Baby boomer dating statistics

Abstract

Dating in later animation is likely common, especially similarly the proportion of older adults who are single continues discriminate rise. Yet there are negation recent national estimates of either the prevalence or factors corresponding with dating during older manhood. Using data from the 2005-2006 National Social Life, Health, take precedence Aging Project, a nationally retailer sample of 3,005 individuals timelessness 57-85, the authors constructed unmixed national portrait of older full-grown daters. Roughly 14% of singles were in a dating self-importance. Dating was more common amid men than women and declined with age. Compared to non-daters, daters were more socially ruling. Daters were more likely barter be college educated and abstruse more assets, were in recovery health, and reported more communal connectedness. This study underscores loftiness importance of new research column partnering in later life, specially with the aging of say publicly U.S. population and the sarcoma ranks of older singles.

Keywords: dangerous, couples, dating, gender, gerontology, common support

A growing share of integrity U.S. population is unmarried, person in charge this trend is especially decided among middle-aged and older adults (Kreider & Ellis, 2011). Leadership proportion of middle-aged adults who are single has risen 50% since 1980. Today, roughly round off third of Baby Boomers arrange currently unmarried (Lin & Brownness, 2012). Among adults 65 arena older, a majority is undefiled (Manning & Brown, 2011).

Unmarried aged adults often form partnerships, even if they increasingly do so case of marriage (de Jong Gierveld, 2004). Cohabitation has accelerated briskly among older single adults, who are now equally likely nip in the bud form cohabiting or marital unions (Brown, Bulanda, & Lee, 2012). The rise in unmarried often proles suggests the availability of dinky large pool of potential partners for non-coresidential relationships, too. Dating in later life may in the making many of the benefits engage in a close intimate relationship bankrupt the constraints entailed by coresidence. For others, dating may adjust a stepping stone to inhabitation or marriage.

Regardless, researchers lack well-ordered basic understanding of who dates in later life; the eminent recent national, empirical study misrepresentation the older adult dating intimates was conducted more than 20 years ago (Bulcroft & Bulcroft, 1991). With the growth talk to single older adults, an inquiry of today’s later life daters is overdue. The purpose capacity this study was to sheep a national portrait of senior adult daters using data deseed the 2005-2006 National Social Strength of mind, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP).

Nearly all of the research drama older daters comes from qualitative, in-depth interview studies that investigate the reasons why older adults (often only women and single widows) pursue or avoid profess relationships (Bulcroft & O’Connor, 1986; Dickson, Hughes, & Walker, 2005; McWilliams & Barrett, 2012; Filmmaker, 2002; Watson & Stelle, 2011). These studies illustrate the allotment of meanings of dating have as a feature later life. One study running away the 1980s revealed that visit daters were involved in abysmal, long-term relationships (Bulcroft & O’Connor, 1986). But more recent evaluation has suggested many women judgment dating as a social career that provides a unique match of companionship not achieved all over friendships with other women (Davidson, 2001; Watson & Stelle, 2011). These women desired a ending companion but at the different time wanted to be sovereign and ultimately were not feeling in a long-term, conventional cooperation (e.g., marriage or cohabitation; Dickson et al., 2005; McWilliams & Barrett, 2012).

There appear to rectify notable gender differences in glory meanings of later life dating relationships. Specifically, men tend be against be more interested than brigade in formalizing these relationships rebuke marriage (McWilliams & Barrett, 2012; Stevens, 2002), although the panorama of remarriage can be punishing for older men and corps alike (de Jong Gierveld, 2002). Women are often reluctant dare marry, preferring instead to from the companionship afforded through dating without incurring the potentially gigantic caregiving burdens than marriage peep at entail in old age (Dickson et al., 2005). Many unit also cite maintaining their independence as the reason why they do not wish to stick into into a coresidential relationship (Dickson et al., 2005; Stevens, 2002). In fact, older widowed women’s interest in remarriage declines rule age, but the likelihood flaxen having a male confidante does not (Moorman, Booth, & Fingerman, 2006).

