Symposium 2004

The Effect of Cohabitation on Marriage

Marcia Braun, Senior

Abstract
The Effect of Cohabitation on Marriage
Several published studies look at the increase in premarital cohabitation and the effect of premarital cohabitation on the traditional marriage relationship from the 1960s to present. Issues considered are marital satisfaction, marital stability, marital communication, and incidents of divorce within each group. Contrary to common perceptions, studies on couples who cohabitated prior to marrying indicate marriages that are less satisfactory, less stable, report poorer communication and higher incidents of divorce when compared to couples who did not cohabitate prior to marriage. Factors that attempt to explain these results are explored.
 
 
 
The Effect of Cohabitation on Marriage
Finding a compatible partner and getting married is the dream for the majority of people in America. Statistics show that approximately 95% of all people will be married at some point in their lives (Cherlin, 2002). However, marriage is coming to be considered more of a short-term and an economic arrangement by many and less of a life-time commitment (Risch, Riley & Lawler, 2003; Seltzer, 2000). It is true that divorce is becoming less stigmatized and is a more frequent event with a current divorce rate of approximately 40% for first marriages (Risch, Riley & Lawler, 2003). It is also true that cohabitation is becoming a more common and accepted way to live.
It is estimated that between 50% and 60% of all people will live together before marrying (Cherlin, 2002, Seltzer, 2000; Teachman, 2003). Cohabitation is defined as the sharing of a household by unmarried persons who have a sexual relationship (Cherlin, 2002). Many couples make the decision to cohabitate in order to see if they are compatible and believe they will then be able to make a better decision whether to get married. If this is true, then cohabitation should make marriages more stable and happier throughout North America (Seltzer, 2000).

Cohabitation is far more common in other countries such as Sweden, Canada and some Latin American countries and in some cases considered to be legally the same as marriage (Seltzer, 2000, Hall & Zhao, 1995). This paper will focus on cohabitation research as it relates to North American culture and how it effects the traditional institution of marriage. Due to the large amount of research that has been done on this subject this paper will be limited to the effects of cohabitation on first marriages.

Cohabitation used to be considered an unacceptable lifestyle, but data collected over the past twenty years has shown a steady increase over previous generations. In 1980 there were 1.6 million cohabiting couples; by 1990 about 2.9 million couples were cohabiting, and by 1997 that number had increased by 46% to over 4.1 million (Seltzer, 2000; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000, Table 57). Cohabitation is considered to be “an arrangement of convenience that provides more intimacy, more secure involvement, and less restricted sexual relations than just dating or courting. Possibly, there are some social and economic advantages and conveniences as well” (Tanfer, 1987, p. 494).

Two distinct groups of cohabiting couples have been identified. One group consists of couples who intend to marry and are using this time as a stage in the courtship process. Most cohabitors fall into this group. The second group uses cohabitation as an alternative to marriage and do not plan on getting married (Teachman, 2003). In one study only 7% of cohabitors who were surveyed stated they intended to remain single (Tanfer, 1987).

Cohabitation relationships are typically short lived. Currently half of cohabiting relationships end within a year due to the couple either becoming married or separating (Seltzer, 2000). Within the first two years approximately twenty-nine percent of cohabiting couples separate compared to only 9% of married couples. In addition, within five years from the beginning of a cohabitation relationship more than half of these relationships have ended even if the couple had gotten married during that time (Seltzer, 2000).

Even as cohabitation has become more common since the 1970s and more couples are choosing this step in the courtship process, the rate of divorce has decreased. Although this may seem to be an indication that cohabitation is causing subsequent marriages to become more stable by eliminating unsuitable matches (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002; Demaris & Leslie, 1984; Thomson & Colella, 1992), a recent study has shown that premarital cohabitation remains significantly correlated to marital dissolution (Heaton, 2002).

It has been suggested by some researchers that the cohabitation effect would decline as cohabitation became a more common part of the courtship process and began to carry less of a stigma. However, several recent studies have indicated that the cohabitation effect has remained stable over the past twenty years (Amato, Johnson, Booth & Rogers, 2003; Kamp-Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003). In addition, research has documented many other areas of marriage negatively affected by cohabitation.

