Civic life, loneliness and partnership

Voter turnout in the 2020 presidential election was 72.1%72.1% percent of citizens aged 18 and over who votedEstimandmean of county voter turnout in a tenth of counties (equal numbers of counties, ranked by county Area Deprivation Index; county ADI is the mean of the county's tract Area Deprivation Index national ranks, weighted by 2019-2023 tract population), weighted by county population, bootstrap interval over countiesInterval95% CI 70.6% to 73.8%n307 countiesWeights2019-2023 county populationPopulationcitizens aged 18 and over in counties in the least deprived tenth of counties by Area Deprivation IndexPeriod2020 presidential electionSourceCounty Health Rankings among adult citizens in the tenth of counties with the lowest Area Deprivation IndexArea Deprivation Index (ADI)A score that ranks neighborhoods by income, education, employment and housing conditions drawn from the American Community Survey. In this book a higher national percentile means a more deprived neighborhood. scores and 56.4%56.4% percent of citizens aged 18 and over who votedEstimandmean of county voter turnout in a tenth of counties (equal numbers of counties, ranked by county Area Deprivation Index; county ADI is the mean of the county's tract Area Deprivation Index national ranks, weighted by 2019-2023 tract population), weighted by county population, bootstrap interval over countiesInterval95% CI 55.4% to 57.6%n310 countiesWeights2019-2023 county populationPopulationcitizens aged 18 and over in counties in the most deprived tenth of counties by Area Deprivation IndexPeriod2020 presidential electionSourceCounty Health Rankings in the tenth with the highest. Census self-response is the share of households that answered the 2020 census online, by mail or by phone without a visit from a census taker. It was 21.0 (95% CI 19.0 to 22.9)21.0 percentage points, least deprived tenth minus most deprived tenth of countiesEstimanddifference between the population-weighted means of census self-response in the least and the most deprived tenth of counties, bootstrap interval over counties with shared drawsInterval95% CI 19.0 to 22.9n624 countiesWeights2019-2023 county populationPopulationhouseholds in counties in the two extreme tenths of counties by Area Deprivation IndexPeriod2020 censusSourceCounty Health Rankings points lower in the most deprived tenth than in the least. Both numbers describe counties, and the chapter reads them as patterns among places.

Voting and census response fall with county deprivation

Each county takes the mean national percentile rank of its census tracts on the deprivation index, weighted by tract population. The 3,1283,128 countiesEstimandcount of counties ranked into tenthsWeightsnone (full count)Populationcounties and county equivalents with an Area Deprivation Index and a population (Puerto Rico excluded)PeriodADI 2023, population 2019-2023SourceArea Deprivation Index counties with a rank are then cut into ten groups with equal numbers of counties. The point estimates of turnout and of self-response are lower at every step from the least deprived tenth to the most deprived.

Figure 1

Voter turnout and census self-response fall with county deprivation, and across counties they correlate less with upward mobility than family structure and friendship across incomes do

County Health Rankings 2024 participation measures by decile of county deprivation, and county measures of civic life against the adult income rank of children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th percentile

Participation by deprivationCorrelation with mobility

Voter turnout fell from 72.1% to 56.4% and census self-response from 68.6% to 47.6% across deciles of county deprivation

Population-weighted mean voter turnout (citizens aged 18 and over, 2020 election) and census self-response (households, 2020 census) by decile of county deprivation

Decile of county deprivation (1 = least deprived tenth of counties, 10 = most deprived)

Both lines fall from the least to the most deprived tenth, their point estimates fall at every step, and the self-response line falls further. Each point is a population-weighted mean over about a tenth of counties, with a 95% interval from a bootstrap over counties.

