Cohabitation between Man and Woman - Essay Example

Cohabitation Cohabitation is not a new phenomena and has existed since man met woman. However, it has gained wider spread popularity in recent years. While the literature indicates that couples who cohabitate and later marry are at greater risk for divorce, the practice has become more socially acceptable in recent years. While rates of cohabitation have escalated, the divorce rate in the US has stabilized. Still, greater social acceptance of cohabitation has not made the institution more stable when compared to marriage during the same period. In fact, cohabitation carries a significant risk of dissolution of the relationship or ending in divorce after marriage. The leveling of the divorce rate is covering up the instability in the rising rates of cohabitation that is being passed from generation to generation. Cohabitation outside marriage sociologically changes the formation of the family unit. In a cohabitation arrangement, there is no legal commitment on the part of the spouses in regards to property and long-term child care arrangements. Because it leaves the children at risk, and due to religious and moral values, the act of cohabitation often carries a certain amount of social stigma with it. Yet, research has also shown that couples who cohabitate are significantly more likely to get divorced if the cohabitation progresses into marriage. A study by DeMaris and Rao (1992) concluded that "cohabitors have a higher hazard of dissolution at any given time since marriage. [and] cohabitors are estimated to have a hazard of dissolution that is about 46% higher than for noncohabitors" (p.183). The increased rate of divorce among previously cohabitating couples may be a product of an instability in the relationship from the beginning. According to Bumpass, Sweet, and Cherlin (1991), "About 40% of cohabiting unions in the United States break up without the couple getting married, and this tends to occur rather quickly. By about one and one-half years, half of cohabiting couples have either married or broken up" (p.917). Whether the cohabitation arrangement dissolves quickly, or ends in divorce after a later marriage, the prospects for a cohabitating couple are significantly worse than for a couple that marries without ever cohabitating. The rates of divorce and cohabitation have been historically measured by the Census Bureau. According to Fitch, Goeken, and Ruggles (2005), "The acronym POSSLQ-"Persons (or Partners) of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters"-was coined by Census Bureau staff in the late 1970s. POSSLQ households-termed "Unmarried Couple Households" by the Census Bureau-are composed of two unrelated adults of the opposite sex (one of whom is the householder) who share a housing unit with or without the presence of children under 15 years old" (p.2). Divorce rates in the United States rose sharply in the period of 1960-1980 followed Chart 1: Source (Schoen & Canudus-Romo) by a leveling off period through the year 2000 (See Chart 1). During this same period, the Percentage of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters rates have continued to rise sharply (See Chart 2). Chart 2: Source (Fitch, Goeken, & Ruggles) An interesting aspect of the divorce and cohabitation rates is that as the cohabitation rate was low and remained steady from 1960-1970, the divorce rate rose sharply. However, during the period of 1975-2005, cohabitation rates have risen dramatically, while the divorce rate has remained steady. From a psychological standpoint, it would seem that a relationship that has transgressed from a cohabitation arrangement to a marriage would have a better chance of success. The partners would be familiar with each other's living habits and the commitment to marriage would be based on a well informed couple. As would be expected, cohabitation has a higher dissolution rate than marriage, but this also extends to the couples who have married and now experience a higher divorce rate. Several studies have confirmed that couples who have previously cohabitated have a substantially higher divorce rate that can not be explained by economic, race, social, or other demographic data that was included in the studies (Axinn & Thornton, 1992, p.368). The explanation for the significantly higher rates of divorce among couples who have cohabitated may lie in the emotional makeup of the individuals involved. The significance of the rising rate of cohabitation and the leveling off of divorce rates at the same time may be due to the fact that people who are prone to divorce have cohabitated in recent years rather than marrying. Social norms have made cohabitation more socially acceptable in recent years and may be attractive to those that fear commitment or the responsibility of marriage. Bennett, Blanc, and Bloom note that, "Cohabitors are known, for example, to value the independence that comes with cohabitation, which is sacrificed to some extent in marriage" (p.135). Rather than being a period of trial and adjustment, "Clatworthy (1975) concluded from her study of marrieds with and without a prior history of cohabitation that cohabitation did not appear to help select a compatible mate or aid in adjustment to marriage" (cited in Jacques & Chason, 1979, p.37). The link between