Canadian Brides’-to-Be Surname Choice: Potential Evidence of Transmitted Bilateral Descent Reckoning

Abstract

Women’s marital surname change is important, in part, because it affects how often only husbands’ (fathers’) surnames are passed on to offspring: this, in turn, affects the frequency of these “family” names. Brides-to-be, novelly, from across especially western and central Canada (N = 184), were surveyed as to marital surname hyphenation/retention versus change intention, and attitude towards women’s such choices in general. Among women engaged to men, the hypothesized predictors of income and number of future children desired were positively predictive of marital surname retention/hyphenation under univariate analysis. Under multiple regression analysis using these and other predictors from the literature, previously found to be predictive of this DV under univariate analysis, only some of these other predictors were predictive. Of greatest predictiveness was the bride-to-be’s own mother’s marital surname choice (with brides-to-be, more often than would otherwise be predicted, following their mother’s such choice), thus suggesting a possible shift to a transmitted manner of bilateral descent reckoning, towards greater bilateral such reckoning, among a portion of the population. Reported, general attitude towards women’s marital surname retention was predictive of participant brides-to-be’s own reported (imminent) marital surname retention/hyphenation.

Full text

Citation: MacEacheron, Melanie. 2024.
Canadian Brides’-to-Be Surname
Choice: Potential Evidence of
Transmitted Bilateral Descent
Reckoning. Genealogy 8: 13. https://
doi.org/10.3390/genealogy8010013
Received: 1 November 2023
Revised: 10 January 2024
Accepted: 11 January 2024
Published: 1 February 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
genealogy
Article
Canadian Brides’-to-Be Surname Choice: Potential Evidence of
Transmitted Bilateral Descent Reckoning
Melanie MacEacheron
School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, New College, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85069-7100, USA;
mmaceacheron@gmail.com
Abstract: Women’s marital surname change is important, in part, because it affects how often only
husbands’ (fathers’) surnames are passed on to offspring: this, in turn, affects the frequency of
these “family” names. Brides-to-be, novelly, from across especially western and central Canada
(N= 184), were surveyed as to marital surname hyphenation/retention versus change intention, and
attitude towards women’s such choices in general. Among women engaged to men, the hypothesized
predictors of income and number of future children desired were positively predictive of marital
surname retention/hyphenation under univariate analysis. Under multiple regression analysis using
these and other predictors from the literature, previously found to be predictive of this DV under
univariate analysis, only some of these other predictors were predictive. Of greatest predictiveness
was the bride-to-be’s own mother’s marital surname choice (with brides-to-be, more often than
would otherwise be predicted, following their mother’s such choice), thus suggesting a possible shift
to a transmitted manner of bilateral descent reckoning, towards greater bilateral such reckoning,
among a portion of the population. Reported, general attitude towards women’s marital surname
retention was predictive of participant brides-to-be’s own reported (imminent) marital surname
retention/hyphenation.
Keywords: marital surname change; brides-to-be; income; children of marriage; bilateral descent
reckoning; Canada
1. Introduction
Women persist in taking their husbands’ names at marriage, despite recent progress
toward economic and social equality of the sexes, and despite the fact that the default,
and easier, option is to retain one’s natal surname.
1
Approximately 79% of U.S. wives in
opposite-sex marriages surveyed in 2023, for instance, reported having taken husband’s
surname (Lin 2023). The persistence of marital name change demands explanation. It is
my conjecture that a major piece of the puzzle resides in the fact that marriage is a special
institution quite different from other economic and social partnerships. Marriage is to
be understood as fundamentally a reproductive union (Daly and Wilson 1988): it is the
context in which children tend to be raised, notwithstanding the tremendous historical
and cross-cultural variability in the expectations and practices associated with marriage
(Murdock 1949).
Social scientists have identified a number of predictors of marital surname change
and/or related attitudes, including professional, economic, and educational status, at-
tendance at religious services, age, cultural/ethnic origin, one’s mother’s marital surname
choice, and cohabitation before marriage (Blakemore et al. 2005;Boxer and Gritsenko
2005;Goldin and Shim 2004;Hoffnung 2006;Intons-Peterson and Crawford 1985;Johnson
and Scheuble 1995;Kline et al. 1996;Noack and Wiik 2008;Scheuble and Johnson 1993,
2005;Twenge 1997; but see Stefanova et al. 2023 regarding academic professional status
among females having undergone marital surname change, and positive perception).
However, none of these authors has explicitly addressed the unique status of marriage
Genealogy 2024,8, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy8010013 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/genealogy

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 2 of 24
as a reproductive partnership that creates bonds not only between a particular man and
woman, but also between such man and woman and the natal families of each.
There is some evidence that fathers want children to be surnamed for them and that it
has an effect on them. In the U.S., children are overwhelmingly surnamed solely for their
fathers (Johnson and Scheuble 2002; see also Duchesne 2006 for data from a Canadian sub-
jurisdiction). That fathers’ investment in children surnamed for them is increased thereby
is more difficult to evidence. That being said, Furstenberg and Talvitie (1980) found that
when young, unmarried, African American mothers named their children for the fathers
(first or middle name) of these, these fathers tended to invest more in the children and
have more contact with them. It is possible, however, that these mothers named children
more often after fathers where these seemed more likely to invest and have contact with the
children. Male undergraduates in a Canadian city, on average (in a small study), reported
preference for both women’s marital surname change, and children of marriage being
surnamed for the father (Lockwood et al. 2011). Husbands of women who did not take his
surname at marriage have also been rated as less powerful in the relationship (Robnett et al.
2018)—perhaps greater likelihood of children of the union not being surnamed for him is
one reason.
It is possible that sharing a name may influence the amount by which someone, even
one with whom no other ties are shared, is helped, or another person feels close to him/her.
Oates and Wilson (2002) found a small favor was most often bestowed from someone
sharing both first and surnames with the requestor, compared with someone sharing only
one name (with those sharing neither name least likely to help). When an uncommon
surname was shared, helping was greater than when an uncommon first name was shared.
It is not inconceivable that a child being surnamed for its (putative) father may lead to some,
including even paternal relatives, thinking that father is the child’s genetic father more often
than would otherwise occur. A shared surname may also make one’s patrilineal relatives
seem more to be members of one’s family, than are other relatives. Indeed, one definition of
“surname” is “the name borne in common by members of a family” (Merriam-Webster.com,
accessed on 1 January 2024). Schneider and Cottrell (1975) also found, in the U.S., that
even though men visit with/are visited by maternal relatives more than paternal ones, they
can name more distant paternal than maternal relatives. These authors also found, among
both male and female participants, that links to distant, paternal relatives are given more
via father’s father than via father ’s mother. It is thus possible this practice is due to or
influenced by holding a surname in common.
Substantial evidence exists that children experience more interaction with and re-
ceive more nurturance from relatives from their mother’s side of the family (matrilineal
relatives), than from their father’s, when members of both sides of the family are close
enough to access. An early report was that of Young and Willmott (1957), who found
that East London children spent more time with their maternal than with their paternal
grandmothers. Jackson (1971) demonstrated a similar effect controlling for proximity:
African American grandparents saw their daughters’ children more often than their sons’
children, if both son and daughter lived in the same location as the grandparents or if
both lived elsewhere. Similarly, Smith (1988) reported that Canadian children visited their
maternal grandparents more often than their paternal grandparents despite the fact that
both sets of grandparents’ homes were equidistant from those of the grandchildren. After
divorce, the relationship between maternal grandparents and grandchildren in the U.S.
often deepens, whereas the frequency of contact with paternal grandparents typically
declines (Cherlin and Furstenberg 1986).
The above phenomena have been taken by evolutionists (starting with Smith 1991)
to be based at least in part on the different, average pay-offs of investment in (putative)
grandchildren to each class of grandparent (mother’s mother, mother’s father, father’s
mother, or father’s father). Due to the possibility of cuckoldry, not only must putative
fathers be uncertain of whether a child is genetically theirs: some putative grandparents
must also be uncertain of whether a child is genetically their grandchild. Only the maternal

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 3 of 24
grandmother can have complete certainty. The paternal grandfather may either have been
cuckolded himself, or his son (the grandchild’s putative father) may have been. Each
of the maternal grandfather and paternal grandmother have one such uncertain genetic
relatedness ‘link’. Therefore, to the extent it is advantageous to preferentially invest in one’s
genetic relatives, the only class of grandparent for whom it would always be advantageous
to invest would be maternal grandmother. The class of grandparent for whom it would
be least advantageous, without more, would be paternal grandfather. It would be of
intermediate advantageousness to each of the other two classes of grandparent, without
more, to invest. A number of studies’ data have been interpreted as consistent with this
basis of investment (termed differential grandparental investment: Smith 1991;Euler and
Weitzel 1996; and see Shackelford et al. 2004;DeKay 1995).
Social scientists not possessing a Darwinian worldview have also noted the tendency
for maternal grandmothers to surpass other grandparents in affection, contact, and in-
vestment, followed by maternal grandfathers and paternal grandmothers, and finally by
paternal grandfathers (e.g., Hoffman 1980;Hartshorne and Manaster 1983;Hodgson 1992;
Kahana and Kahana 1970;Kennedy 1990;Robins and Tomanec 1962; and see Van Ranst
et al. 1995; but see Roberto and Stroes 1992; and see also Hill and Hurtado 1996, regarding
grandmother presence and grandchild survival). These authors generally interpret the
observed sequence as a consequence of close mother-daughter ties rather than of uncertain
genetic links. Based only on sociological concepts of “affinity, opportunity structure, and
functional exchange”, for example, Silverstein and Bengtson (1997) predicted that adults
would be closer to their mothers than to their fathers, and that women would be closer
to their parents, especially their mothers, than would men; their findings were consistent
with the first prediction, and women were indeed closer to their mothers than were men,
but adults of both sexes were equally close to their fathers. Irrespective of how this result
is interpreted, there clearly seems to exist in the modern West greater average interaction
with, resource allocation from, and affection received from one’s matrilineal compared with
one’s patrilineal relatives.
Children may tend to be closer with their maternal relatives, with the likely exception
of patrilocal societies in which it would be unfeasible for children to have greater interaction
with maternal compared with paternal relatives (see e.g., Pashos 2000). Even in patrilineal
societies, however, matrilineal relatives may invest more in grandchildren (Hawkes et al.
1997;Sear et al. 2000,2002).
1.1. Investment Recruitment from Patrilineal Kin
To the extent the above evidence shows maternal relatives’ inputs into children’s
growth and development are more assured than paternal relatives’, might it provide
a particular
benefit to children for efforts to be made to elicit support for them from the
latter group (and especially from the member of that group most related to the
child—the
child’s father)? That is, between two investors, if investment from one is assured but
that from the other is not, it may result in the greatest, total investment if efforts
(which must be of a limited nature) at eliciting investment are made more to the latter
(here, paternal relatives). Perhaps women’s marital surname change, which is usually
followed by patrilineal surnaming of children, comprises such an effort, and
patrilineal
family—perhaps especially father’s—investment in children increases following it.
This would provide an explanation for brides’ parents approving of their daughters
undergoing marital surname change: something for which no potential motivation has
previously been provided in the literature to the author’s best knowledge. Any utility
of such investment recruitment should vary depending on practices governing resource
transfer to younger generation(s) (e.g., in one of the few societies following matrilineal
inheritance, children’s surnaming is matrilineal (Karthikeyan and Fisher 2023); more
educated Chinese women not from a matrilineal ethnic minority, who presumably
are less dependent on male partners or the parents of these for financial support, are
more likely to surname their children for themselves (Li et al. 2021)). Any utility of