Show data

Data for Voter turnout and census self-response fall with county deprivation, and across counties they correlate less with upward mobility than family structure and friendship across incomes do, Participation by deprivation

conf_high	conf_low	decile	estimate	measure	n_units
73.80	70.58	1	72.06	Voter turnout, 2020	307
71	67.93	2	69.33	Voter turnout, 2020	304
68.58	64.62	3	66.59	Voter turnout, 2020	309
65.57	62.07	4	63.95	Voter turnout, 2020	309
64.15	61.43	5	62.84	Voter turnout, 2020	310
62.08	59.10	6	60.63	Voter turnout, 2020	310
60.94	58.84	7	59.85	Voter turnout, 2020	313
60.52	56.90	8	58.66	Voter turnout, 2020	315
59.01	57.18	9	58.06	Voter turnout, 2020	311
57.59	55.37	10	56.43	Voter turnout, 2020	310
69.94	67.39	1	68.60	Census self-response, 2020	312
68.15	65.91	2	66.97	Census self-response, 2020	312
68.04	65	3	66.45	Census self-response, 2020	312
66.25	63.61	4	64.94	Census self-response, 2020	312
64.80	62.56	5	63.80	Census self-response, 2020	314
62.88	60.24	6	61.63	Census self-response, 2020	311
61.85	59.72	7	60.76	Census self-response, 2020	313
58.76	55.75	8	57.15	Census self-response, 2020	315
55.21	53.18	9	54.20	Census self-response, 2020	312
49.12	46.11	10	47.63	Census self-response, 2020	312

These are means weighted by county population. Counting each county once gives a higher turnout and a lower self-response in every tenth, so small counties vote more and respond less on their own than the counties where most people live. The gradient points the same way under either weighting.

How we know

Both measures come from County Health Rankings for 2020.[1] Turnout is the share of adult citizens who voted in the presidential election, so it counts only citizens, depends on state voting laws and leaves out people who have lost their voting rights. Self-response depends on how a place was counted. Census takers counted households in person instead of inviting them to respond in remote Alaska, in remote parts of northern Maine and southeast Alaska, and optionally in tribal areas. A low rate there reflects the operation as well as the residents.[2] Neither measure is a pure gauge of civic willingness. The report gives every estimate with its interval and sample size.

Turnout's link to mobility does not survive county controls

The chapter also asks which county measures of civic life go with the upward mobility of children from low-income families. Mobility is the mean adult income rankIncome rank (kfr)The position that adult children reach in the national distribution of household income, from the lowest rank to the highest, averaged over children who grew up in a place with parents at a stated income level. The Opportunity Atlas labels this measure kfr. of children born in 1978 to 1983, which the Opportunity Atlas reports by county. Across counties weighted by population, voter turnout correlates +0.35 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.42)+0.35 correlation coefficientEstimandpopulation-weighted correlation across counties of the measure with the mean adult household income rank, bootstrap interval over countiesInterval95% CI 0.28 to 0.42n2,964 countiesWeights2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)Populationcounties with the measure and a mobility estimate (children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th income percentile)Periodcounty measure of voter turnout in 2020 against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983SourceCounty Health Rankings with that mobility.

Counties with high turnout also differ in income, racial composition and poverty. With four civic measures alone in a regression, turnout has a standardized coefficient of 0.24 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.42)0.24 standard deviations of county mobility per standard deviation of the measureEstimandstandardized coefficient on voter turnout in model A (civic measures only) of county mobility, weighted least squares, errors clustered on stateInterval95% CI 0.06 to 0.42n2,915 countiesWeights2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)Populationcounties with every measure in the model and a mobility estimate (Connecticut is absent)Periodcounty measure of voter turnout against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983SourceCounty Health Rankings, in standard deviations of county mobility per standard deviation of turnout. Adding the log of median household income, the Black share of residents and the poverty rate, it falls to 0.00 (95% CI −0.15 to 0.16)0.00 standard deviations of county mobility per standard deviation of the measureEstimandstandardized coefficient on voter turnout in model B (plus income, percent black and poverty) of county mobility, weighted least squares, errors clustered on stateInterval95% CI −0.15 to 0.16n2,915 countiesWeights2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)Populationcounties with every measure in the model and a mobility estimate (Connecticut is absent)Periodcounty measure of voter turnout against mobility of children born 1978 to 1983SourceCounty Health Rankings. Once economic connectednessEconomic connectednessA measure of friendship across class lines, based on the share of high-status friends among people below the median in socioeconomic status. It is scaled so that friendships mixing in proportion to the population give the reference value., the measure of friendships across income lines that Chapter 4.3, Race, income and mobility examines, is added, its own coefficient is the largest in the model. These are partial associations among measures that move together, and each coefficient depends on which others share the model.

