Encyclopedia of SociologyVol._1

COURTSHIP

had little to do with mate selection in any social class because marriages were arranged by lords or by parents with primary regard to the acquisition of property.

In societies where romantic love is not a basis for mate choice, such sentiments are seen as dangerous to the formation and stability of desirable marital unions—those that maintain stratification systems (see Goode 1969). Queen, Habenstein, and Quadagno (1985) describe still other mateselection patterns that do involve some form of love, including the systems found on Israeli kibbutzim at midcentury, among ethnic immigrant groups in the United States, and among AfricanAmericans during slavery (see also Ramu 1989). In the twentieth century, however, and especially since the 1920s, courtship in Western societies has been participant-run and based on ideas of romantic love. In the United States today, it is not uncommon for a couple to meet, woo, and wed almost without the knowledge of their respective kin. ‘‘Compared with other cultures, ours offers a wide range of choices and a minimum of control’’ (Queen, Habenstein, and Quadagno 1986, pp. 8–9).

In colonial America, practices differed somewhat between the North and South. In the North, mate choice was participant run, but a suitor’s father had control over the timing of marriage since he could delay the release of an adequate section of family land to his son while the son’s labor was still needed. Conjugal (but not romantic) love was thought to be the sine qua non of marriage, and couples came to know and trust one another during often lengthy courtships. In the South, a custom of chivalry developed, closely guarding the purity of (at least upper-class) women, but condoning promiscuity among men. Parental consent was required for the beginning of courtship and for marriage and open bargaining about property arrangements was commonplace. Unlike the colonial North, where marriage was considered a civil ceremony, in most parts of the

South, Anglican church ministers were required to officiate at weddings. In both regions, banns were published prior to weddings.

During the 1800s, mate choice became more autonomous with the growth of cities and the spread of industrial employment. Choices were affected less by considerations of wealth than by

personal qualities—especially morality, spirituality, and ‘‘character.’’ Wooing was rather formal, with each participant carefully evaluating the qualities of the other. Courtship tended to be exclusive and directed toward marriage.

Then, from about 1900 to World War II, a system evolved in which there was much ‘‘playing the field’’ (casual dating), gradually more exclusive dating (‘‘going steady’’), engagement, and finally, wedding—a relatively fixed sequence. Following the war, stages of courtship were typically marked by symbols (e.g., wearing a fraternity pin, then an engagement ring), each stage implying increased commitment between the partners. By the 1950s, a separate youth culture had developed. Ages at first marriage declined dramatically, and dating started earlier than ever before. The sexual exploration that had previously been a part of the last stage of courtship now occurred earlier, even in very young couples.

During the 1960s, a time of ‘‘sexual revolution,’’ nonmarital cohabitation increased—not substituting for marriage but delaying it. In the post World War II. period and since, among the young especially, demands for both freedom and dependence (i.e., the right to sexual freedom without assuming responsibility for its multifaceted consequences) have been relatively widespread. Concurrently, rates of nonmarital pregnancy rose dramatically.

In general, every society attempts to control sexual activity among unmarried (and married) persons, but the forms of control (e.g., chaperonage) and the degree of enforcement have varied. Virginity, especially in women, is highly prized and guarded in some cultures but has no special value in others. Similarly, all societies attempt to limit the pool of those eligible to marry, but the precise constraints have differences across societies and from time to time. Typically, blood kin and relatives by marriage (and in some cases, baptismal relatives such as godparents) are delimited to greater or lesser degrees from the eligibility pool.

Where male elders have arranged marriages for their offspring (generally in ascription-based societies), the accumulation of family power and prestige has been of primary concern, with dowrys, bride prices, or both figuring prominently in prenuptial arrangements. In participant-run mate

484

COURTSHIP

selection (generally in achievement-based societies), the power and prestige of a dating partner (although defined in terms other than land, cattle, and the like) is still valuable. Good looks (however defined) in women, for instance, are a status symbol for men, and conspicuous consumption in men (cars, clothing, spending habits) provides status for women. Thus, within the field of eligibles is a smaller field of desirables. Unfortunately, the qualities that are valued in dates (from among whom a mate may be chosen) are not necessarily those one would want in a spouse.

