Professional Documents
Culture Documents
doi: 10.1093/swr/svu016
73
74
already-high utility. Following Beckers logic, single homeowners are likely seen as desirable partners
because they possess signicant resources. However, it is more challenging for these singles to
nd a suitable marriage partnerthat is, someone
who will improve their nancial situationbecause
they already have nancial security. Beckers argument also held that if a marriage occurred, both
partners would strive to improve their utility; this
principle is closely related to the second theory
that informed this researchthe social exchange
theory of marriage.
Proposed by Edwards (1969), the social exchange theory of marriage is similar to Beckers in
many respects. Edwards perceived marriage as an
exchange relationship in which the commodities
of exchange included economic and noneconomic
goods. In Beckers view, as in Edwardss, people
enter into relationships that are mutually benecial
or that have the potential for reciprocity. Likewise,
Edwardss second principle is that each party within
an exchange relationship seeks to maximize gains
and minimize costs.
The third principle of the social exchange theory, and the point at which it departs from Beckers
economic theory, is that people will terminate an
exclusive exchange relationship (that is, marriage)
when the benets of terminating the relationship
outweigh the costs of ending the relationship.
Exchange theorists go beyond simply understanding marriage decisions by seeking to explain why
and when people terminate marriages. These theorists have posited that relationships are more stable
when the costs of terminating the relationship are
high, when the rewards for sustaining the relationship are desirable, and when the available alternatives are less attractive (Floyd & Wasner, 1994).
Although we chose to view marriage and divorce
through a rational choice lens (that is, to presume
that people are driven by rational behavior), we recognize that other models of marriage and divorce
exist. For example, the institutional view of marriage emphasizes that couples marry because of societal norms, values, and pressures (Goode, 1982).
However, research examining factors associated
with marriage has suggested that patterns of economic independence, particularly independence
achieved through educational gains, play an important role in marriage decisions (Goldstein &
Kenney, 2001). Given that individuals who have
attained higher levels of education are expected to
June 2014
75
Data
76
June 2014
and couples. It is interesting that the nancial benets associated with homeownership are fairly equitable across racial, ethnic, and gender groups once
property is purchased (Sedo & Kossoudji, 2004).
Therefore, we controlled for race, ethnicity, and
gender in our models. We measured gender using
a 1/0 indicator variable: female was coded as 1,
and male coded as 0. Race/ethnicity was measured
using indicator variables for white, black, Hispanic,
and other race/ethnicity.
Researchers have found interesting interactions
among age, homeownership, and marriage. A recent
study found that, among 18- to 24-year-olds,
married couples had the highest rate of transitioning
to homeownership. However, among 30- to 34year-olds, single people were more likely than couples to become rst-time homeowners (Feijten,
Mulder, & Baizn, 2003). In all of our analytic
models, we used a continuous variable to control
for age.
A correlation between level of education and
homeownership has been established by previous
research. On average, levels of education are slightly
higher among low-income homeowners than
among low-income renters (Rohe & Stegman,
1994). In our analysis, we used a series of indicator
variables for education. The education categories
ranged from less than a high school degree to
advanced or graduate degree.
We included two nancial predictors of homeownership: income and employment status. Given
that employment and income are documented during the mortgage application process, people who
are unemployed or have very low incomes are less
likely to be approved to buy a home. We measured
income in units of $1,000 and included an indicator
variable for whether a respondent was employed.
Finally, we included an indicator variable for
whether a respondent had children living in the
home. Homeowners are more likely than renters
to have children at home because buying a home
is often considered a precursor to having children
(Townsend, 2002). In addition, couples with children are less likely to divorce than couples without
children (Cleek & Pearson, 1985).
