Wingard, 1989).
The protectionprovidedby marriageextendsto alcohol
problemsand alcoholismas well. For example, Bacon
(1944)observed thatmenarrestedfor inebrietyweremore
likely to be single,separated
or divorced,andlesslikely
to be marriedandlivingtogetherthanwouldbe expected
on the basisof age-adjustedpopulationfigures.Epidemi-
Received:July 17, 1989.Revision:January23, 1990.
*The writingof thisarticlewassupportedin part by NationalInstitute
onAlcoholAbuseandAlcoholism grantAA0786(MichaelWindie,princi-
pal investigator).
An earlierversionof this studywas presented at the
annualmeetingof the Research Societyon Alcoholism,Symposium on
Alcoholin the Marriageand Family Context,BeaverCreek, Colorado,
June 12, 1989.
Requestsfor reprintsshouldbe sentto KennethE. Leonard,Research
Institute on Alcoholism, 1021 Main Street, Buffalo, N.Y. 14203.
434
single,marriedyear 3, marriedyear2 andstablymarried.Resultsof
repeated-measures MANCOVAS performed onalcohol-use patternsacross
time as a functionof marital-transition groupsupportedthe notion
that individualsbeginmoderating their alcoholconsumption prior to
their actualtransitionto marriedstatuswith the trendcontinuinginto
the first year of marriage. The data further suggestedthat this de-
cline in alcoholusestabilizesshortlythereafter,apparentlywithin 1
year after marriage.(J. Stud.Alcohol52: 434-440, 1991)
ism and alcoholproblemsamongmarried individualsrel-
ative to thosewho never married and thoseseparatedor
divorced(Bailey et al., 1965; Clark and Midanik, 1982;
Cosper and Mozersky, 1968). Even among alcoholics,
married alcoholicsappearto experienceless severeprob-
lems than alcoholicsof some other marital status(Bromet
and Moos, 1976), suggestingthe possibilitythat marriage
may serveto protectthe alcoholicfrom the consequences
of excessivedrinking. Marital statusrelates to alcohol
consumptionin much the sameway. Married men and
womenconsumeconsiderablylessalcoholon the average
thansingle,separatedor divorcedpersons(Clark and Mi-
danik, 1982).
Althoughmarital statusis related to levels of alcohol
consumption andalcoholproblems,the processes underly-
ing thisrelationshiphavenot beenclearlydelineated.Sin-
gle, married, separatedand divorced individualsdiffer
fromoneanotherin numerous ways,not simplyin marital
status.For example, separatedand divorcedpersonsare
generallyolder than married personswho, in turn, are
older than those never married (Mattessich and Hill,
1987). Other sociodemographicfactorslinked to marital
status--factorssuch as ethnicity,social statusand the
presenceor absenceof children--complicatethe picture
further.Becauseprior investigationstreatedmaritalstatus
as a controlvariableratherthan the principalfocus,these
studieshave not assessedthe relationshipbetween mar-
riage and alcoholuse controllingfor relevantsociodemo-
graphicfactors.
The more difficult, thoughmore interesting,issuein-
volves determiningwhether marital status and alcohol
 MILLER-TUTZAUER,
consumptionare causallylinked. That is, doesa changein
marital statuslead to an alterationof alcoholconsumption
patterns?Focusingon the transitionfrom single to mar-
ried, Zucker (1979), for example,hypothesizedthat this
transition, with its attendant values, serves to moderate
alcohol consumption.Conversely,certain alcohol con-
sumptionpatternsmay facilitatechangesin marital status.
More specifically, with regard to the single-to-married
transition,extremelyhigh levels of alcoholconsumption
may delay entry into marriage. In the absenceof longitu-
dinal data, however,it has not been possibleto determine
which processproducesthe differencesin drinking pat-
terns among individualsof different marital statuses.In
fact, both processes may play importantroles. The pur-
poseof the presentstudyis to examinethe relationship
betweenalcoholconsumptionand marital statusfrom a
longitudinalperspective.This study,a secondaryanalysis
of data collectedfor the NationalLongitudinalSurveyof
Youth, focusesprimarily on the transitioninto marriage.
The transitionout of marriageand its relationshipto alco-
hol consumption will be the topicof a futurepaper.