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 4 of 24
such investment recruitment should also be greater in the case of (wealthier) parents
transferring more resources to male than to female offspring (Smith et al. 1987; see also
Chagnon 1979; and Dickemann 1979).
1.2. Surnaming of Children
Marital names affect how children are named, and hence whether names persist over
generations (and, if the above rule in Schneider and Cottrell 1975, is followed, who is
remembered to be a “relative”). In many countries, including Canada and the United
States, a large majority of children carry their fathers’ surnames (Emens 2007), and this
majority approaches 100% in those cases in which the mother took the father’s name at
marriage (Johnson and Scheuble 2002;Duchesne 2006). Although it is highly unlikely
that women, as a group, believe that surnaming the children of their marriages for their
husbands (at the time) will necessarily lead to these husbands taking legal responsibility for
the children (Intons-Peterson and Crawford 1985), it is not implausible that name-saking
increases investment (see, e.g., Furstenberg and Talvitie 1980;Cherlin and Furstenberg
1986). Additionally, the results of three surveys suggest that brides who retain pre-marital
surname are more likely to be perceived by third parties as likely to be sexually unfaithful
within the marriage, or to leave it (Stafford and Kline 1996;Suter 2004;Robnett et al. 2016).
Such actions, if taken, would perhaps lead to lesser investment by husbands in the children
of the marriage due to cuckoldry concerns in the former case (see also Tach et al. 2010,
regarding lesser involvement with children born out of wedlock, by fathers no longer in
romantic relationships with the children’s mothers). Husbands in the latter case might be
expected to expect lesser marital duration, and, hence, all else being equal, fewer children
of the marriage to help support. Data collected from young men, only, show these report
viewing women who undergo marital surname change as more committed to marriage
(Scheuble et al. 2012). Thus, this traditional practice would seem to be one in which both
sexes have an interest.
As evidenced by studies discussed above, grandparents often invest substantially
in grandchildren, aligning in part with degree of likely genetic relatedness. As part of
this differential grandparental solicitude, maternal grandparents invest more, on average,
than paternal ones. As such, a woman’s parents’-in-law (i.e., her future children’s putative
paternal grandparents’) support may be understood as not assured, and therefore also as
something which, if valuable, would be advantageous to seek. Assuming her surname
change to that of her husband (and his parents) yields greater emotional closeness to and/or
perceived solidarity with them, it may achieve the good favor of the in-laws. Assuming
it does, such name change may function as a signal that enhances investment by the in-
laws in the signaler and her future children. It is not here suggested that women need be
consciously aware that marital surname change will function in this way: Women may
simply wish to please their in-laws and understand that the act is likely to do so (proximal
reason for the act), while being unlikely to offend her own parents, with whom she already
has long-time, strong bonds (and one of whom has absolute assurance her investment will
be to her genetic grandchild).
The aim of the present study was to test novel hypotheses about predictors of brides’-
to-be attitude toward and actual surname retention or change at marriage. The central
ideas behind hypotheses were that,
(1)
marital name change is one of a number of possible “signals” to a potential groom
and/or to his kin that a potential bride is committed to staying within the marital
union (see, e.g., MacEacheron 2021), which a potential groom might use to discern
such intention, and
(2)
by signaling she will change surname, a potential bride can increase the likelihood
her husband and his relatives will invest in her well-being and that of the future
children of her marriage, to the extent her signal is costly to her (e.g., increasing
her identifiability as married and to her particular husband, rendering any infidelity
more detectable; costly to revoke in case of marital dissolution [i.e., requiring yet

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 5 of 24
another surname change]; representing some break with her natal family/joining of
her husband’s; and perhaps being costly to career (e.g., Goldin and Shim 2004)), and
indicates increased likelihood children of the marriage will be genetically those of the
husband/his side of the family.
2. Methods2
The first of the two dependent variables (DV 1) was assessed with a 6-point Likert-
scale item: “In general, women should retain their birth names” (presented in the context of
questions regarding marital surname change) with anchors of “strongly disagree” (1) and
“strongly agree” (6). It is similar (though phrased in reverse compared) to that used
in Hamilton et al. (2011) (“It is generally better if a woman changes her last name to
her husband’s name when she marries.”, p. 151). It was chosen on similar grounds to
those of these authors: it was thought to tap general attitude towards the practice. DV 2,
a self-report as to whether the participant (bride-to-be) would be taking her groom’s
surname, combining the two (e.g., via hyphenation), or retaining her surname, is described
in more detail below. Given the second dependent variable (DV 2) was own reported
retention/hyphenation versus change of surname at imminent marriage, I deemed asking
participants what their attitude toward the practice for themselves was, to be less likely
to provide additional, meaningful insight as to attitude to the practice than asking their
attitude toward the practice generally.
Much of the literature on women’s marital surname choice is and was conducted on
convenience samples. Hence, it is/was conducted on women (in the West) under average
age at first marriage (in Canada, in 2008, 29.1 years: Statistics Canada 2016). Such young
women, thus, may be being assessed on ideal wishes/attitudes towards the practice. These
may very well differ in those women negotiating an actual marriage and future in-law
relations. Only the latter set of participants can provide ecologically valid data (though
such women could change their minds as to taking a husband’s surname, during later
engagement). Additionally, surveying brides-to-be may allow for greater diversity in age,
education, and socioeconomic status within the sample.
Searches in PsycTESTS on 23 June 2014 of “female-female competition”, “female
competition”, and “husband competition” revealed no measures of perception of level of
competitiveness for acquisition of a husband. Given previous research has shown women’s
local, intrasexual economic competitiveness level might be related to marital surname
choice (MacEacheron 2011,2020), I asked surveyed brides-to-be the question, “How much,
if at all, would you say women in your area compete with each other to find the best
husband that they can?” (answered on a 7-point Likert-type scale).
I derived the first hypothesis from the supposition that women’s marital surname
change functions as a commitment signal (MacEacheron 2016b,2021), and thereby husband
and affinal investment enhancer, among those who will most need such support. Such
individuals (among brides) were thought to be those wanting and expecting more children.
Thus, Hypothesis 1 states: Endorsement of the view that women should take the husband’s
surname at marriage will be predicted by the number of children desired. In this study, brides’-to-
be individual incomes, as well as those of their betrotheds, were queried. This provided
the opportunity to directly test hypotheses 2 and 3: (2) that individual women’s own income and
(3) that of their grooms, are predictive of these women’s surname retention/hyphenation.3
Perceived importance to a bride of husband’s investment may, however, also be
a function of the level of investment she anticipates from her genetic relatives and how
dependable she perceives that to be. A bride emotionally close with her family of origin
may be concerned that marital surname change would show disregard for them and/or
for their cultural group (if she is marrying out of it, as would commonly be expected
to be the case for brides in a multicultural country such as Canada). Additionally, if
such a bride perceives her family of origin as dependable and adequate investors in
herself and her future children, she may be less motivated than other brides to sacrifice
her surname, in any attempt to enhance resource recruitment from her husband and/or

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 6 of 24
future in-laws.
4
Numerous predictors why some women take their husbands’ surnames at
marriage and others do not have been proposed in diverse research (see, e.g., review in
MacEacheron 2016a). Those that were possible to include—ethnic group, religiosity, level
of education, income, intended age at marriage, the participant’s own mother’s taking of
her husband’s surname at marriage, closeness to each parent, and some items concerning
feminist attitude—were tested in the current study.
The Attitudes Toward Feminism and the Women’s Movement Scale (Fassinger 1994)
was used to measure feminist attitude. It is a brief (10-item), well-validated, reliable
(Cronbach’s
α
= 0.89) scale (see discussion in Fassinger 1994). Concern was expressed by
one colleague that it might measure how participants view the state of feminism currently
(viz. e.g., its questions, all in the present tense, “The leaders of the women’s movement
may be extreme, but they have the right idea”; “The women’s movement is too radical and
extreme in its views”), rather than how much they agree with feminism. This colleague thus
suggested adding a single question following the other political questions in the survey:
“How much do you identify as a feminist?” using the same response scale. This was done.
Need for autonomy was also suggested by a colleague as plausibly related to desire to
retain surname at marriage. A search of “autonomy” on PsycTESTS was conducted on
23 July 2014. Results included several instruments assessing autonomy versus sociotropy
within romantic relationships. The shortest of these which was designed for heterosexual
couples who were not necessarily already sex partners or cohabitating, and validated, was
chosen. This 16-item instrument (Cochran and Peplau 1985) is comprised of Egalitarian
Autonomy and Dyadic Attachment sub-scales. Scores on each of these sub-scales were
assessed for association with each of the DVs.
Although state-level levels of support for the U.S. Republican and Democratic parties
were not predictive of actual state-level surname retention in MacEacheron (2021) when
regressed along with state-level women’s full-time and salaried income, political orienta-
tion was assessed in the present study. This assessment was included in order to allow
determination of whether political orientation is predictive at the individual (bride) level,
and to allow for potential controlling of this predictor in multiple regressions (assuming it
is related to either/both DV(s)), as previously suggested (e.g., MacEacheron 2021). Lambert
and Raichle’s (2000) Liberal-Conservative Self-Report Scale was used due to its brevity and
(some level of) validation.
The following items were also included: (i) sex of fiancé(e), (ii) whether participant
and, separately, her fiancé(e), was/were currently students, (iii) current level of education,
(iv) whether the wedding was to be a destination wedding
5
, and (v) likelihood each of own
parents would help with future children (if any). These were added for various reasons.
(i) was added since hypotheses related to opposite-sex brides-to-be, thus knowing sex
of fiancé(e) was necessary for testing these. (ii) was added so that future income after
graduation, if applicable, could be used as the income predictor, rather than current income
(e.g., within a temporary, part-time position). This was done, since income after graduation
would presumably better represent income during most of marriage. (iii) was added as
a control variable, because education was assumed to be completed for most brides-to-be
(and thus completed education could be measured in this sample), and this has previously
been found to predict both DVs. (iv) was added at the suggestion of an anonymous
colleague, since part of my reasoning was that investment would be greater from mother’s
mother compared with mother’s father, and I had further posited that closeness felt to each
parent would be positively related to investment amount: the addition of this question
allowed testing of that.
The 10-item measure Attitudes Toward Feminism and the Women’s Movement Scale
(Fassinger 1994) was added given some work has indicated such attitude may be predictive
of women’s marital surname choice (e.g., Kerns 2011;Peters 2018). As the ultimate result
of a suggestion from colleagues, Cochran and Peplau’s (1985) scale measuring autonomy
and sociotropy, was added. This instrument is comprised of Egalitarian Autonomy and
Dyadic Attachment sub-scales. Autonomy was thought by the colleague to logically

