Cohabitation and Marital Dissolution

Wendy D. Manning

Department of SociologyCenter for Family and Demographic Research

National Center for Family and Demographic Research Bowling Green State University

Outline

Trends in Canada and USStudies of Cohabitation and Marital DissolutionQualitative FindingsQuantitative ResultsDiscussion

Collaborators: Jessica Cohen, Pamela Smock

Marriage

• Crude Marriage RateWomen US 7.4 Canada 4.4

• Adjusted Rate per 1,000 unmarried (15+)Women US 32.9 Canada 22.2

• Proportion Population Married (20+) Women US 52.9%% Canada 39.3%

Age at First Marriage, 1950-2010

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20101618202224262830323436

Canadian Men Canadian WomenUS Men US Women

Data from Statistics Canada and the U.S. Census

Cohabitation• Percent population cohabiting (20+)

• US 5.5% Canada 8.9%

• 1970-79 20% of Canadian women married with cohabitation. 2000-2006 27% of Canadian women married with cohabitation. (France-Pascale Ménard McGill Sociological Review, Vol. 2, April 2011 )

• 1965-74 11% of US women married with cohabitation.• 2000-2008 67% of US women married with cohabitation.

(NCFMR - Manning, 2011)

Couple Households

11%

89%

US

Cohab Married

18%

82%

Canada

Data from Statistics Canada and the U.S. Census

ROC

CohabMarried

Quebec

CohabMarried

Couples within Canada – 2000-2006

Divorce• Crude Divorce Rate (per 1,000 Population):

2.2 2005 Canada3.8 2010 US

• Divorce Rate per 1,000 Married women 15+9.2 Canada US 16.4

• Percent population divorced:5.1% 2007 Canada 8.7% US 2010

• Marriage Cohort– 2008 Canada ~41% 2010 US~50%

U.S. Patterns

CohabitationDivorceTesting Ground

Cohabitation Trends

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2858

7529N

umbe

r in

1,00

0’s

Cohabitation Trends•Increase in cohabitation

1988 1995 2002 2006-20080

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30

4861

63

Percent of Women Ages 35-39 Who Ever Cohabited, U.S

Year

Perc

ent

Cohabitation Trends

• Majority of Newlyweds Cohabit

1965-74 1975-79 1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-2002

2002-2008

0

20

40

60

80

11

3241 46

5665 65

Percent of First Marriages Preceded by Cohabitation by Marriage Cohort

1984-1988 1991-1995 1998-2002 2006-201016.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

23.0 22.7

24.9 25.9

22.921.0

22.121.7

22.0

20.7

22.0 21.2

Age 1stMarriageAge 1stCohabAge 1stUnion

Median Age at First Marriage, Cohabitation, and Union, Women, 1984-2010

Marital Dissolution Trends

Cohabitation Paradox

Marital Search Perspective – Cohabitation “weed out” poor matches

NSFH --“Couples can be sure they are compatible before marriage” 51% and 56% of young men and women endorsing it as important. (Bumpass, Sweet, and Cherlin 1991)

Cohabitation and Marital Dissolution•Positive association between cohabitation and marital dissolution

–Newcomb and Bentler (1980)–Newcomb (1986)–Bennet, Blanc and Bloom (1988) -- Sweden–Teachman and Polonko (1990)–DeMaris and Rao (1992)–Schoen (1992)–DeMaris and McDonald (1993)–Lillard, Brien, and Waite (1995)–Woods and Emery (2002)–Teachman (2002)–Teachman (2003)–Kamp Dush, Cohen and Amato (2003)–Phillips and Sweeney (2005)–Brown, Sanchez, Nock, and Wright (2006)–Stanley,Rhoades, Amato, Markman, and Johnson (2010)–Rheinhold (2010)–Jose, O’Leary, and Moyer (2010) -– Meta-analysis

Cohabitation as Testing Ground

Qualitative Data

Views of Cohabitation •Divorce-proof marriages• Learn more about partner • Practice marital roles – lease, test drive

Cohabitation & Marriage in America

115 semistructured interviews: young adults who have ever cohabited

18 focus groups ≈ 126 young adults

60 couples: cohabiting,

married, or dating

P.I.’s: Wendy Manning and Pamela SmockNIH: R03HD039835 and R01HD040910

Cohabiting Couple: Test DriveJoy: I kinda have the theory of, you know, test drive {LAUGH}. Test drive the car before you buy it. You know? Just kinda see, you know, because you could love each other but not be able to live with each other. Like if he’s a slob and I’m very clean, I would have a big problem with that.

