Last week's column argued that the most rigorous longitudinal data on marriage outcomes shows more positive trends than the broader cultural commentary acknowledges. Five readers responded; their letters are below.

From a sociologist

Dr. Ana Cordero of a regional research institution writes: “The column's framing is consistent with what the longitudinal literature shows. The temptation to read marriage trends through the lens of selection effects in media-coverage is real and should be resisted; the population-level data is more positive than the media coverage suggests.”

From a marriage counsellor

The author, who has practiced for over twenty years, writes: “The column got the data right. What I would add from clinical experience is that the practices that produce durable marriages today are not different from the practices that produced them thirty years ago. The contexts have changed; the underlying work has not.”

From a divorced reader

The author, who asked that her name be withheld, writes: “I appreciated the column's honesty about the variation across populations. My specific situation did not fit the broader positive trend; nothing in the column suggested that it should. The aggregate data is the aggregate data; individual experience is, as always, varied.”

From a young reader

The author, who is in his late twenties, writes: “The column was useful for someone in my age range navigating the contemporary cultural conversation about whether to marry. The data the column cited was more positive than the broader cultural conversation has been; the alignment with my own observation among friends was surprising and welcome.”

From a reader married 47 years

The author writes: “The column's emphasis on the work that produces durable marriages was the right emphasis. After 47 years, I can confirm: the work continues, the work is worth doing, and the people who do the work produce the outcomes the column described.”