See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/287238664

The relationship between marital status and life satisfaction among South
African adults

Article in Acta Academica · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

26 8,029

2 authors:

Ferdi Botha Frederik Booysen

University of Melbourne University of the Free State
25 PUBLICATIONS 407 CITATIONS 66 PUBLICATIONS 1,776 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Social discounting and risk attitudes, time preferences and social preferences: An experimental study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ferdi Botha on 08 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Ferdi Botha & Frikkie Booysen

The relationship between marital

status and life satisfaction among
South African adults
First submission: 12 April 2012
Acceptance: 20 September 2012

This article examines the association between marital status and reported life satisfac-
tion in South Africa. Using the 2008 National Income Dynamics Survey, the rela-
tionship between marital status and life satisfaction is heterogeneous. In the overall
sample, life satisfaction is significantly higher for married compared to widowed indi-
viduals, while the former are more satisfied than those from all other marital statuses.
In the overall and female samples, married people are more satisfied compared to those
from all other marital status groups. Married men are not significantly more satisfied
than men from other marital statuses as a whole. Marriage is positively associated with
life satisfaction among women, but not among men.

Die verband tussen huwelikstatus en lewenstevredenheid

onder Suid-Afrikaanse volwassenes
Hierdie artikel bestudeer die verband tussen huwelikstatus en lewenstevredenheid in
Suid-Afrika. Gebaseer op data uit die 2008 National Income Dynamics Survey is die
algemene verhouding tussen huwelikstatus en lewenstevredenheid gemeng. In die
algehele steekproef is lewenstevredenheid beduidend hoër vir getroude persone relatief
tot wewenaars of weduwees, terwyl eersgenoemde meer tevrede is as persone van alle
ander huwelikstatusse. In die algehele en vroulike steekproewe is getroude persone
meer tevrede relatief tot persone van alle ander huwelikstatusgroepe. Getroude mans
is nie beduidend meer tevrede as mans van alle ander huwelikstatusse in die geheel
nie. Die huwelik is positief verwant aan lewensgeluk vir vroue, maar nie vir mans nie.

Mr F Botha, Dept of Economics and Economic History, Rhodes University, P O

Box 94, Grahamstown, 6140 & Prof F le R Booysen, Dept of Economics, University
of the Free State, P O Box 339, Bloemfontein, 9300; E-mail: [email protected] &
[email protected].
Acta Academica
2013 45(2): 150-178
ISSN 0587-2405
© UV/UFS
<http://www.ufs.ac za/ActaAcademica>
 Botha & Booysen/Relationship between life satisfaction and marital status

O
ver the past few decades, a great deal of empirical research
has focused on the relationship between marital status
and subjective well-being. Marital patterns present various
implications for female labour force participation, income inequality
and population growth (Becker 1973; Stack & Eshleman 1998). For
example, married females are more likely to refrain from participating
in the labour force in order to raise children, while the presence
(absence) of children also positively (negatively) affects population
growth. In addition, married people generally live longer and are
less likely to engage in risky behaviour, alcohol abuse and suicidal
behaviour (Coombs 1991). Research has also stressed the importance
of cohabitation for individual well-being, due to its similarities with
marriage (Stack & Eshleman 1998; Soons & Kalmijn 2009; Botha &
Booysen 2013).
Previous studies on the relationship between marital status and
life satisfaction have mainly focused on developed countries, where
marital status has been found to be a major determinant of individual
well-being. With respect to developing countries such as South Africa,
overt research on the link between life satisfaction and marital status is
less common (see Powdthavee 2003 & 2005; Hinks & Gruen 2007). In
addition, South African studies have also reported ambiguous results
with respect to the relationship between subjective well-being and
marital status. Gender differences in the association between marital
status and life satisfaction have also remained unexplored. This article
aims to determine the relationship between life satisfaction and
marital status among adult South Africans in general, and whether
life satisfaction differs by marital status across gender groups.

1. Literature review
The finding that married people report higher levels of well-being
than those who are divorced, single, widowed, and cohabit is well
established.1 The fact that marriage may provide a life satisfaction
increment over other types of relationships is not surprising, given
that marriage provides several advantages and incentives, such as

1 See Gove et al 1983; Zollar & Williamson 1987; Coombs 1991; Oswald 1997; Stack
& Eshleman 1998; Frey & Stutzer 2000a; Peiró 2006; Dolan et al 2008; Frey 2008;
Stanca 2009.

151
Acta Academica 2013: 45(2)

lower mortality risk, sharing in common household goods, and the

possibility of combined accumulation of assets and wealth (Waite
1995). Stutzer & Frey (2006) argue that marriage is positively associated
with individual well-being, since marriage provides an additional
source of self-esteem. Married people are also less likely to be lonely
and have the opportunity of gaining from a supportive relationship
(Stutzer & Frey 2006).
Theoretically, this empirical positive relationship between
marriage and subjective well-being is attributed to either social
selection or social causation. Social selection suggests that more
satisfied individuals are more likely to get (and remain) married
than less satisfied people, as the former may have more attractive
personalities. Social causation proposes that marriage makes people
more satisfied due to the protective emotional and relational factors
normally associated with marriage (Gove et al 1990). In addition,
married people are generally healthier (Waite 1995; Stack & Eshleman
1998; Zimmermann & Easterlin 2006) and earn substantially
higher incomes compared to people in other marital status groups
(Rindfuss & Van den Heuvel 1990; Schoeni 1995; Zimmermann &
Easterlin 2006).
A great deal of empirical research has explored the association
between marital status and life satisfaction in developed countries.
For the purpose of this study, the empirical evidence reviewed only
comprises individual level analysis. Since the data used in this study
are at the individual level, previous research using similar data on
individuals are most able to inform the discussion and interpretation
of the empirical results of this study.
Stack & Eshleman (1998) studied the effect of marital status on
well-being in seventeen developed countries, using panel data for
three years. The relationship between marital status and well-being
was significant in sixteen of the seventeen countries, with the results
of the association between marriage and well-being being consistent
across various countries. The authors reported that marriage is
associated with higher levels of financial satisfaction and health,
which contributes to higher levels of life satisfaction. In addition,
they found evidence in favour of the social causation hypothesis.
Married people were more satisfied than cohabiters, while the latter