cohabitation, marriage, and the greater risk of divorce may be a product of the pressure to resolve a relationship that has limited commitment as the couple enters child bearing years and beyond. Couples who are in a cohabitation arrangement will not view the situation as a permanent, or lifetime family unit. Legal protections and social benefits may become increasingly important to the couple soon after they start living together, and create a situation where they feel pressured to get married. Because of these factors, cohabitation rates have remained relatively low, and Bumpass and Sweet (1989) notes that most cohabitation arrangements end in marriage or dissolution after only a few years. Bennett, Blanc, and Bloom (1988) noted a similar pattern and found cohabitation periods "ranging from one month to more than ten years, with a mean cohabitational spell of approximately two years" (p.134). It is in this critical period that cohabiters make the decision to abandon their uncommitted lifestyle and seek the path of marriage. Before two years the couple is uncommitted to marriage, but beyond this period they begin to feel the effects of the social stigma placed on cohabitation by society, religious beliefs, and traditional norms. Other contributing factors work to increase and perpetuate the dim outlook that a cohabitating couple has for the long-term success of the relationship. Cohabitating couples may have a disadvantage that was carried with them from childhood. In a recent study by Cunningham and Thornton (2007), the researchers found that, "The children of parents who dissolve a marriage are more supportive of cohabitation than their peers whose parents remain continuously married" (p.139). In addition, children of a divorce may have greater trouble establishing a long-term commitment in a marriage. This is due to a lack of an appropriate role model for marriage, or a basic mistrust in the institution. As these children become adults they are not as emotionally equipped for marriage as their counterparts from a stable marriage. This leads to the scenario where the children of divorce more readily cohabitate, and their relationships have a lower chance of success. If they bring children into the relationship, the problem is carried across generations and becomes self feeding. The impact of divorce, cohabitation, and its effect on children can also be seen by examining the ages at which people cohabitate. As the rate of cohabitation began to suddenly and rapidly rise in 1970, the children born during this era also began to see a rise in their level of cohabitation in later life. For the children born in or after 1970, the rate of cohabitation is substantially higher than for those born before this date. When we examine the people that are in a living together relationship, we find that children who were born between 1970 and 1975 were three times as likely to be cohabitating than those that were born between 1965 and 1970 (See Chart 2 and Table 1). Table 1 Living Arrangement Status 1995 Age Number (1000s) Currently Never Formerly Currently Cohabitating % Married % Married % Married % Total 60,201 7.0 33.4 10.3 49.3 15-19 8,961 4.1 91.5 0.6 3.8 20-24 9,041 11.2 56.1 5.5 27.2 25-29 9,693 9.8 28.9 8.8 52.5 30-34 11,065 7.5 16.2 11.6 64.7 35-39 11,211 5.3 11.9 15.0 67.9 40-44 10,230 4.4 8.8 18.1 68.6 Source (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002, p.11) By 1995, when these children were turning 25 years of age, cohabitation had become much more an arrangement of choice than those born just 5 years earlier. Some of this difference may be attributable to the shifting social norms, but may also be due to the skyrocketing divorce rate that was experiencing peaking levels in 1975 and had been increasing since 1960. Other sociological factors that may influence a couple's decision to cohabitate and the subsequent higher risk of divorce after marriage may be the convenience of their demographics. The feminist movement has placed women in a position where they may not be as dependent upon a male marriage partner as they were in the past. This could cause a reluctance on the part of some women to enter into a marriage contract. The recent ability of women to be equal earners in the household may make them less likely to be legally bound to share their new found wealth. Women may be open to establishing a live-in arrangement without the official trappings of marriage. It would not be surprising that these relationships, entered into on a casual basis, would be at higher risk for a later divorce after marriage. Many of these women may not ever seek out marriage as a lifelong solution. This would help to explain the leveling off of the divorce rate as cohabitation became more popular. Goldstein (1999) notes that, "Many have suggested that the rising prevalence of nonmarital cohabitation may have masked a continued increase in the instability of "marriage-like" unions, while the divorce rates of official marriages leveled off" (p.412). While we see a better outlook for marriage in the United States, the overall picture of the health of our relationships may be substantially worse. The society and culture has changed dramatically in the last 50 years, which has also impacted the relationship between marriage, cohabitation, and divorce. The shape