The analysis also controlled for the characteristics
of the respondents census tract at baseline, including median tract house value, median tract rent, and
tract disadvantage score. The tract neighborhood
disadvantage score was constructed from the following four tract-level items in the 2000 census:
77
78
counterfactuals. In working with data from a sample that represents the population of interest, the
standard estimator for the average treatment effect
is seen as the difference between two estimated
median times from the sample data. In other words,
^1 jw 1 Median T
^0 jw 0;
t^ Median T
^1 is the event time under the treated conwhere T
^0 is the event time under the control condition, T
dition, and w is a binary variable indicating
treatment receipt (that is, w = 1, treatment; and w =
0, comparison). The counterfactual framework
underscores the importance of balancing data, carefully seeking the potential outcome (equivalently
choosing the most comparable comparison group)
for a valid causal inference, and estimating appropriate treatment effects by using methods that are
appropriate and suitable for the research questions.
Recognizing that each method has strengths and
limitations, Sosin (2002) underscored the importance of using multiple methods to account for
selection bias. Using different methods (that is, sample selection, conventional control variables, instrumental variables, and propensity score matching)
to examine a common data set, Sosin found that
the methods provided widely divergent estimates.
Given his nding, Sosin suggested that researchers
should regularly compare estimates across multiple
methods.
Following Sosins recommendation, we ran models using the following ve approaches: (1) a discretetime survival analysis applied to the original sample
without matching; (2) a propensity score greedy
matching (that is, the nearest neighbor within caliper matching) followed by a discrete-time survival
analysis; (3) a propensity score optimal-pair matching
that uses the generalized boosted regression to
estimate the propensity score and a follow-up
discrete-time survival analysis; (4) a propensity score
optimal full matching that uses generalized boosted
regression to estimate the propensity score and a
follow-up Hodges-Lehmann aligned rank test;
and (5) 15 les that multiply imputed missing data
of independent and matching variables (on which
all analyses were conducted). For each model,
results from each of the imputed data sets were
aggregated using either the Rubin rule or procedures developed for multivariate models. To warrant the robustness of the nal ndings about the
impact of homeownership on timing of transition
June 2014
79
Table 1: The Study of Transition to Marriage: Sample Description and Imbalance Check
before and after Matching
% of Homeowners on Mean (SD)
of the Covariate by Groupa
Covariate
Number of
homeowners
Number of
renters
Number (%) of
homeowners
lost after
matching
Gender (%)
Male
Female
Race (%)
White
Africa
American
Hispanic
Other
Age at baseline M
(SD)
Homeowners
Renters
Education at
baseline (%)
11th grade or
less
High school
diploma
Some two-year
college, no
degree
Associates
degree
Some four-year
college, no
degree
Bachelors
degree
Some graduate
school, no
degree
Graduate/
professional
degree
Number of
children at
baseline M
(SD)
Homeowners
Renters
Overall Sample
before
Matching
(N = 1,580)
Sample after
Greedy
Matching
(N = 694)
Absolute
Standardized
Difference in
Covariate Means
before Matching
(dx)
Absolute Standardized
Difference in Covariate Means
after Matching (dxm)
Sample after
Optimal Full
Matching
(N = 1,580)
Sample after
Optimal Pair
Matching
(N = 1,308)
926
347
654
926
654
347
654
654
.638
272 (29.4)
.618
0 (0)
.105
.176b
.015b
.031b
.123b
.022b
.018b
.146b
.059b
.060b
.193
