Thursday, April 26, 2018

Marriage Starts Changing you Before Marriage


Having a long-term view supports the ability to delay gratification and invest in the future. Having a short-term view provides no reason for delay and favors immediate gratification. These points are central to understanding marriage and cohabitation, as well as how people manage money.

 A recent study examines the way financial time-horizons are impacted by relationship transitions, specifically, going from being single to cohabiting and from cohabiting to being married. Barbara Fulda and Philipp Lersch conducted their study using a large data set in Australia, motivated by this question: Is there reason to be concerned about the future financial prospects of aging Australians in a world where marriage is declining and cohabitation is increasing? It’s a good question, and their study is excellent.

Their foundational assumptions were these:

·       People with longer time-horizons about finances will save more for the future.
·       Marriage and cohabitation have implications for time-horizons, and likely impact financial behavior.

In their study, financial planning time-horizon was measured with a question that asked, “In planning your saving and spending, which of the following time periods is most important to you?” The question allowed responses ranging from “The next week” to “More than 10 years ahead,” with many options in between. Importantly, the analyses are not about actual long-term savings. Rather, they examined what happens to this planning variable across relationship transitions, with the plausible argument that changes in financial horizons would reflect something about long-term financial outcomes.

Fulda and Lersch used a variant of what economist and sociologists call (in near worshipful tones) “fixed-effects,” which I believe to be a variant of what psychologists call “within-subjects effects.” Such analyses take advantage of data sets with over-time measurements from the same individuals; in this case, to capture changes from before to after specific transitions. While such analyses do not control for all types of selection (such as who is on this path or that path in the first place), they do control for other aspect of selection. For example, individuals vary in conscientiousness, and that could impact everything of interest here. Even without conscientiousness being measured, the fixed-effects models will control for such variance because of how people are being compared to themselves over time. This gives new meaning to the phrase, “control yourself.” (Researcher humor is the best humor.) Another example of this type of thinking can be found in a paper by Galena Rhoades, myself, and Howard Markman on changes in relationships across the transition into cohabitation (see here). I’ll come back to that.

Fulda and Lersch found that cohabiting individuals had longer financial time-horizons than singles, and that financial planning horizons increased over the transition to cohabitation. There was mixed evidence of people’s financial horizons increasing further during cohabitation. In contrast, financial horizons did not increase when transitioning into marriage.

In their words, “Cohabiting individuals’ financial planning horizons thus had already increased prior to their transition into marriage.” Further, “we did not find convincing evidence for a change in the financial planning horizon before and after marriage, . . ..” That is, marriage “seems to contribute little to a longer financial planning horizon relative to cohabitation.” My quibble is on that point.

Fulda and Lersch believe the driver of the observed effects is the development (or establishment) of increased commitment during cohabitation. I think that is likely correct, but I also think the matter and meaning of the timing is more complex.   

Early in the discussion of their findings, Fulda and Lersch make an important comment.

These results can be interpreted as extending previous research on the following two distinct groups of cohabiters: Those who intend to marry and those who do not. Poortman and Mills (2012) showed that the first group resembles married couples in their partnership characteristics. In this study, we expand on this finding and show that financial planning horizons of cohabiting couples’ who eventually get married remain stable as a result of their high commitment to their relationship when they transition from cohabitation into marriage.

There are different types of cohabiting unions. Some are like marriage, many are not; some become more like marriages over time, and then turn into marriages. That’s part of why cohabitation is a more ambiguous (and heterogeneous) relationship status than marriage. This is likely somewhat less true in Australia[i] than in the United States. because of a legal system that makes cohabitation more like marriage there. Here in the United States, anyway, cohabitation contains very little information about commitment. Marriage plans, however, contain a lot of information.

Sociologist Susan Brown and colleagues havedrawn attention to the fact that cohabiting couples with plans to marry tend to be, on average, a lot like married couples (see also, this).  In a related vein, but differing in an important way, my colleague Galena Rhoades and I have found that, among couples who end up marrying, those who started cohabiting only after having clear marriage plans (such as after engagement or who move in together only after marrying) tend to do better in marriage than those who had not decided the big question about the future beforehand (for more on those studies, see here). Deciding you want a V8 ahead of time beats “I coulda had a V8” while already holding something else. (Want to take a trip through memory lane on that? Here, knock yourself out. That’s some ancient wisdom right there.)