152
 Botha & Booysen/Relationship between life satisfaction and marital status

were more satisfied than single persons. Thus, it appears that getting
married or entering a cohabiting relationship increases individual
well-being, thereby suggesting that causality runs from marriage or
cohabitation to life satisfaction. Stack & Eshleman (1998) also found
that divorced, widowed and separated persons had lower levels of
well-being relative to single individuals. The fact that only developed
countries are analysed is one of the drawbacks of their analysis, since
it provides no clear evidence about possible differences between richer
and poorer countries regarding the relationship between marital
status and life satisfaction.
Stack & Eshleman found no evidence of gender differences in
the association between subjective well-being and marital status.
Gender differences in life satisfaction across marital status groups
are less common in the international literature, and have remained
unexplored in South African research. Possible explanations for
these gender differences lie primarily in financial gains and healthy
behaviour gained from marriage. Men generally benefit more from
improved physical health relative to women following marriage.
If married women live relatively healthy lifestyles, their spouses
are indirectly influenced into living healthier lifestyles themselves
(Stack & Eshleman 1998; Zimmermann & Easterlin 2006). This, in
turn, makes men more satisfied (Gerdtham & Johannesson 2001).
Research has also shown that financial gains from marriage are higher
for women than for men; married women are thus more satisfied
compared to married men (Gove et al 1983).
Peiró (2006) studied the impact of socio-economic conditions
on subjective well-being in eight developed countries. With the
exception of China, the relationship between marital status and well-
being was significant, with married people being the most satisfied.
Using survey data on approximately 3 000 individuals from Northern
Ireland, Borooah (2006) found no statistically significant relationship
between marital status and subjective well-being.
In contrast to international research on marital status and well-
being in developed countries, evidence for developing countries and
South Africa are limited and mixed. In Peiró’s (2006) analysis, the
results suggested no significant relationship between well-being and
marriage in six of the seven developing countries. Only in Argentina

153
Acta Academica 2013: 45(2)

were married individuals significantly more satisfied than singles,

whereas well-being was found to be lower in Chile, Nigeria and Peru for
separated individuals when compared to single individuals. Diener et
al (2000) employed individual level data from the World Values Survey
collected between 1990 and 1993, comparing the relationship between
subjective well-being and marital status in 42 countries. In collectivist
nations, married individuals were found to possess the highest levels
of well-being compared to other marital status groups when compared
to more individualist countries; thus differences in well-being between
married and unmarried persons were highest in collectivist nations.2
Hutchinson et al (2004) used data for 2 580 Jamaican individuals
and found a positive relationship between marriage and well-being.
Sarracino (2008) employed data from the World Values Survey and
found a significant relationship between well-being and marital status
in nine developing countries, with married individuals found to be
more satisfied than singles, divorced, and widowed persons.
From the World Values Survey conducted between 1990 and 1993,
Diener et al (2000) also studied the association between marital status
and life satisfaction in South Africa and reported that married people
were more satisfied than cohabitants and the divorced, with the latter
being the least satisfied. Compared to other primarily collectivist
nations, married people in South Africa reported among the
highest levels of well-being. However, satisfaction levels of divorced
individuals were among the lowest in all collectivist countries, which
may suggest that divorce has a greater effect on life satisfaction than
in individualist countries, especially given the low level of tolerance
of divorce in South Africa (Diener et al 2000). Using data from the
1993 South African Integrated Household Survey, Powdthavee (2003)
found inconclusive evidence of a relationship between marital status
and subjective well-being. However, marital status was statistically
significant in another study by Powdthavee (2005) of the 1997 October

2 Individualism and collectivism can also be referred to as independence and

interdependence, respectively. Within individualist countries, people focus
on their own needs and goals, thus placing emphasis on the individual. In
collectivist countries, emphasis is placed on the group rather than the individual,
and people focus on the pursuit of the group’s needs and goals (Deiner et al
1995; Diener et al 2000). For more detailed information regarding the differences
between individualism and collectivism, see Diener et al (1995).

154
 Botha & Booysen/Relationship between life satisfaction and marital status

Household Survey, which suggested that, in South Africa, married

persons are more satisfied than divorced and separated persons.
Hinks & Gruen (2007) used the Quality of Life/Needs Assessment
Survey conducted in Durban in 1999, 2003 and 2004, and found no
statistically significant relationship between marital status and well-
being, even when controlling for the different types of marriage in
South Africa.
Mahadea & Rawat (2008) conducted a small study in Pieter-
maritzburg and, using descriptive analysis, found that married
individuals reported the highest levels of mean well-being relative to
persons from all other marital statuses. However, these differences in
well-being were not statistically significant. Mahadea & Rawat’s study
has limitations, given the small sample used. Finally, Posel & Casale
(2011) analysed South African survey data with the primary aim
of assessing relative income dynamics and its relation to subjective
well-being. Using marital status as a control, the authors found no
evidence that married, cohabiting, divorced or widowed individuals
are significantly more satisfied than singles. Given the focus of Posel
and Casale’s study, within-groups differences between marital status
groups were not investigated.
The majority of research on developed countries finds that
subjective well-being is highest among married persons. Within
developing countries, however, such a finding has also been reported,
although much less so. In South Africa in particular, the association
between marital status and subjective well-being is much more
inconclusive. This study employs a data set released in 2008, which
is more recent compared to data used in the majority of previous
South African research, and is likely to provide further evidence with
respect to the relationship between life satisfaction and marital status.
In addition, since South African research to date has ignored gender
differences in life satisfaction across marital status groups, this study
provides some evidence in this regard.

2. Data and method

The data used in the analysis originates from the first wave of the
National Income Dynamics Survey (NIDS 2008), conducted by the
Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit (SALDRU)

155
Acta Academica 2013: 45(2)

based at the University of Cape Town. The first wave of fieldwork

started in February 2008 and the data was officially released in
July 2009. NIDS aims to collect data every two years, enabling the
construction of a nationally representative panel of individuals, and
documenting outcomes such as income, expenditure, remittances,
health, education, well-being, employment, and access to services over
time. The baseline survey aimed to gather information on all resident
members, where these members present the base sample that will
remain in future NIDS samples. NIDS includes four questionnaires,
namely household, adult, child and proxy questionnaires.
This article uses data based on responses to the adult questionnaire,
which includes the relevant question regarding life satisfaction. To
assess satisfaction with life, respondents were asked: “Using a scale of
1 to 10 where 1 means ‘very dissatisfied’ and 10 means ‘very satisfied’,
how do you feel about your life as a whole right now?”.
For ease of comparison in the descriptive analysis presented in
the descriptive tables of this article, the 10-point satisfaction scale was
re-coded as follows: 1 to 2 were coded as “very unsatisfied”, 3 to 4 as
“unsatisfied”, 5 as “neutral”, 6 to 7 as “satisfied”, and 8 to 10 as “very
satisfied”. This article conducts analysis of variance (ANOVA) to
test whether the mean life satisfaction score is significantly different
between groups, while a median test is used to compare the equality
of median life satisfaction across groups.
In this study, ordered probit models are estimated to assess
correlates of subjective well-being, where the latter is assumed to be
ordinal in nature. These models have been widely used in the literature
and are most appropriate for subjective well-being analyses, where
an underlying satisfaction score is estimated as a linear function of
the independent variables and a set of cut-off points or threshold
parameters.3 The probability of observing outcome i corresponds to
the probability that the estimated linear function, plus random error,
is within the range of the cut-off points estimated for the outcome.

3 See Frey & Stutzer 2000a & 2000b; Gerdtham & Johannesson 2001; Peiró 2006;
Stutzer & Frey 2006; Hinks & Gruen 2007; Frey 2008.