Figure 2

Once income, race and poverty are in the model, voter turnout has a coefficient of 0.00 on county mobility, and economic connectedness has 0.63

Standardized coefficients on the adult income rank of children from low-income families (born 1978 to 1983) in three county regressions, weighted by 2018 county population

• Civic measures only
• Plus income, percent Black and poverty
• Plus economic connectedness

Show data

Data for Once income, race and poverty are in the model, voter turnout has a coefficient of 0.00 on county mobility, and economic connectedness has 0.63

conf_high	conf_low	estimate	model	n_units	term
0.420	0.058	0.239	Civic measures only	2,915	Voter turnout
0.327	−0.007	0.160	Civic measures only	2,915	Census self-response
0.127	−0.150	−0.012	Civic measures only	2,915	Civic groups per capita
0.253	−0.016	0.118	Civic measures only	2,915	Volunteering group membership
0.161	−0.152	0.004	Plus income, percent Black and poverty	2,915	Voter turnout
0.047	−0.212	−0.083	Plus income, percent Black and poverty	2,915	Census self-response
0.160	−0.103	0.028	Plus income, percent Black and poverty	2,915	Civic groups per capita
0.091	−0.061	0.015	Plus income, percent Black and poverty	2,915	Volunteering group membership
0.593	0.238	0.415	Plus income, percent Black and poverty	2,915	Log median household income
−0.425	−0.608	−0.517	Plus income, percent Black and poverty	2,915	Percent Black
0.076	−0.158	−0.041	Plus income, percent Black and poverty	2,915	Poverty rate
0.101	−0.121	−0.010	Plus economic connectedness	2,915	Voter turnout
−0.053	−0.256	−0.155	Plus economic connectedness	2,915	Census self-response
0.049	−0.146	−0.049	Plus economic connectedness	2,915	Civic groups per capita
−0.094	−0.220	−0.157	Plus economic connectedness	2,915	Volunteering group membership
0.790	0.467	0.628	Plus economic connectedness	2,915	Economic connectedness
0.323	−0.053	0.135	Plus economic connectedness	2,915	Log median household income
−0.339	−0.480	−0.409	Plus economic connectedness	2,915	Percent Black
0.145	−0.074	0.036	Plus economic connectedness	2,915	Poverty rate

The measures have different dates. Mobility is for children born in 1978 to 1983 and the participation measures are for 2020. Using recent civic life to describe where children rose decades ago assumes that county differences persist, which these data do not test.

The premium does not shrink where social capital is higher

The chapter then turns from places to people. The Gallup U.S. Daily survey has 2,189,2012,189,201 interviewsEstimandcount of interviews with a ladder score, a marital status and a countyWeightsnone (unweighted count)Populationadults interviewed with a ladder score, a marital status and a countyPeriodinterviews in 2009 to 2017SourceGallup U.S. Daily Poll interviews from 2009 to 2017 with both a marital status and a score on the Cantril ladderCantril ladderA survey question that asks people to place their life on a ladder whose bottom step is the worst possible life and whose top step is the best possible. It measures how people evaluate their life as a whole, not how they felt yesterday.. The ladder asks people to place their life between the worst possible life and the best possible one. Every Gallup figure is unweighted, because the extract has no survey weights. Adults who were married or in a domestic partnership rated their lives 0.50 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.51)0.50 ladder points, partnered minus not partneredEstimandunweighted difference between the mean ladder score of adults who are married or in a domestic partnership and the mean of all others, interval clustered by countyInterval95% CI 0.49 to 0.51n2,189,201 respondentsWeightsnone (unweighted)Populationadults interviewed with a ladder score, a marital status and a countyPeriodinterviews in 2009 to 2017SourceGallup U.S. Daily Poll ladder points higher than other adults, and the chapter calls this difference the partner premium. Adults who live with a partner and call themselves single are in the comparison group.

