Dr. Matthew Johnson, Life Transitions and Relationships

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/22

Dr. Matthew Johnson is a researcher specializing in the development of couple relationships. He is a co-investigator of the Edmonton Transitions Study (ETS), a longitudinal study tracking Edmontonians’ life transitions from ages 18 to 50, with a focus on mental health, marital timing, and subjective well-being. Additionally, Dr. Johnson analyzes data from the German Family Panel (pairfam), exploring topics such as household dynamics, partner support, and immigrant couple relations. His work bridges developmental psychology and relationship science, offering insights into the evolving dynamics of intimate partnerships. Dr. Johnson welcomes dedicated graduate students eager to contribute to the study of couple relationships.

Johnson shared insights from this 40-year longitudinal research on over 900 Edmontonians, examining life transitions, including marriage and parenthood. Findings reveal that high-quality relationships positively impact mental health, with lasting love and stability being achievable norms. Sacrifice within relationships fosters mutual commitment and satisfaction, while poor mental health can strain partnerships. Immigrant couples, despite challenges, develop similar relationship trajectories to native-born couples when matched socioeconomically. Trends like declining marriage and birth rates align with broader Western patterns. Johnson emphasizes that addressing relationship challenges proactively is vital, as unresolved issues often persist or worsen.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Matt Johnson, co-investigator for the Edmonton Transitions Study, alongside Drs. Harvey Krahn and Nancy Galambos. This longitudinal study follows over 900 Edmontonians across eight waves, ages 18 to 50. Dr. Johnson, what do the findings reveal when examining these transitions, particularly from committed intimate unions to raising children?

Dr. Matthew Johnson: The Edmonton Transitions Study is a comprehensive examination of human development. It began in the mid-1980s with 983 high school seniors from the Edmonton area. These participants have been followed up to eight times over 32 years.

Initially, the study focused on transitioning from school to work during a particularly challenging time. The mid-1980s recession in Canada brought record-high youth unemployment rates, sparking significant interest in how young people would navigate the transition into a hostile job market with limited opportunities. The original intention was for the study to be short-term, tracking participants from age 18 to 25, the critical period for entering the workforce.

As research interests evolved, the study expanded. By the late 1990s, the research team, now including new members, decided to follow up with participants again. At age 32, the study resumed, broadening its scope to include family and personal life, education, and employment. Subsequent waves of data collection occurred in 2010, at age 43, and in 2017, when participants were 50. Plans are underway for the next wave, scheduled for 2025, at which point participants will be, on average, 58 years old. This will increase the study duration to 40 years.

The Edmonton Transitions Study has produced approximately 90 scientific publications, contributing valuable insights into employment, mental health, relationships, and family dynamics. Longitudinal studies of this scope and duration are rare, particularly in Canada, making it one of the longest-running studies of its kind.

Jacobsen: What initially drew you to this study, and what findings stand out most?

Johnson: My specific area of expertise is relationships, which drew me to the study. It offers a unique opportunity to examine how relationship dynamics evolve over decades, from formative years in late adolescence and early adulthood (ages 18 to 20) to midlife partnerships. Some of the most compelling findings relate to mental health. For example, individuals who experienced improvements in mental health between ages 18 and 25—such as reduced depression, better anger management, and increased self-esteem—tended to report higher-quality intimate relationships in midlife. These relationships were marked by joint decision-making, mutual support, and greater confidence in their longevity.

Jacobsen: How do individuals’ projections of their future well-being compare to the reality of their subjective well-being decades later?

Johnson: When considering how individuals project their well-being into the future and later reflect on it, an intriguing question arises: how accurate are these projections in shaping subjective well-being decades later? While we have not specifically examined this question, we know that memory bias significantly influences retrospective well-being assessments.

Jacobsen: When asking people about their past experiences, how do you account for the potential bias in their recollections?

Johnson: That’s a great point. When people reflect on the past, their memories are often biased. To address this, we focus on what’s happening in the present. For example, we ask questions like, “How depressed do you feel now?” or “How able are you to control your anger now?” This allows us to capture their experiences rather than relying solely on retrospective accounts.

That said, in our most recent survey, we also asked participants to forecast their future—what they’re most looking forward to as they near retirement. This aligns with your question: Are people’s forecasts about their future well-being accurate, or do they exhibit similar biases to those present when reflecting on the past?

Jacobsen: How does marital timing predict future subjective well-being?

