Depressed? Find A Husband!
Sorry, but depression isn't exactly the pert big boobs and Ferrari of dating. That point is somehow missed in a Reuters story, headlined "Feeling blue? Try saying, 'I do.'" The researchers they quote say marriage alleviates depression because just "mattering" to another person can alleviate depression. Here's an excerpt:
Lonely? Feeling low? Try taking a walk -- down the aisle. Getting married enhances mental health, especially if you’re depressed, according to a new U.S. study.The benefits of marriage for the depressed are particularly dramatic, a finding that surprised the professor-student team behind the study.
“We actually found the opposite of what we expected,” said Adrianne Frech, a PhD sociology student at Ohio State University who conducted the study with Kristi Williams, an assistant professor of sociology.
They expected to find that one spouse’s depression weighed too much on the marriage, but “just mattering to someone else can help alleviate symptoms of depression,” Frech said.
Frech will present their findings at the American Sociological Association’s annual meeting in Montreal on Sunday.
The researchers used a 3,066 person sample that measured symptoms of depression -- such as an inability to sleep, or persistent sadness -- in the same people both before and after their first marriage.
They found that depressed people experienced a much more extreme decrease in the incidence of those symptoms.
“Depressed people may be just especially in need of the intimacy, the emotional closeness and the social support that marriage can provide ... if you start out happy, you don’t have as far to go,” Williams said.
On the other hand, if you’re not depressed, marriage could have the opposite effect, Frech said.
Um...yeah. And, as I mentioned above, another slight problem: People curled up in a fetal position at the corner pickup joint aren't exactly the hot tickets of the dating world. And all this marriage rah-rah-ing, is it right?
Bella DePaulo and Wendy L. Morris write in a recent study published in Psychological Inquiry that I used in my column:
In a 15-year longitudinal study with 15 waves of data collection, Lucas and his colleagues tracked the reported happiness of thousands of participants, focusing particularly on those who married and stayed married throughout the study (Lucas, Clark, Georgellis, & Diener, 2003). This design allowed for a within-participants analysis of changes in happiness over time for the same individuals as they made a transition from being single to married. The usual between-participants comparisons at each point in time were made as well. The latter comparisons suggested a link even smaller than the one reported by Haring-Hidore et al (1985). Civil status accounted for about one percent of the between-participants variance in happiness in any given year.In their within-participants analyses, Lucas et al (2003) divided the data for each participant into three time periods. The year leading up to the marriage, together with the year following the marriage, was defined as the time of the marriage. The other two time periods were the years before and after the marriage.
Examination of the initial happiness reports provided a hint of a selection effect. The participants who got married during the study and stayed that way started out reporting happiness levels .278 of a scale point higher (on an 11-point scale) than the average participant in the study. However, in supplementary analyses, the authors found that the participants who married and then divorced were no different than average in their initial happiness.
For the participants who got married and stayed married, there was an increase in happiness (of .234 of a scale point) at the time of the marriage. The increase was smaller for the participants who had been especially happy as singles. (The authors ruled out statistical regression as an artifactual explanation.) Typically, though, the initial blip in happiness did not last: “People were significantly less satisfied in the years after marriage than they were in the years surrounding marriage” (p. 532). When participants’ happiness after marriage was compared to their happiness before marriage, again the results were a wash: “On average, they are no happier in the years after marriage than they were in the years before marriage” (p. 532).
Lucas and his colleagues emphasized that there was much individual variability in patterns of happiness. For example, they noted that “there were as many people who ended up less happy than they started as there were people who ended up happier than they started (a fact that is particularly striking given that we restricted the sample to people who stayed married)” (p. 536). Clearly, the weight of the evidence from this impressive study does not support any sweeping statements about the transformative power of marriage in improving well-being.
The truth is, the way I see it, there's too much absolutism about marriage being THE path to bliss. In fact, I think there are a whole lot of miserable married people and a whole lot of people who are happy as clams (are clams happy?) as "independents."
Independents? Yes. I hate the word "single," which exists as a comparison to married, as if marriage is the gold standard of being. It is for some. And not for a whole lot of other people. In fact, but for the propaganda for marriage, a lot of people would be happily unmarried and a lot better off.