Method
The data for this study were derived from the Youth
Cohort of the National LongitudinalSurvey (NLSY) of
Labor Market Experience conducted by the National
Opinion ResearchCorporationfor the U.S. Departments
of Labor and Defense.This annualsurveybeganin 1979
when respondents were betweenthe agesof 14 and 21.
The samplingstrategyfor the NLSY is describedin detail
elsewhere(e.g., Bock and Moore, 1986). Briefly, the
samplefor the NLSY was selectedthrougha multistage
stratifiedareaprobabilitysampleof households andgroup
living quarters,with oversamplingof Hispanics,blacks
and non-Hispanic/non-black economicallydisadvantaged
individuals.Interviewerscontactedhouseholds, screening
eachto determinethe compositionof the household,spe-
cifically whetherany individualswithin the specifiedage
range residedin the household.The samplingstrategy
identified 12,686 prospectivecivilian participants.Over
the years1979 to 1985, the retentionratesfor this sample
haveremainedrelativelystableat approximately 95%.
Data for the presentstudyspanthe years 1983, 1984
and 1985, the only yearsfor which alcoholconsumption
data were available.Of thosepersonsreportingmarital
statusfor all 3 years (n = 10,594), we constructedfour
groupson the basisof marital statusduringthose3 years:
(1) personswho reportedbeing singleat all three mea-
surementoccasions(designatedSSS, n = 5,908); (2)
thosewho reportedbeing single in 1983 and 1984, but
who reporteda transitionto married statusin 1985 (SSM,
n = 605); (3) thosesinglein 1983, but who reporteda
transitionto married statusin 1984 (SMM, n = 606); and
(4) thosewho reportedbeing married as of 1983 (MMM,
LEONARD AND WINDLE 435
n = 3,475). The last group(MMM) consistednot only of
personswho married initially in 1983 but includedlonger
term marriagesas well. Additionally,we consideredany
instances
in whichpersonsreporteda transitionfrom sin-
gle to separatedor divorcedas reflective of a changeto
married statusduring the previousyear. The numberof
persons reporting such a transition varied somewhat
acrossthe four marital groups:The SSS groupcontained
no suchcases(0%) sinceby definition all individualsre-
ported havingnever married acrossall 3 years.The SSM
groupcontaineda small numberof persons(8%) who re-
portedbeing singlein 1983 and 1984 and reportedbeing
separatedor divorcedin 1985. The SMM groupcontained
someindividuals(6%) who reportedbeing singlein 1983
and separatedor divorcedin 1984. In the MMM group,
17% of respondents reportedbeingseparatedor divorced
at the first measurementoccasion(1983). The larger pro-
portionfor the MMM groupprobablyreflectsthe fact that
one must first be married to be separated/divorced,that
the group containspersonsmarried for any number of
years prior to 1983 and thereforepersonsin the group
have simplyhad more opportunityto separateor divorce
than personsin the SMM and SSM groups.The sample
also includedpersonswho remarried, althoughestimation
of the proportionwithin eachgroupwas not possible.In
short, once a personreporteda transitionto married sta-
tus, we consideredthat person"married" for all subse-
quent yearseven thoughthat personmay have separated,
divorcedor remarried. We decidedto includeseparated/
divorcedpersonsin the sampleto avoidbiasingthe anal-
ysesbecausethosewith alcoholproblemsmay havebeen
morelikely to havemarriagesendingin separationor di-
vorce. Had we not included such individuals, means on
the alcohol variables for married individuals could have
been artifically deflated comparedto single individuals.
Thus, we followeda conservativestrategyin our assign-
ment of individualsto marital categories,while simulta-
neouslyminimizingthe numberof suchcategories.