156
 Botha & Booysen/Relationship between life satisfaction and marital status

Thus:
Pr(κ i −1 < ∑ β j x j + u ≤ κ i ) = Φ (κ i − ∑ x j β j ) − Φ (κ i −1 − ∑ x j β j ) (1)
Pr(LS = 10) =
j j j

where ɸ ( ) is the standard normal distribution and uj is assumed to

be normally distributed. The coefficients β1, β2, …, βk are estimated
together with the cut-off points ĸ1, ĸ2, …, ĸi-1, where i is the number of
possible outcomes. The model is specified as follows:

yi* = X i β + ε i (2)
where yi* measures reported life satisfaction of the i-th scale, based on
the 10-point scale; Xi is a (k x 1) vector of explanatory variables; β is a
(k x 1) vector of unknown parameters, and ɛi is a normally distributed
error term with (0, σ2). The ordering of alternatives increases as y*
crosses a series of increasing thresholds. For an m-alternative ordered
model, yi = j if α j-1 < yi* ≤ αj , where α0 = - ∞ and αm = ∞ (Cameron &
Trivedi 2005).
Respondents younger than eighteen were excluded from the
analysis, since people older than eighteen are more likely to get married
and hence more likely to separate, get a divorce, or lose a partner
through death (Waite 1995; Gerdtham & Johannesson 2001; Soons &
Kalmijn 2009). In addition, observations were coded as missing where
respondents refused to answer any particular question or answered
“don’t know”, or where the answer was not applicable to the specific
respondent. As such, all missing observations are excluded from the
relevant analysis.
The explanatory variables used in the analysis, which were in-
formed by the relevant literature, are marital status (Stack & Eshleman
1998; Diener et al 2000; Soons & Kalmijn 2009), age (Frey & Stutzer
2000a; Powdthavee 2003; Frijters & Beaton 2008), gender (Clark &
Oswald 1994; Oswald 1997), race (Ball & Robbins 1986; Powdthavee
2003; Dolan et al 2008), education (Oswald 1997, Peiró 2006, Frey
2008), absolute income (Easterlin 2001; Ferrer-i-Carbonell 2005; Frey
2008), relative income (Powdthavee 2003; Bookwalter & Dalenberg
2010; Posel & Casale 2011), health status (Gerdtham & Johannesson
2001; Van Praag & Ferrer-i-Carbonell 2004), and religion (Ferriss 2002;
Rule 2006; Mochon et al 2008). Except for marital status, which is

157
Acta Academica 2013: 45(2)

the main variable of interest, the remaining covariates are included

as controls, as these have been identified in the literature as possible
correlates of life satisfaction. Addition of such factors also permits
comparison of the results with previous research.
Marital status is an independent categorical variable consisting of
five categories, namely singles (base), cohabiters, divorced/separated,
widowed, and married; age denotes the respondent’s age in years
and, in order to test for non-linearity in the relationship between
age and life satisfaction, the square of age is also included; gender is
a dummy variable taking on a value of 0 if the respondent is male
(base group) and 1 otherwise; race consists of four groups, namely
Blacks (base group), Indians, Coloureds and Whites; health denotes
subjective assessment of current health and consists of five categories,
including “poor” (base group), “fair”, “good”, “very good”, and
“excellent”; religion refers to the importance of religious activities to
the respondent, with the answers consisting of “not at all important”
(base group), “unimportant”, “important” and “very important”;
education refers to the respondent’s level of education, including
no education (base group), primary, secondary, and post-secondary
education; absolute income is the logarithm of net income received
per month; relative income is a categorical variable which consists of
“much below average income” (base group), “below average income”,
“average income”, “above average income”, and “much above
average income”, where relative income reflects the perception of
the respondent regarding his/her own income relative to households
living in the same neighbourhood.
To determine the association between life satisfaction and marital
status in general, a baseline model, which includes only time invariant
individual characteristics, is first estimated with the aim of determining
the association between marital status and life satisfaction without
controlling for additional factors expected to be associated with life
satisfaction. Similarly, separate regressions are estimated for the male
and female subsamples in order to examine whether the relationship
between life satisfaction and marital status differs between men and
women. Since the categorical variable on marital status compares
singles to all other categories, the nature of such a variable does not
allow for comparisons of married individuals with all other categories
as a whole. As such, an additional binary variable is constructed

158
 Botha & Booysen/Relationship between life satisfaction and marital status

equalling 1 if the person is married, and 0 otherwise. This variable is

included in additional distinct specifications of the regression model
and aims to determine whether married persons are more satisfied
with their lives relative to all other marital status groups. Finally,
since the life satisfaction benefit from marriage is likely to depend on
income (Rindfuss & Van den Heuvel 1990; Zimmermann & Easterlin
2006), this study adds an interaction term between income and the
binary married variable to determine whether this is, in fact, the case.

3. Results
Table 1 shows the percentage of respondents by life satisfaction and
marital status. The majority (25.5%) of the respondents are satisfied,
while 18.5% are very satisfied, and 23.5% and 13.0% are unsatisfied
and very unsatisfied, respectively. Singles constitute approximately
45.6% of the sample, while 31.8% of respondents are married. Only
3.0% of respondents are divorced or separated. Mean life satisfaction
is 5.43, suggesting that, on average, South Africans are neither satisfied
nor unsatisfied. However, given that average reported level of life
satisfaction is above five, South Africans seem to be relatively well
off. Table 2 presents reported life satisfaction as a percentage when
disaggregated by marital status.4 The Pearson chi-square test indicates
that the relationship between life satisfaction and marital status is
statistically significant (χ2 = 207.9, p<0.001). Married individuals are
more satisfied overall compared to all other groups, with 22.3% being
very satisfied and 28.5% satisfied. Only 9.0% of married respondents
reported that they were very unsatisfied. About 20.3% and 15.5%
of divorced/separated individuals reported being very satisfied and
very unsatisfied, respectively. On average, cohabitants (28.0%) and
the widowed (28.4%) seem to be the least satisfied when compared to
other groups. It is interesting to note that cohabiters seem relatively
unsatisfied with their lives. This is in contrast to international studies
that find similar levels of life satisfaction between married and

4 It should be noted that Table 2 contains fewer total observations when compared
to Table 1. This is due to missing values in responses to either marital status or life
satisfaction. For instance, some individuals reported their marital status but not
satisfaction with life, while others reported life satisfaction but not their marital
status.