All the ways they say marriage helps someone sounds eerily like the markers of co-dependency. What's worse is that they're encouraging it.
A at August 16, 2006 9:29 AM
That's why Bella and Wendy's work is so great. They've actually discovered a huge bias against remaining single. Even single people think single people are losers -- and they think it's contributed to by this "marriage as the only valid path" bias. What was shocking is the extent to which they found respected researchers were sloppy in their data collection and analysis. I just wrote about this, but I have to wait a few weeks to post the column to my site (don't want to compete with papers!)
Amy Alkon at August 16, 2006 9:36 AM
PS As I've mentioned before, in France, they have the PACS, for people like me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacte_civil_de_solidarit%C3%A9
A PACS can be dissolved simply by going to a municipality and letting them know you're dissolving it. It allows the rights not granted to people in romantic partnerships (but not married) like me...ie, hospital visitation of partner, right to remain in an apartment after a partner's death, etc.
Amy Alkon at August 16, 2006 9:42 AM
I initially read that as "just nattering to another person can alleviate depression." Probably equally valid, for some people...
Stu "El Inglés" Harris at August 16, 2006 10:42 AM
Of course, it can also serve to depress the person you're nattering to!
Amy Alkon at August 16, 2006 10:57 AM
I saw this on Yahoo! News today and thought for a moment I had accidentally stumbled into the Odd News section, but no, this is supposedly real "news." I won't get into the social mentality that singe=bad, and married=good, no matter how dysfunctional and miserable the marriage may be, still better than being single (???)I can only say from personal experience that I have been the Most miserable and depressed when in long term, domestic-y relationships, and the most happy when I have lived alone and been relatively single. (Granted, the men I dated were mostly assholes or so codependent they followed me into the bathroom, literally.) This, coming from a woman who was treated for depression for thirteen years... most of those years being attached. When I became single and lived alone, I threw away the Welbutrin because I just didn't need it any more. Problem was gone. I deeply value my personal freedom and every schmo I date seems intent on stealing it. This "study" is highly suspicious propaganda, sounds like to me, and reeks of right wing Christian crazies.
Kelly at August 16, 2006 11:01 AM
My column is all about questioning the status quo. For example, I don't think it's civilized to live with another human being -- at least, not one you're romantically involved with.
Amy Alkon at August 16, 2006 12:06 PM
I can't help but wonder if the studies controlled for presence of children in those households. Studies have shown a huge dip in general "marital satisfaction" that begins right after the arrival of the first kid, hits its nadir during the teen years, and doesn't doesn't really go away until the last kid is out of the nest. Putting the results of those two studies (both the marriage rah-rah and the kids-and-happiness tests side by side, and see how they compare.
Karen at August 16, 2006 12:23 PM
I agree with Kelly, I think it's propaganda, similar to the fiasco years ago, where it was quoted as a fact, that 'a woman is more likely to be blown up by a terrorist than get married after 30? 40?'. That 'fact' had no basis in any research study done, but the press just loved it.
I was my most depressed during my marriage, and I am the happiest I've ever been, at the age of 47, and independent (I like that better than single). I have no shortage of men of all ages chasing after me, and a lot of them are intent on stealing my freedom as well. I have learned that generally speaking, men get more out of relationships than women do, but women have been brainwashed into getting into one at any cost.
I am dating men who have done some personal growth and are capable of making an equal contribution to a relationship, were I to get into one, but I am in absolutely no hurry to do so. But I am like Amy, in that I never plan to marry again (first time was a big learning experience), because I am romantic and want to live day by day, enjoying each others company in the moment.
Canada at August 16, 2006 12:51 PM
I agree with Kelly, I think it's propaganda, similar to the fiasco years ago, where it was quoted as a fact, that 'a woman is more likely to be blown up by a terrorist than get married after 30? 40?'. That 'fact' had no basis in any research study done, but the press just loved it.