Furthermore, we have found cohabiting prior to engagement or marriage is associated with asymmetrically committed relationships, and that such asymmetries do not appear to change after marrying. And, as I’ve written before, asymmetrical commitment is not good.

Fulda and Lersch do not, and likely could not, examine a variable that estimates the timing of when couples who married developed their mutual plans to marry. I expect that a lot of the action behind what they found lies there. In addition, while they believe that the development of commitment between partners is the most important mechanism in play, they also do not have a measure of that to analyze. Thus, the measure of financial horizon is sort of doing double duty in their thinking.

Coming back to the study noted earlier by Galena Rhoades, me, and Howard Markman, we found that commitment itself—as in dedication to one’s partner—tends to stop increasing after the transition into cohabitation. It levels off, and not at the particularly high level. Taking these points all together, Fulda and Lersch do not have a way to look at the actual timing of changes in interpersonal commitment, nor can they look at the exact timing of when mutual plans for marriage develop. It would be interesting to look at their research question with access to such measures.

To be clear, I have little doubt that financial planning can change with cohabitation. However, I suspect that Fulda and Lersch’s cohabitation-transition effects are likely, and largely, a proxy for the effect of developing marriage plans before cohabiting or while cohabiting. Either way, the effects Fulda and Lersch are attributing solely to cohabitation seem mostly to be marriage effects occurring before marriage. There is nothing nearly as re-organizing for a relationship as deciding on, and setting plans for, a life together.

Cohabitation, Marriage, and Time Horizons

I believe marriage effects start long before a couple walks down the aisle. Similar effects can occur without marriage if a mutual and high level of commitment emerges. However, marriage remains the strongest cultural signal encoding such a commitment. [ii] Sure, some institutional effects of marriage will begin with the wedding, but the wedding day typically celebrates changes in commitment that have already occurred.

Fulda and Lersch concluded that concerns about the long-term financial prospects of Australians may be overblown. Bolstering this conclusion is the fact that the laws and mores in Australia make cohabitation a near functional equivalent to marriage. I do believe it is a different deal there compared to the United States. However, there are reasons to think that long-term implications of cohabitation versus marriage may still be substantial for children, even in societies where the two statuses have become close in legal equivalence. This fact was recently documented by Brad Wilcox and Laurie DeRose with a multi-national data set.[iii]

Marriage may eventually lose its status as the strongest signal of commitment to “us with a future,” but I do not think that day has yet arrived. Until marriage disappears, marriage effects will start before marriage.



First published to the blog of the Institute for Family Studies on 4-9-2018. 


[i] As an aside, the first scholar to nail the issue of the fundamental ambiguity of cohabitation was Jo Lindsay—an Australian research doing a qualitative study on cohabitation first published in 2000 based on interviews in the early 90s.
[ii] For more on the matter of signals of commitment, I recommend: Rowthorn, R. (2002).  Marriage as a signal.  In A. W. Dnes and R. Rowthorn (Eds.), The Law and Economics of Marriage and Divorce (pp. 132 - 156).  New York: Cambridge University Press.; Nock, S.L.  (2009). The Growing Importance of Marriage in America.  In H. E. Peters and C. M. Kamp Dush (Eds.), Marriage and Family: Perspectives and Complexities (pp. 302-324). New York: Columbia University Press.; Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment: Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 243-257.
[iii] Wilcox and DeRose found a consistent and seemingly large difference in family stability for children of married versus cohabiting couples in many European countries; countries where cohabitation with children has legal characteristics similar to marriage. The larger story here is constantly unfolding into the future, but such findings suggest that marriage still represents a different commitment to the future than cohabitation.

Monday, March 26, 2018

Citations for Tests of the Inertia Hypothesis about the Timing of Cohabitation and Marital Outcomes

This post is to provide citations relevant for some of the work Galena Rhoades and I (and colleagues) have conducted on the subject of premarital cohabitation, specifically, the prediction of a timing effect related to when couples moved in together and marital outcomes. 

Before any of these studies were conducted, we predicted that couples who cohabited only after engagement (or marriage) would, on average, do better in marriage than those who began to cohabit prior to having such clear, mutual plans to marry. This is the inertia hypothesis. It is explained clearly in the citations under “theory” below.

This prediction has found support in every place where we know it possible to test, including findings in 7 studies using 6 different samples.

For a non-technical summary of this line of reasoning, click here.

For an annotated summary of our research on cohabitation, including abstracts and thinking from study to study, click here.
 