159
Acta Academica 2013: 45(2)

cohabiting individuals, provided that the cohabiting relationship is

stable (Brown 2000; Dolan et al 2008). A possible explanation for this
finding may be related to social stigma. Legally, cohabitation has no
status in South Africa, although current proposed legislation in the
form of the Domestic Partnerships Bill aims to address these issues
in future. Many cohabiters have displayed substantial dissatisfaction
with the lack of legal protection available to them (Goldblatt 2003;
Smith 2009).
The ANOVA suggests that the mean levels of life satisfaction
significantly differ among the respective marital status groups
(F = 41.3, p<0.001). Mean life satisfaction of married persons is
significantly higher than that of singles, cohabitants, and widowed
individuals (p<0.001). For instance, the mean life satisfaction score for
married persons is on average 0.67 points higher than for cohabitants,
which is a large difference. Moreover, divorced/separated individuals
reported a mean satisfaction level of 0.38 and 0.44 points higher than
cohabitants (p<0.10) and the widowed (p<0.05), respectively. Medians
of the respective marital status groups are significantly different from
each other, as indicated by the median test (χ2 = 143.45, p<0.001).
Table 1: Percentage of respondents, by life satisfaction and marital status

Life satisfaction (%) Marital status (%)

Very unsatisfied 13.0 (n=1547) Single 45.6 (n=6364)
Unsatisfied 23.5 (n=2798) Cohabiting 9.6 (n=1331)
Neutral 19.6 (n=2338) Widow/Widower 10.0 (n=1389)
Satisfied 25.5 (n=3043) Divorced/Separated 3.0 (n=418)
Very satisfied 18.5 (n=2203) Married 31.8 (n=4421)
Total: 100.0 (n=11929) Total: 100.0 (n=13923)

160
 Botha & Booysen/Relationship between life satisfaction and marital status

Table 2: Life satisfaction (%), by marital status

Life widow/ divorced/

satisfaction single cohabiting widower separated married Total
Very 15.0 14.2 14.5 15.5 9.00 13.0
unsatisfied (n=818) (n=167) (n=167) (n=57) (n=334) (n=1543)
24.6 28.0 28.4 19.5 19.2 23.5
Unsatisfied (n=1346) (n=330) (n=327) (n=72) (n=716) (n=2791)
18.5 20.2 19.7 19.5 20.8 19.6
Neutral (n=1013) (n=238) (n=227) (n=72) (n=776) (n=2326)
24.7 22.9 22.6 25.2 28.5 25.5
Satisfied (n=1353) (n=269) (n=260) (n=93) (n=1060) (n=3035)
Very 17.2 14.7 14.7 20.3 22.3 18.5
satisfied (n=939) (n=173) (n=169) (n=75) (n=837) (n=2193)
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total (n=5469) (n=1177) (n=1150) (n=369) (n=3723) (n=11888)
Pearson χ2 = 207.9 (p <
0.001)

Table 3 presents the overall regression results for an ordered probit

model in which reported life satisfaction was regressed on marital
status and other relevant covariates. All independent variables jointly
explain the variation in reported life satisfaction (p<0.001), with a
pseudo R2 coefficient of approximately 6%. The latter is similar to
that obtained in previous South African research on subjective well-
being (see Powdthavee 2005; Hinks & Gruen 2007).
In Table 3, the baseline model results in the first column show
that married individuals are significantly more satisfied than singles
(p<0.001) and that, based on equality tests, life satisfaction is higher
for married people relative to those who are cohabiting (p<0.001),
widowed (p<0.001) and divorced/separated (p<0.01). In addition,
cohabiters are slightly more satisfied compared to widowed people
(p<0.10). However, when controlling for the additional individual
factors in the overall sample regression (column 2), the relationship
between marital status and life satisfaction becomes less pronounced,
particularly among married individuals for whom life satisfaction
is not significantly higher compared to singles. The results also
suggest that divorced/separated individuals are less satisfied than

161
Acta Academica 2013: 45(2)

singles (p<0.05). Compared to single individuals, life satisfaction for

married people, cohabitants and the widowed are not significantly
different. With respect to differences within the marital status groups,
the divorced/separated are more satisfied than the widowed (p<0.10),
while the latter are less satisfied than married individuals (p<0.01)
(column 2).
The finding that married individuals do not possess significantly
higher levels of well-being compared to singles is incompatible with
the findings of numerous studies.5 Moreover, in the overall sample,
married individuals are only more satisfied than the widowed, which
implies that marriage does not seem to provide any major additional
positive effects on individual well-being. While marriage is signi-
ficantly associated with greater life satisfaction in the baseline sample
relative to singles, this relationship disappears when controlling for the
additional factors in the overall sample model (only widowed people
are significantly less satisfied than the married ones).Using the binary
‘married’ variable in the third column of Table 3, however, indicates
that married individuals are significantly more satisfied with their
lives when compared to those who are not married (p<0.001). This
variable also remains statistically significant even after controlling
for additional personal characteristics (p<0.01) (column 4). The fact
that the marriage coefficient remains significant after controlling for
all other variables suggests that marriage provides additional benefits
to individual well-being that are not captured by the model.6 In the
final overall sample regression reported in column 5 of Table 3, the
interaction term is significant (p<0.05) and indicates that for those
who are not married, a higher level of income decreases the disparity
in life satisfaction relative to married people. Therefore, the married
are more satisfied than all other marital status groups partly due to
higher incomes received among the former. In addition, it is also
5 See Oswald 1997; Stack & Eshleman 1998; Peiró 2006; Stanca 2009.
6 It should be noted that this study compares married individuals to those from
all other groups as a whole. A recent study by Botha & Booysen (2013), however,
found no significant differences in well-being between those in marriage and
cohabitation. Since marriage and cohabitation both imply a time-intensive
intimate relationship, Botha & Booysen’s (2013) study is more relevant for the
assessment of well-being differences among types of romantic relationships,
whereas the current study is more concerned with marriage per se relative to all
other marital status groups.

162
 Botha & Booysen/Relationship between life satisfaction and marital status

possible that the marginal well-being benefit from higher income is

greater when married.
In the male sample in Table 4, married persons are significantly
more satisfied than singles (column 1). However, this significant
association disappears when individual controls are added (column 2).
Post-estimation chi-square tests confirm the absence of any relationship
between the various marital status groups and reported life satisfaction.
In column 3, the findings indicate that married men are more satisfied
than men from all other marital statuses (p<0.01). After controlling
for individual factors, the ‘married’ coefficient becomes insignificant,
implying that married men do not report significantly higher levels of
well-being compared to men of all other marital statuses (column 4).
The interaction term is also not significant, thereby indicating that
income does not raise married men’s well-being relative to men from
other marital status groups. It would thus appear that South African
men, at least to some extent, view other factors such as income and
social status, rather than marriage, as more important for personal
well-being and satisfaction relative to their marital status.
Similar to the results in the male sample, Table 5 shows that married
women are more satisfied than single women (p<0.001) (column 1).
When controlling for individual characteristics, divorced/separated
women are significantly less satisfied than their single counterparts
(p<0.10), whereas married women remain significantly more satisfied
compared to single women (p<0.05) (column 2). In addition, post-
estimation equality tests show that cohabiting women are more
satisfied than divorced/separated women (p<0.10), whereas married
women are also more satisfied compared to widowed (p<0.05) and
divorced/separated (p<0.01) women. Since the ‘married’ coefficient
in column 4 of Table 5 remains statistically significant even after
controlling for the additional control variables (p<0.01), marriage, as
opposed to all other marital statuses, provides further intrinsic well-
being advantages to women in addition to factors such as income
and health. Furthermore, the interaction term between income and
being married is statistically significant (p<0.001), which shows that
married women are more satisfied than all other women partly since
the former earn higher levels of absolute income. Overall, these results
indicate that, while life satisfaction is not strongly associated with
marital status among the male group, divorce or separation seems to