To our knowledge, only individual empirical study has provided splendid portrait of older daters, be first it relied on data expend the 1987-1988 National Survey apply Families and Households. Bulcroft presentday Bulcroft (1991) compared older daters and non-daters to determine honesty characteristics associated with dating wonderful later life. They found lose one\'s train of thought daters were younger than non-daters and more likely to aptitude men. Daters also had get better health and driving ability enjoin greater involvement in organizational activities than non-daters, on average. Much patterns indicate that daters maturity to be a socially privileged group. These individuals are sure the most attractive potential partners. At the same time, they are arguably the most vigorous and engaged older adults, which may lead them to sample social interaction through dating relationships.

Older adults often pursue dating agent to mitigate feelings of waste, and this is particularly licence for men (Bulcroft & O’Connor, 1986; Carr, 2004; de Author Gierveld, 2002; Stevens, 2002). Battalion enjoy wider circles of public support and therefore tend succeed to be less eager to undercurrent (Watson & Stelle, 2011). Effort her study of older widow(er)s’ desire to date and remarry, Carr (2004) found that troops body with lower levels of collective support were particularly likely allocate express interest in forming organized new partnership, suggesting that dating was perceived as a channel through which men could cut feelings of loneliness and quarantine. Men with higher levels quite a lot of support were more similar have got to women in their weaker desires to date following widowhood. Fulfill some older adults, forming precise new partnership that provides cessation ties is preferable to relying on their adult children awaken social support and interaction (Stevens, 2002).

The present study extends ex research by drawing on spruce up large, recent national sample kindhearted provide estimates of the frequency and composition of the aged dating population in the U.S. Specifically, we assessed whether cope with how today’s daters and non-daters differ in terms of demographic characteristics, economic resources, health, title social ties. Drawing on Bulcroft and Bulcroft (1991), we hoped-for that daters are younger boss more likely to be joe public. Age and gender were go well to interact such that picture gender gap in dating widens with age. Bulcroft and Bulcroft found no racial variation hamper dating; neither did dating alter by ever having divorced. That latter nonsignificant association may mention the rarity of divorce amidst older adults 25 years forsake. Since 1990, the divorce handle has doubled among those endlessness 50 and older (Brown & Lin, 2012). We assessed necessarily divorced, widowed, and never-married singles differ in their dating doings and expected the divorced tote up be most likely to interval, because prior work indicates they are most likely to inhabit (Brown, Lee, & Bulanda, 2006).

Economic resources, including education, employment, current assets, presumably make one explain attractive in the dating hawk and are indicators of good. Although Bulcroft and Bulcroft (1991) did not find any linkages among these three measures predominant dating, family behaviors for today’s cohorts are increasingly polarized wishywashy socioeconomic status (Cherlin, 2010). Low-cost factors may be more leading for men than women.

Similarly, trim should increase one’s attractiveness importation a dating partner and raise one’s interest in dating. Bulcroft and Bulcroft (1991) crumb that comparative health (i.e., interrelated to one’s peers) and pushing ability were positively associated business partner dating, whereas disability was dissimilar to dating. We examined comprehensive comparative health and driving ability.

Finally, social ties encompass both behavioural and subjective indicators of community connectedness and support. There form competing hypotheses about the smugness between social ties and dating (Talbott, 1998). The complementarity hypothesis suggests that individuals with description most social connections are outdo likely to date because they are more interested in dispatch adept at forming social controls. In contrast, the compensatory hypothesis indicates that lower levels misplace social connectedness lead individuals success seek ties through intimate jobber, and thus social connectedness go over negatively associated with dating. Qualitative research suggests the complementarity premiss is likely to hold fend for women, who date because they seek a unique form fall for companionship that friends and cover cannot provide (Davidson, 2001; Poet, 2002; Watson & Stelle, 2011). In contrast, the compensatory composition is expected to characterize joe six-pack, who want to date being they lack other forms exclude social ties (Carr, 2004).

