Here’s
draft two. Please read, thanks!
Academic Paper - Draft Two
The Cohabitation
Effect:
Relationship
Quality and Commitment in Cohabiting Couples
No
research can deny the presence of the Cohabitation Effect, i.e., the phenomenon
that couples who have cohabited before marriage are more likely to divorce than
couples who have not. Earlier research attribute duration of union, personal
characteristics, and increased acceptance of divorce as reasons for the cause
of the Cohabitation Effect. The most important, yet often neglected factors,
are relationship quality, and commitment of the cohabitors towards the
relationship.
Many researchers
found that cohabitors experience relationship quality, defined by happiness,
fairness, conflict, and communication; to be of a lower level. It is found that
cohabitors are less happy, experience less fairness, have more conflict, and
display negative communication in their relationships. Cohabitors also show
less commitment to their relationship. These two factors are both lead to the
Cohabitation Effect.
Everything in Caren Wu’s Yau Yat Chuen flat in Kowloon, Hong Kong,
is tidy, orderly, and exists in pairs – two cups on the dining table, two
plates and two sets of cutlery in the kitchen sink, two toothbrushes and towels
in the bathroom. It is obvious that a couple lives in this flat, except for one
thing - there are no wedding photos.
Wu, a 25 year-old flight attendant, has been cohabiting or living
with her boyfriend, a Hong Kong pilot, for the past three years. Although there
are no statistics available on the cohabitation situation in Hong Kong, the
number of unmarried opposite sex couples living together in the United States
in 1996 is seven times that of the number in 1970 (US Bureau of the Census,
1998). As cohabitation became increasingly prevalent in the 1980s (Bumpass
& Lu, 2000; Bumpass & Sweet, 1989; Raley, 2000; Smock, 2000),
researchers began to explore the quality of such relationships.
There are cultural
differences to bear in mind when studying cohabitors across different
countries. The possible influence of race, education and other factors on
relationship quality in cohabitors has been studied by Brown and Booth (1996),
and little significance was found. As such, the analyses in this study, and
recommendations are applicable for cohabiting couples on a general basis.
People choose to cohabit because they think that in doing so they
will improve their ability to choose a better marriage partner (Hall &
Zhao, 1995). However, when compared to couples who did not cohabit, couples who
cohabited before marriage have higher marital instability, and higher rates of
marital separation and divorce (Trussell, Rodriguez, & Vaughan, 1992). The
reasons for this phenomenon in cohabiting couples, known as the Cohabitation
Effect (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002), may be attributed to the relationship
quality and commitment of these couples.
Researchers attribute
the Cohabitation Effect to four main reasons. The first is duration of the
union. Marital satisfaction declines in the early years of marriage (Kurdek,
1999). Since cohabitors live together before marriage, they already experience
this dissatisfaction and thus associate it with their marriage.
Secondly, people who
cohabit are more likely to be less educated, less religious, and tend to be
low-income earners. Cohabitors are more likely to stress their own
individualism, autonomy, equality and equity than married couples (Brines &
Joyner, 1999). These characteristics match those of risk factors for divorce
(Bumpass & Sweet, 1989, Axinn & Barber, 1997). Their commitment to
maintain a lifelong relationship is therefore lower (Schoen & Weinick,
1993).
A third possible
reason is that the experience of cohabitation brings about an increased
acceptance of divorce and less participation in religious activities (Axinn
& Thornton, 1992). Cohabitors change their values and lower their tolerance
for their partners over long periods of cohabitation. Thomson and Colella
(1992) found that while social and economic characteristics accounted for the
higher perceived likeliness of divorce among those who had cohabited for less
than a year, those who had cohabited longer cited differences in marital
quality and commitment.
Perhaps the greatest,
yet often neglected reason, is marital communication. Demographic
characteristics and attitudes of cohabitors may be associated with cohabitation
and marital instability, but they do not explain the cohabitation effect (Cohan
& Kleinbaum, 2002). Studies of the factors in cohabitors’ relationship and
commitment to each other will help us better understand the relationship
between marital instability and cohabitation.
Different factors
have been used to identify relationship quality of cohabitors in different
studies. Thomas and Colella (1992) use happiness, conflict and communication as
factors to define quality in a relationship. Skinner, Bahr, Crane and Call
(2002) define relationship quality as happiness, fairness, disagreements, and
communication.