163
Acta Academica 2013: 45(2)

relate particularly negatively for women, whereas marriage serves as

a positive state in terms of greater life satisfaction among the female
group.
Table 3: Overall sample ordered probit regression results
Dependent variable: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Life satisfaction
Marital status (omitted = single)
-0.046 -0.009
Cohabitation
[0.033] [0.036]
0.037 -0.023
Widowed
[0.040] [0.042]
0.022 -0.142
Divorced/separated
[0.058] [0.063]**
0.190 0.039
Married
[0.027]*** [0.029]
Married (omitted = not 0.188 0.060 0.088
married) [0.022]*** [0.023]*** [0.027]***
-0.018 -0.012 -0.018 -0.013 -0.014
Age
[0.003]*** [0.003]*** [0.003]*** [0.033]*** [0.003]***
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Age squared
[0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]***
Race (omitted = Black)
0.678 0.557 0.676 0.555 0.556
Coloured
[0.027]*** [0.030]*** [0.027]*** [0.030]*** [0.030]***
0.599 0.399 0.604 0.391 0.387
Indian
[0.065]*** [0.076]*** [0.064]*** [0.077]*** [0.077]***
0.834 0.507 0.836 0.499 0.500
White
[0.031]*** [0.038]*** [0.031]*** [0.038]*** [0.037]***
-0.049 -0.062 -0.045 -0.065 -0.066
Female
[0.019]*** [0.022]*** [0.019]** [0.021]*** [0.021]***
0.014 0.014 0.019
Absolute income
[0.003]*** [0.003]*** [0.004]***
Relative income (omitted = much below average income)
Below average 0.337 0.337 0.334
income [0.030]*** [0.030]*** [0.030]***
0.830 0.829 0.827
Average income
[0.031]*** [0.031]*** [0.031]***
Above average 1.099 1.098 1.098
income [0.047]*** [0.047]*** [0.047]***
Much above average 1.300 1.298 1.298
income [0.085]*** [0.085]*** [0.085]***
Education (omitted = none)

164
 Botha & Booysen/Relationship between life satisfaction and marital status

Dependent variable: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Life satisfaction
0.109 0.107 0.106
Primary
[0.034]*** [0.034]*** [0.034]***
0.177 0.172 0.172
Secondary
[0.036]*** [0.036]*** [0.036]***
0.207 0.203 0.204
Post-secondary
[0.041]*** [0.040]*** [0.040]***
Health (omitted = poor)
Fair 0.151 0.152 0.152
[0.043]*** [0.043]*** [0.043]***
Good 0.170 0.171 0.171
[0.041]*** [0.041]*** [0.041]***
Very good 0.309 0.309 0.309
[0.042]*** [0.042]*** [0.042]***
Excellent 0.201 0.201 0.201
[0.044]*** [0.044]*** [0.044]***
Religion (omitted = not at all important)
Unimportant -0.021 -0.019 -0.020
[0.066] [0.066] [0.066]
Important 0.073 0.073 0.072
[0.056] [0.056] [0.055]
Very important 0.334 0.334 0.334
[0.057]*** [0.057]*** [0.056]***
Married*Absolute -0.013
income [0.006]**

Pseudo R2 0.022 0.059 0.022 0.058 0.058

Observations 12130 10743 12130 10743 10743
Wald χ2 1394.7*** 2634.0*** 1389.8*** 2632.5*** 2631.9***
Note: Results are obtained from the ordered probit regression model. Robust
standard errors are shown in parentheses. p < 0.001 ***, p < 0.05 **, p < 0.10 *.

165
Acta Academica 2013: 45(2)

Table 4: Ordered probit regression results for the male sample

Dependent variable: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Life satisfaction
Marital status (omitted = single)
-0.046 -0.055
Cohabitation
[0.053] [0.058]
0.094 -0.051
Widowed
[0.096] [0.104]
0.055 -0.174
Divorced/separated
[0.103] [0.113]
0.197 -0.011
Married
[0.045]*** [0.050]
Married (omitted = not 0.192 0.028 0.014
married) [0.037]*** [0.041] [0.052]
-0.020 -0.011 -0.020 -0.014 -0.014
Age
[0.005]*** [0.006]* [0.005]*** [0.006]** [0.006]**
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Age squared
[0.000]*** [0.000]** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]***
Race (omitted = Black)
0.599 0.493 0.598 0.490 0.489
Coloured
[0.042]*** [0.049]*** [0.042]*** [0.049]*** [0.049]***
0.481 0.297 0.488 0.286 0.287
Indian
[0.108]*** [0.122]** [0.108]*** [0.122]** [0.123]**
0.756 0.432 0.759 0.425 0.425
White
[0.047]*** [0.059]*** [0.047]*** [0.058]*** [0.058]***
0.013 0.012 0.010
Absolute income
[0.005]*** [0.005]*** [0.006]*
Relative income (omitted = much below average income)
Below average 0.284 0.284 0.284
income [0.049]*** [0.049]*** [0.049]***
0.743 0.743 0.743
Average income
[0.050]*** [0.050]*** [0.050]***
Above average 1.023 1.020 1.020
income [0.073]*** [0.073]*** [0.073]***
Much above average 1.382 1.382 1.381
income [0.137]*** [0.137]*** [0.137]***
Education (omitted = none)
0.085 0.082 0.081
Primary
[0.057] [0.057] [0.057]

166
Botha & Booysen/Relationship between life satisfaction and marital status

Dependent variable: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Life satisfaction
0.161 0.157 0.156
Secondary
[0.061]*** [0.060]*** [0.060]***
0.229 0.227 0.226
Post-secondary
[0.065]*** [0.065]*** [0.065]***
Health (omitted = poor)
0.125 0.128 0.128
Fair
[0.081] [0.080] [0.080]
0.119 0.122 0.122
Good
[0.075] [0.075] [0.075]
0.317 0.320 0.320
Very good
[0.076]*** [0.076]*** [0.076]***
0.225 0.228 0.228
Excellent
[0.078]*** [0.078]*** [0.078]***
Religion (omitted = not at all important)
0.031 0.036 0.036
Unimportant
[0.085] [0.085] [0.085]
0.093 0.096 0.097
Important
[0.073] [0.073] [0.073]
0.332 0.323 0.323
Very important
[0.076]*** [0.076]*** [0.076]***
Married*Absolute 0.004
income [0.009]

Pseudo R2 0.018 0.052 0.018 0.052 0.052

Observations 4805 4172 4805 4172 4172
Wald χ2 459.3*** 924.2*** 455.4*** 922.4*** 924.2***

Note: Results are obtained from the ordered probit regression model. Robust
standard errors are shown in parentheses. p < 0.001 ***, p < 0.05 **, p < 0.10 *.

