A study just out suggests that cohabitation may serve to “reposition” African-American
young adults toward more positive attitudes about marriage. Ashley Barr, Ronald
Simons, and Leslie Gordon Simons examined changes over time in marital
attitudes in a sample of African American youth who were followed from fifth grade
to when they were in their early to mid-twenties. While their methods did not
allow for assessing actual transitions into marriage and marital outcomes, the
authors were able to track relationships, relationship quality, transitions
into cohabitation, and attitudes about marriage. Their working assumption was
that cohabitation changes people regarding marriage in a number of ways, and that
some of those changes might be positive. Indeed, they found that early
cohabiting experiences generally led to more positive attitudes about marriage
among these young African Americans.
This study is well-conceived and written, and has very
strong methods. Of course, a lot of what’s important for understanding the
conclusions lies in the details, so let’s dig deeper.
As Barr and colleagues note, various scholars have argued
that cohabitation has become an alternative to marriage for many, perhaps especially
so among African Americans. But what if, they wondered, it also changed
attitudes about marriage in a positive direction for young African Americans? They
worked from two theories about how cohabitation may impact marrying behavior.
First, they drew on the
work of Sandra McGinnis showing that cohabitation reduces both the perceived
costs and benefits of marrying, but in a way that ultimately made marriage more
likely. Second, they drew on
the theory our team at the University of Denver has put forth: that cohabiting
increases the costs of breaking up (compared to dating), making it more likely
that some people marry a particular person out of “inertia,” even if
relationship quality is not so great. Either theory suggests that cohabitation
“repositions” people with regard to marriage. I believe this is true, yet very
complicated.
Here are just a few of the complications in the types of questions
Barr and colleagues tackle. First, cohabitation has become increasingly common,
but it has also become less likely than ever before to lead to marriage.
[i] Second, while there are ongoing debates about the impacts of premarital
cohabitation, there is a lot of evidence that sliding into cohabiting without
having clarified a
mutual, long-term
commitment to marry is associated with lower odds of success in marriage (
read more here). Thus, Galena Rhoades and I have long argued that cohabitation
is not a costless, inert relationship form. It can have many effects that
people don’t anticipate when moving in together—such as getting stuck with
someone they otherwise would have left, or having a child with someone who has
no shared commitment to raising that child.
Third, Barr and colleagues focus on African Americans, who are
less likely to marry and more likely to divorce than other groups.[ii] However, the race-related marriage gap may not be as large as one might
suppose. Philip Cohen recently posted some
preliminary analyses on his blog examining the lifetime odds of marrying for African
American and white women. He concluded that “85.3% of White women, and 78.4% of
Black women . . . are projected to marry before they die—a surprisingly small
gap.” He was surprised, and so was I, but I believe the finding. Part of what
is in play here is that African Americans tend to marry at even later ages than
the already high and seemingly ever-increasing
average age of marriage. So cohabitation may not have replaced marriage among African
Americans as much as it has come to play an even larger role earlier in life,
on average, compared to others.
Returning to the new study, Barr and colleagues measured
perceived benefits of marriage (Does marriage bring a happier or fuller life?),
perceived costs of marriage (e.g., Is marriage associated with a loss of
friends or freedom?), the importance of marriage (e.g., “How important is it to
you to have a good marriage?”), and the personal salience of marriage (e.g.,
“Getting married is the most important part of my life”) among respondents.
Importantly, the design they used is especially strong for assessing how
individuals change over time. They were able to compare individuals’ attitudes
about marriage before and after cohabiting (among those who cohabited during
the study). Galena Rhoades and I used pretty similar methods in a study on the
impact of cohabitation, comparing results from more typical cross-sectional analyses
to results from the more sophisticated analysis of changes over time within
individuals on reports of relationship quality.[iii] It’s that ability to look at how people change in comparison to themselves that makes such methods especially
valuable for addressing questions about how an experience like cohabitation might
change people.
Other Findings from
Barr, Simons, & Gordon Simons
As I mentioned at the outset, Barr and her colleagues found
that cohabiting made young African Americans more positive about marriage. Other
of their findings included:
·
Higher relationship quality (for those cohabiting
or dating) was associated with more positive views of marriage.
·
Consistent with the findings and arguments of
Brian Willoughby,[iv] individuals’
beliefs about marriage changed throughout adolescence and early adulthood based
on their experiences.
·
Being in any romantic relationship was
associated with an increased likelihood to believe that marriage is important. And
while both cohabiting and dating experiences were associated with increases in
marital salience and the perceived benefits of marriage, this was more true for
the experience of cohabiting.
·
Most of these effects were stronger for young
women than for young men. Cohabiting had a particularly strong impact on
women’s perceptions of the importance of marriage.
It is important to note (as the authors do) the two greatest
limitations of the study. First, they were unable to assess participants’ long-term
outcomes in marriage. Second, they were unable to compare the pattern of
associations they found with a comparable sample of non-African Americans.
Those limitations matter, of course, because while these
authors found that cohabitation positively impacts attitudes about marriage,
especially for young African American women, that does not necessarily mean
that those who cohabited became more likely to marry or more likely to succeed
at marriage than their never-cohabiting (or later-cohabiting) peers. Further, I
wonder if the same findings might be obtained for others who are not African
American. Why? Because intense relationship experiences may universally deepen
the desire for long-term attachment, regardless of the quality of those
relationships (which Barr and colleagues controlled for; wisely, I think).
We can’t really conclude from this study if cohabitation serves
as a bridge to marriage among young African Americans or if it makes marriage a
bridge too far. Having an increased aspiration for marriage does not
necessarily mean an increased realization of marriage. That is an important
quibble; however, the study is excellent and it adds to the overall discussion.
The findings of Barr, Simons, and Gordon Simons reinforce
three truths that we should continue to grapple with in understanding marriage
and family formation.
First, things may well not work the same way for all groups.
While it likely distresses some who follow my work for me to say it, it is entirely
reasonable to expect that there will emerge evidence that some conditions of
cohabitation make marriage—and even success in marriage—more likely among some groups.
While I do not believe that cohabitation, on average, tells us much about partners’
mutual commitment, it may carry different impacts and implications in certain cultural
or economic contexts. In some groups, cohabitation may be a meaningful signal
of commitment; I think it depends in large degree upon what other signals of
commitment are available in a specific, societal context.
Second, while a lot of people in social science are not
comfortable with such things, Barr and colleagues find evidence that romantic
relationship development tends to work differently for women than men. Why
might that matter? I remain of the belief that sliding transitions are
associated with greater odds of relationships forming where there are
substantial differences in the level of commitment between two partners.
Historically, Galena Rhoades and I find that, when there is substantial asymmetrical
commitment, women draw the short end of the stick about two-thirds of the time;
that is, they are more apt to be the more committed partner stuck with someone
who is less so. Whether male or female, you, dear reader, likely don’t want it
to be you or your children living that life.
Third, Barr and colleagues show that higher relationship
quality is associated with more positive attitudes about marriage for both
daters and cohabiters. The usual suspects complicate causality here, but this nevertheless
suggests that those who want to foster positive attitudes about marriage may do
well to support work to help teens and young adults have higher-quality
relationships. If you look around, it seems like there is plenty of work to do.
First, there is a brand new post over at Science of Relationships (www.scienceofrelationships.com) for you to read: “Parents Are Less Happy”: Fact or Fiction? It's an excellent piece by Andrew Willis Garcés that focuses on overall life happiness.