.085
.054
579 (62.5)
8.9***
63.7***
38.7
50.5
62.3**
47.7
52.3**
57.3**
55.1**
51.9
56.5
47.3
38.72 (11.25)**
41.11 (13.34)**
40.48 (12.59)
39.54 (12.61)
37.1***
52.2
48.1***
56.0
.269c
.212c
.114c
60.8***
50.7
.042c
.085c
.061c
70.9***
37.5
.192c
.168c
.061c
64.9***
42.6
.074c
.062c
.032c
63.6***
48.0
.090c
.037c
.023c
90.2***
57.0
.227c
.166c
.132c
71.7***
41.5
.154c
.081c
.041c
.027
.057
.050
.49 (.83)
.46 (.88)
.50 (.81)
.48 (.87)
(continued)
80
June 2014
Table 1: Continued
% of Homeowners on Mean (SD)
of the Covariate by Groupa
Covariate
Employment
status at
baseline (%)
Working
Not working
Income at
baseline (in
$1,000) M
(SD)
Homeowners
Renters
Census tracts
median house
value M (SD)
Homeowners
Renters
Census tracts
median rent
value
Homeowners
Renters
Census tracts
disadvantage
score
Homeowners
Renters
Overall Sample
before
Matching
(N = 1,580)
Sample after
Greedy
Matching
(N = 694)
67.6***
23.1***
48.6
56.5
33.75 (16.04)***
19.61 (12.47)***
23.45 (10.47)
25.06 (12.40)
93577.8 (39617.4)
91673.6 (37737.0)
88966.0 (39158.5)
91224.8 (36264.5)
467.8 (164.90)
461.7 (136.58)
461.9 (184.97)
470.2 (142.96)
.02 (.57)***
.19 (.64)***
.18 (.66)
.14 (.62)
Absolute
Standardized
Difference in
Covariate Means
before Matching
(dx)
Absolute Standardized
Difference in Covariate Means
after Matching (dxm)
Sample after
Optimal Full
Matching
(N = 1,580)
Sample after
Optimal Pair
Matching
(N = 1,308)
.754
.670
.121
.978
.625
.013
.049
.040
.024
.041
.061
.024
.275
.171
.119
Each entry is % of homeowners in the categorical covariate, or mean (SD) of the continuous covariate by group.
Race is recoded as three dummy variables using White as a reference.
Education is recoded as seven dummy variables using 11th grade or less as a reference.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Chi-square test or independent-sample test two-tailed.
b
c
81
82
Table 2: The Study of Transition to Marriage: Results of the Discrete Time Models and the HodgesLehman Aligned Rank Test
Covariate
Homeownership (Renter)
Owner
Gender (Female)
Male
Race (White)
African American
Hispanic
Other
Age at baseline
Education at baseline (11th grade or less)
High school diploma
Some two-year college, no degree
Associates degree
Some four-year college, no degree
Bachelors degree
Some graduate school, no degreea
Graduate/professional degree
Number of children time varying covariate
Employment status time varying covariate (not
working)
Working
Income at baseline (in $1,000)
Year indicator variable (year 4)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
.503***
.447***
.494***
.360***
1.670**
1.033**
1.657**
.445***
1.034
1.021
.962***
.431***
1.059
.887
.965***
.485***
1.061
1.221
.966***
.597*
.668
.780
.961
.897
.731
.868
.790**
.661
.695
.899
.904
1.863
.768
1.005
.914
.999
5.522***
.963
1.628*
June 2014
1.090
.862
5.785***
.442
1.660
.606*
.658
.901
.901
.848
.642
.970
.756**
.807
1.003
7.536***
.880
2.096**
Table 3: The Study of Transition to Divorce: Sample Description and Imbalance Check before and after Matching
% of Homeowners on Mean (SD) of the
Covariate by Groupa
Covariate
Number of homeowners
Number of renters
Number (%) of homeowners lost after
matching
Gender (%)
Male
Female
Race (%)
White
Africa American
Hispanic
Other
Age at baseline M (SD)
Homeowners
Renters
Education at baseline (%)
11th grade or less
HS graduated
Some 2yr college no degree
Associate degree
Some 4yr college no degree
Bachelor degree
Some graduate school no degree
Graduate/professional degree
Number of children at baseline M (SD)
Homeowners
Renters
Employment status at baseline (%)
Working
Not working
938
177
128
128
49.8
51.7
88.4***
73.6***
79.1***
80.4***
47.0
51.6
54.0
50.0
34.14 (10.01)***
37.82 (11.21)***
38.38 (13.3)
36.96 (11.2)
72.6***
81.6***
86.5***
84.0***
89.0***