Bill:[Cohabitation] It’s good, but it’s bad. It’s good because, umm, it will, you get to know the person and their habits before you get married. So that way, you won’t have to get divorced. Or, some of the problems will come up before so you can work them all out before you get married.

Cohabiting Couple: EdgeLee: I think living together gives you that edge on people who don’t live together before marriage, because you know what it is going to be like. You can make it last longer … you know how to deal with problems of married life, at least that is what I think about it.

Married Couple: Roles

Damion: Cohabitation prepared them for marriage because it showed who’s gonna be the one paying the bills, who’s gonna be the one doing that kind of stuff. That was a big thing. I guess, setting up roles. Like I would do the yard work, we both do the housework, she pays all the bills.

Jen:Umm, it just helped me see what being married to him would be like. That he doesn’t clean, he doesn’t really cook, and that I had to be okay with that. Umm, how he spent his money or how he doesn’t spend his money, or how he doesn’t check the mail, how he doesn’t pay the bills and that I have to do that.

Married Couple: DivorceLeah: At least you know how he’s gonna be around you, instead of getting married and then living together for the first time. I think people would get more divorced because they don’t know how that person acts.

---------------------------------------------Denise:I think maybe you’ll have more of a chance of getting divorced if you don’t live with somebody first, just ‘cause then you don’t know what to expect. Marriage is, harder than I thought it would be sometimes. Marriage is a lot of work, but anything is, I guess.

Married Couple: DivorceMaria. 1st interview: “It’s not a big deal to me anymore because I’m already his wife you know. …Nothing is going to change.”

2nd interview: “The biggest mistake was thinking that nothing was going to change, I didn’t know my feelings about it would change …I had commitment before, and I have commitment now, but now it’s a wife commitment”

Recent Reports

Living together prior to marriage may help prevent divorce

•National (15-44: 2008-2010)–68% Men 58% Women Agree or Strongly Agree

•Young Adults (18-24: 2006) 60% Agree or Strongly Agree

Prior Studies

FindingsComplicationsExplanations

Cohabitation and Marital Dissolution•Positive association between cohabitation and marital dissolution

–Newcomb and Bentler (1980)–Newcomb (1986)–Bennet, Blanc and Bloom (1988) -- Sweden–Teachman and Polonko (1990)–DeMaris and Rao (1992)–Schoen (1992)–DeMaris and McDonald (1993)–Lillard, Brien, and Waite (1995)–Woods and Emery (2002)–Teachman (2002)–Teachman (2003)–Kamp Dush, Cohen and Amato (2003)–Phillips and Sweeney (2005)–Brown, Sanchez, Nock, and Wright (2006)–Stanley,Rhoades, Amato, Markman, and Johnson (2010)–Rheinhold (2010)–Jose, O’Leary, and Moyer (2010) -– Meta-analysis

Cohabitation and Marital Dissolution

•Positive association between cohabitation and marital dissolution

–Selection Hypothesis–Cohabitation Experience Hypothesis–Inertia Hypothesis–Diffusion Hypothesis

Cohabitation and Marital Dissolution–Complications:

•Marriage Cohort•Engagement•Race/Ethnicity•Sexual History•Serial Cohabitation

Quantitative Analysis

What is the relationship between cohabitation and marital dissolution?

–Engagement/Definite Plans for Marriage–Marriage Cohort

Data•2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth

–7,356 women ages 15-44– 6,139 men ages 15-44

•Analytic sample–2,003 ever-married women since 1996–1,483 ever-married men since 1996

•Dependent Variable–Timing to divorce or separation of first marriage

•Focal Independent Variable–Cohabitation experience w/ spouse

Data•Race/Ethnicity and Nativity Status•Number of premarital non-cohabiting sex partners•Time at Marriage

–Children Prior Marriage–Education (Interview date)–Age at Marriage

•Background Family Characteristics–Lived with biological parents–Mother’s education

Cohabitation Experience byMarriage Cohort

PercentWomen Men

Pre 1996 No Cohab w/ Spouse 57 53 Cohab Engaged 25 25 Cohab Not Engaged 18 23 N (1413) (816)