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 7 of 24
relate to marital surname choice, so it was deemed prudent to be able to control for.
Scores on each of these sub-scales were assessed for association with each of the DVs, as
exploratory analyses.
The created item regarding degree, if any, of female-female competition for husbands
was included in order to be able to test a hypothesis concerning cross-provincial Gini differ-
ences (which, however, could not be found given insufficient data collection from some
provinces). Since searches in PsycTESTS on 23 June 2014 of “female-female competition”,
“female competition”, and “husband competition” revealed no measures of perception of
level of competitiveness for acquisition of a husband, the given item was created.
Greater scores on each (sub-)scale indicates greater endorsement by the participants of
the (sub-)scale.
2.1. Research Participants
184 brides-to-be (females) were recruited via the pan-Canadian bridal website “wed-
dingbells.ca”, in exchange for a CAD 5 Amazon.com gift certificate said to be usable towards
a piece of bridal merchandise, if they submitted an email address. Due to weddingbells.ca’s
average click-through rate only likely resulting in 57 participants over a three-month period
of webpage advertisement per a representative, a direct emailing of the same advertisement
to weddingbells.ca registrants was conducted. Doing so provided, additionally, some as-
surance that participants would actually be Canadian spouses-to-be, as registrants indicate
they are such and registration would be of little interest to non-Canadian non-spouses-
to-be. Approximately 20 such participants from each Canadian province were sought, in
order to attain acceptable statistical power in OLS regression of a province-level predictor.
Once-only participation from any given computer was allowed. The survey was presented
in the form of a Qualtrics web interface.
2.2. Dependent Variables
In the analyses that follow, the principle dependent variable (DV 2) is the participant’s
answer to the question “Will you change, hyphenate (or otherwise combine), or retain
your current surname when you marry? Please do not check “Retain”, if you will be using
your current surname as a middle name after marriage. (Please check one):”. Participants
answered one of “Change”, “Hyphenate (or otherwise combine)”, or “Retain”. The other
dependent variable (DV 1) is conceptualizable as general attitude toward women’s marital
surname retention and, by implication, women’s marital surname change. Note its inclusion
allowed for assessment of whether endorsement of the general attitude item (DV 1) was
related to actual retention/hyphenation/change decision (DV 2).
2.3. Statistical Methods
Analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 or higher. Where not already required in
order to test hypotheses, univariate associations between (1) each of the putative predictors
and (2) (each of) the DV(s) were also calculated. Where it was significantly associated with
a DV, a putative predictor was regressed alongside all other such predictors (except where
to do so would introduce multicollinearity of predictors) in a regression predicting that
DV. In this way, the relative predictiveness of each such predictor was ascertained. Each
regression performed was tested to ensure the standard assumptions justifying the use of
that regression model had been met. All Likert-type scales except where otherwise noted
were treated as continuous.
3. Results
Recruitment of a greater number of participants, based on the number of statistical com-
parisons planned and anticipated, was called for but was precluded by
funding limitations.

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 8 of 24
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
Brides-to-be primarily from across western and central Canada (N= 184) were surveyed.
Usable data were obtained from British Columbia (n= 19: 42.1% retaining/hyphenating),
Alberta (n= 23: 21.7% retaining/hyphenating), Saskatchewan (n= 3, 1 woman retaining/
hyphenating), Manitoba (n= 26: 19.2% retaining/hyphenating), Ontario (n= 82: 34.1%
retaining/hyphenating), Quebec (n= 14: 71.4% retaining/hyphenating), New Brunswick
(n= 1: woman not retaining/hyphenating), and Nova Scotia (n= 5: 1 woman retain-
ing/hyphenating). Thus, of the n= 174 answering “Will you change, hyphenate (or
otherwise combine), or retain your current surname when you marry?” (DV 1), 115 (62.2%)
indicated they would change, 18 (9.7%) indicated they would hyphenate or otherwise
combine, and 41 (22.2%) indicated they would retain their surnames. This means a to-
tal of
59 participants
(33.9%) indicated they would retain/hyphenate. DV 2 consisted
of rated agreement with “In general, women should retain their birth names [at mar-
riage]”. The range of answers to this item was 1—“Strongly disagree” to 6—“Strongly
agree”: M= 3.13
±
1.17. The first DV was associated with the second (t(165) = 4.87,
p< 0.001, d= 0.76 or moderate to large), with participants who would retain/hyphenate
reporting greater agreement with the item (M
retainers/hyphenators
= 3.70
±
1.18, n= 57:
Mchangers = 2.83 ±1.06, n= 110).
Discounting Quebec where legal, marital surname change is not permitted (Civil
Code of Québec 1991), as well as provinces from which fewer than 20 brides-to-be hailed,
there was not a significant inter-provincial variation overall in retention/hyphenation
of surname:
χ2
(3) = 4.10, n= 150, p= ns. Even British Columbia, with the highest rate
of retention/hyphenation, did not differ from the other provinces not including Quebec,
from which at least 20 brides hailed (data collapsed together), in retention/hyphenation
frequency: χ2(1) = 1.34, n= 150, p= ns.
3.2. Demographic Characteristics of Sample
In 33.0% of cases (n= 61 out of N= 185, with 1 participant declining to answer) the
sex of the fiancé(e) was reported as female. Note that weddingbells.ca, the registrants of
which were sampled via the survey, is based on and affiliated with Weddingbells magazine.
The edition of that magazine published during the time of the survey (Fall and Winter
2015: Toronto and Greater Ontario edition) profiled only one same-sex wedding out of
a total of twenty. That wedding was, additionally, of two men. That fact, along with the
fact that lesbians and bisexual women comprise less than 33% of the female population
(with 5.0% of Canadian women polled citing self-identification as homosexual, bisexual,
or transgendered: Blaze Carlson 2012) suggest, however, that at least some participants
reporting a female fiancée may actually have had a male fiancé. Thus, the data from
these participants is not used further, except to characterize the sample. (Note that of
those participants who emailed the author to claim their gift certificate compensation for
participation, all either appeared to the author to (1) have female gendered first names
and/or (2) be female based on the photograph, if any, that accompanied their email. Thus,
it appeared grooms-to-be entering opposite-sex marriages had not completed the survey,
and reported their betrotheds as female.)
Brides-to-be ranged in age from 20 to 60 years (N= 184, mean = 30.02
±
7.10 years).
Age participants reported they would be at time of upcoming marriage, ranged from
22 to 62 years (n= 174, mean = 30.81
±
6.90 years). Reported income of brides-to-
be spanned the ranges of “$0–$20,000” to “over $100,000” annually (n= 163, median
“$41,000–$60,000”).
Reported incomes of fiancé(e)s spanned the same ranges (n= 161,
median
also
“$41,000–$60,000”).
In 92 of the n= 159 couples the income data for both
members of which were provided, the participant’s fiancé(e) was stated to earn (or to be
expecting to earn, if a student) a higher bracket of income (from those provided) than the
participant. In 17 of these couples, the bride-to-be was stated to earn (or to be expecting to
earn, if a student) a higher bracket of income than her fiancé(e).

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 9 of 24
Each participant was asked her ethnicity/race or ethnicities/races, as well as that/those
of her fiancé(e). Responses were categorized using U.S. Census racial designations (e.g.,
United States Census Bureau 2013), as well as Hispanic/Latino/Latina, and “Canadian”
(where this was the sole “ethnicity” cited by the participant). Note that “Caribbean”, “West
Indian”, “Jamaican” and “African” were coded as “African-American/Black”, and “Guata-
malan” and “Ecuadorian” were coded as “Hispanic/Latino/Latina”. Out of
175 participants
providing data, the following number reported each of the following ethnicities/races:
2 (1.1%) African-American/Black; 18 (9.7%) Asian; 138 (74.6%) White; 1 (0.50%) His-
panic/Latino/Latina;
10 (5.4%)
Bi-/Multi-Racial; and 5 (2.7%) “Canadian”. One participant
stated she preferred not to answer. Out of the 175 participants providing data concerning
their fiancé(e)s’ ethnicity/ethnicities, the following number reported each of the following
ethnicities: 3 (1.6%) African-American/Black; 15 (8.1%) Asian; 140 (75.7%) White; 1 (0.5%)
American Indian; 2 (1.1%) Hispanic/Latino/Latina; 7 (3.8%) Bi-/Multi-Racial; and 6 (3.2%)
“Canadian”. One participant stated she preferred not to answer. Finally, one participant
stated that she and her fiancé(e)’s ethnicity was “Brown”: their ethnicities were not coded,
due to uncertainty regarding what that meant. (They were, however, coded as having the
same ethnicity.)
Participants were coded as to whether each and her fiancé(e) belonged to the same
ethnicity/ethnicities or not, where usable ethnicity data was provided for each member
of the couple. Where each member belonged (only) to the same racial group or, in the
case of Bi-/Multi-Racial individuals, both/all of the same racial groups, they were coded
as being of same ethnicity/ethnicities. In all other cases they were coded as being of
different ethnicity/ethnicities. Where a participant reported herself and her fiancé(e) both
as “Canadian”, they were coded as being of the same ethnicity. Of the n= 175 participants
providing usable data concerning themselves and their fiancé(s)s, 27 (15.4%) were of
different ethnicity/ethnicities, and 148 (84.6%) were of the same ethnicity/ethnicities.
Participants provided their highest level of completed education, from a list of options.
Of the n= 176 providing data, each of the following levels of education was reported as
completed by the following number of participants: “some high school”, 2 (1.1%); “high
school diploma”, 13 (7.0%); “some community college/CÉGEP”
6
, 14 (7.6%); “community
college/CÉGEP diploma”, 25 (13.5%); “some university”, 12 (6.5%); “Bachelor’s degree”,
75 (40.5%); “Master’s degree”, 22 (11.9%); “PhD”, 3 (1.6%); and “Professional degree”,
10 (5.4%). 18 (9.8%) of the 184 participants reported currently being students. 14 (7.6%) of
the 184 participants reported their fiancé(e) as being a student, with one not reporting the
fiancé(e)’s student/non-student status.
Participants indicated whether or not each was currently living with her fiancé(e). Out
of the n= 177 providing data, 41 (22.2%) indicated they were not currently co-residing:
136 (73.5%) indicated they were. One participant providing data on this variable stated
she was “Living with family and fiance”: She was coded as coresiding with her fiancé(e).
Participants reported whether their current engagement was to an individual who would
be their first, second, third, or fourth or higher order spouse. Of the n= 177 providing data,
169 (91.4%) indicated that this was to be their first marriage, 8 (4.3%) indicated that it was
to be their second marriage, and none indicated a higher-order marriage.
Participants entered text in response to the question “What is your religious affiliation?”
Of those answering (n= 171), 91 reported themselves Christian (49.2%), 3 Buddhist (1.6%),
2 Pagan (1.1%), 1 each Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish (0.5% each), 62 Atheist, Agnostic, no
affiliation, or not applicable (33.5%), and 9 something else not implying a denomination
(e.g., “spiritual”: 4.9%). Participants were asked to choose one of the following four
responses as their frequency of attendance at religious services: “weekly or more often”,
n= 17 (9.2%); “monthly”, n= 14 (7.6%); “once or twice a year”, n= 36 (19.5%); and “never
or almost never”, n= 109 (58.9%).

