This study uses a new measure to examine how different types of reasons for cohabitation are associated with individual well-being and relationship quality in a sample of 120 cohabiting heterosexual couples (N = 240). Spending more time together and convenience are the most strongly endorsed reasons. The degree to which individuals report cohabiting to test their relationships is associated with more negative couple communication and more physical aggression as well as lower relationship adjustment, confidence, and dedication. Testing the relationship is also associated with higher levels of attachment insecurity and more symptoms of depression and anxiety. Men are more likely than women to endorse testing their relationships and less likely to endorse convenience as a reason for cohabiting.
Adams, J.M., & Jones, W.H. (1997). The conceptualization of marital commitment: An integrative analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72(5), 1177-1196.
2.
Avellar, S., & Smock, P.J. (2005). The economic consequences of the dissolution of cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 315-327.
3.
Axinn, W.G., & Thornton, A. (1992). The relationship between cohabitation and divorce: Selectivity or causality? Demography, 29(3), 357-374.
4.
Brown, S.L. (2000). The effect of union type on psychological well-being: Depression among cohabitors versus marrieds. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41(3), 241-255.
5.
Brown, S.L., & Booth, A. (1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(3), 668-678.
6.
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation model (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
Bumpass, L.L., & Lu, H.-H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children's family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54(1), 29-41.
8.
Bumpass, L.L., Sweet, J.A., & Cherlin, A. (1991). The role of cohabitation in declining rates of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(4), 913-927.
9.
Clements, M.L., Stanley, S.M., & Markman, H.J. (2004). Before they said "I do": Discriminating among marital outcomes over 13 years based on premarital data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 613-626.
10.
Cohan, C.L., & Kleinbaum, S. (2002). Toward a greater understanding of the cohabitation effect: Premarital cohabitation and marital communication. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(1), 180-192.
11.
Collins, N.L., & Read, S.J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 644-663.
12.
Davila, J., & Bradbury, T.N. (2001). Attachment insecurity and the distinction between unhappy spouses who do and do not divorce. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(3), 371-393.
13.
Davila, J., Bradbury, T.N., Cohan, C.L., & Tochluk, S. (1997). Marital functioning and depressive symptoms: Evidence for a stress generation model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 849-861.
Hunsley, J., Best, M., Lefebvre, M., & Vito, D. (2001). The seven-item short form of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Further evidence for construct validity. American Journal of Family Therapy, 29(4), 325-335.
16.
Johnson, C.A., Stanley, S.M., Glenn, N.D., Amato, P.R., Nock, S.L., Markman, H.J., et al. (2002). Marriage in Oklahoma: 2001 baseline statewide survey on marriage and divorce (S02096 OKDHS). Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
17.
Kamp Dush, C.M., Cohan, C.L., & Amato, P.R. (2003). The relationship between cohabitation and marital quality and stability: Change across cohorts?Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(3), 539-549.
18.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D., & Cook, W. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York : Guilford.
19.
Kenny, D.A., & McCoach, D.B. (2003). Effects of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(3), 333-351.
20.
Kline, G.H., Stanley, S.M., Markman, H.J., Olmos-Gallo, P.A., St. Peters, M., Whitton, S.W., et al. (2004). Timing is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased risk for poor marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(2), 311-318.
21.
Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.
22.
Kurdek, L.A. (2002). On being insecure about the assessment of attachment styles. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 19(6), 811-834.
23.
Lindsay, J.M. (2000). An ambiguous commitment: Moving into a cohabiting relationship. Journal of Family Studies, 6(1), 120-134.
24.
Manning, W.D., & Smock, P.J. (2005). Measuring and modeling cohabitation: New perspectives from qualitative data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 989-1002.
25.
Phillips, J.A., & Sweeney, M.M. (2005). Premarital cohabitation and marital disruption among White, Black, and MexicanAmerican women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 271-285.
26.
Rotter, J.B., & Mulry, R.C. (1965). Internal versus external control of reinforcement and decision time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 2(4), 598-604.
27.
Sassler, S. (2004). The process of entering into cohabiting unions . Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 491-505.
28.
Smock, P.J. (2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1-20.
29.
Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(1), 15-28.
30.
Stanley, S.M., Hoyer, L., & Trathen, D.W. (1994). The Confidence Scale. Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver, Denver, CO.
31.
Stanley, S.M., & Markman, H.J. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal relationships . Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 595-608.
32.
Stanley, S.M., & Markman, H.J. (1997). Marriage in the 90s: A nationwide random phone survey. Denver, CO: PREP.
33.
Stanley, S.M., Markman, H.J., Prado, L.M., Olmos-Gallo, P.A., Tonelli, L., St. Peters, M., et al. (2001). Community-based premarital prevention: Clergy and lay leaders on the front lines. Family Relations , 50(1), 67-76.
34.
Stanley, S.M., Rhoades, G.K., & Markman, H.J. (2006). Sliding vs. deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499-509.
35.
Stanley, S.M., Whitton, S.W., & Markman, H.J. (2004). Maybe I do: Interpersonal commitment and premarital or nonmarital cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 25(4), 496-519.
36.
Straus, M.A., Hamby, S.L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D.B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283-316.
37.
Surra, C.A., & Hughes, D.K. (1997). Commitment processes in accounts of the development of premarital relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 59(1), 5-21.
38.
Teachman, J. (2003). Premarital sex, premarital cohabitation and the risk of subsequent marital dissolution among women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(2), 444-455.
39.
Woods, L.N., & Emery, R.E. (2002). The cohabitation effects on divorce: Causation or selection? Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 37(3/4), 101-119.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