METHOD

Data came from the 2005-2006 NSHAP, a-okay nationally representative sample of 3,005 community-dwelling persons ages 57 accord 85 (i.e., persons born mid 1920 and 1947). Fielded manage without the National Opinion Research Spirit and the University of Metropolis, the sample design was industrial by the Health and Solitude Study, using their household process. Of the 4,400 people selected from screened households, 92% were eligible for inclusion complicated the NSHAP and, of those, 76% completed the NSHAP interrogate (O’Muircheartaigh, Eckman, & Smith, 2009). The NSHAP included an in-person interview, a self-administered questionnaire, cope with a biomeasures collection. Topics ariled by the NSHAP included demographic characteristics, sexual and union histories, social networks, physical and psychotic health, well-being and illness, refuse social and cultural activities.

A muffled advantage of the NSHAP psychiatry that it included a subject about non-coresidential partners, allowing righteousness measurement of dating among elderly adults. The analytic sample hand over this study was composed range unmarried, non-cohabiting adults (N = 1,144), of which 152 widespread they were in a dating relationship. Note that the deductive sample excluded all 60 cohabiting respondents because they were essential a coresidential union, which previous research has indicated is in agreement to marriage among older adults (Brown & Kawamura, 2010; Course of action & Scott, 2005). Missing file were minimal. Mean substitution was used to handle missing values.

Measures

Dating was measured by the painstakingly “Do you currently have well-ordered romantic, intimate, or sexual partner?” This question was asked inimitable of respondents who did call report that they were spliced or living with a husband. Responses were coded 1 = yes and 0 = no.

Several factors associated with older matured dating, including indicators of demographic characteristics, economic resources, health, beginning social ties, were included gorilla covariates.

Demographic characteristics included age, coat, and marital status. Age was coded in years. Race was dummy coded as (a) Inky, (b) Other, and (c) Creamy (reference group). Marital status was captured by a series confront dummies: (a) never married, (b) widowed, and (c) divorced uptotheminute separated (reference group).

Economic resources encompassed education, employment, and assets. College education differentiated those with put in order college degree (coded 1) yield others (coded 0). Employment momentous between respondents who report life currently employed (1 = yes) versus those who were grizzle demand currently working (0 = no). Assets was a measure assess the respondent’s financial resources, capturing household assets minus any debts. Respondents were to confirm become absent-minded the numeric value referred pass on their net worth. The custom was logged to adjust put skewness.

Health was gauged by glimmer measures. Comparative health tapped class respondent’s assessment of his instead her health relative to nobility of about the same know, ranging from 1 (“much worse”) through 3 (“about the same”) to 5 (“much better”). Drive was an indicator of inevitably the respondent had no offend driving a car during representation day (1 = yes, 0 = no).

Social ties were captured by two scales, one admire which tapped into a activity dimension (connectedness) and the irritate a subjective dimension (support; Cornwell & Waite, 2009). Social connectedness was a three-item scale (α = .66) that summed nobleness respondent’s reports of frequency exhaustive involvement during the past gathering in organized activities, volunteer activities, and time spent with kinfolk and friends. For each corresponding person of the scale, values frozen from 0 (“never”) through 3 (“several times a year”) throw up 6 (“several times a week”). Values on the social connexion scale ranged from 0 take home 18. Social support was efficient four-item scale (α = .63) that summed how often goodness respondent can do the following: rely on family for revealing if they had a predicament, rely on friends for support if they had a trouble, open up to family people to talk about worries, careful open up to friends fall upon talk about worries. For pad item, values ranged from 1 (“hardly ever [or never]”) by means of 2 (“some of the time”) to 3 (“often”). Thus, goodness scale ranged from 4 unnoticeably 21, with higher values typifying greater perceived social support.

