by Scott Stanley
For decades, people have believed that living together should increase their odds of doing well in marriage. The core of this idea is that cohabiting would provide a test of a relationship. This seems logical but, mysteriously, decades of research do not show this benefit. In fact, until recently, the overwhelming majority of studies showed that cohabitation before marriage was associated with poorer odds of stability and happiness in marriage.[i] This has changed; recent studies suggest that the association with higher risk has dissipated or disappeared for some groups.[ii] And while the headlines tend to say there is no longer any risk, that’s misleading and I’ll explain why. Understanding what I describe here can help a person make better, more informed decisions in their relationships.
For decades, people have believed that living together should increase their odds of doing well in marriage. The core of this idea is that cohabiting would provide a test of a relationship. This seems logical but, mysteriously, decades of research do not show this benefit. In fact, until recently, the overwhelming majority of studies showed that cohabitation before marriage was associated with poorer odds of stability and happiness in marriage.[i] This has changed; recent studies suggest that the association with higher risk has dissipated or disappeared for some groups.[ii] And while the headlines tend to say there is no longer any risk, that’s misleading and I’ll explain why. Understanding what I describe here can help a person make better, more informed decisions in their relationships.
Let’s start with what the current research shows. For those
readers who are either ideologically pro or against the idea of living together
before marriage, I am not making any ideological point here. I’m talking about
findings.
Among those who cohabited before marriage, people who fit the
following categories are likely to have marital outcomes similar to those who did
not live together before marriage. That is, those having these characteristics
do not show the type of added risks that have been associated over the past few
decades with living together before marriage.
- Only ever cohabited with the person they marry.[iii]
- Only began to cohabit after having clear, mutually understood plans to marry their spouse.[iv]
- Did not cohabit until the age of 23 or later.[v]
That leaves the mystery. Note that the comparison group to which some premarital cohabiters do as well as, not better than (on average) is those who do not cohabit before marriage. How could the widely held belief
that cohabiting before marriage actually improves
one’s odds have virtually no evidence to support it? (I hedge slightly here because
there are a few, rare findings showing this or that group cohabiting and having
improved odds.)
There are several explanations for how cohabiting could seem
so logical but still not be generally associated with improved odds. I’ll cover
the two I think matter most. First, those who cohabited before marriage tend to
already be at greater risk in marriage because of other factors, for example: having
parents who divorce or never married, having poorer economic resources, less
education, and so forth. These are called “selection” factors among researchers.
Selection suggests that, for a lot of people, some part of their odds for how
their relationships or marriages turn out was already baked in their cake, and an
experience like cohabitation may not have altered those odds. There is a lot of
evidence that selection is an important part in understanding this mystery I am
addressing. The same types of selection factors are associated with greater
odds of cohabiting with numerous partners (serially) and cohabiting prior to
having clarified plans for a future.
The second explanation is in contrast to what’s baked in the
cake. It’s about what you do with your cake after it’s baked. If you like a
different metaphor, everyone is dealt a hand of cards, and some people get dealt
better hands than others. But no matter what hand you were dealt, it will also matter
how you play that hand.
Inertia
All other things being equal, compared to dating without
cohabiting, if two people are sharing one address, they will have a harder time
breaking up, even if the relationship has serious weaknesses or problems. That
is, cohabitation has more inertia than dating (while not cohabiting). Sure, loads
of cohabiters break up—see my last post. But it’s harder to break up if
cohabiting than if dating and not sharing an address.
This concept of inertia is based on the fact that many people increase
their constraints for staying in a relationship before they have clarified a mutual
dedication to being in the relationship.
The idea here is a little scary. We believe that some people
marry someone they would not have married if they’d never moved in together. They
got inertialized too soon. That’s gets to why we (my colleague Galena Rhoades and I) have predicted and found (over
and over again) that couples who wait to cohabit until marriage or until they
have clear, mutual plans to marry report, on average, more marital happiness,
less conflict, more compatibility, and so forth.iv Those couples are less likely to be prematurely
caught in inertia.
For some individuals who made it harder to break up before
deciding on a future with their partner, cohabitation probably decreased their
odds of happiness in marriage. To be clear, I am sure that there are many people
who move in together before having clarified anything but who do fine in
marriage and/or life together. It’s just that the risk is greater in this group
than in the other group, and it makes sense why that would be the case.
You may be thinking, “I don’t really believe in
marriage anyway, so what’s this got to do with me?” Inertia is important to understand
in any relationship. If you are not already in a committed relationship and you’d
like to be, the relevant personal questions are these: What things could I avoid
that could make it harder for me to break it off with someone before I’m sure I
want to be with that person? How would I do that?
Ring, Ring
I’m a geek. I found this article a few years ago by Marguerite
Reardon who nailed the way inertia works—in an article describing her
commitment dilemma with her iPhone: Should I break up with my iPhone for Nokia's Lumia 900?
Her piece is a couple years old, so insert the name for some
hot Samsung model (really, a super model) into her title. Here’s a quote from her article.
But sadly now I’m
feeling a bit stuck with Apple. I’d like to check out other smartphone
platforms, but doing so is going to require some work on my part. Like many who
have been sucked into Apple’s clutches, it was innocent in the beginning. . . .
Initially, I didn’t realize the commitment I was making. I didn’t think about
the fact that I was locking myself into a platform for the rest of my life. But
with each new product I bought from Apple, the deeper I fell into the borg. And
now I feel like it would be painful to break up with Apple. Not because I love
the products or company so much, but because it would be a huge pain in the
butt to transfer all my stuff to a new platform. (used by permission)
This is a great definition of what I call iNertia. If you
check out her story, she actually goes on to liken the mobile phone dilemma to
living together. It’s a fun and insightful piece. Take careful note of this.
Most people think readily about inertia related to their mobile plan and being
locked in for a year or two. Reardon is addressing a more powerful type of constraint that produces inertia based in the difficulty of moving on because of the depth of what you are already into.
Inertia is really not all that mysterious once people see it
clearly. We all experience it in many ways in modern life. But a lot of people think
it’s only an issue when it comes to marriage, not cohabitation. It’s actually
everywhere. When it’s time to really
commit to someone, it’s worth accepting that commitment requires making a choice
to give up other choices. But before that time, too many people give up options
before making a real choice.
[i] Stanley,
S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding vs. Deciding:
Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499-509.
[ii] For
example: Manning, W. D., & Cohen, J. A. (2012). Premarital cohabitation and
marital dissolution: An examination of recent marriages. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 74, 377 - 387.
[iii] For
example: Teachman, J. D. (2003). Premarital sex, premarital cohabitation, and
the risk of subsequent marital dissolution among women. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 65(2), 444-455.
[iv] For
example (all findings controlling robustly for selection): Kline, G. H., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Olmos-Gallo, P. A., St.
Peters, M., Whitton, S. W., & Prado, L. (2004). Timing is everything:
Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased risk for poor marital outcomes.
Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 311-318.; Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M.,
& Markman, H. J. (2009). The pre-engagement cohabitation effect: A
replication and extension of previous findings. Journal of Family Psychology,
23, 107-111.; Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Amato, P. R., Markman, H. J.,
& Johnson, C. A. (2010). The timing of cohabitation and engagement: Impact
on first and second marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 906-918.
[v] Kuperberg,
A. (2014). Age at coresidence, premarital cohabitation, and marriage
dissolution: 1985-2009. Journal of Marriage & Family, 76(2), 352-369.