In eachof the 3 years, informationwas collectedcon-
cerning the respondent'salcohol consumptionin the 30
daysprior to the interview.Specifically,the interviewer
askedthe respondent the numberof days s/he drank one
drink, two drinks, three drinks, four drinks, five drinks,
and six or more drinks.First, we computedan average
daily quantity(ADQ) by multiplyingthe numberof days
by the numberof drinksspecifiedin eachquestion,sum-
ming acrossthe six differentquantityquestionsand divid-
ing by 30. Second, we assessedfrequencyof heavy
drinking(FHD) by summingthe numberof timesduring
the past monththe respondentadmitteddrinking five or
more drinksper day. In 1984 and 1985 a numberof dif-
ferent questionsconcerningproblems associatedwith
drinking were also asked of the respondents. We con-
structedtwo scalesbasedupon thesequestions:alcohol-
relatedproblems(composed of job-relatedand aggression
436 JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL / SEPTEMBER 1991

TABLE 1. Comparisonof drinkingratesfor NLSY and Clark and Midanik (1982) samples,in percenta
MALES
Abstainers 1-60 drinks/mo. > 60 drinks/mo.

Age 1983 1984 1985 Avg. 1979 1983 1984 1985 Avg. 1979 1983 1984 1985 Avg. 1979
group NLSY NLSY NLSY NLSY C&M NLSY NLSY NLSY NLSY C&M NLSY NLSY NLSY NLSY C&M

18-20 25 24 23 24 5 65 64 63 64 79 10 13 14 12 17
21-25 20 18 22 20 10 69 69 68 69 54 11 12 11 11 36
26-28 b 21 19 21 20 20 67 69 71 69 50 13 11 8 11 29
FEMALES

18-20 40 34 36 37 31 57 63 62 61 64 3 3 2 2 5
21-25 35 33 36 35 15 62 64 62 63 78 3 3 2 3 6
26-28 t' 44 41 38 41 30 56 58 60 58 65 0 2 2 1 5

aNLSYdenotes
theyouthcohortof theNationalLongitudinal
Surveyof LaborMarketExperience;
C&M denotes
the Clark andMidanik1979trendstudy
(1982).
t'rhe agegroupfor theClarkandMidanik(1982)studywasactually26-30, ratherthan26-28. TheNLSY did notcontaindatafor anyindividuals
beyondthe age of 28 years.

problems)and dependency
symptoms.Internalreliabilities in each study.NLSY used a 30-day window, whereas
(Cronbach's or) for the scales were .65 and .63 for Clark andMidanik requested
average30odayconsumption
alcohol-related
problemsand .66 and .67 for dependency (numberof drinks)duringthe pastyear.
symptoms in 1984and 1985,respectively. Ratherthanusing
a 30-daywindowas wasdonefor the alcoholconsumption Results

measures,the alcohol-related problemsand dependency Analytic strategy

symptomsmeasuresreflect alcohol-relateddifficultiesex-
periencedin the entire year prior to the survey.
In addition to the marital status and alcohol measures,
sociodemographic informationwas collected on gender,
age, race (white, black, Hispanic,Native Americanand
other), religion(Catholic,Protestant,Jewish,other,none)
and educationalstatus. Preliminary examinationof the
data indicated that insufficient numbers of Native Ameri-
cansand Jewishrespondents existedin the samplefor an-
alytic purposes.We thereforeincludedNative Americans
in the "other" racial categoryand classifiedJewishre-
spondentsas "other" religiousaffiliation.
Becausethe NLSY samplecontainsonly personsaged
14-21in 1979 (and thereforeaged 18-25 in 1983, 19-26 in
1984 and 20-27 in 1985), comparisonto other general
populationsamplesis difficult. Any alcohol-relatedmea-
suresare likely to be higher amongparticipantsin the
NLSY thanthosefrom samplesof the populationat large
sincedrinkingratesare particularlyhigh amongthis age
group. However,Clark and Midanik (1982) reportedgen-
eral patternsof consumptionbrokendown by age group
andtheir figurescan serveas a pointof comparison. Ta-
ble 1 outlines drinking characteristicsbroken down by
genderfor the NLSY samplein contrastto the 1979find-
ings of Clark and Midanik (1982). As can be seen, NLSY
estimatesof the proportionof abstainersare higher for
both men and womenacrossall age groupswith the ex-
ception of men aged 26-28 years. We should caution,
however,that direct comparisonof the figuresfor the two
samplesis risky sincedifferentquestionswere usedin the
two studiesto elicit responses
regardingalcoholconsump-
tion. One such difference involves the time windows used
To control for relevant sociodemographic factors, we
first determined which factors to include in the analy-
sis. After convertingrace and religion into a seriesof
dummy variables,we obtaineda correlationmatrix for
the potentialcovariates(age, education,race-white,race-
black,race-,Hispanic,religion-Protestant,
religion-Catholic,
religion-none)and alcoholmeasures(ADQ, FHD, prob-
lems,dependency) for eachyearavailable.We eliminated
from consideration any covariatesthat correlatedlessthan
ß10 with at leastone of the alcoholmeasures,leavingonly
education and race to be included as covariates in the
largeranalysis.Thus, we excludeda covariatefrom con-
siderationonly if it correlatedlessthan . 10 with every
dependentvariablefor every year.
