Cohabitation before marriage – something old and something new, some things pro and some things con
Many family researchers have been analyzing cohabitation before marriage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PItNy3xooPI) and at first glance, it seems that it is a perfect setting for a “try it before you buy it” motif, after all, cohabitations let participants examine their relationship to see if they are a compatible match with each other (Manning,W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2009), Divorce-proofing marriage: Young adults’ views on the connection between cohabitation and marital longevity ( NCFR Report 54:F13-F15), where 8 of the each 10 young adults polled, agreed that cohabitation provides an opportunity to see if the couple can live together or if they are destined to break-up.
Research after research show that there is a positive correlation between before marriage cohabitation and a significant drop in marriage rates, marriage instability and lone-parent families that may negatively affect a child’s wellbeing (Jose, O’Leary, & Moyer, 2010; Rhodes, Stanley, & Markman, 2009). Some researchers suggest that there are underlying issues that play a role in marriage rates to drop, instability in marriages and lone-parenthood other than simply cohabitation before marriage (National Center for Family & Marriage Research. (2010b). Thirty Years of Change in Marriage and Union Formation Attitudes, 1976-2008 (2010). Family Profiles).
Eventhough, the rates widely varied between countries, empirical researches show a steady increase in the rates of cohabitation before marriage at the same time as the marriage rates keep declining (Stephen Reinold, 2010). “No family change has come to the force in modern times more dramatically, and with such rapidity, as heterosexual cohabitation outside of marriage. Within three decades in most advanced nations the practice on non-marital cohabitation has shifted from being a widely eschewed and even illegal practice to one which increasingly, is viewed as a normal part of the life course and a necessary prelude to, or even substitute for marriage.” (David Popenoe, Cohabitation, Marriage, and Child Wellbeing: A Cross-National Perspective, 2009).
According to an empirical research published in Social Science (Soc. (2009) 46: 429-436) which compiled comprehensive statistics from earlier empirical researches in 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s, the cohabitation rates in Scandinavia, increased from 5% to 7% to 11%, and today stands at about 30%, Sweden and Denmark saw the same steady increase in cohabitation and today it is estimated at almost 90%. The same pattern of increase in cohabitation are noted ranging from 23% in Italy, 26% in France, 37% in Germany, 48% in Australia, 52% in the UK to 59% in New Zealand (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-009-9242-5). This empirical research also recorded the data from earlier empirical researches that show a definite decline in marriages in the countries with increased cohabitation. The decline ranges from 11% in UK, 13% in Denmark, 21% in Germany, 22% in New Zealand and 35% in Canada (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7jBY-bIPVE).
Some researchers that concern themselves less with statistics and concentrate their research on the social-emotional state of participants in both cohabitation and marriages distinctly noted that when cohabitation substitutes marriage, the participants are generally less happy, less healthy and less economically stable than the participants who are married.
In the earlier empirical studies (1990’s to early 2000’s), evidence summarized from researchers drew conclusions that couples who eventually marry after cohabitation have a higher rate of divorces. There has been limited research interested in specifically asking the reasons for habitation and cohabitors’ marriage plans before cohabitation. However, recently emerging empirical researches that were done in contemporary settings, suggest that there are some stipulations and limitations that earlier researchers on cohabitations and marriages either have not taken into consideration or have not given those limitations enough importance to change their conclusions on the correlation between cohabitation before marriage and marriage sustainability.
One study by Stanley, studied data gathered from men and women married in the 1990’s and measured a couple’s commitment by asking them specifically if they were engaged to be married at the start of cohabitation. Stanley and his partners reported that cohabiters without an initial marriage plan at the start of cohabitation experienced a higher rate of marital dissolution than cohabiters with marriage plans (Stanle yet al., 2010).
Other recent empirical researches (National Center for Family & Marriage Research. (2010b). Thirty Years of Change in Marriage and Union Formation Attitudes, 1976-2008 (2010). Family Profiles, FP-10-03 (http://ncfmr.bgsu.edu/pdf/family_profiles/file83691.pdf) also show that the intention of cohabitation – engagement, marriage or no focus on a future goal – make the difference in the relationship between cohabitation, marriage, divorce/break-up and lone parenthood rates. Couples who were polled also identified that moving in together and getting married were totally different things. Although some marriages still do not work out, the intention of the move is usually clear with regard to having a future together (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48u0XyYuxxo).
This is often not at all true of all moving in together. Participants in one study by Guzzo. K. B. (2009). (Marital intentions and the stability of first cohabitations. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 179 – 205), were asked if they considered moving in together (cohabitation) and marriage to be the same. Couples who cohabited with marriage intentions and were expected to share similar to marital responsibilities and expectations had the same stability as married women and men who never cohabited and they had noticeable greater marital stability than men and women who cohabited without any plans/intentions for marriage.