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 10 of 24
3.3. The Bride-to-Be’s Own Parents
Level of emotional closeness to father ranged from 1—“Not at all close” to 6—“Very
close” (6-point Likert-type scale: n= 182 including 17 who rated the question as not
applicable: among those answering, M= 4.57
±
1.63). Level of emotional closeness to
mothers also ranged from 1 to 6, on the same scale (n= 182 including 4 who rated the
question as not applicable: among those answering, M= 5.22 ±1.23). Level of assistance
with any future children expected from own father ranged from 1—“Not at all likely”
to 6—“Very likely” (anchors on a 6-point Likert-type scale: n= 171 including 25 who
rated the question as not applicable: among those answering, M= 4.38
±
1.85). Level
of assistance with any future children expected from own mother was rated using the
same scale, and possessed the same range (n= 171 including 13 who rated the question
as not applicable: among those answering, M= 5.04
±
1.50). Participants were asked
whether their mothers had taken their (the participants’) fathers’ surnames. Out of n= 179
answering the question, 34 (18.4%) reported their mother had not, and 145 (78.4%) reported
she had.
3.4. Attitude Measures
Overall, n= 176 participants responded to the item “How much, if at all, would
you say women in your area compete with each other to find the best husband that they
can?”, on a 7-point Likert type scale with anchors 1 “Not at all” to 7—“A great deal”.
Responses represented the full scale range, M= 3.11
±
1.80. Participants’ ratings as to
how “conservative” they were, ranged from 0—“not at all conservative” to 10—“extremely
conservative” (on an 11-point Likert-type scale: n= 164, M= 3.62
±
2.36). On a similar
Likert-type scale, participants self-rated how “liberal” they were: M= 7.05 + 2.32 (n= 164).
Finally, on a similar scale, participants’ ratings of feminist identification ranged from 0 to
10 (n= 164, M= 5.52
±
2.56). Attitudes Toward Feminism and the Women’s Movement
Scale (Fassinger 1994) scores ranged from 22 to 49 (possible range is from 1 to 50), n= 159,
M= 35.24 ±5.48.
The Cochran and Peplau (1985) Sociotropy scale is comprised of Egalitarian Autonomy
and Dyadic Attachment sub-scales. Scores on each of these can range from 8 to 72. Scores
on the former sub-scale ranged from 32 to 72, n= 155, M= 35.24
±
5.48. Scores on the latter
ranged from 34 to 72, n= 154, M= 62.45
±
7.42. These two subscales’ correlation with one
another was r= 0.46 (n= 154, p< 0.001).
3.5. Childbearing/Childbearing Plans
Of the n= 173 answering the question, 22 (11.9%) reported being mothers, and
151 (81.6%) reported current childlessness. Among n= 165 answering the question, desiring
each of the following number of children is as follows: 0 children, 15 (8.1%); 1 child, 8 (1.4%);
2 children, 93 (50.3%); 3 children, 25 (13.5%); 4 children, 21 (11.4%); 5 children, 2 (1.1%);
and 6 children, 1 (0.5%). The average number of children desired was 2.24
±
1.11. Finally,
participants were asked “If you have no children now but want/intend to, at what age
would you like to have your first?” Of the n= 140 providing valid data, that age ranged
from 20 to 42 years (M= 30.43
±
2.99). (Two entries of 13 and one of 120 years were
considered to be mistaken entries, and thus not used in calculations.)
3.6. Testing of Hypotheses
Note all subsequent values concern only women reporting male fiancés.
Of the n= 117 answering “Will you change, hyphenate (or otherwise combine), or
retain your current surname when you marry?” (DV 1), 74 (63.2%) indicated they would
change, 12 (10.2%) indicated they would hyphenate or otherwise combine, and 31 (26.5%) in-
dicated they would retain their surnames. Thus, a total of 43 participants (36.8%) indicated
they would retain/hyphenate. DV 2 consisted of rated agreement with “In general, women
should retain their birth names [at marriage]”. n= 114 answered this item. The range of
answers to this item was 1—“Strongly disagree” to 6—“Strongly agree”: M= 3.15
±
1.12.

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 11 of 24
The first DV was associated with the second (t(68) =
−
4.32, p< 0.001, d= 0.90 or large),
with participants who would retain/hyphenate reporting greater agreement with the item
(Mretainers/hyphenators = 3.74 ±1.21, n= 42; Mchangers = 2.81 ±0.91, n= 72).
Hypothesis 1: Endorsement of the view that women should take the husband’s surname
at marriage will be predicted by the number of children desired
As noted, mean number of children desired was 2.24 + 1.11 (range: 0 to 6). Note that
a derived variable, number of future children desired, was also computed by subtracting
number of existing children from total number desired. Its range was 0 to 6, with mean
number of children desired 2.05 + 1.14. In order for the above hypothesis to be supported,
given that it is based on the idea that brides will particularly try to garner assistance from
the future spouse for children shared with the future spouse (and, particularly, with a male
spouse), in part via surname change, number of future children desired would need to
be associated with degree of agreement with the dependent variable “In general, women
should retain their birth names [at marriage]” (i.e., by a negative correlation). This assumes,
however, that already-existing children are not those of the participant’s fiancé: something
not discernible from the data.
If the basis for the above hypothesis is sound, attitude to women’s changing of surname
at marriage (versus retention/hyphenation) would seem to be better predictable by number
of future children desired than by total number of children desired. Indeed, I had intended
“number of children desired” to be interpreted as “number of future children desired”
in the relevant survey item. Number of children desired was not related to agreement
with the given statement when either total number of children desired (r=−0.10, n= 107,
p= ns) or number of future children desired (r=
−
0.10, n= 107, p= ns) were considered.
Number of (future) children one desires may be a better predictor of one’s own marital
surname choice, however, than of general attitude to the practice. Thus the predictiveness
of surname change versus retention/hyphenation, of number of (future) children desired,
was assessed. Number of future children desired was marginally predictive of this choice
(for women changing surname, M
future children desired
= 2.19
±
0.93, n= 69; for women
retaining/hyphenating, M
future children desired
= 1.88
±
1.22, n= 40; t(107) = 1.51, n= 109,
p= 0.06, d= 0.29 or small). Given that this analysis, however, is only adequately powered
to detect large effect sizes, this result must be viewed with caution.7
Hypotheses 2 and 3: (2) that individual women’s own income and (3) that of their
grooms, are predictive of these women’s surname retention/hyphenation
Participant income bracket (positively) predicted retention/hyphenation (mean yearly
income of those changing of 2.72, mean yearly income of those retaining/hyphenating of
3.14, where 1 = CAD 0–20,000; 2 = CAD 21,000–40,000; 3 = CAD 41,000–60,000; 4 = CAD
61,000–80,000; 5 = CAD 81,000–100,000; and 6 = over CAD 100,000; t(104) =
−
1.72, n= 106,
p= 0.04, d= 0.34 or small). Note this analysis, however, was only adequately powered to
detect large effect sizes. Thus hypothesis 2 received partial support. Income of the fiancé
(or anticipated income, if he was a student), was not associated with this choice of the bride,
under t-test: t(102) = −0.52, n= 104, p= ns. Thus, hypothesis 3 received no support.
3.7. Additional Associations with Surname Retention/Hyphenation versus Change and
Attitude Thereto
As noted, certain variables other than those needed to test Hypotheses 1 to 3 were
included in the instrument and tested for predictiveness of the DVs. Only such variables
found to be associated with either DV will be cited below, for the sake of brevity. (All
variables’ associations with both DVs are available upon request from the author.)
Significant Associations with Surname Retention/Hyphenation versus Change (DV 1)
Brides-to-be who reported they would keep/hyphenate their surnames were older (for
women changing surname, M= 28.53
±
5.24, n= 74; for women retaining/hyphenating,
M= 32.56
±
9.08, n= 43; t(58) =
−
2.66, p= 0.010, d= 0.58 or moderate), and would be
older as of the date they report they planned to marry (for women changing surname,

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 12 of 24
M= 29.35
±
5.05, n= 74; for women retaining/hyphenating, M= 33.28
±
9.17, n= 43;
t(57) =
−
2.59, n= 107, p= 0.012, d= 0.57 or moderate). These analyses must be interpreted
with caution, however, given they were only adequately powered to detect large
effect sizes.
Brides-to-be who reported they would keep/hyphenate surname at marriage were
emotionally closer to their fathers (for women changing surname, M= 4.38
±
1.62, n= 68;
for women retaining/hyphenating, M= 5.22
±
1.06, n= 37; t(100) =
−
3.18, p= 0.002,
d= 0.58 or moderate). Brides-to-be reporting they would keep or hyphenate their surnames
also rated their fathers as more likely to help with any children (for women changing
surname, M= 4.19
±
1.93, n= 68; for women retaining/hyphenating, M= 5.03
±
1.51,
n= 34; t(82) =
−
2.40, p= 0.019, d= 0.46 or small to moderate). Mothers of participants
were rated as more likely to help with the participants’ own children, where applicable,
than were fathers of participants (M
mother
= 5.09 + 1.42, M
father
= 4.46
±
1.84; t(100) = 4.28,
n= 101, mean difference = 0.63
±
1.49, p< 0.001, d= 0.43 or moderate). Additionally,
participants reported being closer to their mothers (M= 5.29
±
1.05) than to their fathers
(M= 4.65 ±1.50; t(108) = 4.96, n= 109, p< 0.001, d= 0.48 or small to moderate).
In general, brides-to-be who reported they would retain/hyphenate their surnames were
less politically conservative (M
retainers/hyphenators
= 3.67
±
2.23, n= 42: M
changers
= 5.23
±
2.23,
n= 70; t(110) = 3.59, p< 0.001, d= 0.70 or moderate). Note, however, the sample size
only provided adequate statistical power in this analysis to detect large effect sizes, so
this result must be viewed with caution. In general, brides-to-be reporting surname
retention/hyphenation were more politically liberal (M
retainers/hyphenators
= 8.19
±
1.92,
n= 42: M
changers
= 6.53
±
2.26, n= 70; t(98) =
−
4.15, p< 0.001, d= 0.78 or moderate
to large). Retainers/hyphenators did not rate as greater, local female-female competi-
tion for husbands, compared with changers (M
retainers/hyphenators
= 3.33
±
1.74, n= 43:
M
changers
= 2.89
±
1.92, n= 74; t(115) =
−
1.22, p= ns). Participants indicating they would
retain or hyphenate surname had higher educational attainment (
χ2
(8) = 22.20, n= 117,
p= 0.005, w = 0.44 or moderate). Brides-to-be reporting they would retain or hyphenate
their surnames identified to a greater degree as feminists (M
retainers/hyphenators
= 7.14
±
1.98,
n= 42; M
changers
= 4.93
±
2.60, n= 70: t(110) =
−
4.75, p< 0.001, d= 0.927 or large), and
had higher scores on the Attitudes Toward Feminism and the Women’s Movement Scale
(Fassinger 1994:M
retainers/hyphenators
= 37.38
±
4.99, n= 40; M
changers
= 34.78
±
5.47, n= 69:
t(107) = −2.46, p= 0.015, d= 0.49 or moderate).
Given a colleague’s suggestion of bride ethnicity/race or ethnicities/races and differ-
ence in these within the couple as predictors of marital surname change, whether “White”
participants did not differ from others (including those of bi-/multi-racial heritage including
“White”) in retention/hyphenation versus change of surname was tested. (Note that no
individual, non-“White” group numbered at least 20, so only the current comparison could
be made.) That is, among participants indicating ethnicity, whether she was “White” or
not did not predict retention/hyphenation versus change (
χ2
(1) = 2.65, n= 116, p= ns).
Whether the participant and her fiancé(e) were of the same (n= 95) versus different (n= 21)
ethnicity/race or ethnicities/races, if more than one was cited per participant or fiancé(e),
was also non-predictive (χ2(1) = 0.79, n= 116, p= ns).
Age at which next child was desired, if applicable, was not predictive of endorsement
of DV 2 (r= 0.12, n= 94, p= ns). Greater agreement with this DV was marginally (and
weakly) associated with increased emotional closeness of the participant to her father
(r= 0.19, n= 102, p= 0.054) and not associated with such closeness to mother (r= 0.05,
n= 111, p= ns). Political liberalism and endorsement of DV 2 were unrelated (r= 0.08,
n= 112, p= ns). Political conservativism was also uncorrelated with DV 2 (r=
−
0.11,
n= 112, p= ns), while it was negatively related to retention/hyphenation (DV 1). (As would
be expected, political conservativism and political liberalism were negatively correlated:
r=
−
0.37 or moderate, n= 112, p< 0.001.) Level of reported, local competition for husbands
was not related to DV 2 (r= 0.04, n= 114, p= ns). Analogous to their relationship with
DV 1, feminist identification (r= 0.22 or small, n= 112, p= 0.017) and higher Attitudes
Toward Feminism and the Women’s Movement Scale (Fassinger 1994) scores (r= 0.24 or

