Going back to the actual study of married and single men, the headline of the press release was a bit less sweeping. It said, "Why married men tend to behave better." That's still a broad generalization but at least there's a qualifier ("tend to"). Another version that got a lot of attention was a Reuters report. The headline of that one was, "Married men are nicer, and here's why."

First Glance at the Study and the Results

Lots of people read no more than a press release, or media stories based on that quick summary, so here's some of what you would learn if that's all you read:

• Antisocial behavior was assessed in 289 pairs of male twins (188 were identical twins) when they were 17, 20, 24, and 29 years old. (Most were born between 1973 and 1978.)
• None were married at age 17; by age 29, 59% were married.
• "men with lower levels of antisocial behavior at ages 17 and 20 were more likely to have married by age 29"
• "Once the men were married, rates of antisocial behavior declined even more"

 The methodology sounded promising, and I continued to be impressed even after reading the original research report. The authors had access to hundreds of pairs of twins, and followed the same men over time. A twin study, and a longitudinal one at that, is about as good as it gets with regard to figuring out the implications of marital status.

But of course, I still had questions after reading the press release, including one that still wasn't answered after I had  read the study:

• What exactly counted as antisocial behavior?
• How big were the differences between the single and the married men?
• What were the results for the divorced men?
• What happens after age 29?

Eventually, of course, I'd want to get to the question of what it all means (apart from what might be claimed about the meaning).

What Do They Mean by "Better" or "Better Behaved"? Here Are the Actual Criteria

So what did count as antisocial behavior? In the original journal article, only a few of the relevant behaviors were mentioned. I wanted to see the whole list, and I found it in this article by Robert Hare. (It is available other places as well.) Here are all 10 criteria:

1.      Has never sustained a monogamous relationship for more than one year

2.      Unable to sustain consistent work behavior

3.      Fails to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior

4.      Irritable and aggressive

5.      Fails to honor financial obligations

6.      Fails to plan ahead, or is impulsive

7.      Has no regard for the truth

8.      Reckless

9.      Lacks ability to function as a parent

10.   Lacks remorse

You read #1 correctly. If you are a man who is single at heart, and you have not had a monogamous (they mean romantic) relationship that has lasted more than a year (hey, you're single at heart - you LIKE being single - maybe you don't typically pursue romantic relationships), then that alone is considered just as symptomatic of antisocial behavior as having no feelings of remorse. Or no regard for the truth. Or breaking the law. Or being a flake in the workplace. Or having no ability to function as a parent.

I can see how some versions of "has never sustained a monogamous relationship for more than one year" could be problematic. If, for instance, you pledge your undying love and devotion to another person, only to be gone in months, and you do that over and over again, then that could plausibly be consistent with, say, an inability to sustain consistent work behavior. In fact, when psychopathy expert Robert Hare constructed his revised Psychopathy Checklist, he included a criterion of "many short-term marital relationships."

In the study we are considering, though, the criterion is different - "has never sustained a monogamous relationship for more than one year." If you've been contentedly single and have not pursued romantic relationships, that's one strike against you on the antisocial behavior scale.

Still, that's only one item. If the difference between single and married men is a big one, it might not matter. Or maybe the researchers set aside that item in their analyses.

How Big Were the Differences Between the Married Men and the Single Men?

In Table 1, the authors reported the AVERAGE NUMBER OF SYMPTOMS of antisocial behavior according to whether the men were single or married men at age 29. The rows for the earlier ages (17, 20, and 24) show the average number of symptoms for the same men when they were younger. (Remember that at age 17, none of them were married yet, but 59% would be by age 29.)

Age 17: SINGLE = 1.08, Married = 0.75 (Difference = .33)

Age 20: SINGLE = 1.48, Married = 1.18 (Difference = .30)

Age 24: SINGLE = 1.42, Married = 1.04 (Difference = .40)

Age 29: SINGLE = 1.29, Married = 0.83 (Difference = .46)

These are some of the data the authors present to make their two points: (1) Those men who would stay single through age 29 already showed more antisocial behavior at age 17 than those who would marry, even though at age 17 no one was married yet. (2) Once married, the difference in antisocial behavior between singles and marrieds is even greater.

All of that is true. But look at the actual numbers! The biggest number of symptoms for any group at any age is 1.48. Now most of those antisocial behaviors are pretty bad behaviors, so having one or two of them (depending on what they are) may be no small thing. But now look at the numbers that are even more important - the DIFFERENCES in the number of antisocial behaviors between the married and the single men. Every difference is an average of less than half a symptom.

So these are the findings behind the headlines, "Married men better men." At age 29, single men report just over 1 anti-social behavior, and married men report just under 1 anti-social behavior. As far as I can tell, that one behavior could include "has never sustained a monogamous relationship for more than one year." If the authors set that item aside, they didn't say so.