Even in participant-run ‘‘free choice’’ systems, there is a tendency toward homogamy in the selection of partners, whether conscious or not. As a society becomes more varied in its mix of persons within residential, educational, religious, or workrelated settings, the tendency toward heterogamy increases. That is, the field of eligibles and desirables broadens. Heterogeneity leads to a prediction of ‘‘universal availability’’ (Farber 1964) as the salience of social categories (such as race, age, religion and class) declines. For example, interracial relationships, once unthinkable (e.g., in the colonial American South), increased with urbanization, industrialization, and a general movement toward educational and income equality. Social class endogamy, however, is the general preference, although women are encouraged with varying degrees of subtlety to ‘‘marry up,’’ and a dating differential exists such that men tend to court women who are slightly younger, physically smaller, and somewhat less well educated or affluent than themselves.

Contemporary courtship, marked as it is by freedom of choice, has been likened to a market in which the buyer must be wary and in which there is no necessary truth in advertising. Persons compete, given their own assets, for the best marital ‘‘catch’’ or the most status-conferring date. Waller and Hill (1951) warned about the potential for exploitation in both casual and serious courtship and indeed, critics of conventional dating have decried it as a sexist bargaining arrangement in which men are exploited for money and women for sexual favors. The superficiality of dating, its commercialization, the deceit involved (given contradictory motives), and the high levels of anxiety provoked by fears of rejection (especially in men), are additional drawbacks. Since status differentials still characterize the sexes, dating may also be seen

as a contest in which a struggle for power and control between partners is part of the game. Thus, courtship’s emphasis on individualism, freedom, commercialism, competitive spirit, and success reflects the larger social system within which it functions. One may well ask whether such a system can prepare participants for marriage which, unlike courtship, requires cooperation and compromise for its successful survival.

Efforts to predict who marries whom and why, to delineate the courtship process itself, or both, have interested a number of scholars. Based on a large body of theoretical and empirical work, Adams (1979) developed a propositional theory to explain how courtship moves from initial acquaintance toward (or away from) marriage in an achieve- ment-oriented society. The propositions, in slightly modified language, are as follows:

1.Proximity, which facilitates contact, is a precondition for courtship and marriage.

2.As time passes, marriage is increasingly more likely to be with a current-

ly propinquitous than with a formerly propinquitous partner.

3.Propinquity increases the likelihood that one will meet, be attracted to, and marry someone of the same social categories as oneself.

4.Early attraction is a result of immediate stimuli such as physical attractive-

ness, valued surface behaviors, and similar interests.

5.The more favorable the reactions of significant others to an early relationship, the more likely the relationship will progress beyond the early attraction stage.

6.The more positive the reaction of the partners to self-disclosures, the better the rapport between them.

7.The better the rapport between the partners, the more likely the relationship will be perpetuated beyond the early attraction stage.

8.The greater the value compatibility— consensus between partners, the more likely that the relationship will progress to a deeper level of attraction.

485

COURTSHIP

9.The greater the similarity in physical attractiveness between the partners, the more likely that the relationship will progress to a deeper level of attraction.

10.The more the partners’ personalities are similar, the more likely that the relationship will progress to a deeper level of attraction.

11.The more salient the categorical homogeneity of the partners, the more likely that the relationship will progress to a deeper level of attraction.

12.The more salient the categorial heterogeneity of the partners, the more likely that the relationship will terminate either before or after reaching a deeper level of attraction.

13.The greater the unfavorable parental intrusion, the more likely that the relationship will terminate either before or after reaching a deeper level of attraction.

14.An alternative attraction to the current partner may arise at any stage of a couple’s relationship. The stronger that alternative attraction to either partner, the more likely that the original couple’s relationship will terminate.

15.The greater the role compatibility of the partners, the more likely that the relationship will be perpetuated.

16.The greater the empathy between the partners, the more likely that the relationship will be perpetuated.

17.The more each partner defines the other as ‘‘right’’ or as ‘‘the best I can get,’’ the less likely that the relationship will terminate short of marriage.

18.The more a relationship moves to the level of pair communality, the less likely it is that the relationship will terminate short of marriage.

19.The more a relationship moves through a series of formal and informal escalators, the less likely it is to terminate short of marriage (Adams 1979, pp. 260–267).