After isolatingrelevantcovariates,a repeated-measures
MANCOrAwas performedwith marital group(SSS, SSM,
SMM and MMM) and gender(male, female) as between-
subjectsfactors, time (1983, 1984 and 1985) as the
within-subjects factorand educationand race as constant
covariates.Althoughthe underlyingdistributions of the
dependentvariableswere highly non-normal,we chose
not to transformthe data due to the extremelylarge size
of our sampleßProvidedthat the numberof observations
is sufficientlylarge,evenseverenon-normality in the dis-
tributionsof the variablesdoes not distort the resulting
probabilitylevelsand confidenceintervalssincethe test
statisticsare relativelyrobustto violationsof normality
assumptions undersuchcircumstances (Bock, 1985).The
largesamplesizein the presentstudy(in excessof 10,000
cases)thereforeallowedus to retain an interpretablemet-
ric for the drinking variables.We conductedseparate
 MILLER-TUTZAUER,
analysesfor each set of repeateddependentmeasures:
ADQ (averagedaily quantity) for 1983, 1984 and 1985;
FHD (days/month frequentheavydrinking)for 1983, 1984
and 1985; alcohol-relatedproblemsfor 1984 and 1985;
and dependency symptomsfor 1984 and 1985. The ratio-
nale behindconductingseparateanalysesfor each set of
measuresrelatesto the fact that problemand dependency
data were availablefor only 2 of the 3 yearswhile ADQ
and FHD data were availablefor 3 years.In addition,sep-
arate analysesallowed us to examinemean consumption
patternsin contrastto patternsof problembehaviorslike
frequencyof heavydrinking,alcohol-related problemsand
dependencysymptoms.It could be argued, for instance,
that transitionalchangesoccuronly amongsocialdrinkers
while not amongheavier,problemdrinkers.Finally, com-
parisonsof the abstinencerates (proportion of persons
reporting abstinenceacrossall three measurementocca-
sions)revealeddifferencesamongmarital groups:16% of
those in the SSS and SSM groups,20% of those in the
SMM groupand 23% of the MMM groupqualifiedas ab-
stainers.Therefore, we examinedtrendsfor all drinking
variablesboth includingand excludingabstainers.Exclu-
sionof abstainershad no effecton any analysesotherthan
to increasemean levels of drinking-relatedbehaviorsan
equivalent amount across all measurementoccasions.In
other words, exclusionof abstainersdid not changethe
pattern of means but only shifted the means upwards.
Thus, althoughwe performedeach analysistwice, all re-
ported findingsreflect analysesperformedincludingab-
stainers. However, aside from an occasionalmarginal
differencein pairwisecomparisons, no resultsdifferedbe-
tween analyses.
