Stephanie
Coontz wrote a valuable piece on the state of marriage that was published a few
days ago in the New York Times. She talks
about numerous trends in her piece, and I think it’s very much worth reading. You can read it here.
Some
of you have written to ask me about the comment she makes at the end of the
piece about premarital cohabitation, wherein she suggests that it is no longer associated
with higher risks in marriage. I have a few brief points about that part.
1. I think what Manning and Cohen actually found
was that, among those who cohabited prior to marriage since 1995, cohabitation before
marriage was no longer associated with increased risk for divorce among those who
were engaged first (particularly, in the female data). This parallels what we
keep finding, though it is fair to say that the finding is a bit murkier (and
complex) in that paper.
2.
Manning and Cohen’s study does not assess marital quality outcomes, which our
research team has long predicted will be associated with the clarity two partners
have about commitment to the future (especially to marriage) prior to
cohabiting. That’s because we believe that
cohabiting makes it harder to break up, and that this is the detail most people
seem oblvious to as they slide into cohabiting.
That matters because it can make it harder to break up before two people
have decided for sure they want to be together—long-term. People can raise
their odds of getting stuck in the wrong place. We consistently find, including
in recent samples, that cohabiting before either engagement or marriage is
associated with lower average marital quality (less happiness, poorer communication,
etc.). That, and other predictions we
test, are all consistent with this theory that the greater inertia of cohabiting
sneaks up on some people and keeps them in relationships they would have otherwise left before ever marrying.
3.
Coontz also notes that there is some evidence within the data Manning and Cohen
analyzed suggesting that cohabitation (quoting Coontz) “with definite plans to
marry at the outset is tied to lower levels of marital instability than direct
entry into marriage” among disadvantaged women with high risks. In other words,
cohabiting may actually be associated with doing better in marriage for some groups.
This is a rare finding but there is some reason to expect it. I explained why I
thought such a finding might show up in a post a while ago (it can be found in the fourth
link below, which is one of my longest, most theoretical prior posts on cohabitation and
marriage).
I’m
going to list a number of links to prior posts of mine for those of you who
want to read more deeply about the theory and research of our team related to the types of cohabitation prior to marriage that might be riskier, and why.
Some of these posts are more fun but still explain the theory well (see playlist
to paylist) and others are pretty heavy duty theory and conceptual reasoning,
if you are really wanting to dig in deeper on this subject.
If
you want to read a summary of our studies and theory in this area (cohabitation
prior to marriage, etc.), you can download the file at the first link below.
A long, detailed post on theory related to cohabiting, marriage, and signals ofcommitment. (Relatively heavy duty compared to other things here, and the last
in a series on some bigger issues in science about selection.)
Have
at it!
*