Adams (1979) also provides some warnings about these propositions. First, some factors (such as partner’s good looks) have greater salience for

men than for women, while some (such as partner’s empathic capacity) have greater salience for women than for men. Second, some factors such as parental interference may have different outcomes in the long run compared to the short run. Third, the timing of courtship may bring different considerations into play, e.g., courtship in later life such as following divorce or widowhood, or when children from previous marriages must be considered (see Bulcroft and O’Connor 1986). Finally, social class factors may affect the predictive value of the propositions. There is also a difference between traditional (male-dominated) and egalitarian relationships—the former more often found in the working class and among certain ethnic groups, the latter more likely to characterize the middle class. Thus, the kind of marriage one anticipates (traditional/egalitarian) may influence the mate-selection process. (See also Aronson 1972 for specifications of the conditions under which various interpersonal attraction predictors such as propinquity and similar interests operate).

Further, as courtship has moved away from the fixed-stage sequence of development, it may be viewed best from a circular-causal perspective

(Stephen 1985) in which progress is strongly influenced by communication within the couple, leading to increased or decreased movement toward marriage.

The timing of marriage may be influenced by such factors as meaningful employment opportunities for women (which may diminish their motivation to marry), the increasing acceptability of nonmarital cohabitation and adult singlehood (see Stein 1981), and the effects of nonmarital pregnancy or of various intolerable conditions (such as violence) in the family of origin. Currently, a number of scholars are studying each of these topics. They affect not only the timing of marriage but also how we define courtship.

Regarding premarital factors that contribute to later marital adjustment, no scholar has presented evidence to refute Kirkpatrick’s ([1955] 1963) conclusions: The happiness of parents’ marriage; adequate length of courtship; adequate sex information in childhood; a happy childhood including a harmonious relationship with parents; approval of the courtship relationship by significant others; good premarital adjustment of the couple and strong motivation to marry; homogamy along age,

486

COURTSHIP

racial-ethnic, and religious lines; and, later age at marriage.

Murstein (1980) reviewed mate-selection scholarship from the 1970s and predicted that researchers would focus less on the ‘‘old standby’’ variables such as race, class, and religion and more on the dynamic aspects of courtship. He was correct. Some of the major themes that have interested scholars in recent years are identified below.

Studies of cohabitation included early efforts to identify its several types (both structural and motivational). Later studies focused on the effects of cohabitation on subsequent marital happiness, satisfaction, and stability. The general finding across such research is that living with someone prior to marriage has little or no positive effect. Instead, most studies show negative effects in terms of happiness, satisfaction, and stability. This research has been carried out in the United States, Canada, and other countries, and although the rates vary, they are quite uniform in showing that there is a greater tendency to divorce among those who have lived with someone (i.e., the future spouse or any other partner) prior to marriage than among those who did not previously cohabit. Most scholars point out that either or both of two factors are probably at work here; first, the less-than-full acceptance of cohabitation as a lifestyle (implying less or no social support for those who cohabit), and second, the kind of persons who choose a

‘‘deviant’’ lifestyle—persons who are risk-takers, and who are less commitment-oriented. (However, see Popenoe 1987 for a different view of cohabitation in a setting where it is more normative.)

As rates of sexual activity outside of marriage rose, and as sex was to some extent disengaged from procreation (since the arrival of the birth control pill in the 1960s), research and theoretical interest focused on changes in sexual behavior and values in courtship. (See Schur 1988 for a highly negative view of the ‘‘Americanization of sex.’’) It should be noted that cohabitation appears to be a ‘‘sexier’’ arrangement than marriage (Call,

Sprecher, and Schwartz 1955), which may account for why prior cohabitants’ marriages do not meet their expectations and thus, may be more di- vorce-prone.

Also on the negative side of the ledger, there is concern about the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, and on factors related to

the use or nonuse of ‘‘safe’’ sexual practices. Research continues to examine variations in premarital sexual activity rates and their effects. Frazier

(1994) points out that the AIDS epidemic has not sidetracked the sexual revolution that began in the 1960s. This is because the forces that fueled the revolution are still in place, and some are intensify- ing—’’mobility, democratization, urbanization, women in the workplace, birth control and other reproductive interventions, and media proliferation of sexual images, ideas, and variation’’ (p. 32). Moreover, cohabitation is increasing as are the single-person household and single parenthood.

The pursuit of individuality and freedom continues. Many studies show that women are more sexual today than at any previous time in this century, says Frazier. On the positive side, a greater openness about sexuality-related information has occurred. The trend, as Frazier sees it, is away from the illusions of traditional ideas about romance and toward a more reality-based understanding between men and women. Also positive, and part of the same revolution, are expanded definitions of masculinity and femininity as the trend toward egalitarianism continues.

