The pre-engagement cohabitation effect: A replication and extension of previous findings.

Abstract

Using a random telephone survey of men and women married within the past 10 years (N = 1050), the current study replicated previous findings regarding the timing of engagement and the premarital cohabitation effect (see Kline et al., 2004). Those who cohabited before engagement (43.1%) reported lower marital satisfaction, dedication, and confidence as well as more negative communication and greater proneness for divorce than those who cohabited only after engagement (16.4%) or not at all until marriage (40.5%). These differences were generally small, but could not be accounted for by length of marriage or by variables often associated with selection into cohabitation (i.e., age, income, education, and religiousness). Similar results were found in a subsample of individuals who cohabited only with the current spouse. There were no significant differences between those who cohabited after engagement and not at all before marriage, supporting a pre-engagement, but not a premarital cohabitation effect.

Understanding the Decision to Marry Versus Cohabit: The Role of Interpersonal Dedication and Constraints and the Impact on Life Satisfaction

“…At first glance, these results seem to contradict previous research that cohabiters often "slide" into marriage because of the many constraints associated with their living together rather than making a conscious decision to marry out of personal dedication (Rhoades et al, 2009b). The component missing from the current study that could shed more light on these results would be the timing of cohabitation (Stanley & Markman, 2006).…”

“…In this paper, we focus on Stanley and Markman's (1992) more parsimonious model, which has been widely used in recent research investigating the transition from cohabitation to marriage (Kline et al, 2004;Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2009b;Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman, 2006) and has proven to be a salient factor in distinguishing those cohabiters who are most at risk for later marital distress. Stanley and Markman (1992) proposed that there are two essential components of interpersonal commitment, forces that motivate connection (personal dedication) and forces that increase the costs of leaving (constraints).…”

“…Dedication and constraint commitment are known to be salient factors in explaining later marital functioning in cohabiting relationships (Rhoades et al, 2009b;Stanley et al, 2006). More specifically, the decision to marry prior to cohabiting together mitigates the risk of later marital problems commonly associated with cohabitation.…”

Communal Strength Norms in the United States and Egypt

“…Young adults are encouraged to form monogamous dating relationships and to become self-reliant and independent from their family (Sanderson & Cantor, 1995 After making a long term commitment in an intimate romantic relationship, most Americans choose to cohabit with their romantic partner prior to marriage. Estimates are as high as 70% of all couples cohabitating prior to marriage (Hsueh, Morrison, & Doss, 2009;Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2009). Among young adults, cohabitation may be seen as an acceptable way to "try out" a marriage and the couple's compatibility before a legal commitment is made (Kline et al, 2004), and parents tend to have little influence on the choice of dating and marital partners as well as the timing of marriage.…”

Free to stay, free to leave: Insights from Poland into the meaning of cohabitation

“…Cohabitation might also be perceived as attractive because it provides the couple with an opportunity to test out the relationship without having to enter into long-term commitment (Heuveline and Timberlake 2004;Murrow and Shi 2010;Perelli-Harris et al 2014). But the lack of legal bonds is associated with a degree of insecurity, which may have a negative impact on the quality of the relationship (Rhoades, Stanley, and Markman 2009), and which could influence the partners" choices regarding the development of the relationship (e.g., childbearing decisions). All in all, the freedom that is experienced by the partners in an informal union is, in our view, a complex concept, and its meaning depends on a country-specific cultural and institutional context.…”