Johnson: One key area we’ve studied is how the timing of life transitions—such as marriage—affects future outcomes. Cultural and societal norms often dictate when people “should” accomplish major milestones: finishing education, starting a career, moving out of their parent’s home, getting married, and having children.

When we examined the timing of marriage, we categorized individuals as transitioning early, on time, or late relative to their age group. Our findings revealed that transitioning to marriage on time or late is associated with better future well-being than transitioning early. Early transitions to marriage often occur before individuals have established key aspects of their adult lives, such as completing education or settling into a career. These premature transitions frequently coincide with parenthood and other responsibilities, setting people on a trajectory that may not be as fulfilling in the long term.

Jacobsen: What about individuals who never make these transitions, such as marriage or parenthood?

Johnson: A population segment only sometimes follows the traditional life course. In the Edmonton Transitions Study, some participants have not married or had children, and we’ve also looked at these cases.

We found that, compared to those who did not marry, individuals who got married reported greater happiness, were less depressed, and had higher self-esteem in midlife.

Relationship science more broadly supports this, showing the protective effects of being in a relationship, particularly a high-quality one. Of course, selection effects are at play—people who enter high-quality relationships often differ meaningfully from those who don’t. These differences may partially explain why being in a relationship is associated with better outcomes.

Jacobsen: Can you explain the balance between selection effects and the protective effects of being in a relationship, particularly in terms of how it influences mental health?

Johnson: Absolutely. There is a selection component—people who form healthy relationships often already have better career paths, health, and well-being. These qualities make them more attractive as partners. However, the protective effect of being in a relationship is also robust and enduring. Being in a relationship provides insulation against life’s hardships and can manifest in various ways, such as improved mental health.

Jacobsen: What about immigrant couples? How do their relationships develop over the long term, and what challenges do they face in adapting to a new country?

Johnson: That’s a fascinating question. The immigration process represents a significant upheaval involving adapting to a new culture, potential language barriers, and substantial life changes. While I didn’t examine this through the Edmonton Transitions Study, I did explore it using data from another source: the German Family Panel.

The German Family Panel is the largest study of family relationships worldwide. It began with 12,000 participants covering three generations, including their partners, children, and parents. This study followed these families over 14 years and provided a unique opportunity to examine immigrant couples.

In this context, I could compare immigrant couples to native-born couples living in Germany. We matched them based on education, income, socioeconomic status, and relationship length. By creating these matched comparisons, we could isolate differences that might be specifically due to immigration rather than disparities in wealth, career type, or education levels.

We found that, for the most part, immigrant couples developed their relationships similarly to native-born couples. Despite the challenges of adapting to a new culture, immigrant couples demonstrated comparable relationship trajectories when matched on key socioeconomic factors.

Jacobsen: How do immigrant couples compare conflict, satisfaction, and self-disclosure to native-born couples?

Johnson: The amount of conflict they faced was comparable, their satisfaction levels were similar, and the types of self-disclosure they engaged in were very similar. While there were a few differences, the bigger takeaway was the striking similarity between immigrant and native-born couples.

One important caveat to that study is that most immigrant couples had moved to their new country several years prior. We might observe more pronounced differences if we studied and followed newer immigrants over time. However, I am aware of no studies to collect longitudinal data on newly immigrated couples.

Jacobsen: Regarding longitudinal data, what trends have you observed over the decades, particularly in Canada, such as declining marriage and birth rates?

Johnson: Yes, these are important trends. While I have yet to study Canada in detail specifically, Canada broadly follows trends seen in other Western nations, such as declining marriage rates and decreasing birth rates. Canada does have some unique characteristics compared to its peers, particularly its high proportion of immigrants and larger Indigenous population compared to other G7 nations. However, the overall trends of lower birth and marriage rates align closely with those of Western countries.

Jacobsen: Do factors such as political affiliation, religious beliefs, or socioeconomic and educational differences play a smaller or larger role in subjective well-being within marital situations?

Johnson: Great question. Certainly, beliefs, values, socioeconomic status, and education influence how relationships unfold over time. While I have yet to examine this in detail in my work, the broader field of relationship science has explored these dynamics.

As politics have become more polarizing, these factors may play a larger role. However, most couples tend to partner with individuals who are more similar to them than different. Even when there are apparent differences, such as political affiliations, deeper analysis often reveals shared underlying values, philosophies, and beliefs. Still, differences do arise and need to be negotiated within relationships. If managed well, they can avoid becoming liabilities.