Unmarried households (i.e., single parenthood) have lost much of their past stigma, and increased numbers of women are choosing to remain single over the (potentially illusory) financial security of marriage, notes Frazier. This is largely a function of women’s increased earning capacities in an expanded set of labor market opportunities.

Along with the strong trend toward later marriages has come declining family size. The U. S. Department of Commerce (1992) tells us that the median age at marriage has been rising and in the 1990s was higher than it had been a century earlier. One outcome of this is, as noted earlier, a rise in nonmarital births. Related to this is a rise in the now considerable rate of child poverty, since women’s (i.e., single mothers) earnings are not as high as single fathers or of men in general.

Frazier, Arikian, Benson, Losoff, and Maurer (1996) report that, among unmarried singles over age thirty, reasons for remaining single have to do with barriers as well as choices and that men would like to marry more than would women. (This situation is reversed among younger adults, where women are more interested in marriage than are men.) Never-married adults want to marry more

487

COURTSHIP

than do divorced adults, and divorced women have the least desire for marriage. Again, this may have to do with the greater options (if not economic parity with men) open to women in recent years.

Both men and women state their primary reasons for wanting to marry as love, the desire for a family, what they see as the ‘‘romantic’’ nature of marriage, a desire for economic security (which, as noted, may be illusory), and the opportunity for regular sexual activity. However, the desire to remain single—for both men and women—is linked to having unrestricted career opportunities, to the desire for an ‘‘exciting’’ lifestyle, and to having the freedom to change and experiment. Men also identify the restrictive nature of marriage and the limits on mobility and experiences as reasons to remain single, but women mention the desire to be self-sufficient and the possibility of poor communication in marriage as among their top reasons for choosing singlehood over marriage.

Around the world, childbearing by unwed women has increased, accounting for about onethird of all births in America and northern Europe in the mid-1990s. Despite the fact that there has been a recent decline in teen births in the United States, teen pregnancies are much higher in America than in other industrialized nations, for which our poor (or absent) sexuality education is often blamed (Ventura, Matthews, and Curtin 1998).

The rising age at marriage and its effects have interested scholars not only in developed countries (e.g., East Germany) but also in developing countries such as Sri Lanka, Java, and sub-Saharan Africa. One effect is the relatively large numbers of young adults still living in the parental home.

Living arrangements and other family influences such as parental divorce or having had alcoholic parents have been studied for their effects on dating behavior, premarital pregnancy, violence in courtship, and on drinking behaviors of young adults.

Research shows that expectations of marriage among those of courting age are inflated, when compared to the expectations of persons with marital experience. Inflated expectations may be another of the causes of subsequent divorce. Moreover, scholars who study conduct on dates have uncovered the seeming paradox of egalitarian daters who behave traditionally during the earliest stages of courtship. Behavior that does not reflect

beliefs gives false impressions, and has obvious implications for the spontenaiety and honesty (or lack of them) of the conditions under which courting partners get to know one another. In this era when dating/courtship has lost much of its coherence, we find advice books for young adults with names such as Dating for Dummies (1996) and The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Dating (1996). The titles alone tell a story. Still other writers attempt to capitalize on the old notion of a war between the sexes, implying that in addition to knowing little about how to date/court, we know very little about one another since ‘‘men are from Mars and women are from Venus’’—unless we study such guides as Mars and Venus on a Date (Gray 1988). Under the guise of assisting daters to communicate with one another, they present half-traditional, half-egali- tarian versions of how to get along with persons who are seen as each others’ ‘‘opposites.’’ These popular books rest on the idea that by following their prescriptions, as in The Rules (Fein and Schneider 1996), our courtships will be successful and their outcomes happy. (The Rules, interestingly, is highly traditionalistic, and reads like a guide for 1950s ‘‘dating success.’’)

In contrast to these for-profit offerings, scholars continue to study ‘‘close’’ or ‘‘intimate’’ premarital relationships as these have changed from stylized conventional dating to the more informal ‘‘hanging out’’ and ‘‘hooking up,’’ the latter an almost only just-for-sexual-purposes arrangement. These shifts follow in part from a weakened normative imperative to marry (Thorton 1989) and in part from the trend toward more egalitarian relationships between the sexes. However, in almost all research, male/female similarities and differences continue to form part of the data analysis. Recent studies have examined attraction in an effort to identify its bases, and, less broadly, have investigated ‘‘opening lines’’ used for meeting potential partners. Which lines work, which do not, and why are unsuccessful lines still in use?