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 13 of 24
small, n= 109, p= 0.011) were positively associated with DV 2. Note, generally, regarding
all correlations computed, statistical power was adequate to detect moderate or greater
effect sizes: thus, all small effect sizes from such analyses must be viewed with caution.
Educational attainment was not associated with endorsement of DV 2 (F(8, 105) = 0.78,
p= ns).
The bride’s own mother not having taken her father’s surname was marginally related
to her endorsing DV 2 more (t(33) =
−
2.02, n= 114, p= 0.052, d= 0.52 or moderate): this
test, however, was adequately powered to detect large effect sizes, only. Analogously, as
noted, participants whose own mothers took their fathers’ surnames were more likely to
retain/hyphenate surname themselves (DV 1). Sameness/difference of ethnicity/ethnicities
between participant and her fiancé(e) was unpredictive of DV 2 (t(111) =
−
0.01, n= 113,
p= ns).
3.8. Multivariate Analysis of Predictors of Each DV
To assess relative magnitude of predictiveness of hypothesized predictors with that of
other predictors of retention/hyphenation versus name change (DV 1), two models were
planned to be tested under multiple, logistic regressions for the sub-sample of women
marrying men. Likewise, to assess relative magnitude of predictiveness of hypothesized
predictors with that of other predictors of level of agreement with the statement “In general,
women should keep their birth names (at marriage)” (DV 2), two models were planned
to be tested under multiple OLS regressions. Model 1, if any, for each DV, included only
predictor(s) as hypothesized herein, assuming each was found to be associated with the
relevant DV, on its own. Then added (to complete Model 2), would be all additional
variables found to individually predict that DV. To avoid multicollinearity of predictors, all
such predictors were first assessed for moderate or greater relatedness each to the other
(e.g., for correlations, r
≥
|0.30|: see Table 1) and, if deemed conceptually related to any
other predictor, all but the strongest of the inter-related predictors discarded.
Table 1. Correlations between predictors of DV 1 (surname retention/hyphenation versus change)
and predictors of DV 2 (endorsement of statement “In general, women should keep their birth names”.
†p< 0.1; * p< 0.05; ** p< 0.01; *** p≤0.001: n’s 88 to 117).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Participant
income -−0.22 * 0.34 *** 0.36 *** 0.39 *** 0.14 0.05 0.15 −0.21 * −0.09 0.02 0.14
Number of
future children
desired
−0.22 * - −0.54 *** −0.53 *** −0.14 0.06 0.18 †−0.08 0.28 ** −0.04 −0.02 −0.33 ***
Age
0.34 ***
−0.54 *** - 1.00 *** 0.83 *** −0.06 −0.17 †−0.13 −0.14 −0.08 −0.02 0.09
Age at
marriage
0.36 ***
−0.53 *** 1.00 *** - 0.84 *** −0.12 −0.20 * −0.13 −0.14 −0.08 −0.03 0.09
Age next child
desired
0.39 ***
−0.14 0.83 *** 0.84 *** - −0.03 −0.07 −0.06 −0.03 −0.07 −0.05 0.08
Emotional
closeness to
father
0.14 0.06 −0.06 −0.12 −0.03 - 0.60 *** 0.12 0.09 0.14 0.08 0.12
Likelihood
father help
with children
0.05 0.18 −0.17 †−0.20 * −0.07 0.60 *** - 0.11 0.03 0.22 * 0.19 †0.07
Liberalism 0.15 −0.08 −0.13 −0.13 −0.06 0.12 0.11 - −0.37 *** 0.40 *** 0.21 * 0.16 †
Conservativism
−0.21 * 0.28 ** −0.14 −0.14 −0.03 0.09 0.03 −0.37 *** - −0.29 ** −0.29 ** −0.19 *
Feminist
identification −0.09 −0.04 −0.08 −0.08 −0.07 0.14 0.22 * 0.40 *** −0.29 ** -
0.60 ***
0.29 **
Feminism
scale 0.02 −0.02 −0.02 −0.03 −0.05 0.08 0.19 †0.21 * −0.29** 0.60 *** - 0.28 **
Egalitarianism
0.14 −0.33 *** 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.07 0.16 †−0.19 * 0.29 ** 0.28 ** -

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 14 of 24
For the first DV of retention/hyphenation versus change, the significant, hypothesized
predictors were participant income, and number of future children desired (see Model 1,
Table 2). Also found to be predictive were age, age when marriage would take place, age at
which next child was desired, closeness to father, rated likelihood of father assisting with
children, liberalism, conservativism, feminist identification, Attitudes Toward Feminism
and the Women’s Movement Scale (Fassinger 1994) score, whether the participant’s mother
had taken her father’s surname, and educational attainment. Within the following groups
of the above, conceptually-related variables, intercorrelations of r
≥
|.30| were observed:
(1) age, age when marriage would take place, and age at which next child was desired;
(2) closeness to father, and rated likelihood of father assisting with children; (3) liberal
identification, and conservative identification; and (4) feminist identification, and Attitudes
Toward Feminism and the Women’s Movement Scale score. Within these groups, the
following variables, each on its own, was most predictive of DV 1: (1) age, (2) closeness
to father, (3) liberal identification, and (4) feminist identification. These, along with the
variables in Model 1 (participant’s income, and number of future children desired), whether
the participant’s mother had taken her father’s surname, and educational attainment, were
used in the relevant regression (see Model 2, Table 2).
Table 2. Predictors of change (versus retention/hyphenation) of surname, addressing two logistic
multiple regression models (Model 1, n= 100, Cox & Snell pseudo-R
2
= 0.04, Nagelkerke pseudo-
R2= 0.05: Model 2, n= 86, Cox & Snell pseudo-R2= 0.44, Nagelkerke pseudo-R2= 0.61).
Predictor Variables
Model 1 Model 2
bStd.
Error Wald pExp(b) b Std.
Error Wald pExp(b)
Participant income −0.28 0.18 2.30 0.129 0.76 −
0.55
0.36 2.29
0.130
0.58
Number of future children desired 0.18 0.22 0.65 0.422 1.19 −
0.26
0.35 0.55
0.458
0.77
Age −
0.08
0.11 0.62
0.432
0.92
Emotional closeness to Father −
0.68
0.35 3.81
0.051
0.50
Liberalism −
0.54
0.22 6.13
0.013
0.58
Feminist identification −
0.39
0.16 5.59
0.018
0.68
Whether mother took father’s surname 1.21 0.48 6.22
0.013
3.34
Educational attainment −
0.42
0.27 2.31
0.128
0.66
For the second DV of level of agreement with the statement “In general, women
should retain their birth names”, none of the hypothesized predictors was significant: thus,
no Model 1 was tested. DV 2 was predicted by feminist identification, Attitudes Toward
Feminism and the Women’s Movement Scale score, whether mother took father’s surname,
and the Egalitarianism-Autonomy subscale of Cochran and Peplau (1985). Since feminist
identification and Attitudes Toward Feminism and the Women’s Movement Scale score
were both at least moderately intercorrelated and deemed conceptually related, only that
most strongly related to DV 2 in the current sub-sample (Attitudes Toward Feminism and
the Women’s Movement Scale score) was used in the relevant regression (along with DV’s
other two univariate predictors: see Table 3).
Table 3. Predictors of level of agreement with “In general, women should retain their birth names”,
addressing OLS multiple regression model (n= 105, Adjusted-R2= 0.14).
Predictor Variable βt p
Feminism Scale Score 0.18 1.92 0.058
Mother Took Father’s Surname −0.26 −2.86 0.005
Egalitarianism 0.24 2.55 0.012

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 15 of 24
Summary of Logistic Regression Results (DV 1)
Table 2contains b and Wald value, significance level, and exponentiated (b) value (or,
odds ratio) for the regression for which retention/hyphenation versus surname change
was the DV. Note the effect size of Model 2, based on its Nagelkerke pseudo-R
2
, might be
considered moderate within the social sciences (see generally Ferguson 2009, regarding
adjusted-R2size considered moderate).
Neither participant income nor number of future children desired remained pre-
dictive, when both of these were used in the same regression as predictors of surname
retention/hyphenation versus change (Table 2, Model 1). When these predictors were
used alongside the others in Model 2 (Table 2), the following, only, were predictive of
retention/hyphenation: greater reported level of emotional closeness to father (marginally),
greater liberalism, greater feminist identification, and the participant’s mother not having
taken her father’s surname. Thus, all of participant income, number of future children
desired, age, and educational attainment were unpredictive.
Summary of OLS Regression Results (DV 2)
Table 3contains beta and tvalues, as well as significance levels, for the regressions
the DV of which was level of endorsement of “In general, women should retain their birth
names [at marriage]” (DV 2). Shapiro-Wilk testing for normal distribution of DV 2 showed
non-normal distribution (p
≤
0.001): Thus, this regression does not meet the assumptions
of regression analysis and will not be discussed further.
4. Discussion
In this study, factors associated with women’s marital surname retention/hyphenation
versus change from the literature were assessed for relatedness, each on its own as well as
together (in multiple regression) if found to be related on its own, with two DVs. The first
DV was reported retention/hyphenation versus change of surname at (imminent) marriage:
the second was endorsement of the statement “In general, women should retain their sur-
names [at marriage]”. Data were gathered via survey of registrants with the website of the
only pan-Canadian bridal magazine to the author’s knowledge, Weddingbells. Participants
were asked to self- exclude if not female, not brides-to-be, and/or not
Canadian residents.
4.1. Income of the Participant and Her Groom: Hypotheses 1 and 2
Incomes were investigated in part, due to the expensiveness of raising children,
and the ‘motherhood penalty/fatherhood bonus’ to income, associated with childcare
(predominantly by mothers: Cain Miller 2014). Only bride’s (participant’s), not groom’s,
income as positively predictive of marital surname retention/hyphenation was supported
as a predictor (Hypothesis 1). Effect size was small, yet the analyses producing them only
adequately powered to detect moderate effect sizes. Participant’s income was not predictive
when regressed alongside number of future children desired, only (which was also non-
predictive, in the regression: Model 1, Table 2). When these two variables were regressed
alongside age, greater emotional closeness to her father on the part of the participant,
liberal identification, feminist identification, the participant’s mother not having taken her
father’s surname, and educational attainment to predict retention/hyphenation (Model 2,
Table 2), only liberal identification, feminist identification, and the participant’s mother not
having taken her father’s surname were significantly predictive. Perhaps those of greater
income within the sub-sample were also higher in liberal and feminist self-identification
and tended more often to have mothers who did not take their fathers’ surnames. In any
case, income being most strongly causal to the decision to retain/hyphenate surname at
marriage amongst variables found to be predictive was not supported.
Analogous analyses were also performed with DV 2. Brides-to-be of higher income di-
vision were not more likely to endorse this DV. Thus, it cannot be concluded that this predic-
tor bore any relationship to DV 2 endorsement. Therefore, bride-to-be self-reported income
should be interpreted as having predicted surname change versus retention/hyphenation