Alcoholconsumption
The repeatedmeasuresanalysisfor absolutedrinking
quantity (ADQ) showed a significant Time x Marital
Group interaction (Wilks' lambda = .9965, 6 df,
p < .001) as well as significantmain effects for time
(Wilks' lambda = .9993, 2 df, p < .05), for gender
(F = 464.91, 1/10,507 df, p < .001) and for marital
group(F = 44.55, 3/10,507 df, p < .001). There was no
significantMarital Group x Gendernor Time x Marital
Group x Gender interaction, men and women showing
the samepatterns of consumptionover time thoughthe
women consistentlydrank less on averagethan did the
men. Means for each marital group at each measurement
occasionare reportedin Figure 1. Based upon post hoc
comparisons (or = .05), the SSS and the SSM groupsdid
not differ significantlyat Time 1, nor did the SSM and
the SMM groupsdiffer from one another.The stablymar-
ried group (MMM) was significantlydifferent from all
other groupsat Time 1. At Time 2, the SSS group dif-
fered significantlyfrom the SSM group.The SSM group,
in turn, differed significantlyfrom the SMM and MMM
LEONARD AND WINDLE 437
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Groups
- SSS
0.2
• SSM
• SMM
• MMM
0.1 i i i
1983 1984 1985
Year
FIGURE1. Absolutedrinkingquantityby marital group
groups.Finally, at Time 3, only the SSS groupdiffered
from the others.We performedadditionalpost hoc com-
parisonsof the changeswithin marital groupsfrom Time
I to Time 2 and from Time 2 to Time 3. The Time 1 to
Time 2 changein absolutedrinkingquantityfor both the
SSM and SMM groupsdifferedsignificantlyfrom the sta-
bly single and stably married groupsbut did not differ
from eachother.Both transitionalgroupshad lower levels
of consumptionthan in the precedingyear, whereasthe
nontransitionalgroupsexhibiteda reversetrend. The Time
2 to Time 3 contrastswere not as conclusive,showing
only that the changepatternsof the stably married and
the stablysingledifferedfrom one another.However,the
changefor the SSM groupwas very close(p = .0518) to
being significantlydifferentfrom the MMM group.
The analysisof frequencyof heavy drinking among
maritalgroupsparalleledthe resultsfor absolutedrinking
quantity.Again, there was a significantTime x Marital
Group interaction (Wilks' lambda= .9968, 2 df,
p < .001), a significant main effect for time (Wilks'
lambda--- .9987, 6 df, p < .01), a significantmain effect
for gender(F = 320.56, 1/10,508 df, p < .001) and a
significantmain effect for marital group (F-- 30.78 3/
10,508 df, p < .001). Again, we found no differencesin
patternsfor men andwomen.Patternsof changeandpost
hoccomparisons werevirtuallyidenticalto thoseobtained
for the ADQ measure,with one minorexception:At Time
2, the frequencyof heavydrinkingfor the SSM groupdid
438 JOURNAL OF STUDIES
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05 Groups
- SSS
• SSM
• SMM
--
0.00 I I
1983 1984
Year
FIGURF2. Proportionof heavydrinkersby maritalgroup
not differ significantlyfrom that of the SMM groupeven
thoughthe SSM groupdid differ from the MMM group.
Given the high correlationwe obtainedbetweenabsolute
drinking quantity and frequency of heavy drinking
(r = .88 for 1983, .89 for 1984 and .85 for 1985;
p < .001 in eachcase), sucha correspondence in patterns
for the two variable setsis not surprising.However,one
could argue that changesmay have occurredonly among
thosewith the least problematicdrinking behaviors,such
that heavier drinkerssimply continuedtheir premarital
consumptionpatterns. To examine this possibility, we
computedthe proportionof personswithin each marital
group who drank heavily at least four times per month.
The resultingproportions,adjustedfor covariates,are dis-
playedin Figure2. We foundthe patternfor proportionof
heavy drinkersidenticalto the patternfor meandaysof
heavy drinking. Post hoc comparisonsof the Time 1-
Time 2 changesshowedresultssimilar to thosefor abso-
lute drinking quantity. Both transitionalgroupsdiffered
significantlyfrom the nontransitionalgroupsand did not
differ from each other. From Time 2 to Time 3, however,
the SSM groupdid not differ significantlyfrom the stably
singlegroupbut did differ from boththe SMM andMMM
groups.As can be seenin Figure2, the SSM groupexhib-
ited a decreasein frequencyof heavydrinkingwhile the
SMM and stably married groupsshowedlittle change
from Time 2 to Time 3.
ON ALCOHOL / SEPTEMBER 1991
TABLE2. Percentageof respondents
with alcohol problems,depen-
dencysymptoms
a
Problems Dependency
Group 1984 1985 1984 1985
SSS 24 19 26 23
SSM 17 15 18 17
SMM 18 14 20 17
MMM 14 11 14 13
aPercentages
reflectpersonsreportingone or more problemsor symp-
toms and are adjustedfor the covariateseducationand race.