The extensive research involving couples who cohabited in the 1970s and 1980s strongly suggest that marriage preceded by cohabitation has a detrimental effect on marital satisfaction and places couples at a higher risk of marital dissolution (Kamp-Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003, pg. 540). Depending on the specific statistical methods used it was found that couples who marry after a period of cohabitation are at a 35% to 50% greater risk of separating and/or divorcing than marriages without prior cohabitation (Seltzer, 2000; Teachman, 2002; Teachman, 2003).
One area of marriage that has been widely studied is marital happiness. It has been concluded that people who are married have better mental health and are generally happier than those who have never been married (Cherlin, 2002; Horwitz & Raskin-White, 1998). It has also been shown that depression decreases in those who become married; that is to say, marriage has a significant effect on reducing depression (Lamb, Lee & DeMaris, 2003). Results from a 2002 study found that neither entering into a cohabitation relationship nor moving from a cohabiting relationship into marriage decreases depression (Kim & McKenry, 2002). It was concluded that “marrying is associated with a significant and substantively meaningful reduction in depression, particularly if marriage is not preceded by cohabitation” (Lamb, Lee, & DeMaris, 2003, p. 961). Therefore, although cohabitation may not in itself cause depression, it may prevent the decrease in depression normally associated with marriage.

An identified predictor of marital instability is communication behaviors. It has been shown that communication skills account for greater marital outcome than do demographic characteristics, such as age, education, income and a parent’s divorce (Kamp-Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003). Past research on marital instability has shown that destructive communication and ineffective support both contribute to marital deterioration (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002). Research also suggests that premarital cohabitation is associated with communication that is more destructive and divisive during marriage, and premarital cohabitors are less likely to receive support from, and also to provide support to, their respective spouses. Cohabitors scored lower on quality of marital communication and marital satisfaction than non-cohabitors (DeMaris & Leslie, 1984). In addition, marital problem solving and social support behaviors were more negative and less positive for those couples who cohabited before marrying compared to those who had not (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002; Thomson & Colella, 1992). This has been explained in part because cohabiters might differ in their belief about the permanence of marriage commitment (DeMaris & Leslie, 1984).
Another predictor of marital stability is sexual exclusivity. More than 90% of Americans surveyed by Treas and Giesen (2000) believe that it is wrong for someone who is married to have a sexually intimate relationship with someone other than their spouse. These high expectations for sexual exclusivity within the relationship were desired whether the respondent was cohabiting or married. This research also suggested that those marriage relationships not preceded by cohabitation tend to have greater sexual exclusivity than cohabitation relationships. In addition, premarital cohabitors had a 39% increase in marital infidelity. It appears that “compared to married couples, cohabitors are not as sexually exclusive consistent with their less conventional values” (Treas & Giesen, 2000, pg. 49). One theory is cohabitors may have a lower investment in their relationship (Treas & Giesen, 2000). One study showed that characteristics of people who cohabit are more similar to those of single people than they are to married couples in almost all areas that were studied (Seltzer, 2000).
The lower stability of marriages preceded by cohabitation is well documented and many areas that are less stable have been identified. The debate continues as to the reason cohabitation causes an increase in the risk of marital stability. Two perspectives have been proposed that attempt to explain this increase. These perspectives are 1) the selection effect perspective and 2) the experience of cohabitation perspective (Seltzer, 2000; Kamp-Dusk, Cohan & Amato, 2003). Both interpretations have been supported by recent studies.

The selection effect suggests that cohabitation and marital instability are linked by unconventional characteristics shared by those who choose to cohabit (DeMaris & MacDonald, 1993), or in other words “people who cohabit are different” (Seltzer, 2000, p. 1253). Some researchers believe that individual differences that are found in each of the couple’s backgrounds account for the greater instability and the higher divorce rates of the premarital cohabitors. These may include the individual’s attitudes and behaviors when compared to couples who did not cohabit before marrying (Seltzer, 2000; Tanfer, 1987), a more individualistic view of marriage (Thomson & Colella, 1992), and gender-role attitudes that are more liberal (Watson, 1983, Tanfer, 1987). Other characteristics include those who are not optimistic regarding marriage in general, are less inclined to have negative attitudes about divorce, those who have experienced a marital disruption within their childhood family, and who grew up in a single-parent family. Couples who are less educated, have a low religious orientation, and less economic resources are also more likely to cohabit (Seltzer, 2000; Amato, Johnson, Booth, & Rogers, 2003).