90.0***
89.3***
92.2***
54.0
49.4
51.1
46.4
41.7
46.4
57.1
60.0
1.04 (1.10)
.97 (1.18)
.97 (1.17)
.92 (1.16)
88.0***
58.3***
46.7
56.2
Sample after
Optimal Full
Matching
(N = 1,115)
177
177
938
177
.854
761 (81.1)
.653
0 (0)
.021
.296b
.176b
.054b
.345
.176b
.137b
.103b
.033
.124b
.297b
.105b
.064
.115c
.084c
.009c
.116c
.194c
.066c
.167c
.062
.066c
.034c
.032c
.027c
.040c
.023c
.084c
.137
.103c
.030c
.025c
.023c
.114c
.070c
.123c
.141
.636
.030
.192
810 (86.4)
21.7***
88.2***
Sample after
Optimal Pair
Matching (N = 354)
83
(continued)
84
Table 3: Continued
% of Homeowners on Mean (SD) of the
Covariate by Groupa
Covariate
42.65 (19.62)***
27.01 (14.61)***
28.36 (12.02)
29.49 (14.90)
92,254.3 (35,343.9)
90,455.4 (35,104.9)
82,843.8 (29,342.4)
88,765.6 (32,980.2)
458.81 (158.09)
462.79 (127.40)
445.33 (146.40)
455.45 (127.18)
.05 (0.49)***
.15 (.59)***
.32 (.69)*
.12 (.58)*
Each entry is % of homeowners in the categorical covariate, or mean (SD) of the continuous covariate by group.
Race is recoded as three dummy variables using White as a reference.
Education is recoded as seven dummy variables using "11th grade or less" as a reference.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Chi-square test or independent-sample t test two-tailed.
b
c
Sample after
Optimal Pair
Matching (N = 354)
Sample after
Optimal Full
Matching
(N = 1,115)
.897
.070
.025
.051
.178
.073
.028
.075
.031
.379
.127
.154
June 2014
85
86
Table 4: Final Results of Discrete-time Models and Hodges-Lehmann Test
Covariate
Homeownership (Renter)
Owner
Gender (Female)
Malea
Race (White)
African American
Hispanic
Othera
Age at baseline
Education at baseline (11th grade or less)
High school diploma
Some two-year college, no degree
Associates degree
Some four-year college, no degree
Bachelors degree
Some graduate school, no degree
Graduate/professional degree
Number of children time varying covariate
Employment status time varying covariate (not working)
Working
Income at baseline (in $1,000)
Year indicator variable (year 4)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
.446*
.306**
.439
1.289
1.357
.952
1.003
Mean Difference of
Estimated Odds Ratio
Time-to-Event with the
from the Discrete-Time Hodges-Lehmann Aligned Rank
Model for the Sample
Test for the Sample after
after Pair Matching
Optimal Full Matching
(N = 354)
(N = 1,115)
.404*
.425
.760
.612
1.009
1.039
1.061
.685
.923
.771
.990
.955
.764**
.159
.709
1.355
.769
1.171
.499
.839
.494
.238
.897
.600
.871
1.041
.997
1.300
.995
1.229
1.002
2.780***
.309**
1.186
1.659
.220
1.163
1.817
.187*
1.583
June 2014
.850
.453
.602
1.082
1.134
1.563
1.008
.068
Although this research used rigorous analytic methods and longitudinal data, three limitations must be
understood to adequately interpret the ndings.
First, although propensity score matching corrects
for selection bias based on observed characteristics,
this analytic method cannot adjust for selection bias
that occurs as a result of unobserved variables.
The second limitation relates to the generalizability of our ndings. It is important to acknowledge that the sample used in this study was not a
nationally representative sample; it was representative of the low-income people who received mortgages with favorable terms through the CAP
program and of renters who lived near the sampled
owners. Even though comparisons with the sample
used in the 2004 CPS suggested that our study
sample was very similar to a nationally representative sample of low-income people (Riley & Ru,
2009), further research is needed to determine
whether the ndings we report are generalizable
to all lower-income owners and renters and to
other socioeconomic groups.
87
88
June 2014
89
90
June 2014
Copyright of Social Work Research is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.