If community could stand in for a partner, the premium would be smaller in counties with more of it. The chapter sorts interviews into ten groups by the Joint Economic Committee's Social Capital Index of the respondent's county, a standardized score from the 2018 release whose components date from 2010 to 2016.[3] The premium was 0.45 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.48)0.45 ladder points, partnered minus not partneredEstimandunweighted difference in mean ladder score between partnered and other adults within a tenth of interviews ranked by the JEC Social Capital Index, interval clustered by countyInterval95% CI 0.43 to 0.48n218,523 respondentsWeightsnone (unweighted)Populationadults in counties in the lowest tenth of interviews by the JEC Social Capital Index of the respondent's countyPeriodinterviews in 2009 to 2017SourceGallup U.S. Daily Poll ladder points in the lowest group and 0.49 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.51)0.49 ladder points, partnered minus not partneredEstimandunweighted difference in mean ladder score between partnered and other adults within a tenth of interviews ranked by the JEC Social Capital Index, interval clustered by countyInterval95% CI 0.47 to 0.51n220,209 respondentsWeightsnone (unweighted)Populationadults in counties in the highest tenth of interviews by the JEC Social Capital Index of the respondent's countyPeriodinterviews in 2009 to 2017SourceGallup U.S. Daily Poll in the highest, so it did not shrink. The point estimates are smaller in the three lowest groups than in the other seven, although some intervals overlap.

Figure 3

The partner premium does not shrink where county social capital is higher: 0.45 ladder points in the lowest decile and 0.49 in the highest

Cantril ladder scores of partnered and other adults by decile of the JEC Social Capital Index of the respondent's county, and the change in the premium per standard deviation of seven county measures

Ladder scoresPartner premiumChange per standard deviation

The partner premium is 0.45 ladder points in the lowest decile of county social capital and 0.49 in the highest

Unweighted difference in mean ladder score, partnered minus other adults, by decile of the JEC Social Capital Index of the respondent's county, 2009 to 2017

Decile of the county Social Capital Index (1 = lowest tenth of interviews, 10 = highest)

The point estimates are smaller in the three lowest deciles than in the seven others, although some intervals overlap, and the premium does not shrink as county social capital rises. Each point is a difference of means with a 95% interval clustered by county.

Show data

Data for The partner premium does not shrink where county social capital is higher: 0.45 ladder points in the lowest decile and 0.49 in the highest, Partner premium

conf_high	conf_low	decile	estimate	n
0.479	0.427	1	0.453	218,523
0.486	0.423	2	0.455	216,873
0.495	0.431	3	0.463	219,044
0.534	0.492	4	0.513	217,213
0.536	0.495	5	0.515	218,340
0.525	0.483	6	0.504	222,616
0.546	0.507	7	0.527	213,735
0.536	0.492	8	0.514	215,733
0.548	0.504	9	0.526	217,604
0.511	0.472	10	0.491	220,209

A regression with an interaction between partnership and the county index puts the premium 0.023 (95% CI 0.012 to 0.034)0.023 ladder points of premium per standard deviation of the JEC Social Capital IndexEstimandcoefficient on the interaction of partnership with the county measure (standardized across counties) in a regression of the ladder score, unweighted, errors clustered on the respondent's state because the JEC community-health and institutional-health subindexes include state-level inputsInterval95% CI 0.012 to 0.034n2,179,890 respondentsWeightsnone (unweighted)Populationadults interviewed in counties with a JEC indexPeriodinterviews in 2009 to 2017SourceGallup U.S. Daily Poll ladder points higher for each standard deviation of the index. The same coefficient has a positive point estimate for the index's four parts and for the Social Capital Atlas measures of civic groups and volunteering. Of the seven intervals, 33 of the seven interaction coefficientsEstimandcount of the seven 95% intervals (clustered by state) that include zeroWeightsnone (unweighted)Populationadults interviewed in counties with each of the seven county measuresPeriodinterviews in 2009 to 2017SourceGallup U.S. Daily Poll include zero. The data support the statement that the premium does not shrink, and they do not establish that it grows. The index includes family structure, which moves with the share of partnered adults in a county, so the Atlas measures, which do not, serve as a check on that overlap.