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 16 of 24
under underpowered univariate analysis (perhaps due to lesser need on the bride’s part of
eliciting the husband’s investment) but not general attitude to the practice. No support was
found for the groom-to-be’s income (as reported by bride-to-be) as predictive of either DV.
Given that own income (on its own—that is, via univariate analysis) was predictive
of brides’-to-be retaining/hyphenating surname, the study’s underlying reasoning that
lesser need for investment from husband and/or in-laws leads to less need to ‘get in
good’ with these might be seen as somewhat bolstered. There is, however, an alternative
interpretation in the literature. Goldin and Shim (2004), for example, discuss the possibility
that women who are established in occupations in which they have built up goodwill under
their surnames would suffer a professional/economic detriment via surname change. If
so, a conscious reasoning process on the part of women, to change surname only where
a detriment to earnings and/or professional reputation would not exceed some level,
is implicated. Such a possibility cannot be discounted, and the absence of need to ‘get
in good’, as above, cannot be preferred as explanatory, given the current study’s data.
MacEacheron (2011,2021), however, found, using large-scale, pan-U.S. data from two
different years, that state-level average/median women’s income (alongside household
income inequality expressed by the Gini coefficient, plus their interaction) was positively
predictive of surname retention/hyphenation (rather than change to that of the husband)
among destination brides to Hawai’i. Note, in arguing for what might be called facultative,
costly, commitment signaling, of brides’ pre-marital surname ‘sacrifice’ versus retention
choice, MacEacheron (2021, at p. 206) states,
“
. . .
It seems implausible that thousands of brides looked up their state women’s
full-time/salaried median income, and household-to-household income inequal-
ity, and made a surnaming decision influenced by these. It is difficult to imagine
how the observed pattern of (uncoordinated) action on the part of thousands
could occur, without at least some enabling psychological mechanism of detec-
tion or noticing of inequality. Based on the results of this study, I tentatively
speculate the women studied tended to at least somewhat accurately perceive
local (1) income earning potential for their sex; and (2) levels of resource-level
inequality, and that these influenced, via unknown mechanism, many of their
marital surnaming decisions. . .”
Given MacEacheron’s (2011,2021) studies were large-scale, replicated, pan-U.S., and
multi-year, and assuming there is indeed no possible mechanism by which such results
could have been obtained solely via a conscious reasoning process on the part of brides
in making their marital surname choice, it would seem the preponderance of evidence
currently favors an in-part non-conscious/not-detectable-via-introspection (nor via survey)
process, related to own income (potential) and relative income inequality, by which women
arrive at a marital surname choice. More research—for instance among brides of lesser
income (which those able to pay to travel to Hawai’i from anywhere else in the U.S. would
not be, and those registered with a bridal magazine may not be)—in any case, could still
be conducted.
Even if a woman’s marital surname choice on her wedding day means she has made
some sacrifice (costly signal) that bolsters the credibility of her commitment, why should
she imagine that sacrifice will be rewarded via her groom’s behavior? Her signal would
indeed mean her husband’s surname group gained at least one member (she), plus, in all
likelihood, any children born of the marriage, and her own family surname group would be
at least one fewer in number. Her signal would indeed mean she was publicly identifiable
whenever and wherever her surname (plus honorific “Mrs.”) was spoken, as married, and
to her husband, perhaps making her less able to engage in a clandestine, adulterous affair.
Her signal might mean she foregoes some business/economic advantage. And she might
actually be more committed—that is, under a wider range of circumstances—to staying
within the marriage (MacEacheron 2021). But why would she make such a sacrifice if
her husband could commit adultery and/or divert resources from her and any children,
regardless of the value of her signal? Her husband might be incentivized to invest in

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 17 of 24
children, who are more assuredly genetically his—of which her signal might persuade
him. An additional mechanism preventing potential grooms from accepting their potential
brides’ marital surname change, yet simply failing to ‘reciprocate’ during marriage via
an analogous level of commitment and investment in her and any children, however, is
suggested. Note that by marrying a woman who has signaled she will take his surname
(which she then does), such a husband accepts such a wife displaying, whenever and
wherever her surname (plus honorific ‘Mrs.’) is spoken, that he is married and to her.
By publicly and repeatedly labelling herself as his wife, that is, a wife who has changed
surname also publicly and repeatedly labels him as her husband, in a manner not under his
control. Speculatively, in this way, a potential bride, by signaling she will undergo marital
surname change/abstain from it, might also facilitate her assortative mating on preferred
level of (un)conditionality of remaining within the marriage, while increasing husband’s
investment in the children of the marriage.
4.2. Number of Children Desired (Hypothesis 3)
Number of children desired was hypothesized to predict endorsement of “In general, it
is better for a woman to retain her birth name [at marriage]” (DV 2). It was not significantly
associated, however, with that DV. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. The range of
number of children desired, zero to five, would seem to include enough variability to have
allowed for detection of such a relationship between this predictor and DV 2. The average
number desired (2.23
±
1.06: average number of future children desired, M= 2.07
±
1.05)
may suggest that the large majority of participants wanted few enough children, that they
might continue working (and thus not be, presumably, completely dependent on resource
investment from the husband and/or other(s)). Future research could assess whether, in
countries such as the U.S. in which ability to work may be more jeopardized by motherhood
due to the absence of guaranteed, paid, maternity leave, number of children desired might
be predictive of such attitude.
As noted in the Results section, number of children desired might better have
been hypothesized as a predictor of one’s own marital surname change versus reten-
tion/hyphenation (DV 1) than of general attitude toward the practice (DV 2). As also
noted, however, number of future children desired was only marginally predictive of
marital surname change (in the anticipated direction). The given effect size, additionally,
was small, with retainers/hyphenators on average desiring 1.88 future children, and
changers desiring on average 2.19.
4.3. Change/Retention/Hyphenation Decision and/or General Attitude Thereto
DV 2 consisted of endorsement of a single statement: “In general, women should
retain their birth names (at marriage)”. As such, it may be considered a less stable measure
than a multi-item scale score. No relevant scale, however, existed to my best knowledge
(and this one was based on one previously used: Hamilton et al. 2011). DV 1 consisted of
reporting one’s own (imminent) marital surnaming intention, which was coded as simply
‘change’ versus ‘retain/hyphenate’ surname.
Participants reported emotional closeness to each of her parents. Closeness to father,
only, was significantly related to retention/hyphenation and approval of women’s marital
surname retention in general. This is perhaps unsurprising given that it is the father’s
surname, assuming the bride-to-be was herself surnamed traditionally, that she would
be giving up via marital surname change. Closeness to a father may imply his greater
willingness to invest in his daughter: This was evidenced in this study, by greater rated
likelihood of such fathers helping with their daughter’s children.
No such assumption regarding future investment, no matter how emotionally close
the bride currently is to her future parents-in-law is, however, might be made: A bride’s
parents-in-law will have ongoing genetic grandparental uncertainty concerning each of her
successive, future children while her own father, as long as he detects no new reason to
doubt his paternity of her, will not. Future work could query closeness of the bride-to-be to

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 18 of 24
each of future mother-in-law and future father-in-law, and assess how close the bride tends
to be to these two at given levels of closeness to her own father, before she will undergo
marital surname change.
4.4. Multiple Regression
The hypothesized predictors of DV 1 (reported change versus hyphenation/retention
of surname at imminent marriage) found to be predictive under univariate analysis, were
participant income and number of future children desired (see Model 1, Table 2). Also
found to be predictive under univariate regression were age, age when marriage would
take place, age at which next child was desired, emotional closeness to father, rated like-
lihood of father assisting with children, liberal identification, conservative identification,
feminist identification, Attitudes Toward Feminism and the Women’s Movement Scale
(Fassinger 1994) score, whether the participant’s mother had taken the participant’s father’s
surname, and educational attainment. Of these latter predictors, as noted, age, emotional
closeness to father, liberal identification, feminist identification, whether the participant’s
mother had taken the participant’s father’s surname, and educational attainment only,
were included in the regression. That was done, since these were at least moderately
inter-correlated with one or more other of these variables and also conceptually related (see
Table 1), and possessed the strongest correlation among such other variables with DV 1.
Of all predictors used (including those hypothesized), only liberal identification, feminist
identification, and mother not having taken father’s surname were (positively) predictive
of retention/hyphenation. This suggests either a more complicated relationship of the
hypothesized predictors to retention/hyphenation, or lesser or no such relationship when
the predictiveness of these other predictors is taken into account.
Let us take the case of the strongest predictor of participant marital surname change:
her reporting that her mother took the participant’s father’s surname. Since this predictor’s
exponentiated b value (odds ratio) of 3.34 is greater than zero, the participant reporting
her mother took the participant’s father’s surname, corresponded to greater odds of the
participant’s own marital surname change (versus retention or hyphenation). Subtract-
ing this value from 1 and multiplying that by 100 (i.e., [1–3.34]
×
100), yields percent
change odds that the participant reports she will undergo marital surname change. Here,
a participant
reporting her mother had taken the participant’s father’s surname was associ-
ated with a 234% increase in odds the participant would report she would undergo marital
surname change. The regression’s pseudo-R
2
values (Cox & Snell pseudo-R
2
= 0.44, Nagelk-
erke pseudo-R
2
= 0.61) may each be considered to be moderate (see generally regarding
Adjusted-R
2
values: Ferguson 2009). At
α
= 0.05, power = 0.80, for the given regression,
however, only large effect sizes are detectable (Cohen 1992). Thus, this result should be
taken as suggestive, only.
Given a bride’s taking of her groom’s surname is an apparently strong predictor of
any children of the marriage also having only his surname (e.g., Johnson and Scheuble
2002;Duchesne 2006), the just-noted regression result, if confirmed via replication, would
be consistent with familial or sub-cultural transmission of the practice. This would be as
speculated in MacEacheron (2016a, at pp. 157–58):
“
. . .
Women’s choice to not undergo marital surname change will have been
acknowledged as legal for all purposes across the U.S.A. for between 30 and
40 years
. . .
Additionally, given the U.S.A.’s cultural influence on Canada, the
options of surname retention and hyphenation should have been salient in that
country too, for this same amount of time. Even women in states in which it most
recently became legal for all purposes to retain pre-marital surname at marriage,
who married at that point in time, are now old enough to be grandmothers
. . .
Thus, it is possible that North American patrilineal descent reckoning, which
may be an ultimate reason for marital surname change, will now have been
either reclaimed or subverted in some families. Such reclamation could occur

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 19 of 24
as a counter-reaction to the bilateral descent reckoning that implicitly occurs via
giving children a dual (both mother’s and father ’s) surname. . .”
Interestingly, factors associated with the two DVs differed. That is, while the items liberal
identification and (marginally) emotional closeness to father were positively predictive of
retention/hyphenation under the relevant multiple regression, they were not predictive of
endorsement of the statement “In general, women should retain their birth surname [at
marriage]” under univariate analyses. A possible explanation is that the two DVs are not
entirely related. This, in turn, might be because women who retain/hyphenate surname
may espouse choice in such decisions more than they espouse similar practice for other
women: The statement (DV 2) espouses the practice, rather than that it be a choice.
4.5. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions
This research was novel in several aspects. First, no rates of women’s marital surname
change, retention, and hyphenation across various parts of Canada had been previously
assessed. The proportions, when all brides-to-be were considered, of each of these options,
were as follows within the full sample: retention, 0.22; hyphenation, 0.10; change, 0.62.
The second, main, novel aspect of this study: simultaneous assessment of the relative
predictiveness of this many variables, previously found in the literature associated with
marital name change and attitude thereto in North America, performed on brides-to-be or
married women. The final, main novelty of the study: the relationship between brides’-to-
be own marital surname choice, and their general attitude to the practice, being assessed.
Brides-to-be, though their marriages are imminent, are still stating intention to retain/
hyphenate versus change surname, since the actual change or retention/hyphenation
occurs only at time of marriage. Records of women’s surname change versus retention/
hyphenation on the grounds of marriage, however, if kept by government, are not accessible,
and it was not feasible to collect data from brides on their wedding days (when the decision,
presumably, is usually finalized).
Participants were registrants on a bridal magazine website. To the extent such maga-
zines include suggestions for purchasing items that will be used for one day only, as well
as for purchase of other very time-limited, expensive activities in celebration of a wed-
ding (such as an engagement party and honeymoon), they may disproportionately attract
wealthy brides-to-be. (Thay may also tend to attract brides with no perceived need to hurry
to marry, given the time required to plan a wedding on the scale of the those featured in
the magazine.) Indeed, the median income bracket of participants was CAD 41,000 to CAD
60,000, which was greater than the average yearly earnings for female, Canadian earners in
2011: CAD 32,100 (Milan 2013). At 30.02 (+7.10) years of age on average, these brides may
have been, again on average, slightly older than typical Canadian brides-to-be: 29.1, as of
2008 (Statistics Canada 2016). Greater age was found to predict both DVs and, as discussed,
greater income was partially supported as a (positive) predictor of retention/hyphenation
and positive attitude toward retention. Thus, the actual rate of retention/hyphenation and,
to the extent it is related, endorsement of DV 2, may be assumed to not be as great among
all Canadian brides-to-be as these were among this study’s participants.
Future Directions for Research
In order to test hypotheses concerning any inter-jurisdictional differences in women’s
marital surname choice, recruiting greater numbers is generally suggested. Note that the
small population size of several provinces (e.g., the smallest, Prince Edward Island, at
146,447: Prince Edward Island Statistics Bureau 2015) might require snowball sampling.
Given that the behavior at issue, women’s (opposite-sex) marital surname change,
is an intersexual phenomenon, given the dearth of studies on marital surname change
of women marrying women, and given the prevalence of heterosexuals, limiting the
hypotheses in the current study to women engaged to men seemed justifiable. One of
the initial questions on the survey, as to sex of the participant’s fiancé(e), was worded
“Sex of your fiancé(e):” (followed by tick-box options). It is suggested it be re-worded