Jacobsen: How significant are social and personality factors, such as reciprocity and a willingness to support or sacrifice for a partner, in determining the health and longevity of a relationship?

Johnson: Sacrifice is a particularly interesting relationship process because it’s a potent signal of commitment. When one partner sacrifices for the other, it demonstrates a willingness to prioritize the relationship over individual needs. This kind of reciprocity—supporting each other during stressful moments and being willing to make sacrifices—plays a critical role in the health and longevity of the relationship. Partners that consistently demonstrate these qualities tend to have stronger, more enduring marriages.

Jacobsen: Sacrifice seems to play a significant role in relationships. Why do you think it’s so impactful?

Johnson: Sacrifice is impactful because it signals commitment. Why else would someone forego their interests unless they saw a future with their partner? When one partner sacrifices, the other often reciprocates, creating what scholars call a “mutual cyclical growth process.” In this process, one person’s sacrifice can encourage the other to do the same, fostering a positive cycle of mutual regard.

This is noteworthy because most cycles in relationships tend to be negative. For example, couples can fall into patterns of negative interactions—arguing, having conflict, or even recurring disagreements about specific topics. These patterns often spiral downward. Sacrifice, however, stands out as an exception. It’s a process that partners can implement to promote positive behaviours and strengthen their relationship.

When sacrifices are made and maintained over time in a balanced way—avoiding a “tit for tat” mentality or becoming overly one-sided—they are linked to more satisfying relationships and higher commitment. A benevolent, mutual sacrificial process is a hallmark of strong, enduring partnerships.

Jacobsen: What about the link between marital satisfaction and mental health? Is marriage overall conducive to long-term mental health?

Johnson: There are certainly some protective effects of marriage on mental health, but the quality of the marriage is far more important. If someone asked me whether it’s better to get married or to be in a good relationship—marriage or not—I would say the bigger effects come from relationship quality. Being in a high-quality relationship is conducive to good mental health. It reduces stress and brings numerous other benefits.

Conversely, poor mental health can strain relationships. The two domains—mental health and relationship quality—are mutually reinforcing. There are even treatment protocols for depression, anxiety, and other mental health problems that involve both partners in addressing the issue. This underscores how closely linked these areas are.

Jacobsen: What is the average age for first marriage in Canada for men and women?

Johnson: Canada’s average age for first marriage is now over 30. While I don’t know the exact numbers, it’s around 31 for women and 33 for men. However, you’d need to verify that with a reliable source like Statistics Canada—they provide precise answers to these questions [Ed. Information from StatsCan here: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221114/cg-b006-eng.htm.]

Jacobsen: Do you have any insights on why people typically get married in Canada?

Johnson: No, I don’t have specific data on that. However, societal norms, expectations, and family influences play a significant role. Marriage is a part of our culture, and it’s also widespread across human societies. Couples often formalize their intimate unions in some shape or form, and in this context, we call it marriage.

Jacobsen: Matt, what is the big message from your research on intimate partnerships over the decades?

Johnson: Great question. I was invited to give a talk about a year ago, and I reflected on this extensively. When I look across all the work I’ve done—and situate it within the broader context of relationship science—the key takeaway is this:

For the past 15 years, the field has shifted from viewing relationships as constantly growing, changing, and reacting to life’s challenges to recognizing that many relationships remain relatively stable over long periods. This isn’t to say couples don’t face challenges, but most can navigate these and maintain happy, satisfying relationships.

I teach a course on intimate relationships at the University of Alberta. I start by showing students data supporting this idea. My goal for the semester is to convince them—based on scientific evidence—that lasting love is possible. Studies show that satisfying relationships can and do last for most couples for decades. That, to me, is a central message: lasting love is possible.

Another important takeaway is that stability is more common than change. If there are issues in your relationship, they won’t naturally resolve themselves. The more natural course is for those issues to persist or even deteriorate. Some researchers argue that deterioration is more common than improvement. Therefore, if things aren’t great, you need to take action to improve them. On the flip side, if your relationship is in a good place, it’s reasonable to expect it will stay that way—so long as you continue doing the things that keep you close, connected, and able to adapt to life’s challenges.

Jacobsen: Matt, thank you so much for your time today. I truly appreciate it.

Johnson: My pleasure. Take care, Scott.

Jacobsen: Sounds good. Take care, Matt. Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.