Modeled loneliness is lower where more adults are married

CDC PLACES publishes modeled estimates, for each ZCTAZCTAZIP Code Tabulation Area, the Census Bureau's approximation of a ZIP code as a set of census blocks. It lets census data be reported by ZIP code, though some ZIP codes have no matching ZCTA. (the Census Bureau's approximation of a ZIP code), of the share of adults who say they feel lonely always, usually or sometimes. The question comes from an optional module of the 2023 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System that only some states asked.[4] With ZCTAs sorted into ten groups by the married share of adults, modeled loneliness falls from 38.8% (95% CI 38.2% to 39.4%)38.8% percent of adults who feel lonely always, usually or sometimesEstimandmean of ZCTA modeled prevalence in a tenth of ZCTAs (equal numbers, ranked by married share of residents 15 and older) weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over countiesInterval95% CI 38.2% to 39.4%n1,968 ZCTAsWeights2020 census adult population of the ZCTAPopulationadults in the lowest tenth of ZCTAs by married share of residents 15 and olderPeriodBRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)SourceCDC PLACES in the tenth of ZCTAs with the lowest married share to 29.9% (95% CI 29.6% to 30.3%)29.9% percent of adults who feel lonely always, usually or sometimesEstimandmean of ZCTA modeled prevalence in a tenth of ZCTAs (equal numbers, ranked by married share of residents 15 and older) weighted by adult population, bootstrap interval over countiesInterval95% CI 29.6% to 30.3%n1,969 ZCTAsWeights2020 census adult population of the ZCTAPopulationadults in the highest tenth of ZCTAs by married share of residents 15 and olderPeriodBRFSS 2023 (PLACES 2025 release)SourceCDC PLACES in the tenth with the highest.

The values are modeled estimatesModeled estimateA figure produced by a statistical model instead of a direct count or measurement, usually for small areas where direct data are thin, borrowing strength from surveys, neighboring areas or other data. Neighboring areas can share errors, so single extremes call for caution.. A multilevel regression predicts a respondent's answer from age, sex, race and ethnicity and education, with the county poverty rate and state and county effects. The prediction is then applied to the 2020 census population of each ZCTA.[5] Marital status is not an input. ZCTAs with more married adults are older, and age is an input to the model, so part of the married-share gradient is built in.

Figure 4

Modeled loneliness is higher in ZCTAs with fewer married adults and a younger population

CDC PLACES modeled loneliness (percent of adults, BRFSS 2023) by decile of ZCTA married share and of ZCTA median age, population-weighted

By married shareBy median age

Modeled loneliness falls from 38.8% in the tenth of ZCTAs with the lowest married share to 29.9% in the tenth with the highest

Population-weighted mean of CDC PLACES modeled loneliness by decile of ZCTA married share, ZCTAs with an estimate and at least 500 residents

The point estimates fall at every step, steeply over the first deciles. Each point is a weighted mean over about a tenth of ZCTAs, plotted at that tenth's mean married share, with a 95% interval from a bootstrap over counties.

Show data

Data for Modeled loneliness is higher in ZCTAs with fewer married adults and a younger population, By married share

conf_high	conf_low	decile	estimate	n_units	x
39.44	38.15	1	38.79	1,968	28.22
37.62	35.75	2	36.60	1,968	39.29
36.04	34.55	3	35.25	1,968	44.47
34.75	33.77	4	34.25	1,968	48.06
33.84	32.92	5	33.38	1,968	50.94
33.04	32.23	6	32.62	1,968	53.65
32.60	31.78	7	32.19	1,968	56.11
31.80	31.04	8	31.39	1,968	58.77
31.41	30.65	9	31.02	1,968	62.15
30.30	29.59	10	29.93	1,969	67.45

The chapter's findings rest on three different units, and a pattern in one is not a finding about another. Turnout and self-response are lower in more deprived counties, a description of places. Partnered adults rate their lives higher than other adults, a statement about people in unweighted interviews. ZCTAs with fewer married adults have higher modeled loneliness, a statement about places built from a model, and it does not stand in for the ladder result. Chapter 6.3, Life evaluation and daily feelings covers the ladder and daily feelings in full.

What this cannot tell you

The county and ZCTA patterns are ecologicalEcological inferenceDrawing conclusions about individuals from data about places or groups. A pattern across counties need not hold for the people inside them.. A county with low turnout need not be one where the same people stayed home and had fewer chances to rise. A ZCTA with high modeled loneliness need not hold lonelier people than its neighbors. The partner premium compares different people at one time, and selection into partnership is the main limit; in the German Socio-Economic Panel, Stutzer and Frey found that happier singles were more likely to marry.[6] Because the Gallup extract is unweighted, its levels can differ from the weighted figures Gallup publishes, and the loneliness estimates exist only for the states that asked the question.