Alcohol-relatedproblemsand dependency
Results for alcohol-relatedproblemsand dependency
are not as clear as thosefor the alcoholconsumptionmea-
sures,due in part to the lack of data for the year 1983.
However,we found a significantmain effect of marital
group both for alcohol-relatedproblems (F = 25.22, 3/
10,229 df, p < .001) and for dependencysymptoms
(F = 24.86, 3/10,486 df, p < .001). Similarly, we ob-
MMM
tained a significantmain effect of gender for alcohol-
relatedproblems(F = 112.25, 3/10,229 df, p < .001) as
1985 well as for dependency symptoms(F = 163.78, 3/10,486
df, p < .001). The effect for time was also significant,
both in the case of alcohol-relatedproblems(F = 28.11
1/10,233 df, p < .001) and dependency symptoms
(F = 7.79, 1/10,490 df, p < .01). The Time x Marital
Group interactionwas not significant.Posthoc compari-
sonsfor meanproblemsshowedthat at both Time 2 and
Time 3 the SSS groupdiffered significantlyfrom all oth-
ers, the SMM and SSM groupsdid not differ from one
anotherand the SSM groupdid not differ from the MMM
group.Similarresultswere obtainedfor meandependency
symptoms,exceptthat the mean for the SSM group was
higher(thoughnot significantlyso) than that of the SMM
group at Time 3. The SSM groupdid not differ signifi-
cantlyfrom the MMM groupat eitherTime 2 or Time 3
eventhoughit differedfrom the SMM groupon bothmea-
surementoccasions.We also examinedthe proportionof
personswithin each marital group who reportedexperi-
encingone or more instancesof the behavior,and found
the samepatternsas thoseexhibitedby the mean mea-
sures.Table 2 outlinesthe proportionsafter adjustingfor
covariates.
Discussion
Due to the availabilityof alcoholconsumption
data for
3 yearsratherthanjust 2, the absolutedrinkingquantity
and frequencyof heavy drinking measuresprovidedthe
clearestinformationon the impact of a changein marital
statuson alcohol-relatedbehaviors.As shownin Figure2,
the stably single groups(SSS) exhibiteda consistently
higher level of alcoholconsumptionthan did the stably
 MILLER-TUTZAUER,
married group (MMM). Of more interest, however,are
the transitiongroups(SSM and SMM). The SSS and SSM
groupswere not significantlydifferentat Time 1 (2 years
prior to the transition to married status for the SSM
group), whereasthe SMM group exhibitedsignificantly
lower alcohol consumptionthan the stably single group
during the first measurement occasion(1 year prior to
marriage), suggesting that there is a diminutionof drink-
ing prior to marriage. The pattern of means at Time 2
corroborated this. At Time 2, the alcoholconsumption of
the SSM group(in the year prior to marriage)was signif-
icantly lower than that of the SSS group. This declinein
drinking continuedinto the first year of marriage, as
shownby the fact that groupsmaking the transitionto
marriagestill differed significantlyfrom longer married
groupsbut did not differ significantlyfrom othermarried
groupsin the year in which the other groupsindicated
they married. Similarly,the resultsfor frequencyof heavy
drinking demonstratedthat personspreparingfor mar-
riage, though still single, drank heavily less often than
stably single individuals1 year prior thoughnot 2 years
prior to marriage.As canbe seenin Figure2, thisprocess
occurredprior to marriage and continuedinto the first
year of marriage,but did not appearto continuebeyond
that time. Thus, by the time a personenteredher/hissec-
ond year of marriage,s/hewasunlikelyto differ from per-
sons married for longer periods of time. Finally, the
similar results obtained for both mean days of heavy
drinkingand proportionof heavy drinkersare important
and demonstratethat the changesextend beyond light
drinkersaloneto thosemorelikely to exhibitmoreserious
drinkingbehaviors.In otherwords,the reductionin drink-
ing appearsto spanthe full spectrumof drinkers--from
light to heavy--and does not reflect a change among
lighter drinkersalone.
Becausethe NLSY survey does not contain data on
problemsand dependency in 1983, changescouldonly be
assessedfor the 1984-85 time interval. As such, we could
not makethe sameprecisecomparisons as we madewith
absolutedrinkingquantityand frequencyof heavydrink-
ing. Although we found a significanteffect for marital
group, examination of the means and proportions for
alcohol-relatedproblemsanddependency symptoms led to
no clear interpretation.Surprisingly,the meanconsump-
tion of the SMM group, married at Time 2, was higher
thanthat of the SSM group,who were singleat Time 2.