My goal here is to give easy access to relevant citations. Where possible, I give links that provide access to the entire article.

Theoretical Papers

Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding vs. Deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499-509.  [You can read the entire manuscript as a PDF, author version here.]

Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment: Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 243-257.

The first paper below, Kline et al., (2004) also has a lot of theoretical background in it as well as being the first major test of the inertia hypothesis about the timing of cohabitation relative to the timing of becoming engaged to marry. 

Empirical Findings for the Engagement (marriage plans) Effect

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.

Goodwin, P. Y., Mosher, W. D., & Chandra, A. (2010). Marriage and cohabitation in the United States: A statistical portrait based on Cycle 6(2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth. Vital Health Stat 23 (28). Washington D.C.: National Center for Health Statistics.

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.

Rhoades, G. K., and Stanley, S. M. (2014). Before “I Do”: What do premarital experiences have to do with marital quality among today’s young adults? Charlottesville, VA: National Marriage Project.

Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Allen, E. S. (2015). Can marriage education mitigate the risks associated with premarital cohabitation? Journal of Family Psychology, 29(3), 500-506. 







Friday, March 16, 2018

Journal of Family Psychology Special Issue on Military Familly and Deployment


Here are links to the February 2018 issue of the Journal of Family Psychology. The links I have included are all the ones pertinent to military families. You can access the abstracts here with the links provided. 

Journal of Family Psychology Volume 32, Issue 1, (Feb)

Page 1-2
Sayers, Steven L.; Rhoades, Galena K.

Page 3-11
Sayers, Steven L.; Barg, Frances K.; Mavandadi, Shahrzad; Hess, Tanya H.; Crauciuc, Andreea

Page 12-21
Knobloch, Leanne K.; Knobloch-Fedders, Lynne M.; Yorgason, Jeremy B.

Page 22-30
Carter, Sarah P.; Osborne, Laura J.; Renshaw, Keith D.; Allen, Elizabeth S.; Loew, Benjamin A.; Markman, Howard J.; Stanley, Scott M.

Page 31-41
Balderrama-Durbin, Christina; Erbes, Christopher R.; Polusny, Melissa A.; Vogt, Dawne

Page 42-48
Wilson, Steven R.; Marini, Christina M.; Franks, Melissa M.; Whiteman, Shawn D.; Topp, Dave; Wadsworth, Shelley MacDermid

Page 114-122
Miller, Katherine E.; Koffel, Erin; Kramer, Mark D.; Erbes, Christopher R.; Arbisi, Paul A.; Polusny, Melissa A.

Page 123-133
Chesmore, Ashley A.; Piehler, Timothy F.; Gewirtz, Abigail H.

Page 134-144
Allen, Elizabeth; Knopp, Kayla; Rhoades, Galena; Stanley, Scott; Markman, Howard

Friday, February 9, 2018

“That Decision Wasn’t Made There”: A Super Bowl Insight on Commitment

I’m sure there is some lesson about commitment in most any Super Bowl, but I think sports commenter Colin Cowherd (@ColinCowherd) gets at something special in his observation about Super Bowl LII, which you can find in this video onYouTube.

I’ll describe the key point, but if you have a few minutes and want to take it in, Cowherd makes his point with style. From 0:00 to 2:47 will do the job.




Before going to substance, I want to declare my conflicts of non-interest. I’m neither a fan of the Eagles nor of the Patriots. I’m not much of a football fan, except that I do now hope the Broncos get Foles for next year. Further, I didn’t care about who would win this game until it was going; and once it was, I started rooting for the Eagles. I’ll cop to that.

What Cowherd Observed

Commitment is about making a choice to give up other choices. It’s about deciding. Clear decisions anchor commitments, and the timing of those clear decisions often matters. In contrast, sliding through key moments is letting stuff happen to you, and it can result in losing options before making a choice. I’m usually making these points about marriage and family, but they apply to everything important. Cowherd gets at what is one of the most important insights about commitment that Galena Rhoades and I are often highlighting.

Cowherd focuses on the Eagles decision to go for it on fourth down, trailing by 1 point, with 5:40 left on the clock. Teams usually punt in that circumstance, and I thought the Eagles would do just that in the hopes of stopping New England and getting the ball back. (There’s a growing thought around the NFL that teams should usually be going for it on 4th-and-1, by the way, but that’s not been the convention. It might start to be.) My youngest son thought they would go for it. He was right, and he’s the one who got me to watch Cowherd give his analysis.