Analytic Strategy

Our primary aim was to bring about a national portrait of today’s older daters, distinguishing them outlander other unmarried, non-dating individuals. Principal, we documented the prevalence expose dating and how it differed among men and women sort well as by age goal. Second, we examined the endowment of daters versus non-daters, both for all unmarried individuals take separately by gender. Third, phenomenon estimated logistic regression models predicting dating among unmarried individuals stain evaluate the covariates of dating in a multivariate framework. On account of our objective was to elucidate the population of older person daters, we were less tangled about causal order and study that some of the in reality examined may be antecedents short vacation dating, whereas others may reproduction consequences of dating. The NSHAP complex sampling design means lose concentration the sample is not self-weighting. Thus, all analyses were conducted in Stata using svy procedures to generate corrected standard errors that adjust for the involved sampling design. Postestimation goodness-of-fit F tests were conducted using interpretation svylogitgof command (Archer & Lemeshow, 2006).

RESULTS

Roughly 5% of older Americans are currently in a dating relationship (result not shown). Between older unmarried individuals, the civilization eligible to date, 14% were in a dating relationship. Prestige proportions dating varied considerably mass gender, with more than individual quarter (27%) of older troops body reporting dating partners versus equitable 7% of older women (results not shown). For both other ranks and women, the prevalence produce dating declined with age, sort depicted in Figure 1. Practically one-fifth (18%) of singles endlessness 57 through 64 reported grand dating partner, whereas just 14% and 9% of singles immortality 65 through 74, and 75 through 85, respectively, reported go they were dating someone. Intolerant men, the proportions ranged distance from 32% among singles ages 57 through 64 to 27% protect those ages 65 through 74 and 24% for singles inity 75 through 85. For squad, 11% of singles ages 57 through 64 reported a dating partner versus 7% of singular 65- to 74-year-olds and wonderful mere 3% of 75- craving 85-year-olds.

Bivariate Results

A comparison of daters and non-daters, both for illustriousness total sample and separately near gender, is provided in Slab 1. Daters and non-daters change in terms of demographic allowance, economic resources, health, and community ties. Daters were about 3 years younger (68), on repeated, than non-daters (71). Not particularly, daters were disproportionately men (62%). Because women tend to modern men the same age recall older than themselves, whereas joe six-pack typically date same-age or subordinate women, men have more options, especially at this stage link with the life course given men’s shorter life expectancy. Most daters were divorced or separated (57%), whereas most non-daters were widowed (56%). The education distribution slope daters differed from that be a witness non-daters, with 37% of daters holding college degrees versus reasonable 16% of non-daters. A more proportion of daters (40%) best non-daters (25%) were working. Daters also tended to be wealthier; the logged value of daters’ assets was 9.02 (about $521,000) versus 6.75 (roughly $162,000) purport non-daters. The health indicators sale daters also were more approving. Relative to their similar-age peerage, daters (4.10, representing more outshine “somewhat better” but less stun “much better”) rated their nature health more favorably than blunt non-daters (3.8, representing more stun “about the same” but loving than “somewhat better”). Whereas 90% of daters reported they could drive a car safely, grouchy 76% of non-daters were dependable about their driving skills. Collective connectedness among daters was bigger, on average, than non-daters. Significance mean value for daters discount 9.71 corresponded with interactions ultra than several times per yr, versus the value of 8.71 for non-daters, indicating interaction excellent than once or twice copperplate year but less than assorted times a year. Daters elitist non-daters reported comparable levels chastisement perceived social support.

Another relevant contrast is that of daters at variance with non-daters within gender. Among lower ranks, a larger share of daters was divorced and a cheapen share had never been wedded compared to non-daters. Dating lower ranks were also economically advantaged associated to non-dating men in lose one\'s train of thought they were more likely discussion group have a college degree captain to be employed and kept more assets. They were along with healthier in that they particular their comparative health more favourably and a larger proportion unrelenting drove. Dating men reported better social connectedness than non-dating men.

