Cohabitation before marriage

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.

Culture Shaping Individuals And Families

Our inherited culture eventhough unseen by a naked eye, plays a significant role in the development of our own individuality. The purpose of this blog is to examine elements of cultural factors (viewing culture as an anthropological element) and their impact on the formation of an individual and their family. However, the discussion will not focus on ethnic crossovers (intercultural marriages) and their influences on personal identity, it will also not take into consideration race as a factor as according to The Human Genome Project (http://www.nhgri.nih.gov/10001772), there is no biological race in existence – all individuals have similar DNA. Culture is an aspect in human’s lives that help to shape their experiences, their identity and their perceptions about the world.

 “Family values are core values that parents are eager to maintain and transmit to their children”, (Chaeoe Hanin Yon Gu, Acculturation and the Family: Core vs. Peripheral Changes among Korean Americans, NCBI, 2010; 21(2010): 135–190.) Therefore, to appreciate the functionality and complexity of each individual and their family, we must understand the family structure – its cultural and historical background that influences the behaviour within as well as outside that structure. Misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the role of culture and background history in families may cause a formation of false and misguided impressions, which may ultimately lead to stereotyping and ethnocentrism.

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3148822/pdf/nihms-293548.pdf )  

 Gonzalez-Mena (1998) states:

Culture is invisible. It has been said that one moves in one’s culture the way a fish moves through water. The water is so much a part of the fish’s experience that the only time it becomes aware of the water is when it suddenly finds itself surrounded by air. We are immersed in our culture the way the fish is immersed in water. We may be unaware of how much our culture influences our actions, our thoughts, our very perceptions. (1998: 224)      

 The social studies done by Panasenko (Panasenko, N. (2013). Czech and Slovak family patterns and family values in historical, social and cultural context. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 44(1), 79+), demonstrate that ttraditions, life experiences and observations all lead to a formation of each individual and their interactions and behaviour towards others including how they manoeuvre within as well as outside their family unit. For example, everybody will interpret their life experiences differently based on a number of factors, one including their culture and background history, and what they were taught about it.The cultural factors that influence the upbringing of children and functionality of each individual include more than cultural holidays, religion, attire, and common skin tone or hair color. Those cultural factors and the historical background may dictate the parental style, beliefs about how the world “works” around them, language and communication, gender roles, familial roles, relationships within the family, personal grooming, education, autonomy and priorities.

Most of us when we think about the term, communication, we tend to think about written and spoken words. Language is more than spoken words; it can project feelings of respect or disrespect, inclusion or exclusion, judgement or acceptance. Communication includes non-verbal interactions such as facial expressions, body language, and eye contact. Misinterpreted reactions to non-verbal behaviour could result in an undesirable outcome. In some cultures it is rude to maintain eye contact; however in North America by not sustaining eye contact, the person may send a message of indifference. Not understanding or wrongly conveying the commonly acceptable non-verbal communication of the social “norm”, may lead to a mistaken assumption about the communicator as well as misunderstanding of the intended message. Cultures with very active body language (many hand gestures) may be perceived as impolite and the outsider may construct a negative opinion of that person, creating a bias. Again, in some cultures, a touch can be perceived as an invasion of personal space but in others it can signal a sign of endearment. A handshake could be considered very personal and not to be shared with strangers, yet in North America it is an expected professional behaviour (introduction at an interview). Through these examples, it is evident that it is important to understand and accept that cultures differ in their norms of communication. By understanding this, helps to build good communication and relationships. People who are adapting to the North American ways of living may need to learn what is socially appropriate and expected and pass on this new knowledge to their children to lessen the burden of adaptation into a new environment.     

I believe the biggest single cultural factor that influences each individual is the gender role, eventhough many researchers argue that some predispositions are biological (Guo, T., Ji, L.-J., Spina, R., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Culture, temporal focus, and values of the past and the future. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin), the allocation and promotion of gender roles in each culture plays a significant role in the development of principal behaviours and mental process in individuals. Many cultures around the world favour males over females, and when we look deeper into the history of these cultures, we can see why. In times of war, it was males that were sent to fight; it was males who would hunt for food for the family to survive, making them more “valuable”. Those beliefs could be seen in families that came from cultures that pass these values from generation to generation. As the saying goes “it is not easy to teach an old dog a new trick”, it may be a task for the new generation to stop these beliefs, changing the culture’s view on this matter in a new environment. 

Expectation of certain behaviours and appropriateness that are set by the culture may alter the individual’s desire to act differently. For example, in the culture where the girls are expected to get married, have children and stay home to care for the family, the need for post-secondary education for the girls may be non-existent. However, it is doubtful that all the girls have no desire to attend post-secondary institution, creating a case of culture and background altering behaviour. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaxSYu3huK0 , This report exemplifies the historical trend of a culture that was probably created out of necessity at first (man went to hunt to provide food). However, the culture has changed (availability of ready acquired food, knowledge in importance of schooling) without changing the custom (women not getting schooling), and now realizing the changes, people in power are trying to change the custom there. That will definitely pave the road for females who wish to live in North America to anticipate a right to education and make plans for their future that consists of more than being a wife and a mother.