Of that moment, on 4th-and-1, Cowherd says, “That decision wasn’t made there.”

I think he’s exactly right. Cowherd observed that the Eagles didn’t even call a time out to think about it, and on a play that he believes is one of the gutsiest calls in Super Bowl history. Instead, the Eagles already knew what they were going to do. In fact, they’d made a similarly bold 4th and 1 conversion in the first half, when the Eagles’ quarterback Nick Foles became the receiver for a touchdown. I’ve watched enough football to know that if you are going for it on 4th-and-1, you are usually trying a brute force attempt, not some utterly surprising trick play.

Here’s the good part. Cowherd attributes the Eagles’ game play to a decision made two weeks before by the Philadelphia coaches in a meeting. A decision that was talked about, thought about, and that guided the Eagles minds and motivation over the past couple weeks. They had pre-decided to go for it, all the time, every time. It’s fair for you to think I have now become totally mired in sport’s cliché drivel. You know, “they left it all on the field.” “They came to play.” “They dug deep.” Could be, but I think Cowherd’s right to imply that this is not that. Or, at the least, I’m going to suggest it’s more than that.  

As Cowherd notes, The Patriots have a history of getting behind and then coming back and destroying the other team, often in a final drive at the end of the game. It’s kind of a brand. They’ve turned the tide more often than you’re ever going to see something like detergent commercials in Super Bowl games.

New England is a widely disliked team for a number of reasons, and I think the biggest reason goes beyond a few notable, naughty behaviors. It’s not just balls that get deflated around New England. It’s teams. It’s cities. I think what people feel about the Patriots is archetypal. New England represents the relentless challenges of life that too often wear us down and wipe us out. They crush our dreams as time is running out. That’s who the Eagles were playing, and that is important here.

Cowherd observes that the Eagles had decided, two weeks before, this:

“We’re not going to be Atlanta. We’re not going to outplay New England and lose.”
“We’re not going to be Jacksonville. We’re not going to outplay New England and lose.”
“We’re not going to be Pittsburgh. We’re not going to outplay New England and lose.”

The Eagles had pre-decided they were going to play this game with a highly disciplined abandon. They ran some risky plays. They kept pushing hard even when ahead. The Eagles weren’t waiting for the Patriots to happen to them in the usual way of life.

Why isn’t this a typical sport’s cliché? Because of the timing of the key decision.

Timing is a Lot of the Things

Timing may not be everything, but timing is a lot of the things that matter most. Before my metaphorical final drive (the next section of this piece), two quick points about timing and commitment from my area of theory and research: One point is about parental commitment and babies and the other is about the timing of commitment relative to living together.

When a couple is having a child, it matters a great deal whether or not they had decided before conception if they were doing life together. A couple can decide after a baby is on the way to build a life together, but that’s a decision being made on 4th down, during a time-out, in the middle of the pressure of the big game. A decision about the future is best made when the future is not already here.

When a couple moves in together, it matters whether or not they’ve already decided they are committed to the future--beforehand. Living together makes it harder to break up, and a lot of people don’t see this until they are deep into the game and behind on the scoreboard. As our research has shown, those who marry, or who have at least gotten engaged, before moving in together tend to do better once married. Does that mean the other couples are doomed? Surely not. It’s an edge, an advantage. Nothing is a slam dunk (oops, wrong sport!). Anyway, the point is the same as the one above about babies. It helps when the big decision about the future was made before the two people were already constrained by their situation.

When it comes to consequential moments that can be life altering, it’s best if you can say, “That decision wasn’t made there.”

This Gets It

There are a lot of times in life where you are going to fail because you’ve not decided ahead of the critical moment what you are about and what you are committed to do. I don’t mean you can anticipate everything that will happen. You can’t. Sometimes, you need to change something in your pre-decided plan. Sometimes, you need to call an audible or else you’ll get mauled.

I also don’t mean to suggest that clear commitments at the right time for the right reason always insulate you from loss. None of us knows how the game is going to play out, including in our relationships. It is a fact recently demonstrated that you can play out your game plan, executed relatively well, produce 505 yards of offense—and still lose.

But in the main, those who have decided beforehand what they are going after, and how deeply they are committed to achieving it, will come out ahead, whether it is in marriage or work or anything else that matters. Why? Because you are not chronically trying to decide—in the moment—what would have been better decided beforehand. 

That “I’m doing this.”




This article was first released on the blog of The Institute for Family Studies on this same date