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 20 of 24
for clarity, given it was unlikely a third of the participants actually comprised women
marrying women. This would allow all data, including that from women marrying women
(whether or not analyzed separately, as is suggested given it is unclear in a female-female
marriage which spouse, if any, would change surname), to be used. Placing a graphic of
either two brides, or a bride and a groom (each couple perhaps holding hands), next to the
relevant tick-box choice might make the question less capable of misinterpretation. Such
future work could also include hypotheses and questions that pertain to same-sex marriage
brides particularly.
The current research did not address any difference in intended name change or
attitude thereto, depending on whether the participant anticipated or desired a change in
honorific (especially, changing from “Miss” to “Mrs.”), or not (because current honorific
would not change, for instance because it was “Dr.”, “Professor”, “Pastor”, etc.) It is
possible, for instance, that where a bride-to-be anticipated or desired no change in honorific
(e.g., because she used “Ms.” previously and planned on continuing doing so), changing
surname would hold less appeal. That is possible, in turn, because she might consider the
cost to her of surname change (in inconvenience, for instance) less worthwhile, where she
could not signal her married status thereby. Thus, future research could investigate this by
additionally asking for current, as well as planned post-marital, honorific.
Finally, this study’s brides-to-be also cannot be taken as representative of various
religious and ethnic groups within Canada. That is, due to low enrollment by brides-to-be
who were neither Christian nor without religious affiliation, no conclusions may be drawn
concerning them. Comparisons between ethnic groups, also for the same reason, were
not possible, except for between “White” and non- “White” participants (between which
no differences in either DV was discovered). In general, to the extent the given sample
was non-representative, as well as small in size, the results obtained therefrom must be
interpreted as potentially non-replicable in a representative sample. Greater sampling,
perhaps at bridal shows and events around the country, including any catering to those of
minority religious or ethnic groups, could remedy this issue. Also a possibility would be
snowball sampling of brides-to-be (see, e.g., Atkinson and Flint 2001). Finally, wedding
officiants might be approached to record frequency of women’s marital surname change
and hyphenation/retention. These may be likely to be aware of such surname choice, since
they may announce after the ceremony, “I now present, for the first time, Mr. and Mrs. X”,
only if applicable.
Measuring Attitudes and Behavior of Brides-to-Be, Rather Than of Married or
Unmarried Women
Brides-to-be to be were chosen as research participants in part due to the fact they
have almost certainly, since they are on the eves of their marriages, at least considered
marital surname change for themselves, within a given partnership and economic and other
contexts. Thus, characteristics of that partnership, of the bride and groom and the bride’s
parents, and other circumstances which might impact such decision, can be measured,
along with the decision itself (and general attitude thereto). On the advice of a colleague,
in any subsequent, related survey work, it is suggested that the bride’s-to-be perception of
the attitude of the groom-to-be and his natal family as to her marital surname choice be
queried. This is suggested, since there logically may be variation in the amount of pressure
from the groom/his family on brides-to-be to undergo marital surname change, and this
potential predictor has not yet been quantitatively studied.
Married women might have been studied in this survey, but brides-to-be were preferred,
since marital surname change or retention/hyphenation is decided upon at time of marriage,
potentially in part in response to the available cues and circumstances. Memory for such cues
and circumstances could erode over time making married women less suitable participants.
Also problematic would be the fact there is evidence that surname retention/hyphenation
has generally increased over time. As such, a cohort effect, with married women who wed
more years ago having chosen surname change at a greater rate, was possible. Brides-to-
be in the portion of the dataset comprising women marrying men, were of varying age

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 21 of 24
(ranging from 20 to 60 years: M= 29.93 + 7.03), allowing for comparison of the effect of age
without possible confounding by the above, predicted, cohort effect.
5. Conclusions
Participant’s income and (marginally) future number of children desired, as predicted,
as well as age, were positively predictive of reported intention to hyphenate/retain surname
at imminent marriage among participants engaged to men. This is consistent with brides-
to-be who could be expected to, on average and without more, need fewer resources
during marriage (to help fund children) also being more likely to state they would not
undergo marital surname change. This was investigated, in part, due to my conjecture
that marriage, uniquely, comprises a reproductive partnership. Groom’s income was not
predictive of participants reporting they would retain or hyphenate surname at marriage,
contrary to prediction. This calls into question the idea that women are, in part, competing
for higher-income grooms via marital surname change.
Under multiple regression analyses, non-intercorrelated variables found to be indi-
vidually predictive of retention/hyphenation were assessed alongside each other for their
relative predictiveness of that DV. Among women engaged to men, all of the participant’s
own income, number of future children desired, age, educational attainment, and emo-
tional closeness to father were not significantly predictive when regressed alongside liberal
identification, feminist identification, and the participant’s mother not having taken her
father’s surname. Thus, the relative importance of the hypothesized, univariate predictors
of participant income and number of future children desired, compared with these other
predictors, is called into question, unless perhaps the significant predictors are associated
with higher income and/or fewer children desired.
The other DV (DV 2: endorsement of “In general, women should retain their birth
surname [at marriage]”) was positively related to reported (imminent) intention to retain/
hyphenate versus change own surname at marriage (DV 1).
Participant’s own mother’s marital surnaming decision was most predictive of
the participant’s own such choice. This may point to a new sub-culture utilizing
greater bilateral descent reckoning, or of such reckoning becoming entrenched as tra-
dition within some families. This study comprised the first instance of such finding in
Canada. The other significant predictors, under regression, were liberal identification,
and feminist identification.
Results of analyses noted in this Conclusion were only adequately powered to detect
large effect sizes: significant results found, however, except for relationship of DV 1 with
DV 2, were of less than large effect size. Thus, those results must be interpreted with caution.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical approval, Western University’s Non-Medical Research
Ethics Board (file number 105612).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data unavailable due to privacy/ethical restrictions.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
Notes
1
Based closely on a chapter of author’s Ph.D. thesis, available at https://www.proquest.com/docview/2714866063?pq-origsite=
gscholar&fromopenview=true accessed on 1 January 2024, some wording is identical to previously unpublished portions, and/or
identical to previously unpublished portions of M.Sc. thesis, available at https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/handle/11375/21048
accessed on 1 January 2024.
2
The aim of the present study was to re-test several hypotheses created as part of the author’s 2009 MSc thesis, which surveyed
Canadian undergraduate women none of whom had ever been married, on actual, Canadian, brides-to-be.

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 22 of 24
3
Note additional hypotheses were initially created, in case sufficient data from all Canadian provinces had been collected to allow
their testing: not enough such data were collected. One additional hypothesis, beyond the scope of this paper, was also created:
details are available on request from author.
4
Previous, unpublished work (MacEacheron 2009), however, showed that closeness to mother was not predictive of negative
attitude to women’s marital surname change when used as a predictor alongside motivation to avoid in-laws, plus other
predictors from the literature, within a linear regression (closeness to father was, however, a marginally significant predictor of
such attitude within the regression).
5Not discussed further, at a reviewer’s request: details available on request from author.
6
CÉGEP, or Collège d’enseignement general et professionnel, is a Quebec-only education level preparatory for university, similar to
that of community college elsewhere in Canada (e.g., Quebec General and Vocational Colleges Act, c-29, as amended).
7
Bride’s age and, separately, (state-level, median women’s) income were strong predictors of retention/hyphenation in (MacEacheron
2011,2021), and income as a predictor received partial support under Hypothesis 1a. Since age in women predicts number of
future children expectable, and such number might in turn predict attitude to or actual retention/hyphenation, whether number
of children desired might act as a mediator between age and each of the two DVs was assessed. Such mediation, however, did
not occur (for DV 2 [own marital surname decision]; n= 109, C.I. of indirect effect of age on DV was
−
0.135 to 0.005: for DV 1
[general attitude toward practice], n= 107, C.I. of indirect effect was −0.018 to 0.054).
References
Atkinson, Rowland, and John Flint. 2001. Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research
Update 33: 1–4.
Blakemore, Judith E. O., Carol A. Lawton, and Lesa R. Vartanian. 2005. I Can’t Wait to Get Married: Gender Differences in Drive to
Marry. Sex Roles 53: 327–35. [CrossRef]
Blaze Carlson, Kathryn. 2012. The True North LGBT: New poll reveals landscape of gay Canada. National Post. July 6. Available
online: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-true-north-lgbt-new-poll-reveals-landscape-of-gay-canada#anchor
(accessed on 9 March 2017).
Boxer, Diana, and Elena Gritsenko. 2005. Women and surnames across cultures: Reconstituting identity in marriage. Women and
Language 28: 1–11.
Cain Miller, Claire. 2014. The Motherhood Penalty vs, the Fatherhood Bonus. New York Times. Available online: https://www.nytimes.
com/2014/09/07/upshot/a-child-helps-your-career-if-you%E2%80%99re-a-man.html (accessed on 24 December 2020).
Chagnon, Napoleon A. 1979. Is reproductive success equal in egalitarian societies? In Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior:
An Anthropological Perspective. Edited by Napoleon A. Chagnon and William G. Irons. London: Duxbury Press.
Cherlin, Andrew J., and Frank F. Furstenberg. 1986. The New American Grandparent: A Place in the Family, A Life Apart. New York: Basic.
Civil Code of Québec (CCQ). 1991. c. 64, a. 58 & 393. Available online: https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/ccq-1991
(accessed on 1 January 2024).
Cochran, Susan D., and Letitia A. Peplau. 1985. Value orientations in heterosexual relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly
9: 477–88. [CrossRef]
Cohen, Jacob. 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112: 155. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Daly, Martin, and Margo Wilson. 1988. Homicide. Berlin: Aldine de Gruyter.
DeKay, W. Todd. 1995. Grandparental investment and the uncertainty of kinship. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Meeting of
the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, June 28–July 2.
Dickemann, Mildred. 1979. Female Infanticide, Reproductive Strategies, and Social Stratification: A Preliminary Model. In Evolutionary
Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective. Edited by Napoleon A. Chagnon and William G. Irons.
London: Duxbury Press.
Duchesne, Louis. 2006. La situation démographique au Québec: Bilan 2006; Government of Quebec. Available online: www.stat.gouv.qc.
ca/statistiques/population-demographie/bilan2006.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2016).
Emens, Elizabeth F. 2007. Changing Name Changing: Framing Rules and the Future of Marital Names. The University of Chicago Law
Review 74: 761–63.
Euler, Harald A., and Barbara Weitzel. 1996. Discriminative Grandparental Solicitude as Reproductive Strategy. Human Nature 7: 39–59.
[CrossRef]
Fassinger, Ruth E. 1994. Development and testing of the Attitudes Toward Feminism and the Women’s Movement (FWN) Scale.
Psychology of Women Quarterly 18: 389–402. [CrossRef]
Ferguson, Christopher J. 2009. An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice
40: 532–38. [CrossRef]
Furstenberg, Frank F., and Kathy G. Talvitie. 1980. Children’s Names and Paternal Claims. Journal of Family Issues 1: 31–57. [CrossRef]
Goldin, Claudia, and Maria Shim. 2004. Making a Name: Women’s Surnames at Marriage and Beyond. Journal of Economic Perspectives
18: 143–60. [CrossRef]
Hamilton, Laura, Claudia Geist, and Brian Powell. 2011. Marital name change as a window into gender attitudes. Gender & Society
25: 145–75.