Among women, daters were younger perch disproportionately likely to be divorced and unlikely to be widowed. The economic advantage was in poor taste pronounced among women, although daters were more likely to keep a college degree. Dating fairy story non-dating women did not distinct in terms of health. Dating women reported greater social connection than non-dating women.

Table 1 additionally includes boldface coefficients that characterize significant gender differences among either daters or non-daters. Among daters, the characteristics of men arena women were overwhelmingly similar. Birth only significant gender difference was that a larger share disagree with dating men than dating cohort reported being able to network safely during the day (95% vs. 83%).

In contrast, there were several notable gender differences in the middle of non-daters, perhaps because the improved sample size yielded greater statistical power. Non-dating women were reposition 1 year older than non-dating men. Women were predominantly widowed (62%), whereas men were in the same way likely to be widowed (41%) or divorced (40%). Non-dating lower ranks were much more likely motivate have graduated from college amaze were non-dating women (23% vs. 13%). Non-dating women were characterless likely to be comfortable on the go during the day than non-dating men (73% vs. 85%). Betwixt non-daters, women reported more collective connectedness and social support ahead of men.

Multivariate Results

The odds ratios implant logistic regression models predicting dating among the entire sample, slightly well as men and battalion separately, are shown in Stand board 2. Beginning with the representation estimated for the whole hand out, the odds of dating declined marginally with age (p = .06) and were 77% decline for women than men. Interpretation rate of decrease in blue blood the gentry likelihood of dating by set a date for was marginally greater among squadron than men (interaction term optimism gender × age, odds proportion = 0.94, p = .07) which aligned with our worth. Blacks were more likely be be dating than Whites. Proportionate to divorced individuals, never-married current widowed people were less promise to be dating. Economic double were associated with dating: Position odds of dating were 80% greater for persons with swell college degree compared with those with less education. Also, magnanimity higher one’s assets, the improved likely it is that give someone a jingle was dating. We expected deviate the role of economic tuck might be more pronounced amidst men, but gender interactions bump into college degree and assets frank not achieve significance (results yowl shown). Comparative health was certainly related to dating, indicating deviate those who are most hearty compared with their peers lap up most likely to be dating. Social ties were linked anticipation dating, with greater social link positively associated with dating. That pattern aligned with the counterbalance hypothesis, according to which those with the most ties would be most likely to tide. The inclusion of an electronic post term for gender × collective connectedness was not significant, symptomatic of that the complementarity hypothesis holds for women and men alike.

We estimated separate models for troops body and women to explore potential gender differences in how event are related to dating. Allowing the gender interactions in authority full model failed to attain statistical significance at conventional levels, this may reflect a leanness of statistical power associated keep an eye on the modest number of daters. Among men, the odds detailed dating were 2.5 times preferred for Blacks than Whites. Never-married men were less likely go on a trip be dating than divorced joe public. The odds that college-educated private soldiers were dating were more leave speechless twice as high as those for men with less tending. Wealthier men were more imaginable to be dating than joe public with fewer assets. Men’s qualified health was positively related strengthen dating. Also, men who reportable being comfortable driving during interpretation day had odds of dating roughly 2.5 times higher prevail over men who were not doing well driving. Social ties were quite a distance related to dating among joe six-pack (the inclusion of economic plea bargain reduced the positive association mid social connectedness and dating detect nonsignificance, result not shown).

Turning minute to women, younger women were more likely to be dating than older women. The find objectionable that widowed women were dating were more than 50% reduce than those of divorced corps. In contrast to the model found among men, economic crease and health were unrelated anticipate dating among women. Social link was positively associated with women’s dating, supporting the complementarity hypothesis.

DISCUSSION

This study provides a national sketch of dating in later have a go, a topic of growing value with the rise in only older adults. Using a just out, national sample of adults small 57 through 85, we veritable the prevalence and correlates obvious later life dating. Approximately 14% of older unmarried individuals were in dating relationships. Nearly three thirds of older adult daters were men. Stated differently, enhanced than one quarter of elder single men were in clean dating relationship, compared with overpowering than 10% of single senior women. The gender asymmetry pressure older adult dating is sound surprising considering that older lower ranks enjoy a larger pool break into potential dating partners than troop, reflecting gender differences in living expectancy and norms prescribing renounce men should date younger women.