I was my most depressed during my marriage, and I am the happiest I've ever been, at the age of 47, and independent (I like that better than single). I have no shortage of men of all ages chasing after me, and a lot of them are intent on stealing my freedom as well. I have learned that generally speaking, men get more out of relationships than women do, but women have been brainwashed into getting into one at any cost.
I am dating men who have done some personal growth and are capable of making an equal contribution to a relationship, were I to get into one, but I am in absolutely no hurry to do so. But I am like Amy, in that I never plan to marry again (first time was a big learning experience), because I am romantic and want to live day by day, enjoying each others company in the moment.
Canada at August 16, 2006 12:51 PM
I agree with the comments above, but still: The happiest people I know are the ones in the happiest marriages
Crid at August 16, 2006 1:15 PM
Crid, that may well be true in your case. However, are those people happy as a result of being married, or does their happiness stem from other factors? The truely happy marriages I've known of weren't happy because they were married...they were happy to begin with.
I'm currently married, and happily at that. However, we were happy before then, and we weren't any MORE happy because we were married. We just decided -- "heck, let's elope" -- and we did. We had already figured we'll be spending the rest of our lives together, so it was a formality at best. That, and it's currently the only way to get any legal rights for each other/children.
When I was still dating, I'd be a little concerned by women that had marriage, or worse, having a child, as a hot item on their agenda. It was a goal for some of them, a goal that they had to attain, for fear of being a "failure." Tying self-worth to marital status or the number of kids you have is pretty sad.
Jamie at August 16, 2006 1:43 PM
> happy as a result of being married,
> or does their happiness stem from
> other factors?
IJS, the happiest of the happy. Maybe it goes like this: Take two well-adjusted, thoughful, considerate people and put them together, and things get even better.
> Tying self-worth to marital status
> or the number of kids you have
Not all of these things are selections... They're already tied together in biology. Most people aren't going to be happy without intimacy in their lives, and they want bankable support from others, and they want to put it all together in one person. People don't have to be programmed by culture to want kids; lots of us want kids by nature.
Policy is not the problem, nor is "propaganda", nor is "codependence". Policy should be optimized, but that doesn't mean everything's going to go well.
Crid at August 16, 2006 2:08 PM
"IJS, the happiest of the happy. Maybe it goes like this: Take two well-adjusted, thoughful, considerate people and put them together, and things get even better."
I know some well adjusted people, some thoughtful people, and some considerate people. Even elast of the time, I find people with 2 of 3. If I did find a 3 of 3, I don't know if I would trust them. (slight sarcasm in that remark.) Im sorry but that jsut sounds too easy for me. What if you did find two people who were all those? One might be Jewish and the other christian, which might be okay until you fight over which "faith" the children get brought up in. Or one might be not so religous at all (ME) and one might be rather religous (The former HER of mine.) She was incredib;y thoguhtful, and considerate, if not well adjusted all the time (cant have all three), but after a while she was trying to convert me, and I know it was an antagonizing move, she just doesnt like the thought of me in a big of flame burning for all eternity (an understandable thought if it werent an overblown fairy tale). but we were starting to disagree heavily over it and it was decided by both to walk away from it.
I absolutely agree with Amy, which is a real first, cause I usually disagree with some part of something. I'm a young guy, and the world thus far has been presented to me with the ultimatum that im looking for an end all be all of marriage, kids, and family, and before I've thought about it I started wanting it, and right now I don't know exactly why. Sure, its not a bad situation, you could do worse. But there have to be alternatives to said nuclear family life pursuit and I think this country has to stop squashing it on us.
Scott at August 16, 2006 3:02 PM
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Gary S. at August 16, 2006 3:22 PM
Ranunculus abluo.
"Can't you see, man? It's the system! I could be happy if only the world would let me! But I'm oppressed! Small-minded busybodies and their synthetic boundaries constrict my beating heart... But I gotta live free, man! I gotta be free!"
"!"
Crid at August 16, 2006 3:38 PM
Another thing people should question is the notion that you should be with somebody for your entire life. Somebody who's right for you at 25 is not necessarily right for you at 45. And where's the tragedy in that?