167
Acta Academica 2013: 45(2)

Table 5: Ordered probit regression results for the female sample

Dependent variable: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Life satisfaction
Marital status (omitted = single)
-0.034 0.029
Cohabitation
[0.043] [0.047]
0.005 -0.029
Widowed
[0.046] [0.048]
-0.002 -0.132
Divorced/separated
[0.071] [0.076]*
0.199 0.081
Married
[0.033]*** [0.036]**
Married (omitted = not 0.203 0.096 0.137
married) [0.027]*** [0.029]*** [0.033]***
-0.016 -0.012 -0.017 -0.013 -0.014
Age
[0.004]*** [0.004]*** [0.004]*** [0.004]*** [0.004]***
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Age squared
[0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]***
Race (omitted = Black)
0.731 0.600 0.730 0.599 0.603
Coloured
[0.035]*** [0.039]*** [0.035]*** [0.039]*** [0.039]***
0.677 0.470 0.679 0.461 0.454
Indian
[0.079]*** [0.097]*** [0.079]*** [0.098]*** [0.097]***
0.893 0.563 0.893 0.557 0.560
White
[0.041]*** [0.050]*** [0.040]*** [0.050]*** [0.050]***
0.017 0.017 0.025
Absolute income
[0.004]*** [0.004]*** [0.006]***
Relative income (omitted = much below average income)
0.370 0.369 0.366
Below average income
[0.039]*** [0.039]*** [0.039]***
0.882 0.881 0.879
Average income
[0.041]*** [0.041]*** [0.041]***
1.150 1.149 1.149
Above average income
[0.061]*** [0.061]*** [0.061]***
Much above average 1.244 1.239 1.239
income [0.108]*** [0.109]*** [0.109]***
Education (omitted = none)
0.124 0.121 0.119
Primary
[0.042]*** [0.042]*** [0.042]***

168
 Botha & Booysen/Relationship between life satisfaction and marital status

Dependent variable: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Life satisfaction
0.189 0.182 0.180
Secondary
[0.045]*** [0.045]*** [0.045]***
0.198 0.190 0.191
Post-secondary
[0.053]*** [0.053]*** [0.053]***
Health (omitted = poor)
0.158 0.160 0.160
Fair
[0.051]*** [0.051]*** [0.051]***
0.195 0.196 0.196
Good
[0.049]*** [0.049]*** [0.049]***
0.295 0.295 0.294
Very good
[0.052]*** [0.052]*** [0.052]***
0.169 0.169 0.169
Excellent
[0.054]*** [0.054]*** [0.054]***
Religion (omitted = not at all important)
-0.090 -0.092 -0.091
Unimportant
[0.105] [0.105] [0.105]
0.079 0.075 0.078
Important
[0.086] [0.085] [0.085]
0.362 0.358 0.361
Very important
[0.086]*** [0.086]*** [0.086]***
Married*Absolute -0.026
income [0.008]***

Pseudo R2 0.025 0.064 0.025 0.064 0.064

Observations 7325 6571 7325 6571 6571
Wald χ2 947.2*** 1740.5*** 946.7*** 1735.1*** 1732.5***

Note: Results are obtained from the ordered probit regression model. Robust
standard errors are shown in parentheses. p < 0.001 ***, p < 0.05 **, p < 0.10 *.

With respect to the additional control variables reported in Tables 3

to 5, there are some interesting findings, and the results for each
covariate are roughly the same for both the overall and gender
samples. The results indicate a U-shaped relationship between age and
life satisfaction in all regressions. In the overall sample, for instance,
life satisfaction decreases until the age of 36 (p<0.01), whereafter it
increases with age (p<0.001). The U-shaped relationship between age

169
Acta Academica 2013: 45(2)

and life satisfaction is in accordance with the literature on developed

countries (Frey & Stutzer 2000; Gerdtham & Johannesson 2001;
Frijters & Beaton 2008) and South Africa (Powdthavee 2003 & 2005;
Botha & Booysen 2013), but contrary to the findings of Hinks &
Gruen (2007), who report no significant relationship between age and
well-being in South Africa.
In all samples, Coloureds, Indians and Whites are all significantly
more satisfied relative to Blacks (p<0.001). A post-estimation test on
the equality of the coefficients also indicates that Coloureds are more
satisfied than Indians (p<0.05). These findings are similar to those
of Ball & Robbins (1986) and Dolan et al (2008), namely that Whites
generally report higher levels of satisfaction than Blacks in the US.
Oswald (1997) reported similar results for the UK. For South Africa,
Powdthavee (2003) and Hinks & Gruen (2007) found that Whites
have higher levels of well-being relative to Blacks, Coloureds and
Asians. In this study, however, Whites are found to be less satisfied
than Coloureds. The result that Blacks are less satisfied relative to the
other racial groups is not surprising within the South African context
(Ebrahim et al 2013), as Whites benefited from apartheid and may still
possess higher levels of well-being as a result of the relative affluence
they still enjoy, while Blacks, in particular, continue to experience
hardships resulting from South Africa’s political history.7
Men are significantly more satisfied than women in the overall
sample (p<0.01) (Table 3). This supports the findings of Clark &
Oswald (1994) that men are significantly more satisfied than women.
The findings of this article also contrast with the previous South
African research of Powdthavee (2003) and Hinks & Gruen (2007),
who both found no evidence of differences in life satisfaction among
gender groups in South Africa. However, Ebrahim et al (2013) reported
significant differences in well-being between men and women in
South Africa, with the latter being most satisfied.
Absolute income is significantly positively associated with life
satisfaction, and holds true in both the overall sample and the gender
subsamples. Thus, people with a higher level of income are more

7 Hinks & Gruen (2007: 325) argue that apartheid led to the current “racial
hierarchy” in the everyday lives of South Africans, which has a negative impact
on the happiness of the Non-White racial groups.

170
 Botha & Booysen/Relationship between life satisfaction and marital status

satisfied than those with a lower income. This finding is widely

supported in the literature.8 Similar to the findings of Powdthavee
(2003) and Posel & Casale (2011), based on South African data,
individuals who perceive their relative income to be higher, report
higher levels of well-being than those who perceive their income to be
lower compared to other neighbouring households. Post-estimation
tests in the ordered probit regression also indicate that people who
perceive their incomes to be ‘much above average income’ are more
satisfied compared to other groups (p<0.05).
Although differences in the measurement scales of absolute and
relative income restrain us from making direct comparisons between
absolute and relative income, there is reason to suspect that relative
income may be more important than absolute income for subjective
well-being. Oswald (1997), Clark et al (2008) and Frey (2008) share
this idea and argue that, due to personal aspirations, it is financial
position and status relative to other individuals rather than absolute
income that matter most for subjective well-being. In addition,
income adaptation may cause individuals to get used to their financial
situation. In this instance, any additional changes in income will have
small and short-lived effects (Clark et al 2008). It is likely that this
latter explanation is more true in developed markets, where incomes
are on average higher than in developing countries. Thus, although
relative income might have a larger influence than absolute income
on well-being in South Africa, the developing nature of South Africa’s
economy coupled with low incomes and high levels of poverty would
imply that additional earned income may still contribute significantly
to higher levels of life satisfaction.
Across all regressions and samples, adults with higher levels of
education are found to be more satisfied relative to those with lower
levels of education, whereas people with no education have the
lowest levels of well-being. The results are similar with respect to the
differences across the other education groups. In the overall sample
regressions, for instance, people with secondary (p<0.05) and post-
secondary (p<0.01) education are more satisfied compared to those
with only primary education. Existing research has reported mixed

8 See Easterlin 2001; Gerdtham & Johannesson 2001; Frey & Stutzer 2002; Ferrer-
i-Carbonell 2005; Luttmer 2005; Hinks & Gruen 2007; Frey 2008.