 The familial roles in each culture and historical background of traditions may also alter the life path of an individual. Let’s think about cultures where elders traditionally live with the young adults (their children), creating a criss-cross of obligations and responsibilities. Who is responsible to care for whom? Do children move out to live on their own or live with their parents all their lives? The study by Edgar-Smith and Wozniak (Edgar-Smith, S. E., & Wozniak, R. H. (2010). Family relational values in the parent-adolescent relationship. Counseling and Values, 54(2), 187+) highlights how living arrangements affect relationships of adult children with their spouses and their own children. How these arrangements affect their understanding of family relationships and obligations. Different cultures view a person’s place within a context in family differently and so are their expected obligations. In some cultures it is not a choice to place aging parents into a long term care facility even if they do require that kind of help, it is the responsibilities of child(ren) to take on the obligations of caring for their aging parents. This situation can lead to great stress in a family (loss of income, fatigue from the caregivers) but it is the background of cultural tradition and history that dictates the behaviour within the family.  

Negotiating between traditions, values, culture and personal identity, shapes the individual’s view of the world and sometimes creating the need to put those cultural factors above their own desires, altering their behaviour and life’s choices (Lou, E., Lalonde, R. N., & Giguere, B. (2012). Making the decision to move out: bicultural young adults and the negotiation of cultural demands and family relationships. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(5), 663).

Cultures with certain topics that are banned from discussions (sex, politics) may produce conservative conformist members. To the outsider (not familiar with their culture history), the family may be perceived as being up-tight, shy and timid, and uncooperative when in reality they behave in the way they believe is appropriate. It may prevent an individual to become a leader as they may view assertiveness skills needed in leadership as an undesirable trait. However, these skills are imperative in developing leadership quality in North America and a lack of those skills and knowledge would be considered a handicap for any individuals who consider a leadership position.

Conflicts are natural and unavoidable in any relationships (work, school, family) and we need to learn to resolve then productively(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRLaTTqG-qQ). Comical as it is, it illustrates how we should be aware of differences in conflict solving. Some cultures encourage a straightforward, self-focused approach; others consider the concerns of the group more important than those of any individual. In conflicts, sometimes, neither side may be prepared to understand the conflict from another perspective and these differences could create an adverse environment in the workplace, in families and on a personal level. We should be aware of differences in backgrounds before we question and challenge others opinions, practices and principals (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6n81NSO_S0). This video epitomizes the differences in cultural conflict resolution. Some cultures do not let outsiders “in” or let them direct behaviours of any family member eventhough, may be they are absolutely correct. It is the job of the head of the family to guide the members of the family and not the job of strangers. It is in sharp contrast with North American outlook on “it takes a village to raise a child” kind of view.   

 Education is also perceived differently across many cultures. Some cultures see it as a way to learn the skills needed to survive – where completion of high school and learning a trade is adequate. While in other cultures, it may mean acquiring the best job that they can get, where nothing less than a university degree is acceptable. In my own background history, it is expected for the child to do well in school, and continue into post secondary education. Higher education is viewed as self-importance of one’s own identity as well as pride for the whole family. The parents then are willing to provide means to achieve this expectation, i.e. acquiring academicals help if needed (tutoring) and pay or assist with the cost of education.

 Perhaps the greatest single finding of psychology science is that there are no two human beings alike. Being unique from the start, all the inborn abilities and talents of the individual will be enhanced, supported or suppressed by environmental conditions. What we call “character and personality” will be mainly a product of what the children come in contact with during their first years of life. As most children spend the majority of time in the care of their family, family members do most of the building of personal traits, character, and ideas and attitudes towards life.  With this awareness of what the outside world thinks of them comes clear delineation in their own mind of themselves as individual personalities. In this instance, it is appropriate to learn from Gonzales-Mena and Widmeyer (1989) who warns not to predict a child’s behaviour solely on the basis of his or her culture: “Individuals are guided by their individual values, inclinations, behaviour styles, and cultural background. Knowing a person’s culture tells you something about the probability that he or she will behave in a certain way; it doesn’t tell you that he or she will behave in a certain way” (1989:73).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

References

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3148822/pdf/nihms-293548.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaxSYu3huK0

http://www.nhgri.nih.gov/10001772)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6n81NSO_S0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRLaTTqG-qQ

 

 

Chaeoe Hanin Yon Gu, Acculturation and the Family: Core vs. Peripheral Changes among Korean Americans, NCBI, 2010; 21(2010): 135–190

 

Edgar-Smith, S. E., & Wozniak, R. H. (2010). Family relational values in the parent-adolescent relationship. Counseling and Values, 54(2), 187+).

 

Gonzales-Mena, J, 1998 Foundation:Early childhood education in a diverse society, Mayfield Pub.Co, Mountain View, Calif, USA

 

Guo, T., Ji, L.-J., Spina, R., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Culture, temporal focus, and values of the past and the future. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(8), 1030+.

 

Lou, E., Lalonde, R. N., & Giguere, B. (2012). Making the decision to move out: bicultural young adults and the negotiation of cultural demands and family relationships. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(5), 663+.

 

Richerson, P. (2012). Custom built: culture is both a product and a driver of human evolution. Nature, 482(7385), 304+.