Maybe it's only tragic because they say it's tragic. Things end. Ending isn't the problem. It's the expectation that they'll go on forever.
The comment above about the happy married people being happy in general was astute. I've read about that in Bella's work, and thought about that myself. There's a good book, Learned Optimism (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=as2&path=ASIN/1400078393&tag=advicegoddess-20&camp=1789&creative=9325), by Seligman, that Lena gave me -- about how having an optimistic orientation toward life serves you in a whole lot of ways. Basically, that's my orientation. When stuff sucks, there's tomorrow, and a very good chance that things will be better.
It also helps to take responsibility for your fuckups, then you can correct for whatever you did in the future.
Amy Alkon at August 16, 2006 4:11 PM
I would have been happily married had it not been for my ex needing his mother so much. It was intoxicatingly frustrating that he was so dependent on her that it made being a married couple impossible because I felt I shared the bed with another woman. I think marriage is depressing because it takes away the person you want to be and forces the needs others (not just the spouse) upon you.
claudia at August 16, 2006 6:12 PM
Well, I am have loved being single.
Depression, when I have suffered it, both when married or single is a bitch. However, the depression being married had a direct corellation to the relationship. My depression being single was just "me", and meant I needed to get that worked out, which with the right amount of (put what ever I administered non-pharmacy here), meant I figured it out.
Relationships, well, the "ship" part of the word...is it a dream yacht that I can enjoy? A sail boat of lovely adventure and freedom or a giant garbage barge parked in my life? I guess I want to know that if I have to swab the decks or polish brass, my life will still be heading and tacking where I want it to. Will someone else steer? I don't really want to oil myself up and show the gurls to the world while someone else is driving all the time, nor do I want to be on "poop deck".
The man I am seeing now, lives States away. Yes we talk every day, we see each other two long weekends a month. I like it like this, at least for now, yes it seems crazy, but really it's quite lovely, quality, and right now it's working for all the reasons that are right for us.
Besides in a quaint ceremony a few years ago, I married myself , all the right people were there, and the whole thing was quite wonderful. I am quite certain it is a relationship to last a life time...I even took myself to Ireland for a honeymoon.
sonja at August 16, 2006 8:14 PM
For me, the keys to happiness are rest, moderate exercise, good food, and making sure I see friends on a regular basis. The 200 mg of Zoloft I take every day probably doesn't hurt either.
Lena "Feed Your Head" Cuisina at August 16, 2006 10:12 PM
The problem is with the Reuters editor who needed to pep up an academic story with something girlish and playful. When you're depressed, thinking about other people is probably not a bad way to go, even if it doesn't help you much.
Can we talk about Jonbenet now? The photos of that guy are spooky
Crid at August 17, 2006 3:12 AM
My theory is that we are brainwashed from day one with this Disneyfied romantic fantasy about knights in shiny armor and a princess needing to be rescued. In my opinion, what happens is, people are in love with the romantic fantasy....not the person they're with. The person they're with is just filling a void....
Rob at August 17, 2006 6:18 AM
"Can we talk about Jonbenet now? The photos of that guy are spooky"
He looks like a fag, don't you think?
Lena at August 17, 2006 6:46 AM
Well, he look sexually foreign... I wish Paglia were still doing the Salon column, 'cause she'd put in a tidy couple of sentences. News this afternoon says there are holes in the story.
Crid at August 17, 2006 12:39 PM
Paglia? Whatever happened to that cheesesteak-slurping dyke wop?
Lena at August 17, 2006 10:35 PM
To explain the clams thing, the full expression is "happy as clams at high tide". When clam-eating people go wading to gather clams, they do so at low tide. I assume the clams prefer high tide because that is when they're not being picked up and thrown into the fire.
Which reminds me of my view of marriage.
Desiree at August 25, 2006 7:58 AM
Gotta repost this. It's too good for Paglia fans -- detractors, perhaps even more -- to miss.
http://website.lineone.net/~jon.simmons/julie/paglia.htm
Posted by: Stu "El Inglés" Harris at August 25, 2006 07:02 AM
Stu "El Inglès" Harris at August 25, 2006 7:59 AM
Leave a comment