However,the meansof thesetwo transitiongroups,SSM
and SMM, failedto differ significantlyat eithermeasure-
ment occasion. Therefore, conclusionscould not be drawn
baseduponthe relativerankingof their means.Evencon-
vertingthe measures to proportions of personsexperienc-
ing one or more problemsand proportionsof persons
exhibitingone or moredependency symptomsdid not re-
sult in the emergenceof any clear patterns.The inconclu-
LEONARD AND WINDLE 439
sivenessof the problemand dependencydata is probably
attributable to the fact that measurements were available
for only 2 of 3 years and the fact that base rates were
particularly low given the sporadicnature of drinking
problemsand dependency.
Althoughdata concerningalcohol-relatedproblemsand
dependencysymptomsfailed to show any consistentpat-
tern, results relating to alcohol consumptionvariables
providedevidenceof a periodof valuechangestartingap-
proximately 1 year prior to marriage and continuing
throughthe first year of marriage. After that time, indi-
vidualsmarriedfor only 1 year did not differ from those
marriedlonger.This reductionin drinkingmay occuras a
result of transitionto a new role--one that requiresbe-
haviorsdifferentfrom thoseassociatedwith being single,
behaviorsnecessary to hold downa steadyjob, maintaina
relationshipand so forth. Becauseextensiveuseof alco-
hol is inconsistentwith this new role and may actually
interferewith the demandsimplicit in that role, individu-
als may find themselvesreducingtheir overall consump-
tion and may insulatethemselvesfrom the opportunities
for heavydrinkingthat were so prevalentprior to the de-
cisionto marry. Sincethe drop in alcoholuseoccurredin
the year prior to marriageratherthan in the marital tran-
sition year itself, we believethat the changesmore likely
reflect a role transitionphase prior to marriage rather
than the constraints that marriageitself can placeon op-
portunitiesto drink. Unfortunatelyinformationon such
lifestyle characteristicsas presenceand number of chil-
dren was not consistentlycollectedacrossall yearsfor all
participants.However,any suchdifferenceswould likely
producetheir effect in the yearssubsequent to the transi-
tion to marital statusrather than prior. The patternsof
changewe obtainedare limited to the year prior to mar-
riage and do not appearto continuelong after marriage,
with all marital groupsexhibiting similar consumption
patternsin the yearsfollowingthe marital transitionyear.
Although the results point to a definite change in
alcohol-related behaviors associated with the transition to
married status, we believe it is also important to note
what the resultsdo not suggest.In particular,with respect
to the alcohol measuresexaminedin our study,the find-
ingsdo not suggestpreexistingdifferences betweenthose
who marry and thosewho do not. Only in the stagespre-
paratoryto marriagedid individualsbeginto differ from
others who continuedbeing single. Individuals 2 years
prior to marriagedid not differ from thosein the stably
singlegroup. Whether the changesare part of a single
processor representdistinctphasesin the marital transi-
tion is lessclear. It is possiblethat the changesprior to
marriageare part of the whole processof courtshipand
marriage,wherebychangesbeginduringthe early stages
of courtshipand culminateat the time a personmarries.
On the other hand, the changesmay representdiscrete
440 JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL
phases.First, the personmay experiencea shift in values
that includeshis/herbeliefsconcerningmarriageand the
responsibilitiesmarriageentails.A secondphasemay oc-
cur early in marriagewhenthe marital relationshipsignif-
icantly alters the individual'senvironmentand therefore
his/heropportunitiesto drink. Finally, it is also possible
that a declinein drinkingmay facilitatean individual's
moveinto marriage.
Additionalresearchinto the relationshipbetweenmar-
riageand alcoholusewill haveto be performedto expli-
cate the underlyingintra- and interpersonal processes in
greaterdetail. Particularlyimportantwould be an exami-
nationof thosepersonswhosepatternsof consumption do
not changeas a resultof marriage. Questionscould be
raisedas to why certainindividuals continueto engagein
problembehaviorsin spiteof the manychangesthat gen-
erallyoccurduringthe transitionintomarriage.Similarly,
baseduponavailabledata, it is uncertainwhat alcohol-use
patternslook like in later years.As data collectionefforts
continue,it will be possibleto look at trendsseveralyears
beyondthe transitionto marriage.Also, it wouldbe inter-
estingto examinemorecloselythosepersonswho divorce.