These are among the kinds of questions that are asked and answered by such investigations. Scholars working in criminal justice-related areas have provided information about the use of Rohypnol, a central nervous system depressant that is ‘‘abused throughout the United States by high school and college students, rave and nightclub attendees, and drug addicts and alcohol abusers.’’ Its use facilitates sexual assaults (Office of National Drug

488

COURTSHIP

Control Policy 1998). Other investigations examine dating among herpesand HIV-infected persons. On the more positive and more conventional side, some of the standard variables such as age and education have been reexamined for their impact on mate choice patterns (Qian 1998).

Earlier, the trend toward expanded gender roles was noted. Considerable research interest has been devoted to identifying the components of conventional (traditional) masculinity and femininity and their effects, and on resistance to change in these stereotypes—for example, because of ongoing conventional socialization practices and, as communications experts have documented, because of the effects of various media portrayals supporting the status quo ante. Scholars have also noted the greater likelihood of relational success among androgynous than among conventionally masculine men and feminine women.

Research on courtship has extended to the study of ‘‘taboo’’ conversational topics, degrees and forms of honesty and deception, communication style differences between the sexes (one result of differential socialization), and methods of conflict resolution that enhance relationship survival or that presage relationship dissolution. Interest in failed relationships has attempted to identify factors at both individual and dyadic levels that might have predicted which pairings would last and which would not. In ongoing relationships, scholars have investigated the positive and negative effects of outside influences such as parental or peer pressure, and the parts played by sameand cross-sex friends. Other topics of interest have included barriers to the development of trust and the effect of its loss, the meanings of commitment, and the effects of self-disclosure, self-esteem, selfawareness, and jealousy on close relationships.

We have witnessed a virtual explosion in the study of love—attempts to identify its forms, its properties, and its distribution of types across women and men as well as the effects of all of these, especially in terms of romantic love. On the negative side, a number of studies of violence in courtship have shown relatively high rates of this kind of activity, especially between cohabitors— and also reveal that a sizable minority of those who have experienced violence in close relationships identify it with a loving motive. This seemingly odd

justification is explained by the practices of parents who, when using violence against their children, often indicate that they hit or spank ‘‘out of love.’’ Thus, the lesson (i.e., the rationalization) is learned early. Other negative aspects of courtship include the study of ‘‘mind games’’ and other facets of competition between partners, sexual aggression including date/acquaintance rape, and the effects of contrasts between idealized images and courtship realities.

As courtship itself has expanded, researchers have taken a interest in an expanded range of relationship types. For example, the romantic involvements between lesbian women and between gay men have been studied in their own right, and also for comparative purposes with heterosexual partnerships. A predictable area for future study is the legalization of marital relationships between same-sex partners.

Other innovations such as videoand comput- er-matching and personal advertisements in print media have also captured researchers’ attention, as has using the internet to make romantic contacts (sometimes called ‘‘cyberdating’’). Scholars can be expected to pursue the study of the impact of prenuptial agreements on relationships. To a lesser extent, older lines of research have continued to probe the purported decline of, or changes in, the double standard, the ‘‘principle of least interest’’ (Waller 1938) as related to changes in gender roles, the dimensions of intimacy, and on desired traits in dating partners as these may differ between premarital partners and permanent mates.

As society grows more complex and the rate of change is increasingly rapid, confusion over the mate-selection process in all of its dimensions appears to be rife. A study of college student dating shows that these young adults have questions about virtually every aspect of the process and about the choices they make (Laner 1995). High divorce rates have produced a backlash of insecurity as the marriage decision approaches. This is reflected in the frequently asked question,

‘‘How can I be sure of making the right choice in a partner?’’ Sociologists and scholars in related disciplines continue to study a growing set of factors that shed light on the answer.

(SEE ALSO: Alternative Lifestyles; Love; Mate-Selection Theories)

489

CRIME RATES

REFERENCES

Adams, Bert N. 1979 ‘‘Mate Selection in the United States: A Theoretical Summarization.’’ In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, and I. L. Reiss, eds., Contemporary Theories About the Family. New York: Free Press.

Aronson, Elliot 1972 The Social Animal. New York:Viking.

Bailey, Beth L. 1988 From Front Porch to Back Seat: Courtship in Twentieth Century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Browne, Judy 1996 Dating for Dummies. Foster City, Calif.: IDG Books.

Bulcroft, Kris, and Margaret O’Connor 1986 ‘‘The Importance of Dating Relationships on Quality of Life for Older Persons.’’ Family Relations 35:397–401.