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 23 of 24
Hartshorne, Timothy S., and Guy J. Manaster. 1983. The relationship with grandparents: Contact, importance, role conception. The
International Journal of Aging and Human Development 15: 233–45. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hawkes, Kristen, James F. O’Connell, and Nicholas G. Blurton Jones. 1997. Hadza women’s time allocation, offspring provisioning,
and the evolution of long postmenopausal life spans. Current Anthropology 38: 551–77. [CrossRef]
Hill, Kim, and A. Magdalena Hurtado. 1996. Ache Life History. The Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People. New York: Aldine
de Gruyter.
Hodgson, Lynne G. 1992. Adult grandchildren and their grandparents: The enduring bond. The International Journal of Aging and
Human Development 34: 209–25. [CrossRef]
Hoffman, Edward. 1980. Young adults’ relations with their grandparents. International Journal of Aging and Human Development
10: 299–310. [CrossRef]
Hoffnung, Michele. 2006. What’s In a Name? Marital Name Choice Revisited. Sex Roles 55: 817–25. [CrossRef]
Intons-Peterson, Margaret J., and Jill Crawford. 1985. The Meanings of Marital Surnames. Sex Roles 12: 1163–71. [CrossRef]
Jackson, Jacquelyne J. 1971. Aged blacks: A potpourri in the direction of the reduction of inequities. Phylon 32: 260–80. [CrossRef]
Johnson, David R., and Laurie K. Scheuble. 1995. Women’s Marital Naming in Two Generations: A National Study. Journal of Marriage
and the Family 57: 724–32. [CrossRef]
Johnson, David R., and Laurie K. Scheuble. 2002. What should we call our kids? Choosing children’s surnames when parents’ last
names differ. The Social Science Journal 39: 419–29. [CrossRef]
Kahana, Boaz, and Eva Kahana. 1970. Grandparenthood from the perspective of the developing grandchild. Developmental Psychology
3: 98–105. [CrossRef]
Karthikeyan, Sethu, and Maryanne L. Fisher. 2023. A case study of a historical matrilineal community from an evolutionary perspective.
Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences 17: 61–82. [CrossRef]
Kennedy, Gregory E. 1990. College Students’ Expectations of Grandparent and Grandchild Role Behaviors. The Gerontologist 30: 43–48.
[CrossRef]
Kerns, Myleah Y. 2011. North American women’s surname choice based on ethnicity and self-identification as feminists. Names
59: 104–17. [CrossRef]
Kline, Susan L., Laura Stafford, and Jill C. Miklosovic. 1996. Women’s surnames: Decisions, interpretations and associations with
relational qualities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 13: 593–17. [CrossRef]
Lambert, Alan J., and Katherine Raichle. 2000. The role of political ideology in mediating judgments of blame in rape victims and their
assailants: A test of the just world, personal responsibility, and legitimization hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
26: 853–63. [CrossRef]
Li, Lixing, Xiaoyu Wu, and Yi Zhou. 2021. Intra-household bargaining power, surname inheritance, and human capital accumulation.
Journal of Population Economics 34: 35–61. [CrossRef]
Lin, Luona. 2023. About 8 in 10Women in Opposite-Sex Marriages Say They Took Their Husband’s Last Name. Pew Research Center. Available
online: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/07/about-eight-in-ten-women-in-opposite-sex-marriages-say-
they-took-their-husbands-last-name/#:~:text=Most%20women%20in%20opposite-sex,they%20kept%20their%20last%20name
(accessed on 11 December 2023).
Lockwood, Penelope, Caitlin Burton, and Katelyn Boersma. 2011. Tampering with tradition: Rationales concerning women’s married
names and children’s surnames. Sex Roles 65: 827–39. [CrossRef]
MacEacheron, Melanie. 2009. Factors Associated with Hamilton, Ontario Women’s Marital Surname Change Attitudes, McMaster
University Thode Library Thesis Repository. Available online: https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/handle/11375/21048 (accessed
on 1 January 2024).
MacEacheron, Melanie. 2011. Hawaii Data: Women’s Marital Surname Change by Bride’s Age and Jurisdiction of Residence. Names
59: 4–11. [CrossRef]
MacEacheron, Melanie. 2016a. North American women’s marital surname change: Practices, law, and patrilineal descent reckoning.
Evolutionary Psychological Science 2: 149–61. [CrossRef]
MacEacheron, Melanie. 2016b. Novel Predictors of Women’s Surname Retention at Marriage. Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository
4534. Available online: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/4534 (accessed on 1 January 2024).
MacEacheron, Melanie. 2020. Women’s marital surname change by bride’s age and jurisdiction of residence: A replication. Names
68: 193–209. [CrossRef]
MacEacheron, Melanie. 2021. Marital Surname Change and Marital Duration Among Divorcées in a Canadian County. Frontiers in
Psychology 12: 647942. [CrossRef]
Milan, Anne. 2013. Marital Status: Overview, 2011. Statistics Canada. Available online: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-209-x/20
13001/article/11788-eng.pdf (accessed on 28 February 2017).
Murdock, George Peter. 1949. Social Structure. New York: Macmillan Co.
Noack, Turid, and Kenneth A. Wiik. 2008. Women’s Choice of Surname Upon Marriage in Norway. Journal of Marriage and Family
70: 507–18. [CrossRef]
Oates, Kerris, and Margo Wilson. 2002. Nominal kinship cues facilitate altruism. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series
B: Biological Sciences 269: 105–9. [CrossRef]

Genealogy 2024,8, 13 24 of 24
Pashos, Alexander. 2000. Does paternal uncertainty explain discriminative grandparental solicitude? A cross-cultural study in Greece
and Germany. Evolution and Human Behavior 21: 97–109. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Peters, Eleanor. 2018. The influence of choice feminism on women’s and men’s attitudes towards name changing at marriage: An analysis
of online comments on UK social media. Names 66: 176–85. [CrossRef]
Prince Edward Island Statistics Bureau. 2015. Prince Edward Island Population Report 2015. Available online: http://www.gov.pe.ca/
photos/original/pt_pop_rep.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2016).
Roberto, Karen A., and Johanna Stroes. 1992. Grandchildren and grandparents: Roles, influences, and relationships. The International
Journal of Aging and Human Development 34: 227–39. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Robins, Lee N., and Miroda Tomanec. 1962. Closeness to blood relatives outside the immediate family. Marriage and Family Living
24: 340–46. [CrossRef]
Robnett, Rachael D., Carrie R. Underwood, Paul A. Nelson, and Kristin J. Anderson. 2016. “She Might be Afraid of Commitment”:
Perceptions of Women Who Retain Their Surname After Marriage. Sex Roles 75: 500–13. [CrossRef]
Robnett, Rachael D., Marielle Wertheimer, and Harriet R. Tenenbaum. 2018. Does a woman’s marital surname choice influence
perceptions of her husband? An analysis focusing on gender-typed traits and relationship power dynamics. Sex Roles 79: 59–71.
[CrossRef]
Scheuble, Laurie K., and David R. Johnson. 1993. Marital Name Change: Plans and Attitudes of College Students. Journal of Marriage
and the Family 55: 747–54. [CrossRef]
Scheuble, Laurie K., and David R. Johnson. 2005. Married Women’s Situational Use of Last Names: An Empirical Study. Sex Rules
53: 143–51. [CrossRef]
Scheuble, Laurie K., David R. Johnson, and Katherine M. Johnson. 2012. Marital name changing attitudes and plans of college
students: Comparing change over time and across regions. Sex Roles 66: 282–92. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Schneider, David M., and Calvert B. Cottrell. 1975. The American Kin Universe: A Geneologicol Study. The University of Chicago Studies
in Anthropology Series in Social, Cultural, and Linguistic Anthropology, No.3. Chicago: Department uf Anthropology, University
of Chicago.
Sear, Rebecca, Fiona Steele, Ian A. McGregor, and Ruth Mace. 2002. The effects of kin on child mortality in rural Gambia. Demography
39: 43–63. [CrossRef]
Sear, Rebecca, Ruth Mace, and Ian A. McGregor. 2000. Maternal grandmothers improve nutritional status and survival of children in
rural Gambia. Proceedings of the Biological Sciences 267: 1641–47. [CrossRef]
Shackelford, Todd K., Richard L. Michalski, and David P. Schmitt. 2004. Upset in response to a child’s partner’s infidelities. European
Journal of Social Psychology 34: 489–97. [CrossRef]
Silverstein, Merril, and Vern L. Bengtson. 1997. Intergenerational Solidarity and the Structure of Adult Child-Parent Relationships in
American Families. The American Journal of Sociology 103: 429–60. [CrossRef]
Smith, Martin S. 1988. Research in Developmental Sociobiology: Parenting and Family Behavior. In Sociobiological Perspectives on Human
Development. Edited by Kevin MacDonald. New York: Springer.
Smith, Martin S. 1991. An Evolutionary Perspective on grandparent grandchild relationships. In The Psychology of Grandparenthood:
An International Perspective. Edited by Peter K. Smith. London: Routledge, pp. 155–75.
Smith, Martin S., Bradley J. Kish, and Charles B. Crawford. 1987. Inheritance of Wealth as Human Kin Investment. Ethology and
Sociobiology 8: 171–82. [CrossRef]
Stafford, Laura, and Susan L. Kline. 1996. Women’s Surnames and Titles: Men’s and Women’s Views. Communication Research Reports
13: 214–24. [CrossRef]
Statistics Canada. 2016. Family Life–Marriage. Available online: http://well-being.esdc.gc.ca/misme-iowb/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=78
(accessed on 20 June 2016).
Stefanova, Vasilena, Ioana Latu, and Laura Taylor. 2023. What Is in a Name? Exploring Perceptions of Surname Change in Hiring
Evaluations in Academia. Social Sciences 12: 95. [CrossRef]
Suter, Elizabeth A. 2004. Tradition Never Goes Out of Style: The Role of Tradition in Women’s Naming Practices. The Communication
Review 7: 57–87. [CrossRef]
Tach, Laura, Ronald Mincy, and Kathryn Edin. 2010. Parenting as a “package deal”: Relationships, fertility, and nonresident father
involvement among unmarried parents. Demography 47: 181–204. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Twenge, Jean M. 1997. “Mrs. His Name” Women’s Preferences for Married Names. Psychology of Women Quarterly 21: 417–29. [CrossRef]
United States Census Bureau. 2013. Race. Available online: http://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html (accessed
on 18 June 2016).
Van Ranst, Nancy, Karine Verschueren, and Alfons Marcoen. 1995. The meaning of grandparents as viewed by adolescent grandchildren:
An empirical study in Belgium. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 41: 311–24. [CrossRef]
Young, Michael, and Peter Willmott. 1957. Family and Kinship in East London. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.