Perhapsthosewho divorceare the sameindividualswho
fail to changeduringthe transitionto marriage.Future
efforts, by focusingon the marital relationshipspecifi-
cally, ratherthan relegatingit to an incidentalphenome-
non, will no doubtclarify muchof our thinkingon the
subjectof maturationaltrendsin alcoholbehaviors.
References
BACON,S.D. Inebriety,socialintegration,andmarriage.Q. J. Stud.Al-
cohol 5: 86-125, 1944.
BAILEY,M.B., HABERMAN, P.Wo ANDALKSNE,H. The epidemiology
of alcoholismin an urban residentialarea. Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 26:
19-40, 1965.
/ SEPTEMBER 1991
BOCK, R.D. Multivariate Statistical Methods in Behavioral Research,
2d Edition, Mooresville, Ind.: Scientific Software, Inc., 1985.
BOCK,R.D. ANDMOORE,E.G.J. Advantageand Disadvantage:
A Pro-
file of American Youth, Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocs.,
Inc., 1986.
BROMET,E. AND MOOs, R. Sex and marital status in relation to the
characteristicsof alcoholics.J. Stud. Alcohol 37: 1302-1312, 1976.
CLARK,W.B. AND MIDANIK, L. Alcohol use and alcohol problems
amongU.S. adults:Resultsof the 1979 National Survey.In: NA-
TIONAL INSTITUTE ON ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM. Alcohol
Consumptionand RelatedProblems.Alcohol and Health Monograph
No. 1, DHHS PublicationNo. (ADM) 82-1190, Washington: Gov-
ernmentPrintingOffice, 1982,pp. 3-52.
COLLINS,J.G. PersonsInjured and DisabilityDays Due to Injuries,
United States, 1980-1981. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 10, No.
149, DHHS PublicationNo. (PHS) 85-1577, Washington:Govern-
mentPrintingOffice, 1985.
COSPER,R. ANDMOZERSKY, K. Socialcorrelatesof drinkinganddriv-
ing. Q. J. Stud.Alcohol,SupplementNo. 4, pp. 58-117, 1968.
DUBLIN,L.I. Suicide:A Sociological
and StatisticalStudy,New York:
Ronald Press, 1963.
FLANAGAN,
m.J. ANDMCGARRELL,
E.F. (Eds.) Sourcebookof Criminal
JusticeStatistics--1985.U.S. Departmentof Justice,Bureauof Jus-
tice Statistics,Washington:
Government PrintingOffice, 1986.
KOTLER,P. AND WINGARD,D.L. The effect of occupational,marital
andparentalroleson mortality:The AlamedaCountystudy.Amer.J.
publ. Hlth 79: 607-612, 1989.
MATTESSICH, P. ANDHILL, R. Life cycle and family development.In:
SUSSMAN,M.B. AND STEINMETZ,S.K. (Eds.) Handbook of Mar-
riage andthe Family,New York:PlenumPress,1987,pp. 437-469.
VERNON, S.W. AND ROBERTS,R.E. Use of the SADS-RDC in a tri-
ethniccommunitysurvey.Arch. gen. Psychiat.39: 47-52, 1982.
WEISSMAN, M.M. Advancesin psychiatricepidemiology:Rates and
risksfor majordepression.
Amer.J. publ. Hlth 77:445-451, 1987.
WEISSMAN, M.M. AND MYERS,J.K. Psychiatricdisordersin a U.S.
community:The applicationof ResearchDiagnosticCriteria to a
resurveyedcommunitysample.Acta psychiatr.scand.62: 99-111,
1980.
ZUCKER,R.A. Developmentalaspectsof drinking throughthe young
adultyears.In: BLANE,H.T. ANDCI-IAFETZ,M.E. (Eds.)Youth,Al-
cohol, and SocialPolicy,New York: PlenumPress,1979, pp. 91-
146.