Cohabitors appear
less happy and are more likely to dissolve their partnerships than married
couples (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Bumpass & Sweet, 1989; Nock, 1995;
Thomas & Colella, 1992). Nock’s (1995) research also reinforced previous
findings that cohabitors are less happy and show less commitment to
relationship than married couples.
Compared to married
couples, cohabitors are less fair and happy, and disagree and fight more (Brown
& Booth, 1996). Long-term cohabitors also perceived less fairness in
working for pay, spending money, and household chores (Brines & Joyner,
1999).
Brown and Booth
(1996) found that cohabitators tend to experience conflicts in greater
frequency than married couples. How couples handle conflict and interact is
strongly tied to relationship outcomes (Markman & Halhweg, 1993). Whitton,
Stanley, and Markman (2002) found that cohabitors often handled conflicts
differently from married couples. They try to persuade us that it is how
couples argue, rather than what they argue about, that is related to divorce
potential and the Cohabitation Effect. Couples who can handle conflict more
constructively, with more positive communication and less negative
interactions, create an environment that allows for deeper levels of
self-disclosure and acceptance of vulnerabilities (Johnson, 1996). Negative
interaction, on the other hand, will lead to negative relationship quality and
positively associated with thoughts and talk of divorce (Whitton, Stanley,
& Markman, 2002).
In a study examining
the relationship between premarital cohabitation experience and marital
communication, Cohan and Kleinbaum (2002) found that compared with married
couples, cohabitors used more negative skills in problem solving and support
behavior. Thomson and Colella (1992) found that cohabitors tend to have poorer
communication and coping skills, which affects relationship quality negatively.
Analyses of marriage
studies show that couples who use positive problem solving behavior (eg., with
respect, humor) possess more stable and satisfying relationships (Karney &
Bradbury, 1995). How couples talk to each other when trying to resolve a
problem brings about different results in marital satisfaction and divorce
(Gottman, Ryan, Carrère, & Erley, 2002). Destructive communication has been
linked with lower relationship satisfaction and higher rates of divorce
(Markman & Hahlweg, 1993), If couples lack the skills, or use negative
skills (eg., coercion) to resolve their problem, then new problems will form,
old ones accumulate, and marital satisfaction diminishes (Cohan &
Kleinbaum, 2002).
Another form of
negative interaction that has gained attention among researchers is withdrawal,
in which one pulls away or refuses to communicate in a conversation. This
behavior appears to have a cumulative negative impact on relationships (Markman
& Kraft, 1989).
Apart from problem
solving skills, researchers have also looked at couple’s social support
behaviors. This includes an individual’s ability to provide support to his/her
partner, and to solicit support from them. Couples who are strong in this
aspect maintain their relationship better than those who are not. They enjoy
more intimate and cohesive relationships, are able to buffer depression caused
by negative events, and can handle conflicts before they escalate to
destructive levels (Cutrona, 1996).
In a Newsweek Article
titled “Love – and Marriage?”, Scelfo (2002) cites a study by a University of
Michigan sociologist, confirming assumptions that couples who live together are
less likely to wed than before living together. As an example, she mentions the
interview of Teri Hu, who refutes Smock’s suggestion that women’s motivation to
get married is finding a man with qualification and income. Hu insists that she
has her own income and has decided to cohabit by her own choice.
Cohabitors’ marriage
plans are another major factor to explain the difference in relationship
quality of cohabitors and married couples (Brown & Booth, 1996).
Researchers generally agree that cohabitors are more negative towards marriage
than married couples. An increase in couples living together without marrying
is interpreted as reduced willingness to create and honor life-long
partnerships. However most cohabiting couples strongly stressed their
commitment. Yet, when compared to married couples, they display a weakened
sense of value of marriage, thinking that ‘marriage is better for children’
(Jamieson, Anderson & McCrone, 2002). Bumpass and Lu (2000) believe that
the longer a couple cohabits, the less they plan to get married.
Using data from the
1987-88 National Survey of Families and Households in the United States, Thomas
and Colella (1992) found that cohabiting couples showed less commitment to
marriage and also lower quality marriages when they did get married. Tanfer
(1987) found cohabiting women to have more negative attitudes about marriage
than non-cohabiting single women. The decision not to marry their partner also
increases significantly in cohabitors. Cohabitors who had failed relationships
in the past are more inclined to accept divorce (Axinn & Barber, 1997).
