Final try, but still not perfect. Next time
perhaps ;)
The Cohabitation
Effect:
Relationship
Quality and Commitment in Cohabiting Couples
Few researches 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 more 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; at a lower level. It is found that
cohabitors tend to be less happy, experience less fairness, have more conflict,
and display negative communication in their relationships. Cohabitors also tend
to show less commitment to their relationship. These two factors 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 (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002,
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. In some countries, particularly in the Middle East, cohabitation is
against the law. Also, some countries show more acceptances of cohabiting
couples in their society than others. 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. Although the
analyses and recommendations in this study are applicable for cohabiting
couples on a general basis, one needs to bear in mind the varying degrees of
tolerance among different cultures towards cohabitation.
Some 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 seem to 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. It is found that marital satisfaction tends to decline 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 perceived to be 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 tend to 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 a greater,
yet often neglected reason, is 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. The various viewpoints of different researchers are categorized
here using the latter definition.
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. The studies cited do not give much reason
why cohabitors appear to behave this way.
Compared to married
couples, cohabitors tend to be 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). Again, like happiness, few studies have given reasons why cohabitors are
less fair compared to married couples.
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 believe 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 the individual’s ability to provide support to his/her
partner, and to solicit support from them. Couples who are strong in this
aspect seem to be able to maintain their relationship better than those who are
weak. They tend to 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 Pamela J Smock confirming assumptions that couples who
live together are less likely to wed than before living together. As an
example, Scelfo interviews Teri Hu, who refutes Smock’s suggestion that a
woman’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 tend to be more negative towards
marriage than married couples. An increase in couples living together without
marrying is often interpreted as reduced willingness to create and honor
life-long partnerships. While most cohabiting couples strongly stress their
commitment, they also 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 likely 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).
Most researchers
agree that cohabitors tend to experience lower relationship quality and show
less commitment than married couples who did not cohabit. However, there are
still some benefits on health and well-being of engaging in a cohabiting
relationship over those who are not in any relationship. Couples tend to be
happier, live longer, and have fewer mental and physical illness than single
people (Berkma & Syme, 1979; Brown & Harris, 1978; House, Lardis &
Umberson, 1988). Although cohabitation cannot bring out the financial
satisfaction felt by married couples, they nonetheless appear to feel happier
than single people (Stack & Eshleman, 1998).
While much research
has been able to point out fairly consistent behaviors of cohabiting couples,
few researches are able to give the reasons why they display such behavior.
Some researchers have tried to explain from a 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). Except for a few places giving legal
recognition to cohabitors as domestic partners, many places do not give any
form of protection to cohabitors. Even the few places that do cannot give equal
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 significantly difference. 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.”
Few researches 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 tend to be less happy, experience less fairness, have more conflict,
and experience negative communication in their relationships. Cohabitors also
tend to show less commitment to their relationship. These two factors are
negatively associated with the Cohabitation Effect.
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 in future research to understand cohabitors with
intention to marry and set them apart in a group different from the cohabitors
who do not.
Much research has
been done on the behaviors of cohabitors, but little on why they behave the way
they do. We now know that cohabitors tend to be more unhappy, experience lower
relationship quality, and show less commitment. However, past research has yet
addressed our burning question: Why do they feel this way?
The study of communication and the Cohabitation Effect has possible
implications on 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 can be taught to develop positive
interaction skills. They need to put aside unrealistic thoughts that ‘the grass
is always greener on the other side’. This alternative monitoring undermines
will undermine the sense of security in a relationship, and cohabitors should
realize that this will inhibit each other’s confidence to invest in 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.
Axinn, W. G., & Thornton, A.
(1992). The relationship between cohabitation and
divorce:
Selectivity or causal influence? Demography, 29, 357-374.
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.
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.
Kurdek, L. A. (1999). The nature and predictors of the trajectory
of change in marital
quality for husbands and wives over the first 10 years of marriage.
Developmental Psychology, 35, 1283-1296.
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.
Wu, Caren. (March 1, 2003).
Personal Interview.