The second rationale that many researchers have identified is the experience of cohabitation perspective. The experience of cohabiting by itself might affect an increased risk of divorce because it allows individuals to “learn about intimate living outside of a marriage relationship, provides information about alternatives to marriage, and acts to erode their belief in the permanence of marriage” (Teachman, 2003, p. 455) or “cohabitation changes people”. In addition there may also be apprehension that the transition from cohabitationto marriage might lead to a loss of autonomy. Research has indicated that “about one third of cohabiting men and one sixth of cohabiting women feel that they would have less autonomy if they marry their partner” (Wu, 1999, pg. 112).

Other research has looked at the importance of the transition to marriage, and argues that cohabitors have to make their behavioral adjustments and expectations after they are married, but the tendency for the couple to do that is rather weak (Schoenberger, 1992). One could presume that couples who previously cohabited would have already worked out most of the problems faced with setting up and the chores associated with a new household. They should also be more familiar with one another and would have worked out ways of dealing with each others emotions and most other adjustments that must be made when living in close proximity with another person. In these situations, transition problems should be minimal and differ from those couples who had not previously cohabited and would still have to adjust to these changes early in their marriages (Watson, 1983).

Watson (1983) also suggests an alternative explanation. “Far from being a mere rite of passage, the act of becoming formally married may have deep and quite different meaning for those who marry after cohabiting or after traditional courtship” (p. 146). For those who had not cohabited, the act of marrying is a new beginning with expectations and anticipations of new possibilities, such as setting up a new household. Since cohabitors have already established a common residence and have already defined their roles, this transition to marriage may not be seen as having the same “new beginnings,” but having to assume new responsibilities (Watson, 1983).

While no current study has determined if either interpretation completely explains the cohabitation effect (Seltzer, 2000), a 2003 study (Kamp-Dush, Cohan, & Amato) found the most support for the “experience of cohabitation perspective”. This was concluded because there was no change over time on the cohabitation effect that should have been evident due to the increased acceptance of cohabitation since the 1970s. This study also indicated that even after demographic variables were controlled for, premarital cohabitation remained significantly related to marital conflict and divorce, and negatively related to marital happiness which is consistent with the experience of cohabitation perspective.

Although much research has been done on the cohabitation effect, additional research is needed to better understand the reasoning behind decisions made by cohabiting couples to marry or separate. It “may well be the case that, irrespective of the legal status of the relationship, the relevant distinction to make is between people who form multiple relationships and people who form a single, longer lastingrelationship” (Teachman, 2003). If these couples decide to marry, gaining an understanding of how and if their behavior and feelings change is also important (Seltzer, 2000).
Thus far, most research has focused on collecting data from couples and most information is collected from the female partner of the relationship. Several studies have specifically mentioned the lack of representation from the male partner (Thomson & Colella, 1992; Teachman, 2003). It is important that both males and females are represented because both have different roles, responsibilities and perspectives within a relationship. It is important to understand both the male and female point of view. In addition, “marital data (as well as other data) reported by men are considered less reliable and precise than marital data reported by women” (Wineberg, 1994, pg. 82). Since the lack of this information reduces the accuracy of relationship research, it is necessary to find a way to not only include the male perspective, but to increase the accuracy of the data collected as well.