Financially, cohabitation can be a great benefit but it can also be a downside for the couple. It can be a relief for both participants to share the financial responsibilities (rent, food, utilities, etc) and it may take off financial pressures from one or both; however, it can also cause the friction in the relationship, if one earns more and so contributes financially more. The person may feel taken advantage of and/or start to resent either the cohabitation or the other person, which eventually will cause the cohabitation to dissolve.
Most of the researches found that the biggest advantage and the reason the couples decide to cohabitate, is the chance to have a sneak preview of the true-natural state of each other and to see how they deal with day-to-day life issues such as compromises, arguments, day-to-day pressures of work, health, anger, and other outside factors which can only be done in a living together compatibility assessment. As much as spending a considerable time together can be a benefit in cohabitation, after a while it can also become a disadvantage aspect of cohabitation. When people are not ready to assume all the responsibilities of commitment in cohabitation, the earlier sought intimate relationship before cohabitation can untimely and negatively affect romance in the relationship. People who are not ready for commitment may develop regret of losing the single life factors, i.e., going partying with friends, multiple sexual partners.
Eventhough, the society is changing in regards of the views on cohabitation before marriage; there are still enough strong views that do not consider cohabitation before marriage to be an acceptable behavior. In some cultures the cohabitation before marriage is against the law and in others it is morally wrong. This specific aspect of cohabitation can be a great disadvantage for the couple if non-supporters of cohabitation surround them in general (verses non-supporters of only their cohabitation – different race/religion, unacceptable age gap, ect.). In some empirical research, the failed cohabitations were attributed by the participants, to the negative view of their peers and family on cohabitation in general. For that reason, people who think of cohabitation need to evaluate their immediate family/friends environment situation to see if they are surrounded by supporters or not of cohabitation before marriage and to decided if they are strong enough as a unit to withstand the pressure of the of the immediate environment of friends and families (morally wrong, pressure to get married, pressure to have a child, ect.) Another disadvantage for cohabitation, is the easiness in which a break-up can occur. Couples do not really have to work hard on “making it work” as most of the time there are no major issues like children, mortgage (division of property) or divorce costs that needs to be factored in the decision to go separate ways (Manning,W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2009)).
As new, more contemporary studies are starting to emerge on cohabitation before marriages, more and more researchers conclude that cohabitation before marriage is not necessarily related to marital stability as cohabitation prior to marriage becomes widespread. Findings of recent studies on cohabitation and marital instability support the notion that incorporating commitment when starting to cohabit improves the success or failed cohabitation.
There are as many advantages as disadvantages for cohabitation before marriage and as it stands, there are researches that conclude cohabitation before marriage has negative effect on marriage rates and sustainability of marriages, and there are other researchers that have identified that the commitment or lack of before cohabitation is the core factor in successful or failed cohabitation leading to marriage commitment.
References
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PItNy3xooPI
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-009-9242-5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7jBY-bIPVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48u0XyYuxxo
Guzzo. K. B. (2009). Marital intentions and the stability of first cohabitations. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 179 – 205.
Hewitt, B., & De Vaus, D. L. (2009). Change in the association between premarital cohabitation and separation, Australia 1945-2000. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 353 – 361.
Huang, P., Smock, P., Manning, W., & Bergstrom-Lynch, C. 2011. He says she says: Gender and cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues. DOI 10.1177/0192513X10397601
Jose, A., O’Leary, D. K., & Moyer, A. (2010). “Does premarital cohabitation predict subsequent marital stability and marital quality? A meta-analysis.” Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 105 – 116.
Manning,W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2009). Divorce-proofing marriage: Young adults’ views on the connection between cohabitation and marital longevity. NCFR Report 54:F13-F15. 22
National Center for Family & Marriage Research. (2010a). Trends in Cohabitation: Twenty Years of Change, 1987-2008. (October 2010). Family Profiles, FP-10-07.
http:// ncfmr.bgsu.edu/ pdf/family_profiles/87411.pdf
National Center for Family & Marriage Research. (2010b). Thirty Years of Change in Marriage and Union Formation Attitudes, 1976-2008 (2010). Family Profiles, FP-10-03. http:// ncfmr.bgsu.edu/pdf/family_profiles/file83691.pdf
Rhoades, G., Stanley, S., & Markman, H. (2009b). Couples’ reasons for cohabitation:
Associations with individual well-being and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 233 – 258.
michellekizner 