When a person’s interpersonal
commitment to a relationship is lower, that person is more likely to think
seriously about what it would be like to date or be with someone else (Rusbult
& Buunk, 1993). This has been called alternative monitoring (Leik &
Leik, 1977). Couples who report higher levels of commitment were less likely to
report thinking seriously about alternative partners, were less likely to
report feeling trapped, and were more likely to report being satisfied with
their relationships (Stanley, Lobitz, & Dickson, 1999).
No research can deny the presence of the Cohabitation Effect, i.e.,
the phenomenon that couples who have cohabited before marriage are more likely
to divorce than couples who have not. Earlier research attribute duration of
union, personal characteristics, and increased acceptance of divorce as reasons
for the cause of the Cohabitation Effect. The most important, yet often
neglected factors, are relationship quality, and commitment of the cohabitors
towards the relationship.
Many researchers
found that cohabitors experience relationship quality, defined by happiness,
fairness, conflict, and communication, to be of a lower level. It is found that
cohabitors are less happy, experience less fairness, have more conflict, and
experience negative communication in their relationships. Cohabitors also show
less commitment to their relationship. These two factors are negatively
associated with the Cohabitation Effect.
However, there are
still some benefits on health and well being of being in a cohabiting
relationship rather than being single. Couples tend to be happier, live longer,
and have fewer mental and physical illness (Berkma & Syme, 1979; Brown
& Hans, 1978; House, Lardis & Umberson, 1988). Although cohabitation
cannot bring out the financial satisfaction felt by married couples, they
nonetheless feel happier than single people (Stack & Eshleman, 1998).
Researchers have also
tried to explain from the social perspective why cohabitors generally seem to
have relationships of lower quality, and as a result, have a greater chance to
develop marital dissolution. Because marriage is the normative preference,
cohabitors might be less integrated into society and receive less support from
family and friends than couples who do not cohabit (Skinner, Bahr, Crane, &
Call, 2002). Current laws do not give protection to cohabitors like the
benefits married couples enjoy. Hence cohabitors face more uncertainty and
therefore may experience lower quality in their relationships.
In the study on cohabitors,
two groups of people have been singled out: long-term cohabitors and those with
intention to marry, Brown and Booth (1996) found that the relationship quality
between cohabitors with intention to marry and married couples is not
significant. Couples who cohabit over a long period of time are less happy and
fair than other types of couples (Skinner, Bahr, Crane & Call, 2002). The
longer a couple cohabits, the less interested they are in getting married and
having children (Axinn & Barber, 1997).
Axinn and Barber’s theory may seem to explain what is happening for
Wu. Her boyfriend proposed to her more than a year ago. “At first he said that
he’d like to postpone the wedding until when he gets his promotion,” Wu said.
“But after his promotion he said maybe we should wait until we can save enough
money to pay for the mortgage.”
The importance of
communication in understanding the health and quality of relationships cannot
be undermined. Little research has been done in characteristics and
relationship quality in long-term couples like Wu and her boyfriend. Clearly
more needs to be done to understand cohabitors with intention to marry and set
them apart in a group different from the cohabitors who do not in future
research.
The study of
communication and the Cohabitation Effect has possible implications for the
practice of relationship education and couples’ therapy. Whitton, Stanley, and
Markman, (2002) suggest provision of a safe place for issues to be addressed in
treatment. Couples must be directed to develop positive interaction skills and
methods for talking safely and openly at home. They need to realize that they
must put aside unrealistic idealizations that ‘the grass looks greener on the
other side’. Cohabitors need to see that significant alternative monitoring
undermines the sense of security in a relationship, and this will inhibit each
other’s confidence to invest the future of the relationship.
Axinn, W.G., & Barber, J.S.
(1997). Living arrangements and family formation attitudes
in early adulthood. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 59, 595-611.
Berkman, L. F., & Syme, L.
(1979). Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: A
9-year follow-up study of Alameda
County residents. American Journal of
Epidemiology, 109, 186-204.
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P.
(1983). American couples: Money, work, sex. New York:
Marrow.
Brines, J. & Joyner, K.
(1999). The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation
and marriage. American
Sociological Review, 64(3), 333-355.
Brown, S.L., & Booth, A.
