Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This longitudinal study followed 120 cohabiting, opposite-sex couples over 8 months to test hypotheses derived from commitment theory about how two types of commitment (dedication and constraint) operate during cohabitation. In nearly half the couples, there were large differences between partners in terms of dedication. These differences were associated with lower relationship adjustment, even controlling for overall level of dedication. Furthermore, among couples who believed in the institution of marriage, cohabiting women were, on average, more dedicated than their partners. Additionally, there was evidence that constraints (e.g., signing a lease, having a joint bank account) make it less likely that couples think they will break up, regardless of relationship dedication. This finding was strongest for women and for those with higher income levels.

Keywords

cohabitation commitment constraints unmarried

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

J. M.

Jones

W. H.

(1997). The conceptualization of marital commitment: An integrative analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1177-1196.

Atkins

D. C.

(2005). Using multilevel models to analyze couple and family treatment data: Basic and advanced issues. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 98-110.

Avellar

Smock

P. J.

(2005). The economic consequences of the dissolution of cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 315-327.

Brown

S. L.

(2000a). The effect of union type on psychological well-being: Depression among cohabitors versus marrieds. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 241-255.

Brown

S. L.

(2000b). Union transitions among cohabitors: The significance of relationship assessments and expectations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 833-846.

Brown

S. L.

Booth

(1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 668-678.

Bumpass

L. L.

H.-H.

(2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54(1), 29-41.

Ciabattari

(2004). Cohabitation and housework: The effects of marital intentions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 118-125.

Cohan

C. L.

Kleinbaum

(2002). Toward a greater understanding of the cohabitation effect: Premarital cohabitation and marital communication. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 180-192.

10.

Drigotas

S. M.

Rusbult

C. E.

Verette

(1999). Level of commitment, mutuality of commitment, and couple well-being. Personal Relationships, 6, 389-409.

11.

Glenn

N. D.

(2005). With this ring: A national survey on marriage in America. Gaithersburg, MD: National Fatherhood Organization.

12.

Goodwin

P. Y.

Mosher

W. D.

Chandra

(2010). Marriage and cohabitation in the United States: A statistical portrait based on Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth (National Center for Health Statistics). Vital Health Statistics, 23, 1-55.

13.

Hunsley

Best

Lefebvre

Vito

(2001). The seven-item short form of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Further evidence for construct validity. American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 325-335.

14.

Johnson

M. P.

(1999). Personal, moral, and structural commitment to relationships: Experiences of choice and constraint. In Adams

J. M.

Jones

W. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp. 73-87). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

15.

Johnson

M. P.

Caughlin

J. P.

Huston

T. L.

(1999). The tripartite nature of marital commitment: Personal, moral, and structural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 160-177.

16.

Jose

O’Leary

D. K.

Moyer

(2010). Does premarital cohabitation predict subsequent marital stability and marital quality? A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 105-116.

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, 539-549.

18.

Kline

G. H.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

Olmos-Gallo

P. A.

St. Peters

Whitton

S. W.

Prado

L. M.

(2004). Timing is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased risk for poor marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 311-318.

19.

Levinger

(1965). Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: An integrative review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 27, 19-28.

20.

Owen

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2011). The Revised Commitment Inventory: Psychometrics and use with unmarried couples. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 820-841.

21.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

22.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

Congdon

(2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

23.

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2006). Pre-engagement cohabitation and gender asymmetry in marital commitment. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 553-560.

24.

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2009a). Couples’ reasons for cohabitation: Associations with individual well-being and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 233-258.

25.

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2009b). The pre-engagement cohabitation effect: A replication and extension of previous findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 107-111.

26.

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2010). Should I stay or should I go? Predicting dating relationship stability from four aspects of commitment. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 543-550.

27.

Rusbult

C. E.

Buunk

B. P.

(1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175-204.

28.

Rusbult

C. E.

Coolsen

M. K.

Kirchner

J. L.

Clarke

J. A.

(2006). Commitment. In Vangelisti

Perlman

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 615-636). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Skinner

K. B.

Bahr

S. J.

Crane

D. R.

Call

V. R. A.

(2002). Cohabitation, marriage, and remarriage: A comparison of relationship quality over time. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 74-90.

30.

Smock

P. J.

(2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1-20.

31.

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, 15-28.

32.

Sprecher

Schmeeckle

Felmlee

(2006). The principle of least interest: Inequality in emotional involvement in romantic relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1255-1280.

33.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(1992). Assessing commitment in personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 595-608.

34.

Stanley

S. M.

Rhoades

G. K.

Amato

P. R.

Markman

H. J.

Johnson

C. A.

(2010). The timing of cohabitation and engagement: Impact on first and second marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 906-916.

35.

Stanley

S. M.

Rhoades

G. K.

Markman

H. J.

(2006). Sliding vs. deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499-509.

36.

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, 496-519.

37.

Waller

(1938). The family: A dynamic interpretation. New York, NY: Gordon.

38.

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.

A Longitudinal Investigation of Commitment Dynamics in Cohabiting Relationships

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References