1996 + No Cohab w/ Spouse 38 39 Cohab Engaged 35 33 Cohab Not Engaged 27 28 N (2003) (1483)

Cumulative Probability Marital Dissolution: Women

Premarital Cohabitation and Marriage Cohort: Women

Hazard Ratio of Marital Dissolution< 1996 > 1996

Zero-Order Full Model Zero-Order Full ModelCohabitation 1.63** 1.43* 1.09 1.03(No Cohabitation w/ Spouse)

N 1413 1413 2003 2003

Note: Reference category in parentheses

Full Model includes controls premarital birth, race/ethnicity,non-cohabitating sex partners, education, mother's education, childhood family structure, and age at marriage.

+P<.10; *P<.05; **P< .01

Cumulative Probability Marital Dissolution: Men

Premarital Cohabitation and Marriage Cohort: Men

Hazard Ratio of Marital Dissolution< 1996 > 1996

Zero-Order Full Model Zero-Order Full ModelCohabitation 1.86*** 1.70** 1.22 1.03(No Cohabitation w/ Spouse)

N 816 816 1483 1483

Note: Reference category in parentheses

Full Model includes controls premarital birth, race/ethnicity,education, mother's education, childhood family structure,and age at marriage.

+P< .10; *P<.05; **P< .01

Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Dissolution (WOMEN)

Hazard Ratio of Marital Dissolution

WOMEN

Zero-Order Full Model

Cohabitation Engagement Status (No Cohabitation w/ Spouse)

Cohabitation & Engaged 0.75+ 0.57*

Cohabitation & Not Engaged 1.40* 1.07

N 2003

+P< .10; *P<.05; **P< .01

Premarital Cohabitation, Engagement Status & Premarital Birth

( Women > 1996 Marriage Cohort)Hazard Ratio of Marital Dissolution

Premarital Birth No Premarital BirthZero Full Zero Full

Cohabitation & Engaged 0.36* 0 .37* 0.97 0.80Cohabitation & Not Engaged 0.81 0.80 1.30 1.26(No Premarital Cohabitation)

N 616 1387

Note: Reference category in parentheses

Full model includes controls for non-cohabitating sex partners, education, mother's education, childhood family structure, and age at marriage.+ p < .10; *P< .05; **P<.01; ***P< .001

Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Dissolution (MEN)

Hazard Ratio of Marital Dissolution

MEN

Zero-Order Full Model

Cohabitation Engagement Status (No)

Cohabitation & Engaged 1.22 0.99

Cohabitation & Not Engaged 1.22 0.98

N 1483

+P< .10; *P<.05; **P< .01

Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Dissolution (WOMEN & MEN)

Hazard Ratio of Marital Dissolution

Women & Men

Zero-Order Full Model

Full Model w/

Interaction

Cohabitation Engagement Status (No)

Cohabitation & Engaged 0.97 0.78 1.00

Cohabitation & Not Engaged 1.34* 1.06 1.00

Female 1.02 0.95 1.07

Interactions

Female x Cohabitation & Engaged 0.61+

Female x Cohabitation & Not Engaged 1.11

N 3486

+P< .10; *P<.05; **P< .01

Discussion

“It seems clear from the data that the impact of premarital cohabitation on a subsequent marriage is not a simple or direct relationship, but rather is multifaceted.” - Newcomb and Bentler (1980, pg. 23)

•Marriage Cohort–Earlier marriage cohort

•Cohabitation is tied to greater instability regardless of engagement status

–Later marriage cohort •Cohabitation is NOT tied to heightened marital dissolution

•Diffusion Perspective

•Commitment at the start of cohabitation –Engagement/definite marriage plans

Half of adults who cohabited prior to a recent marriage made a commitment to marriage when they started living together

Engagement status depends on premarital fertility »No Births No cohabitation effect»Births Engaged protective effect

•Subgroup differentials: “one size does not fit all”

–Reframe:•Relationship experiences: ‘premarital divorce’ •Variation among respondents who never cohabit

•Challenge our understanding of cohabitation and marriage dissolution•Meaning of cohabitation and its role in marriage process

Thank you!

Check out updates:National Center for Family and

Marriage Researchhttp://ncfmr.bgsu.edu/

Comments & Queries:wmannin@bgsu.edu