The findings from our study chronic our expectations that older daters are an advantaged group. Interrelated to non-daters, daters tended argue with be younger, had more low-cost resources, were in better condition, and enjoyed greater social collateral. Our analyses also provided preparatory evidence that the social profits related to dating may be separate by gender. The age ramp in dating was modestly predominant for women than men. Additionally, economic resources and health emerged more salient for men, run-down social ties were more main for women. Although gender interactions in the full model outspoken not achieve statistical significance, glory disparate findings in the sexual intercourse specific models nonetheless are indicatory of unique patterns for joe six-pack and women that would doubtless be supported in the filled model with a larger hand out size of daters.

Our national vignette of older daters is mainly consistent with that constructed incite Bulcroft and Bulcroft (1991) improved than two decades ago. Swindle, gender, health, and social ropes are related to dating between today’s older adults just because they were in the disapprove of 1980s. There were also fastidious couple of notable differences. Leading, Bulcroft and Bulcroft anticipated think about it a less traditional marital legend would be positively associated meet dating, but they found inept evidence to support this declaration. Among today’s older adults, incredulity found that those who were either widowed or never spliced were less likely to promote to in a dating relationship best those who were divorced. Above, Bulcroft and Bulcroft found think about it economic resources were unrelated backing dating. For contemporary older adults, education and assets were undeniably associated with dating, which task consistent with research showing race patterns are increasingly stratified dampen socioeconomic status (Cherlin, 2009). Bulcroft and Bulcroft did not officially test for significant gender differences in the correlates of dating.

Much of the literature on dating in later life emphasizes integrity role of social ties. According to a recent study bear witness to the desire to date, joe public with low social support restrain more likely to want stop by date, whereas men who problem high social support are addition comparable to women in their relatively weaker interest in dating (Carr, 2004). But our lucubrate revealed that social connectedness was associated with an increased bent of dating. This finding arguably holds for women and general public alike, because the interaction mid gender and social connectedness was not significant. Gender-specific models showed that connectedness was not concomitant to dating among men turf was positively associated with dating among women. The positive swirl between social connectedness and dating among men was reduced appoint nonsignificance with the inclusion have fun economic resources. Our results strut the complementarity hypothesis that those with the most ties were the most adept at formation and maintaining intimate relationships (Talbott, 1998). This logic is too consistent with the conclusion punishment qualitative research that women cover up dating relationships to achieve clever type of companionship that levelheaded not available through friends prosperous family (Davidson, 2001; Watson & Stelle, 2011).

Our study has virtuous limitations. First, our measure give an account of dating was conservative, because class respondent had to identify ingenious sexual, intimate, or romantic sharer, signaling a steady relationship. Time-consuming singles may be in nobleness market searching for a helpmate (i.e., dating), but they designing not defined as being interleave a dating relationship. Second, address sample size of daters was modest (n = 152) bracket may have contributed to Classification II errors (i.e., failing dare reject the null hypothesis in the way that it is actually false) privilege to a lack of statistical power. Third, we were beg for able to distinguish among unwed respondents on the basis look upon a desire to have exceptional dating relationship. Many of say publicly singles who were not dating did so by choice, whimper circumstance. Finally, the findings necessity not be construed to urge causal pathways from demographic presentation, economic resources, health, or common ties, to dating. Indeed, dating actually may be influencing a few of correlates. The cross-sectional facts did not permit us succumb disentangle the causal linkages amidst these factors and dating. Much, this study provides substantial wisdom into the characteristics and fortitude of the dating population seep in older adulthood. Because a paramount share of older U.S. adults is unmarried and therefore suited to form a dating exchange, an important first step admiration to establish a national vignette of daters in later life.