Call, Vaughn, Susan Sprecher, and Pepper Schwartz 1995 ‘‘The Incidence and Frequency of Marital Sex in a National Sample.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:639–652.

Farber, Bernard 1964 Family Organization and Interac-

tion. San Francisco: Chandler.

Fein, Ellen, and Sherrie Schneider 1995 The Rules: TimeTested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right. New York: Warner.

Frazier, Patricia, Nancy Arikian, Sonja Benson, Ann Losoff, and Steven Maurer 1996 ‘‘Desire for Marriage and Life Satisfaction among Unmarried Heterosexual Adults.’’ Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 13(2):225–239.

Frazier, Shervert H. 1994 ‘‘Psychotrends: What Kind of People Are We Becoming?’’ Psychology Today Janu- ary/February:32–37, 64, 66.

Goode, William J. 1969 ‘‘The Theoretical Importance of Love.’’ American Sociological Review 34:38–47.

Gordon, Michael 1981 ‘‘Was Waller Ever Right? The Rating and Dating Complex Reconsidered.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 43:67–76.

Gray, John 1998 Mars and Venus on a Date. New York: Harper-Collins.

Kirkpatrick, Clifford (1955) 1963 The Family as Process and Institution, 2nd ed. New York: Ronald.

Kuriansky, Judy 1996 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Dating. New York: Alpha Books.

Laner, Mary R. 1995 Dating: Delights, Discontents, and Dilemmas. Salem, Wisc.: Sheffield.

Popenoe, David 1987 ‘‘Beyond the Nuclear Family: A Statistical Portrait of the Changing Family in Sweden.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 49:173–183.

Qian, Zhenchao 1998 ‘‘Changes in Assortative Mating: The Impact of Age and Education, 1970–1990.’’ Demography 35(3):279–292.

Queen, Stuart A., Robert W. Habenstein, and Jill S. Quadagno 1985 The Family in Various Cultures, 5th ed. New York: Harper and Row.

Ramu, G. N. 1989 ‘‘Patterns in Mate Selection.’’ In K. Ishwaran, ed., Family and Marriage: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Toronto: Wall and Thompson.

Rothman, Ellen K. 1984 Hands and Hearts: A History of Courtship in America. New York: Basic Books.

Schur, Edwin M. 1988 The Americanization of Sex. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Stein, Peter J. (ed.) 1981 Single Life: Unmarried Adults in Social Context. New York: St. Martin’s.

Stephen, Timothy D. 1985 ‘‘Fixed-Sequence and Circu- lar-Causal Models of Relationship Development: Divergent Views on the Role of Communication in Intimacy.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 47:955–963.

Thornton, Arland 1989 ‘‘Changing Attitudes toward Family Issues in the United States.’’ Journal of Marriage and Family 51:873–893.

U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992 Statistical Brief 92–13, Family Life Today. . . and How It Has Changed.

Ventura, S. J., T. J. Matthews, and S. C. Curtin 1998 ‘‘Declines in Teenage Birth Rates, 1991–97; National and State Patterns.’’ National Vital Statistics Reports 47(12). Hyattsville, Md: National Center for Health Statistics.

Waller, Willard 1938 ‘‘The Rating and Dating Complex.’’ American Sociological Review 2:727–734.

———, and Reuben Hill 1951 The Family: A Dynamic Interpretation, rev. ed. New York: Dryden.

MARY REIGE LANER

CRIME DETERRENCE

See Criminal Sanctions; Criminology; Social

Control.

Murstein, Bernard I. 1980 ‘‘Mate Selection in the 1970s.’’

Journal of Marriage and the Family 42:777–792.

Office of National Drug Control Policy 1998 ‘‘Fact Sheet: Rohypnol.’’ Washington, D.C.: Drug Policy Information Clearing House.

CRIME RATES

The interpretation of crime rates seems unproblematic, but those sociologists who study crime know that is not the case. Even simple counts of

490

CRIME RATES

crime raise difficult issues. To imagine the difficulties consider two men at a bar. One of them makes a rude comment to the other and the other person shoves him. The person shoved strikes the other person on the jaw before the fight is broken up. The person hit on the jaw calls the police to the scene and wants to press charges, but the person shoved claims self-defense and that the person who shoved him is guilty of an assault. The two men may decide that the matter is not worth pressing and the police may agree. On the other hand, the police may file a report that results in an arrest. If a grand jury thinks the evidence warrants it, the case may go to trial. Even if the case reaches trial, the jury may acquit the accused.Other possible steps in the process exist, but determining whether a crime occurred is often difficult. The process contains many decision points. Will the individuals involved report the incident to the police? Will the police determine that a crime occurred? Now imagine that an interviewer asks one of these men about their history of criminal offending or victimization. Would the individual report this incident to the interviewer? Would one of the individuals admit to an interviewer that he committed an assault? Crime counts constitute an important element in the calculation of crime rates, but they are only one factor.