of the American household has seen significant changes in the last half century. According to Jiang and O'Neill (2006), "In 1960, 85 percent of households were family households; this figure dropped to 69 percent by 2000. Two-parent family households with children declined from 44 percent to 24 percent of all households between 1960 and 2000" (p.1). The significant number here is the dramatic decline in two parent households. The US has fundamentally changed the way in which they perceive the basic family unit and has opened the door for less formal living arrangements. While this has produced a greater freedom to choose one's own lifestyle, it has been, at least in part, responsible for the instability of cohabitation and the mistrust in marriage. Without a model for a relationship that is based on long-term commitments, both emotional and material, many children grow up without the tools to enter into a healthy marriage. It has been previously reported that other social factors such as race, economics, and ethnicity have had little effect on cohabitation and instability in relationships (Axinn & Thornton, 1992, p.368). It would be easy to surmise that the greater economic pressures, and rates of poverty, have contributed to the escalating instability, but the data does not bear that out. In fact, cohabitating people who are considered to be poor has remained relatively constant, and even slightly declined, in the period of 1984-1997 (See Table 2). Table 2 Cohabitants that are considered poor 1984-1987 Year Percentage Classified as Poor 1984 13.8 1985 13.4 1986 12.9 1987 12.8 1988 12.4 1989 12.1 1990 12.7 1991 13.3 1992 13.5 1993 14.2 1994 13.6 1995 12.8 1996 12.6 1997 12.2 Source (Bauman, 1999, p.320) It is more likely that people are entering into the risky arrangement of cohabitation because they have greater economic freedom to do so. In conclusion, the recent decades have seen a rising rate of cohabitation accompanied by a leveling off of the divorce rate. In fact, it may be true that the cohabitation rate is masking union instability in the United States. It has been confirmed that couples who cohabitate before marriage run a greater risk of divorce later. However, it may not be the act of cohabitation that is responsible, but rather those individuals who are most at risk for divorce are more likely to cohabitate. Still, cohabitation is not a permanent solution and people are driven towards dissolution of the arrangement or marriage after a short period of two years. These couples are pressured into marriage due to social stigmas and are ill-equipped to handle a long-term commitment. Outside social factors such as race and poverty have not been shown to be a significant factor in marriage instability after cohabitation. Greater independence for females have resulted in less reliance on marriage and pursue cohabitation as an acceptable alternative. The face of the American family has changed dramatically in the last 50 years, and cohabitation is a result of that. There is an ongoing perpetuation of union instability as the children of divorce lose trust in the institution of marriage and continue the family tradition of the risk of cohabitation. References Axinn, W. G., & Thornton, A. (1992). The relationship between cohabitation and divorce: Selectivity or causal influence [Electronic version] Demography, 29(3), 357-374. from JSTOR. Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States [Electronic version]. Vital and Health Statistics, 23(22). from EBSCO. Bumpass, L. L., & Sweet, J. A. (1989). National Estimates of Cohabitation [Electronic version]. Demography, 26(4), 615-625. from JSTOR. Bumpass, L. L., Sweet, J. A., & Cherlin, A. (1991). The role of cohabitation in declining rates of marriage [Electronic version]. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(4), 913-927. from JSTOR. Cunningham, M., & Thornton, A. (2007). Direct and indirect influences of parents' marital instability on children's attitudes toward cohabitation in young adulthood [Electronic version]. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 46(3/4), 125-143. from Haworth. DeMaris, A., & Rao, V. (1992). Premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital stability in the United States: A reassessment [Electronic version]. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(1), 178-190. from JSTOR. Fitch, C., Goeken, R., & Ruggles, S. (2005). The rise of cohabitation in the United States: New historical estimates [Electronic version]. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Philadelphia, March 31-April 2 2005, 1-25. from Academic Search Premier. Goldstein, J. R. (1999). The leveling of divorce in the United States [Electronic version]. Demography, 36(3), 409-414. from JSTOR. Jacques, J. M., & Chason, K. J. (1979). Cohabitation: Its impact on marital success [Electronic version]. The Family Coordinator, 28(1), 35-39. from JSTOR. Jiang, L., & O'Neill, B. C. (2006). Impacts of demographic events on US household change [Electronic version]. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Interim Report, 1-34. from EBSCO. Schoen, R., & Canudus-Romo, V. (2006). Timing effects on divorce: 20th century experience in the United States [Electronic version]. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 749-758. from EBSCO. Read More