Cohabitation | Course Paper

1

Cohabitation and Marital Dissolution:

The Significance of Marriage Cohort

Wendy D. Manning

and

Jessica A. Cohen

Department of Sociology &

Center for Family and Demographic Research

Bowling Green State University

Bowling Green, OH 43403

419-372-2850

wmannin@ bgsu.edu 2

Cohabitation and Marital Dissolution

ABSTRACT

An ongoing question for family researchers has been to explain why a positive association

between cohabitation and marital dissolution exists when one of the primary reasons to

cohabit is

to test relationship compatibility. Recently, researchers have discovered that the

relationship

between cohabitation and marital instability is complex and depends in part on marriage

cohort,

race/ethnicity, and marriage plans. Drawing on the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family

Growth, we examine whether and to what extent variation in premarital cohabitation

experiences

influence marital stability. Our analyses reveal that a “€cohabitation effect”€™ exists

only for early

marriage cohorts (women married prior to 1996) and there is no cohabitation effect among

more

women married since 1996. More specifically, among women married prior to 1996 we

find that

only white and foreign-born Hispanic women experience a cohabitation effect. In

addition, the

cohabitation effect among women in the later marriage cohort is masked until marriage

plans are

considered. This research contributes to our understanding of cohabitation, marital

instability

and broader family change. 3

Cohabitation and Marital Stability

The increase in cohabitation is well documented such that the majority of newly weds have

cohabited prior to their first marriage (Bramlett and Mosher 2002; Kennedy and Bumpass

2008).

Cohabitation serves to help young adults test out their relationship (Bumpass, Sweet, and

Cherlin

2001; Manning and Smock 2009; Manning, Giordano, and Longmore 2010; Smock,

Huang,

Bergstrom, and Manning forthcoming) which should help determine whether they are

compatible

before getting married. However, many researchers have found a positive association

between

cohabitation and marital dissolution (e.g., Jose et al. 2010; Kamp Dush, Cohen, and Amato

2003;

Stanley, Rhoades, and Markman 2006, see Smock 2000). At the same time, researchers

have

recognized that the relationship between cohabitation and marital instability is complex

and

varies among subgroups of cohabitors. Prior work indicates that the effect of cohabitation

differs

according to marriage plans, sexual and cohabitation history, race and ethnicity as well as

marriage cohort (Brown et al. 2008; DeMaris and McDonald 1993; Phillips and Sweeney

2005;

Reinhold 2010; Rhoades et al. 2008; Stanley et al. 2010; Teachman 2003).

We draw on recently collected data from the National Survey of Family Growth (2006-

2008) to examine the relationship between cohabitation and marital dissolution. We first

assess

whether there is a cohabitation effect and examine factors that may explain the

cohabitation

effect. However, it is important to move beyond explaining the effect of cohabitation,

because a

number of studies indicate there is no cohabitation effect for some subgroups. Drawing

on the

diffusion approach, we examine whether a cohabitation effect exists among recent

marriage

cohorts. Prior studies have relied on national data collected 15 years ago and our work

provides

an important update. Based on previous research we also consider whether a cohabitation

effect

exists among women with varying premarital experiences (plans for marriage, cohabitation

4

history, cohabitation duration, sexual activity) and race or ethnicity. These findings will

provide

up to date analyses of the influence of cohabitation and help to move forward our

understanding

marital stability and the meaning of cohabitation.

BACKGROUND

The increase in cohabitation is well documented with increasing percentages of young

adults experiencing cohabitation. Furthermore cohabitation has become the modal path to

marriage such that 44% of women cohabited prior to their first marriage in the late 1980s

(1985-

1989) and 62% in the late 1990s (Bumpass and Lu 2000; Kennedy and Bumpass 2008).

At the

same time, there has been a plateau in divorce trends with about one-half of first marriages

ending in separation or divorce (Raley and Bumpass 2008). Thus, it appears that the rise

in

cohabitation is not associated with a similar growth in divorce.

Empirical and theoretical arguments suggest cohabitation may be a relationship in which

marriages least likely to succeed are weeded out (Bumpass and Sweet 1989). Both

quantitative

and qualitative data indicate that young adults view cohabitation as a way to test out the

relationship and some hope to “divorce-proof”€ their marriages by spending time

cohabiting with

their future spouse (Huang et al. 2010; Manning and Smock 2009; Manning, Longmore

and

Giordano 2010). More generally, in 2008 nearly 70% of high school seniors report that

living

together before marriage is a good way to test compatibility and these levels have been

increasing steadily over the last thirty years (National Center for Family and Marriage

Research

2010). While determining whether their relationship is suited for marriage may not be the

primary motivation for initially cohabiting, it appears to be a latent motivation or factor

that

develops during the course of the relationship (Sassler 2004). The substantive findings

that

cohabitation is perceived as a place to filter out poor matches are in line with theoretical

marital 5

search models (Becker 1981) in that cohabitation provides the best way to garner

information

about prospective spouses (England and Farkas 1986). Furthermore, Oppenheimer (1988)

argues that premarital socialization helps to improve marriage matches, and cohabitation

“facilitates the kind of interaction that increases the knowledge of oneself and of a

potential

marriage partner and of the kind of mutual adaptations that are so essential to stable

relationship.”€ (p.583). The irony is that couples who cohabited prior to marriage

experience

significantly higher odds of marital dissolution than their counterparts who did not cohabit

and

married (Jose et al. 2010). As a consequence researchers have tried to understand why

this

counterintuitive finding holds true (see Smock 2000).