Current evidence suggests that cohabitation changes people and those changes influence marital instability and incidence of divorce. The divorce rate is declining among first marriages but remains higher in premarital cohabitation relationships. This strongly suggests that there are significant factors within those marriages not preceded by cohabitation that cause them to be more stable. Cohabitation has become a common part of the courtship process. This process is most commonly intended to allow a couple to get to know each other in a less committed relationship, with less risk and commitment than marriage. The negative effect of cohabitation on marriage is counterintuitive, and the fact that cohabitation is so accepted is a good illustration of illusory correlation. Once again we are reminded that most intimate relationships are very complex and exactly what constitutes good marriage choices are as of yet unknown. Since we know there are many benefits associated with marriage, perhaps it’s time to reconsider the contemporary courtship process and attempt to find a more effective way to determine marital compatibility.

References
Amato, P. R., Johnson, D. R., Booth, A., & Rogers, S. J. (2003). Continuity and change in marital quality between 1980 and 2000. Journal of Marriage and Family. 65, 1-22.
Cherlin, A. J., (2002). Public & Private Families: An Introduction, 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cohan, C. L. & Kleinbaum, S. (2002). Toward a greater understanding of the cohabitation effect: Premarital cohabitation and marital communication. Journal of Marriage & the Family. 64, 180-192.
DeMaris, A. & Leslie, G. R. (1984). Cohabitation with the future spouse: Its influence upon marital satisfaction and communication. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 46, 77-84.
DeMaris, A. & MacDonald, W. (1993). Premarital cohabitation and marital instability: A test of the unconventionality. Journal of Marriage & the Family. 55, 399-407.
DeMaris A. & Rao, K. V. (1992). Premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital stability in the United States: A reassessment. Journal of Marriage & the Family. 54, 178-190.
Hall, D. R., & Zhao, J. Z. (1995). Cohabitation and divorce in Canada: Testing the selectivity hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 57, 421-427.
Heaton, T. B. (2002). Factors contributing to increasing marital stability in the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 392-409.
Horwitz, A. V. & Raskin White, H. (1998). The relationship of cohabitation and mental health: A study of a young adult cohort. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 60, 505-514.
Kamp-Dush, C. M., Cohan, C. L. & Amato, P. R. (2003). The relationship between cohabitation and marital quality and stability: Change across cohorts? Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 539-549.
Kim, H. K. & McKenry, P. C. (2002). The relationship between marriage and psychological well-being: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 885-911. Abstract retrieved on March 17, 2004, from EBSCO database http://web20.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=dbs+psyh+
sid+6B4DE523%2D4E82%2D47AD%2DAB7A%2D606761FA88A4%40sessionmgr4+D413&_us
=dstb+KS+hs+0+or+Date+ri+KAAACB3B00000111+sl+%2D1+sm+KS+ss+SO+4115&_uso=db%
5B0+%2Dpsyh+hd+0+op%5B0+%2D+st%5B0+%2DThe++relationship++between++marriage+tg%
5B0+%2D+6DC4&fn=1&rn=6.
Lamb, K. A., Lee, G. R., & DeMaris, A. (2003). Union formation and depression: Selection and relationship effects. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 953-962.
Risch, G. S., Riley, L. A. & Lawler, M. G. (2003). Problematic issues in the early years of marriage: Content for premarital education. Journal of Psychology and Theology. 31, 253-269.
Schoenberger R. (1992). First unions and the stability of first marriages. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 54, 281-284.
Seltzer, J. (2000). Families formed outside marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1247-1268.
Tanfer, K. (1987). Patterns of premarital cohabitation among never-married women in the United States. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 49, 483-497.
Teachman, J. (2002). Stability across cohorts in divorce risk factors. Demography. 39, 331-351.
Teachman, J. (2003). Premarital sex, premarital cohabitation and the risk of subsequent marital dissolution among women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65: 444-455.
Thomson, E. & Colella, U. (1992). Cohabitation and marital stability: Quality or commitment? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54: 159-267.
Treas, J. & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 62, 48-60.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2000. Washington, CD: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved on March 14, 2004, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p20-537.pdf
Watson, R. E. L. (1983). Premarital cohabitation vs. traditional courtship: Their effects on subsequent marital adjustment. Family Relations. 32, 139-147.
Wineberg, H. (1994). Marital reconciliation in the United States: Which couples are successful? Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 56, 80-88.
Wu, Z. (1999). Premarital cohabitation and the timing of first marriage. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 36, 109-127.