Rather than report simple crime counts, social scientists often calculate crime rates. Depending on the context, they may do this because crime rates: (1) allow for the comparison of crime patterns across groupings of different sizes, (2) make possible the comparison of the relative frequency of crime over time, or (3) help in the assessment of the risk of victimization. In terms of comparability of patterns across groupings of different sizes, simply reporting the number of crimes in cities with 100,000 or more residents produces unsatisfactory results. Forty homicides may not represent a large number for New York City, but twenty homicides represent a large number in Eugene, Oregon. The calculation of homicide rates per 100,000 residents for New York City and Eugene makes comparisons between the two cities easier.

Similar calculations of rates for different years facilitate comparisons over time. The number of homicides may have doubled in Los Angeles from 1920 to 1990 while the rate per 100,000 residents has decreased. In terms of the risk of motor vehicle theft, a rate based on the number of motor

vehicle thefts per 10,000 registered motor vehicles may be more helpful than the number of motor vehicles stolen.

Equation (1) represents the general formula for calculating a crime rate:

Crime Rate Per Base =
Number of Incidents	(1)
(Relevant Population Size )x Base

Each of the components in this formula: Base, Relevant Population Size, and Number of Incidents, represents an important decision point when calculating a crime rate. Determining the most appropriate measure for each component is not as straightforward as it might first appear.

Selecting a Base: If the base is 100,000, then the interpretation of the rate is the number of incidents per 100,000. With a base of 100 the interpretation is in terms of the number of incidents per 100 (a percent). Reports of crime rates often appear as rates per 100,000 or per 10,000. One reason for this is the relative infrequency of some crimes. For example, in 1997 the number of murders in the United States was 18,210 and the population of the United States was 268 million. If we choose 100 for the base, we find that the homicide rate per 100 is .0068 or .0068 percent. This figure challenges the intuition of most people. We should choose the base to make the rate easier to interpret. If we choose 100,000 for the base, we find that the homicide rate is 6.8 per 100,000; a much easier figure for most people to understand.

Relevant Population Size: The choice of the relevant population size depends upon the selection of an appropriate ‘‘relevant population.’’ The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) typically chooses the number of residents as the relevant population. This number is used to calculate crime rates for cities or for the United States as a whole in the UCR. The National Crime and Victimization Survey (NCVS) often uses the number of residents who are twelve years of age or older as the relevant population, since the survey only asks about crime incidents involving those in that age range. At other times households represent the relevant population as when victimization surveys calculate rates for households touched by crime.

491

CRIME RATES

General Definitions of Part I Offenses in the Uniform Crime Reports

Criminal Homicide	Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter: the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by
	another. Deaths caused by negligence and justifiable homicide are excluded.
Forcible Rape	The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Included are rapes by force
	and attempts or assaults to rape. Statutory offenses (no force used and victim under age of
	consent) are excluded.
Robbery	The taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person
	or persons by force or threat of force or violence or by putting the victim in fear.
Aggravated Assault	An unlawful attack by one person on another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated
	bodily injury. This type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means
	likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Simple assaults are excluded.
Burglary	Breaking or Entering: The unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft. Attempted
	forcible entry is included.
Larceny	Theft (Except Motor Vehicle Theft): The unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of
	property from the possession or constructive possession of another. Attempted larcenies are
	included. Embezzlement, con games, forgery, worthless checks, etc., are excluded.
Motor Vehicle Theft	The theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is self-propelled and runs on the
	surface and not on rails. Specifically excluded from this category are motorboats, construction
	equipment, airplanes, and farming equipment.
Arson	Any willful or malicious burning or attempt to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling
	house, public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of another, etc.

Table 1

SOURCE: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1998. Crime in the United States—1997 (Appendix II).

Thus, the total number of people may not be the most appropriate ‘‘relevant population.’’ In the case of rape incidents, it might be more appropriate to compute rape rates using women as the relevant population. For motor vehicle theft, the relevant population might be the number of registered motor vehicles. For commercial burglaries, the relevant population might be the number of commercial establishments. Social scientists should choose these populations carefully.