171
Acta Academica 2013: 45(2)

results, with higher education chiefly being positively related to well-

being,9 but education, although as an exception rather than the rule,
has also been found to be negatively associated with individual well-
being (Clark & Oswald 1994).
Powdthavee (2005) and Hinks & Gruen (2007) found weak
evidence of a positive relationship between education and well-
being in South Africa. Contrary to a priori expectations, however,
Powdthavee (2003) found a negative association between education
and subjective well-being in South Africa, which is ascribed to the
failure of high aspirations (due to higher education) to affect current
income, as well as the possibility that the return on education in
poorer countries might be measured in terms of higher wealth. Since
education remains a significant determinant of life satisfaction in
this study, even after controlling for absolute income, it may indicate
that education provides added unobserved benefits in addition to
the value provided by higher income. For example, higher education
may lead to greater productivity and social status (Witter et al 1984),
while education may also enable people to attain personal aspirations
and be more appreciative of non-monetary aspects of life (Diener et
al 2000).
As expected, life satisfaction and self-rated health are strongly
positively related. Individuals who reported having poor health
are less satisfied compared to all other groups in the overall sample
(p<0.001). Health and well-being are also positively associated for both
men and women. This is in accordance with the findings of many
studies.10 Health in South Africa is of primary concern, especially in
light of the HIV/AIDS pandemic that continues to have a detrimental
effect on health and well-being.
With respect to the importance of religion, individuals who view
religious activities as very important in their lives report higher levels
of well-being compared to those who attach no importance to religion
at all (p<0.001), which is also the case in the male and female samples.
Post-estimation results on equality of the coefficients in the overall
sample also indicate that those who view religion as very important

9 See Oswald 1997; Frey & Stutzer 2000a; Frey 2008; Stanca 2009.
10 See Gerdtham & Johannesson 2001; Perneger et al 2004; Van Praag & Ferrer-i-
Carbonell 2004; Peiró 2006; Botha & Booysen 2013; Ebrahim et al 2013.

172
 Botha & Booysen/Relationship between life satisfaction and marital status

are more satisfied than those who view religion as important (p<0.001)
and unimportant (p<0.001), whereas individuals who view religion
as important are more satisfied relative to those who view religion
as unimportant (p<0.05). These results suggest that religious people
are more satisfied than less religious people, which are consistent
previous research (Ferriss 2002; Rule 2006 and Mochon et al 2008).

4. Conclusion
Married individuals reported the highest mean level of life satisfaction
overall compared to other marital status groups, while cohabiters
and the widowed generally reported the lowest mean satisfaction.
For the overall sample regression, results indicate that married
people, cohabitants, and the divorced/separated are not statistically
significantly more satisfied than singles. Married and divorced/
separated people are, however, significantly more satisfied relative to
the widowed. However, married individuals are more satisfied than
those in other marital status groups as a whole, and this finding is
also true for women. When controlling for individual factors in the
male sample, however, marriage does not provide significant well-
being gains, suggesting that marriage provides well-being benefits for
women, whereas non-marriage factors predominantly determine male
well-being. In general, the results are in line with existing studies that
have found married individuals to be significantly more satisfied
than all other marital status groups.
It should be noted that this study has limitations. Since the data
used is cross-sectional in nature, this study can only infer associations
of marital status with subjective well-being, rather than causality. As
such, the social selection and social causation theories cannot be
investigated and a study of the extent to which life satisfaction changes
over time is not possible. In addition, the data do not allow a distinction
between the civil and traditional types of marriage in South Africa.
These types of marriages are likely to display different associations
with subjective well-being (Hinks & Gruen 2007). Ferrer‑i-Carbonell
& Frijters (2004) have also shown that allowing for fixed effects such
as personality traits could substantially alter regression results. Instead
of viewing subjective well-being as ordinal, responses to questions on
well-being may indeed depend on each person’s personality. Some

173
Acta Academica 2013: 45(2)

people are intrinsically happy, while others are not. Controlling for
these traits may cause less bias in estimates of ordered models. The
National Income Dynamics Study, however, does not include any
information regarding individual personality traits.
The overall results of this study suggest relatively mixed results
regarding the relationship between marital status and life satisfaction.
When employing marital status as a categorical variable in the overall
sample, marriage per se does not make people more satisfied when
controlling for individual characteristics, except relative to being
widowed. The evidence also shows that widowed people are the least
satisfied, even more so than the divorced/separated. Comparing
married persons to those from all other marital statuses as a whole,
however, reveals that the former are significantly more satisfied.
Thus, life satisfaction differences are not significant when comparing
marriage to a specific marital status (except to widowhood), although
the differences are significant if we relate marriage to all other marital
statuses.
Married women are more satisfied than single, widowed, and
divorced/separated women, while married women are also more
satisfied relative to women from all other marital statuses. In the male
sample, on the other hand, the married are more satisfied than singles
and more satisfied when compared to men from all other marital
statuses jointly. However, these differences become insignificant
when we control for additional individual characteristics. This study’s
results for the overall sample and for women are, therefore, generally
in line with those of most developed countries where married persons
are found to be the most satisfied. This is not the case in the male
sample, where married men are not significantly more satisfied than
all other men when taking individual factors into account. One
interesting area for future research that would extend the present
study would be to analyse marital status transitions within a panel
data framework to examine how such transitions impact on reported
satisfaction with life among South Africans.

174
 Botha & Booysen/Relationship between life satisfaction and marital status

Bibliography and mental health benefits among

middle-aged and older adults.
Ball R E & L Robbins Bowling Green State University
1986. Marital status and life Working Paper No 2004/04.
satisfaction among Black
Americans. Journal of Marriage and Cameron A C & P K Trivedi
Family 48(2): 389-94. 2005. Microeconometrics: methods and
applications. Cambridge: Cambridge
Becker G S University Press.
1973. A theory of marriage: Part I.
Journal of Political Economy 81(4): Clark A E & A J Oswald
813-46. 1994. Unhappiness and
unemployment. Economic Journal
Bookwalter J T & D R Dalenberg 104(424): 648-59.
2010. Relative to what or whom?
The importance of norms and Clark A E, P Frijters &
relative standing to well-being in M A Shields
South Africa. World Development 2008. Relative income, happiness,
38(3): 345-55. and utility: an explanation for
the Easterlin paradox and other
Borooah V K puzzles. Journal of Economic
2006. What makes people happy? Literature 46(1): 95-144.
Some evidence from Northern
Ireland. Journal of Happiness Studies Coombs R H
7(1): 427-65. 1991. Marital status and personal
well-being: a literature review.
Botha F & F Booysen Family Relations 40(1): 97-102.
2013. The gold of one’s ring is
not far more precious than the Diener E, M Diener & C Diener
gold of one’s heart: reported life 1995. Factors predicting the
satisfaction among married and subjective well-being of nations.
cohabitating South African adults. Journal of Personality and Social
Journal of Happiness Studies 14(2): Psychology 69(5): 851-64.
433-56.
Diener E, C Gohm, E Suh & S Oishi
Brown S L 2000. Similarity of the relations
2000. The effect of union type on between marital status and
psychological well-being: depression subjective well-being across cultures.
among cohabitants versus marrieds. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Journal of Health and Social 31(4): 419-36.
Behaviour 41(3): 241-55.
Dolan P, T Peasgood & M White
Brown S L, J R Bulanda & G R Lee 2008. Do we really know what
2004. The significance of non- makes us happy? A review of the
marital cohabitation: marital status economic literature on the factors