(1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of
relationship quality. Journal
of Marriage & Family, 58(3), 668-679.
Brown, G. W., & Harris, T.
(1978). Social Origins of Depression: A Study of Psychiatric
Disorder in Women. New York: Free Press.
Bumpass, L.L., & Lu, H.
(2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s
family contexts in the United
States. Population Studies, 54, 19-41.
Bumpass, L.L., & Sweet, J.A.
(1989). National estimates of cohabitation: Cohort levels
and union stability. Demography,
26, 615-625.
Caren Wu. (March 1, 2003).
Personal Interview.
Cohan, C.L., & Kleinbaum, S.
(2002). Toward a greater understanding of the
cohabitation effect: premarital
cohabitation and marital communication. Journal
of Marriage & Family, 64(1), 180-192.
Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social
support in couples. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
based marital therapy. In Liddle,
H.A., Santisteban D.A., Levant, R.F., & Bray, J.H. (Eds).
Family psychology: Science based
interventions.
Washington DC:
American Psychology Association.
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.
House, J. S., Landis, K. R.,
& Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health.
Science, 241, 540-545.
Jamieson, L., Anderson, M., &
McCrone, D. (2002). Cohabitation and commitment:
Partnership plans of young men
and women. The Sociological Review, 50(3), 356-
377.
Johnson, S.M. (1996).
The practice of emotionally focused marital therapy: Creating
connection. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Karney, B.R., &
Bradbury, T.N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and
stability:
A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118,
3-34.
Leik, R.K., &
Leik, S.A. (1977). Transition to interpersonal commitment. In Hamblin,
R.L.,
& Kunkel, J.H. (Eds). Behavioral theory in sociology. News
Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction
Publications.
Markman, H.J., & Hahlweg, K.
(1993). The prediction and prevention of marital distress:
An international perspective. Clinical
Psychology Review, 13, 29-43.
gender differences in marital
therapy. The Behavior Therapist, 12, 51-56.
Nock, S.L. (1995). A comparison
of marriages and cohabiting relationships. Journal of
Family Issues, 16, 53-76.
Raley, R.K. (2000). Recent trends
and differentials in marriage and cohabitation: The
United States. In Waite,
L.J. (Ed.), The ties that bind: Perpectives on marriage
and cohabitation. New York: Aldine deGruyter.
interdependence analysis. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 10,
175-204.
Scelfo, J. (2002, December 2).
Love – and marriage? Newseek, 140(23), 9.
Schoen, R., & Weinick, R.M.
(1993). Partner choice in marriages and cohabitations.
Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 55, 408-411.
Skinner, K.B., Bahr, S.J., Crane,
D.R., & Call, V.R.S. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage,
and remarriage: A comparison of
relationship quality over time. Journal of
Family Issues, 23(1), 74-90.
Smock, P.J. (2000). Cohabitation
in the United States: An appraisal of research themes,
findings, and implications. Annual
Review of Sociology, 26(1), 1-21.
Stack, S., & Eshleman, J.R.
(1998).
Marital status and happiness: a 17-nation study.
Journal of Marriage & Family, 60(2), 527-537.
Stanley, S.M., Lobitz, W.C.,
& Dickson, F. (1999). Using what we know: Commitment
and cognitions in marital
therapy. In Jones, W., & Adams, J., (Eds). Handbook of
interpersonal
commitment and relationship stability. New York: Plenum.
Tanfer, K. (1987). Patterns of
premarital cohabitation among never-married women in the
United States. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 49, 483-497.
Thomas, E., & Colella, U.
(1992). Cohabitation and marital stability: Quality or
commitment? Journal of
Marriage & Family, 54(2), 259-267.
Trussell, J., Hankinson, R.,
& Tilton J. (Eds.), Demographic applications of event
history analysis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
U.S.
Bureau of the Census (1998,March). Marital status and living arrangements:
March
1996.
Current Population Reports, {Series P-20, No. 496, pp. 1-20). Washington,
DC:
Author.
Whitton, S.W.,
Stanley, S.M., & Markman, H.J. (2002). Sacrifice in romantic
relationships:
An exploration of relevant research and theory. In Reiss, H.T.,
Fitzpatrick,
M.A., & Vangelisti, A.L. (Eds). Stability and change in relationship
behavior
across the lifespan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.