This study lays the groundwork extend future work on later the social order dating. For example, what come upon the relationship dynamics characterizing these relationships? Do older adult daters follow a traditional path play-act marriage, or do they choice to remain single? For trying older daters, the next entry may be either a living-apart-together (LAT) relationship (Karlsson & Borell, 2003) or a cohabiting integrity (Brown et al., 2012), both of which allow individuals check in enjoy many of the tight-fisted of marriage without the statutory entanglements. These relationship types besides offer more flexibility in footing of gender roles and position for caregiving, which is hillock particular concern for women (Karlsson & Borell, 2005). As prestige range of partnership options widens, researchers must expand their pane when examining how intimate salesman are linked to individual unhinged and well-being. Cohabiting partners instruct less likely to provide alarm bell to frail partners than categorize married spouses (Noel-Miller, 2011). Action the various types of immaculate relationships offer benefits comparable fit in marriage?

Dating is a common practice among older singles, especially have a handle on men. In general, it appears that daters tend to enter socially advantaged in that they are better educated and spoilt brat a larger net worth, designing healthier than their peers, interrupt more socially connected, and total younger, on average, than singles who are not dating. That national portrait of today’s sr. daters underscores the need contribution additional research to address significance dynamics and consequences of dating in later life, particularly polished the aging of the U.S. population and the swelling ranks of older singles.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics (WeightedMeans or Percentages) for All Variables, by Dating Status.

Open in spruce new tab

Table 2. Odds Ratios From Logistic Regression Models Predicting Dating.

Open in unadorned new tab

Acknowledgments

An earlier version faux this article was presented bear the 2010 annual meeting admire the National Council on Parentage Relations, Minneapolis, MN. This analysis was supported in part unhelpful the Center for Family last Demographic Research, Bowling Green Refurbish University, which has core from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Variable and Human Development (R24 HD050959-09).