Number of Incidents: Determining the value for the numerator of the crime rate formula raises particularly difficult issues. The UCR, for example, employs a complicated set of rules for counting the number of incidents. For example, the UCR ‘‘hierarchy rule’’ ensures that for Part I crimes

(the most serious street crimes) only the most serious crime is recorded. Thus, if a person breaks into a store, is confronted by the owner and threatens the owner with a gun, and then kills the owner, the offense is recorded as a homicide, but not as a burglary or robbery or assault. The ‘‘hotel rule’’ is

invoked when a burglar breaks into several units in an apartment or hotel and only one burglary is counted. Researchers draw a distinction between an incident rate and a prevalence rate. This involves a distinction between the number of criminal incidents per some relevant population and the number of offenders per some relevant population. Using the number of offenders per some relevant population produces a prevalence rate.

Thus, many decisions help determine the most appropriate crime rate for a particular purpose. These decisions need to be considered when interpreting a particular rate or when attempting to compare one crime rate with another.

SOURCES OF CRIME DATA IN THE

UNITED STATES

There are three major sources of crime data in the United States, and knowing the strengths and weaknesses of these data sources helps explain why crime rates derived from them often vary.

492

CRIME RATES

Crimes and Crime Indexes For the United States, 1997

			Percent Change
		Rate per 100,000	in the Rate
Offenses	Number	Inhabitants	From 1988 to 1997
Crime index total	13,175,100	4,922.7	-13.1
Violent crime index	1,634,770	610.8	-4.1
Homicide	18,210	6.8	-19.0
Forcible rape	96,120	35.9	-4.5
Robbery	497,950	186.1	-15.8
Aggravated assault	1,022,490	382.0	-3.2
Property crime index	11,540,300	4,311.9	-14.2
Burglary	2,461,100	919.6	-29.8
Larceny-theft	7,725,500	2,886.5	-7.9
Motor vehicle theft	1,353,700	505.8	-13.2

Table 2

SOURCE: Data are from Crime in the United States—1997 (Federal Bureau of Investigation 1998, Table 1)

These three methods are similar to those used to collect crime data internationally: (1) official data collected by law enforcement agencies, (2) surveys of the victims of crimes, and (3) self-report studies based on offenders. Other sources also are available, but less commonly used (e.g., vital statistics, hospital records, and insurance records).

The Uniform Crime Reports. During the later half of the 1920s the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) developed uniform crime definitions and counting rules that would allow it to collect more comparable data from different law enforcement agencies. The IACP initiated the UCR in January of 1930. During the latter part of 1930 the Bureau of Investigation took over the UCR program, and it has remained a function of that bureau (renamed the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, or FBI).

The general definitions of the UCR Part I offenses appear in Table 1, but more detailed definitions appear in the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook (FBI 1985). As an example, the Uniform Crime Reporting System defines burglary as the unlawful entry of any fixed structure, vehicle, or vessel used for a regular residence, industry, or business, with or without force, with the intent to commit a felony, or larceny. Without uniform definitions, jurisdictions in which state law defines theft from a storage-shed as a burglary would report such an incident as a burglary to the FBI. In another jurisdiction, breaking and entering might be required for an incident to be classified as a

burglary. In such a jurisdiction an incident in which an offender entered a house through an open window in order to steal a stereo would be coded as unlawful entry with intent to commit a crime for the purposes of the state’s law, but as a burglary for UCR purposes.

Participation in the UCR is voluntary. Local law-enforcement agencies send their data to the FBI or to state-level UCR programs that forward the data to the FBI. In the early years only the largest law enforcement agencies in the United States participated. But by the 1980s and 1990s, agencies representing about 97 percent of the population of the entire United States participated. The FBI reports two types of crime: Part I crimes and Part II crimes. For Part I crimes, data on crimes known to the police and on arrests are reported; for Part II crimes, only data on arrests are reported. Part I crimes include violent crimes (murder and non-negligent homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), property crimes

(burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft), and arson. Each year the news media report crime rates derived from the FBI data and a summary of these data appear annually in Crime in the United States. This FBI publication provides crime rates for states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, cities, other geographical subdivisions, and the nation as a whole.

Table 2 presents Part I crime data from the publication Crime in the United States—1997 (FBI 1998). The second column presents the number of

493