---

Go deeper

• The report: every estimate with its interval and sample size.
• Tables: every figure of the report as a table.

Reading paths that include this chapter:

• Outcomes that do not follow the gradient

Data sources

• County Health RankingsCounty Health Rankings 2024: voter turnout (2020) and census participation (2020 census self-response), membership associations (County Business Patterns, 2021)Years: 2024 release · Weights: 2019-2023 county population for decile means; 2018 county population for correlations · License: CC BY 4.0 (University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute)
• Area Deprivation IndexArea Deprivation Index 2023, national rank, tract ranks averaged to countiesYears: 2023 release (version 4.0.1; built on ACS 2019-2023) · Weights: 2019-2023 tract population · License: Free for non-commercial use; cite the Neighborhood Atlas and Kind and Buckingham
• American Community SurveyACS 2019-2023 tract file: tract population as the weight for county deprivation, and county controls (income, percent Black, poverty) for the regressionsYears: 2019-2023 (5-year) · Weights: 2019-2023 tract population · License: Public domain (U.S. Census Bureau)
• Opportunity AtlasCounty outcomes of children born 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th percentile (mean adult household income rank, as a percentile)Years: 1978-1983 birth cohorts (2018 release) · Weights: 2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas) · License: Public use (Opportunity Insights and the U.S. Census Bureau)
• Social Capital AtlasEconomic connectedness, civic groups per capita and volunteering group membership by county, 2022Years: 2022 (friendship snapshot) · Weights: 2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas) · License: Open for research use (Opportunity Insights)
• JEC Social Capital IndexJEC Social Capital Index and subindices by county, 2018 release with components from 2010 to 2016, and religious congregations per 1,000 (2010)Years: 2018 release (components from about 2010-2016) · Weights: 2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas) · License: Public domain (U.S. Government work, Joint Economic Committee)
• Gallup U.S. Daily PollGallup U.S. Daily tracking poll, 2009-2017 (the 2008 interviews are left out because of a question-order artifact in the ladder): Cantril ladder score and marital status; aggregates onlyYears: 2008-2017 · Weights: none (unweighted) · License: Proprietary Gallup microdata; respondent-level rows are not published
• CDC PLACESCDC PLACES 2025 release, ZCTA estimates of loneliness and depression (BRFSS 2023); ZCTA characteristics are ACS 2019-2023 five-year estimates for each ZCTA, from a Census API pullYears: 2024 release (tracts); 2025 release (ZCTAs, 2023 data year) · Weights: 2020 census adult population of the ZCTA · License: Public domain (CDC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)

All data sources

References

1. University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute (2024). County Health Rankings & Roadmaps Technical Documentation, Version 2. University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute (updated March 18, 2024). www.countyhealthrankings.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2024%20CHRR%20Technical%20Document_1.pdf
2. U.S. Census Bureau (2024). 2020 Census Operational Timeline and Adjustments Due to COVID-19. U.S. Census Bureau web page, last revised September 16, 2024. www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade/2020/planning-management/operational-adjustments.html
3. U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, Social Capital Project (2018). The Geography of Social Capital in America. Social Capital Project Report No. 1-18, Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress. www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2018/4/the-geography-of-social-capital-in-america
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2025). PLACES Measure Definitions: Health-Related Social Needs. CDC PLACES: Local Data for Better Health, web page updated December 7, 2025. www.cdc.gov/places/measure-definitions/health-related-social-needs.html
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2025). PLACES Methodology. CDC PLACES: Local Data for Better Health, web page last reviewed December 7, 2025. www.cdc.gov/places/methodology/index.html
6. Stutzer, Alois; Frey, Bruno S. (2006). Does marriage make people happy, or do happy people get married?. The Journal of Socio-Economics 35(2): 326-347. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.043

How to cite

@misc{singh2026civiclifelonelinessandpartnership,
  author = {Singh, Vishal},
  title = {Civic life, loneliness and partnership},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/civic-life-loneliness-and-partnership},
  note = {In ZIP Code Destiny. Published 9 October 2026.}
}