175
Acta Academica 2013: 45(2)

associated with subjective well- Frijters P & T Beaton

being. Journal of Economic Psychology 2008. The mystery of the U-shaped
29(1): 94-122. relationship between happiness and
age. NCER Working Paper No 26:
Easterlin R National Centre for Econometric
2001. Income and happiness: Research.
towards a unified theory. Economic
Journal 111(473): 465-84. Gerdtham U & M Johannesson
2001. The relationship between
Ebrahim A, F Botha & happiness, health, and socio-
J D Snowball economic factors: results based on
2013. Determinants of life Swedish microdata. Journal of Socio-
satisfaction among race groups in Economics 30(6): 553-7.
South Africa. Development Southern
Africa 30(2): 168-185. Goldblatt B
2003. Regulating domestic
Ferrer-i-Carbonell A partnerships: a necessary step in
2005. Income and well-being: the development of South African
an empirical analysis of the family law. South African Law
comparison income effect. Journal Journal 120(3): 610-29.
of Public Economics 89(5): 997-1019.
Gove W R, M Hughes &
Ferrer-i-Carbonell A & P Frijters C Briggs-Style
2004. How important is 1983. Does marriage have positive
methodology for the estimates of effects on the psychological well-
the determinants of happiness? being of the individual? Journal of
Economic Journal 114(497): 641-59. Health and Social Behaviour 24(2):
Ferriss A L 122-31.
2002. Religion and the quality of Gove W R, C B Style & M Hughes
life. Journal of Happiness Studies 3(3): 1990. The effect of marriage on the
199-215. well-being of adults: a theoretical
Frey B S analysis. Journal of Family Issues
2008. Happiness: a revolution in 11(1): 4-35.
economics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Hinks T & C Gruen
Frey B S & A Stutzer 2007. What is the structure of
2000a. Maximizing happiness? South African happiness equations?
German Economic Review 1(2): Evidence from quality of life
145-67. surveys. Social Indicators Research
82(2): 311-36.
2000b. Happiness, economy and
institutions. Economic Journal
110(466): 918-38.

176
 Botha & Booysen/Relationship between life satisfaction and marital status

Hutchinson G, D T Simeon, Peiró A

B C Bain, G E Wyatt, M B Tucker 2006. Happiness, satisfaction and
& E Lefranc socio-economic conditions: some
2004. Social and health international evidence. Journal of
determinants of well-being and life Socio-Economics 35(2): 348-65.
satisfaction in Jamaica. International
Perneger T V, P M Hudelson &
Journal of Social Psychiatry 50(1):
43-53.
P A Bovier
2004. Health and happiness in
Luttmer E F P young Swiss adults. Quality of Life
2005. Neighbours as negatives: Research 13(1): 171-8.
relative earnings and well-being.
Quarterly Journal of Economics 20(3):
Posel D R & D M Casale
2011. Relative standing and
963-1002.
subjective well-being in South
Mahadea D & T Rawat Africa: the role of perceptions,
2008. Economic growth, income expectations and income mobility.
and happiness: an exploratory Social Indicators Research 104(2):
study. South African Journal of 195-223.
Economics 76(2): 276-90.
Powdthavee N
Mochon D, M I Norton & 2003. Is the structure of happiness
D Ariely equations the same in poor and rich
2008. Getting off the hedonic countries? The case of South Africa.
treadmill, one step at a time: the Warwick Economic Research Paper
impact of regular religious practice No 675.
and exercise on well-being. Journal 2005. Unhappiness and crime:
of Economic Psychology 29(5): 632-42. evidence from South Africa.
National Income Dynamics Survey Economica 72(287): 531-47.
(NIDS) Rindfuss R R & A van den Heuvel
2008. National Income Dynamics 1990. Cohabitation: a precursor to
Survey, Wave 1. Cape Town: marriage or an alternative to being
University of Cape Town, South single? Population and Development
African Labour and Development Review 16(4): 703-26.
Research Unit.
Rule S
Oswald A J 2006. Religiosity and quality of life
1997. Happiness and economic in South Africa. Social Indicators
performance. Economic Journal Research 81(2): 417-34.
107(445): 1815-31.
Sarracino F
2008. Subjective well-being in
low-income countries: positional,

177
 Acta Academica 2013: 45(2)

relational and social capital Van Praag B M S &

components. Studi e Note di A Ferrer-i-Carbonell
Economia 13(3): 449-77. 2004. Happiness quantified: a
satisfaction calculus approach. Oxford:
Schoeni R F
Oxford University Press.
1995. Marital status and earnings
in developed countries. Journal of Veenhoven R
Population Economics 8(4): 351-9. 1996. Happy life expectancy: a
comprehensive measure of quality
Smith B S
of life in nations. Social Indicators
2009. The development of South
Research 39(1): 1-58.
African matrimonial law with
specific reference to the need for Waite L J
and application of a domestic 1995. Does marriage matter?
partnership rubric. Unpubl LLD Demography 32(4): 483-507.
thesis. Bloemfontein: University of
the Free State. Witter R, M A Okun, W A Stock &
M J Haring
Soons J P M & M Kalmijn 1984. Education and subjective well-
2009. Is marriage more than being: a meta analysis. Education
cohabitation? Well-being Evaluation and Policy Analysis
differences in 30 European 6(2):165-73.
countries. Journal of Marriage and
Family 71(5): 1141-57. Zimmermann A C & R A Easterlin
2006. Happily ever after?
Stack S & J R Eshleman Cohabitation, marriage, divorce,
1998. Marital status and happiness: and happiness in Germany.
a 17-nation study. Journal of Population and Development Review
Marriage and Family 60(2): 527-36. 32(3): 511-28.
Stanca L Zollar A C & J S Williamson
2009. With or without you? 1987. The contribution of marriage
Measuring the quality of relational to the life satisfaction of Black
life throughout the world. Journal of adults. Journal of Marriage and
Socio-Economics 38(5): 834-42. Family, 49(1): 87-92.
Stutzer A & B S Frey
2006. Does marriage make people
happy, or do happy people get
married? Journal of Socio-Economics
35(2): 326-47.

178

View publication stats