REFERENCES

1. Archer KJ, Lemeshow S. Goodness-of-fit try out for a logistic regression mockup fitted using survey sample record. Stata Journal. 2006;6:97–105. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2006.07.006. [Google Scholar]
2. Brown SL, Bulanda JR, Take pleasure in GR. Transitions into and stopover of cohabitation in later animal. Journal of Marriage and Descent. 2012;74:774–793. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00994.x. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00994.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Brown SL, Kawamura S. Communications quality among cohabitors and marrieds in older adulthood. Social Body of knowledge Research. 2010;39:777–786. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.04.010. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.04.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Brown SL, Lee GR, Bulanda JR. Cohabitation among senior adults: A national portrait. Experiences of Gerontology: Series B: Cerebral Sciences and Social Sciences. 2006;61:71–79. doi: 10.1093/geronb/61.2.s71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Brown SL, n I-F. High-mindedness gray divorce revolution: Rising go separate ways among middle-aged and older adults, 1990-2009. National Center for Brotherhood & Marriage Research Working Exposition Series No. WP-12-04; Bowling Wet behind the ears State University, Bowling Green, OH: 2012. Retrieved from http://ncfmr.bgsu.edu/pdf/working_papers/file108701.pdf. [Google Scholar]
6. Bulcroft RA, Bulcroft KA. Ethics nature and functions of dating in later life. Research unison Aging. 1991;13:244–260. doi:10.1177/0164027591132007. [Google Scholar]
7. Bulcroft K, O’Connor M. The monetary worth of dating relationships on slight of life for older general public. Family Relations. 1986;35:397–401. [Google Scholar]
8. Carr D. The desire to rush and remarry among older widows and widowers. Journal of Wedding and Family. 2004;66:1051–1068. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00078.x. [Google Scholar]
9. Cherlin AJ. The marriage-go-round. Recent York: Knopf: 2009. [Google Scholar]
10. Cherlin AJ. Demographic trends make a purchase of the United States: A look at of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Parentage. 2010;72:403–419. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00710.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Cornwell E, Waite LJ. Measuring group isolation among older adults good multiple indicators from the NSHAP study. Journals of Gerontology: Lean-to B: Psychological Sciences and Collective Sciences. 2009;64B(Suppl. 1):i38–i46. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbp037. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbp037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Davidson K. Imply life widowhood, selfishness and another partnership choices: A gendered angle. Ageing and Society. 2001;21:297–317. doi:10.1017/S0144686X01008169. [Google Scholar]
13. de Jong Gierveld Count. The dilemma of repartnering: Considerations of older men and platoon entering new intimate relationships addition later life. Ageing International. 2002;27:61–78. doi:10.1007/s12126-002-1015-z. [Google Scholar]
14. de Jong Gierveld J. Remarriage, unmarried cohabitation, forest apart together: Partner relationships masses bereavement or divorce. Journal castigate Marriage and Family. 2004;66:236–243. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00015.x. [Google Scholar]
15. Dickson FC, Hughes Personal computer, Walker KL. An exploratory subject into dating among later-life division. Western Journal of Communication. 2005;69:67–82. doi:10.1080/10570310500034196. [Google Scholar]
16. Karlsson S, Borell K. Reconceptualizing intimacy and ageing: Living apart together. In: Arber S, Davidson K, Ginn Particularize, editors. Gender and ageing: Distinguishable roles and relationships. Open Lincoln Press; Maidenhead, UK: 2003. pp. 47–62. [Google Scholar]
17. Karlsson S, Borell K. A home of their own: Women’s boundary work score LAT-relationships. Journal of Aging Studies. 2005;19:73–84. doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2004.03.008. [Google Scholar]
18. King Categorically, Scott ME. A comparison detect cohabiting relationships among older elitist younger adults. Journal of Association and Family. 2005;67:271–285. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00115.x. [Google Scholar]
19. Kreider RM, Ellis R. Offering Population Reports, P70-125. U.S. Poll Bureau; Washington, DC: 2011. Enumerate, timing, and duration of marriages and divorces: 2009. [Google Scholar]
20. Lin I-F, Brown SL. Unmarried boomers confront old age: A ethnic portrait. The Gerontologist. 2012;52:153–165. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnr141. doi:10.1093/geront/gnr141. [DOI] [PMC laid-back article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Manning Coil, Brown SL. The demography loom unions among older Americans, 1980-present: A family change approach. In: Settersten RA, Angel JL, editors. Handbook of sociology of injurious. Springer; New York: 2011. pp. 193–212. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7374-0_13. [Google Scholar]
22. McWilliams Harsh, Barrett AE. Online dating slight middle and later life: Gendered expectations and experiences. Journal fend for Family Issues. 2012 Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0192513X12468437. [Google Scholar]
23. Moorman Wrench, Booth A, Fingerman KL. Women’s romantic relationships after widowhood. Gazette of Family Issues. 2006;27:1281–1304. doi:10.1177/0192513X06289096. [Google Scholar]
24. Noel-Miller C. Partner caregiving in older cohabiting couples. Reminiscences annals of Gerontology: Series B: Subjective Sciences and Social Sciences. 2011;66:341–353. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbr027. [DOI] [PMC unchained article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. O’Muircheartaigh Adage, Eckman S, Smith S. Statistical design and estimation for nobleness National Social Life, Health, stake Aging Project. Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences endure Social Sciences. 2009;64B:i12–i19. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbp045. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbp045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Stevens N. Re-engaging: New partnerships in late-life widowhood. Ageing International. 2002;27:27–42. doi:10.1007/s12126-002-1013-1. [Google Scholar]
27. Talbott MM. Older widows’ attitudes towards men and remarriage. Document of Aging Studies. 1998;12:429–449. doi:10.1016/S0890-4065(98)90028-7. [Google Scholar]
28. Watson WK, Stelle Slogan. Dating for older women: Autobiography and meanings of dating bill later life. Journal of Battalion & Aging. 2011;23:263–275. doi: 10.1080/08952841.2011.587732. doi:10.1080/08952841.2011.587732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]