M. M. KEELS, R. S. POWERS
changing.
Framework and Prior Research
Sociologists emphasize the importance of the socialization
process and language in constructing social reality. People learn
the meanings of symbols in social interactions and these social
objects are used to represent whatever people agree that they
should represent. From the perspective of symbolic interaction-
ism, language allows people to actively create society (Berger
& Luckman, 1966; Blumer, 1969; Garfinkel, 1967, 1984; Goff-
man, 1959; Schutz, 1932, 1967) and this includes constructing
social norms that reflect and shape the social context. The so-
cial norm of marital name changing is linked to a patriarchal
social structure that includes gendered societal expectations
(Kimmel, 2011). It is a socially constructed expectation that
women will prioritize marriage over their personal identities, as
displayed in their last name, and practice the tradition of marital
name changing (Smith, 1987).
From a feminist perspective, participating in marital name
changing reinforces gender inequality because a woman’s pre-
viously established single person identity is considered subordi-
nate to the new married status (Emens, 2007; Smith, 1987).
Historically, the legal doctrine of coverture enforced women’s
subordinate status by restricting the rights of married women
(Hoff, 1991; Kerr, 1992; Million, 2003). In the mid ninetieth
century, the well-known abolitionist, lecturer and suffragist-
Lucy Stone challenged the status quo by keeping her surname
after marriage (Hoff, 1991; Kerr, 1992; Million, 2003). Over
one hundred years later, in 1975 it became legal for a married
woman to keep her birth name, however; current public records
show that the majority of women take their husband’s surname
at marriage (Gooding & Kreider, 2010; Kopelman, Shea-Van
Fossen, Paraskevas, Lawter, & Prottas, 2009). The fact that
most women follow the tradition of marital name changing pro-
vides evidence of the power and pervasiveness of the gender
socialization process.
A recent study collected data from college students in two
regions of the US to examine both attitudes and plans toward
marital name changing across place and time (Scheuble et al.,
2012). The results revealed that Midwest respondents in 2006
held more traditional attitudes compared to Midwest respon-
dents in 1990, and were more likely to agree that marital name
changing indicated a greater commitment to marriage. The
analysis across regions showed that women respondents who
lived in the eastern US were more likely to report plans to keep
their name at marriage compared to those living in the Midwest.
Research by Gooding and Kreider (2010) found that women
living in the Northeast or Western part of the country were
more likely to keep their own surname or combine surnames
compared to women living in the South. A content analysis us-
ing wedding announcements published in The New York Times
in the 1980’s and 1990’s, and in the years 2001-2005 found a
nonlinear pattern (i.e., not systematic across time) for the per-
cent of brides choosing to keep their birth name rather than
participate in marital name changing (Kopelman et al., 2009).
Together these findings suggest that the extent of adherence to
a cultural tradition like marital name changing is affected by the
place of residence and by social change across time.
A research study by Scheuble and Johnson (1993) conducted
personal interviews with college students at a small US Mid-
west college. The majority (81.6%) of women respondents
planned to change their name upon marriage (p. 751). However,
the results showed that women respondents who expected to
marry later, planned on liberal work roles after childbirth, were
from larger communities, had mothers with higher education
levels, and held non-traditional gender role attitudes were more
likely to be accepting of various name changing practices. Also,
women respondents were significantly more likely than were
men respondents to believe it is acceptable for a woman to keep
her maiden name at marriage. According to all respondents, it
would be acceptable for the bride to keep her name at marriage
if she likes her maiden name, if she does not like her husband’s
name, if she is older when she marries, and/or if she wants to
keep her own family name going. These findings reveal a vari-
ety of reasons considered acceptable for deviating from the so-
cial norm of name changing.
Prior research shows that women participate in marital name
changing because of tradition, family values and pressure from
society (Blakemore, Lawton & Vartanian, 2005; Scheuble &
Johnson, 1993). Several studies have reported that marital name
changing is more likely for women with lower levels of educa-
tion (Gooding & Kreider, 2010; Hoffnung, 2006; Scheuble &
Johnson, 1993), and report a strong positive correlation with
women’s educational attainment and rejecting the practice of
marital name changing (Gooding & Kreider, 2010). Scheuble
and Johnson’s (1993) study found that the practice of marital
name changing was more likely for women who marry at a
young age and for women who were not familiar with egalitar-
ian lifestyles. Research by Blakemore et al., (2005) showed that
women who expressed a strong drive to marry, who valued the
role of being a parent over a career and who held traditional va-
lues were more likely to expect to change their name. Hoff-
nung’s (2006) study found that marital name changing was
likely for women who were Catholic, had mothers with only a
high school education, and who stated they wanted to have
children early in their marriage. This study reported that re-
spondents did not consider their personal identity tied to their
birth name nor did they think that marital name changing hin-
dered progress toward gender equality in society.
Taken together, this review of the literature shows mixed
findings suggesting that marital name changing is a multifacet-
ed issue. Disentangling the ideas about this social norm is im-
portant for understanding its creation and perpetuation. The
intention of the present study is to contribute to the literature
with a mixed methods analysis that allows us to delve deeper
into the reasons women give for participating in the traditional
practice of marital name changing.
Methodology
For this study, two types of data are employed to investigate
reasons for marital name changing: a quantitative secondary
data set and a qualitative data set collected via in-depth inter-
views. A mixed method approach allows for comparison of re-
sults across two separate sets of data for purposes of strength-
ening and complementing the findings (Johnson & Onwuegbu-
zie, 2004; Plano Clark, Garrett, & Leslie-Pelecky, 2010). First,
we carried out a pilot study using open-ended questions about
reasons for marital name changing administered to students en-
rolled in Sociology classes at a medium-sized southeastern US
public university. From these responses, a content analysis was
conducted to ascertain patterns. Secondly, we compiled a list of
reasons documented in prior literature on name changing. By
Open Access.
302