The question about the mechanisms underlying the ways that cohabitation influences

marital stability is not new. Newcomb and Bentler (1980) studied 162 couples in Los

Angeles

and concluded that there are two (not mutually exclusive) approaches to understand the

cohabitation effect: selection or cohabitation experience. Thirty years later virtually every

paper

on cohabitation and marital stability continues to draw on these same two overarching

explanations. One argument is that selection is operating, meaning that the same

characteristics

that predict cohabitation also are associated with marital dissolution. Many studies find

that

selection explains some of the effect of cohabitation (e.g., DeMaris and McDonald 1993;

Kamp

Dush et al. 2003; Phillips and Sweeney 2005). Additionally, Lillard et al. (1995) explain

the

effect of cohabitation completely by statistically correcting for selection processes.

Similarly,

the cohabitation effect on marital instability was explained by delinquency, religiosity and

race/ethnicity using NLSY data (Woods and Emery 2002) or type of marriage (covenant

vs.

standard) in Louisana (Brown et al. 2006). An outgrowth of the selection argument

proposed by

Stanley and colleagues joins commitment theory with the concept of inertia. They claim

that 6

once couples cohabit they end up on a fast track toward marriage and as a result of this

“inertia”€

couples end up marrying who are not necessarily highly committed to one another (Stanley

and

Rhoades 2009). Selection occurs because cohabitation can lead to marriage among

couples who

are not mutually committed to marriage at the outset of cohabitation.

The second and related explanation for the cohabitation effect is that the cohabitation

experience itself is tied to a waning commitment to marriage (Axinn and Barber 1997;

Axinn

and Thornton 1992; Clarkberg et al. 1995; DeMaris and McDonald 1993; Kamp Dush et

al.

2003; Stanley et al. 2006). Young adults report more supportive attitudes toward divorce

and

cohabitation after cohabiting (Axinn and Barber 1997; Axinn and Thornton 1992;

Cunningham

and Thornton 2005). Specifically, the experience of cohabitation leads to increased

acceptance

of divorce and individuals in longer lasting cohabiting unions have even less positive

attitudes

toward family formation, marriage and childbearing (Axinn and Barber 1997). In

addition,

research that cannot completely explain the cohabitation effect with demographic variables

is

used to lend support for the argument that experience of cohabitation itself leads to an

increased

risk of marital instability difficulties (Kamp Dush et al., 2003). However, a more direct

test

indicates that attitudes toward marital permanence do not reduce the effect of cohabitation

on

marital instability (DeMaris and McDonald 1993). The general consensus in the literature

is that

both general mechanisms are operating.

While there has been a focus on studying the mechanisms underlying the cohabitation

effect, there are a number of studies which have documented that for some subgroups there

is no

cohabitation effect. The literature indicates variation in the effect of cohabitation on

marital

stability according to marriage cohort, engagement status, cohabitation experience, sexual

history, and race and ethnicity (Philips and Sweeney 2005; Reinhold 2010; Stanely et al.

2010; 7

Teachman 2003). Thus, to best understand the cohabitation effect it is necessary to focus

on

those who actually experience a cohabitation effect. Research that does not recognize

these

well-known subgroup differentials may lead to inaccurate conclusions about the

cohabitation

effect. Our work contributes to prior studies by explicitly examining the contemporary

context.

We use recently collected data to assess the influence of cohabitation on marital stability.

The bulk of national-based research reporting a positive effect of cohabitation on marital

instability is based on data collected some time ago (NSFG 2002, NSFH 1987/1988) and

does

not reflects recent marriage and cohabitation patterns. The increase in cohabitation and

growing

acceptance of cohabitation suggests that cohabitation may be becoming less selective and a

more

typical family pattern than in the past (Schoen 1992; Reinhold 2010; Vaus et al. 2003).

Reinhold

(2010) reports that recent marriage cohorts (married after 1993) do not experience a

cohabitation

effect. Other work does not find a trend in the cohabitation effect (Kamp Dush et al. 2003;

Teachman 2002, 2003); however they are based on data that reflect many marriages prior

to

1993. The diffusion approach proposed by Leifbroer and Dourleijn (2006) states that as