Rapid and widespread changes in relationship formation and dissolution over the past 50 years have revealed new patterns in romantic and sexual relationships, particularly among emerging adults. In this study, grounded theory methods were used to investigate the role of one such pattern, stayovers, in the development of romantic relationships among 22 college students and college graduates. The results indicated that some young couples stay overnight between three and seven nights per week while living in separate homes. This arrangement functioned as a comfortable and convenient alternative to forming more lasting, and therefore riskier, commitments such as full-time cohabitation and marriage. Stayovers served as a stopgap measure between casual dating and making more formal commitments.
Anderson, E.R., Greene, S.M., Walker, L., Malerba, C.A., Forgatch, M.S., & DeGarmo, D.S. ( 2004). Ready to take a chance again: Transitions into dating among divorced parents. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage , 40, 61-75.
2.
Arnett, J.J. ( 2004). Emerging adulthood. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. ( 2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
Finer, L.B. ( 2007). Trends in premarital sex in the United States, 1954-2003 . Public Health Reports, 122, 73-78.
5.
Ganong, L., & Coleman, M. ( 2004). Stepfamily relationships: Development, dynamics, and interventions. New York: Kluwer /Plenum.
6.
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 Family, 61, 160-177.
7.
Knab, J.T. ( 2005). Cohabitation: Sharpening a fuzzy concept (Working Paper No. 04-05-FF). Princeton, NJ : Princeton University, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing.
8.
Knab, J.T., & McLanahan, S. ( 2007). Measuring cohabitation: Does how, when, and who you ask matter? In S. L. Hofferth, & L. M. Casper (Eds.), Handbook of measurement issues in family research (pp. 19-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
Manning, W.D., Longmore, M.A., & Giordano, P.C. (2007). The changing institution of marriage: Adolescents’ expectations to cohabit and to marry. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 559-575.
10.
Manning, W.D., & Smock, P.J. ( 2005). Measuring and modeling cohabitation: New perspectives from qualitative data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 989-1002.
11.
McGinty, K., Knox, D., & Zusman, M.E. ( 2007). Friends with benefits: Women want ‘‘friends,’’ men want ‘‘benefits.’’ College Student Journal, 41, 1128-1137.
12.
Paul, E.L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. ( 2000). ‘‘Hookups’’: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. The Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76-88.
13.
Pollard, M.S., & Mullan Harris, K. (2007). Measuring cohabitation in Add Health. In S. L. Hofferth, & L. M. Casper (Eds.), Handbook of measurement issues in family research (pp. 35-52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
Puentes, J., Knox, D., & Zusman, M.E. ( 2008). Participants in ‘‘friends with benefits’’ relationships. College Student Journal, 42, 176-180.
15.
Sassler, S. ( 2004). The process of entering into cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 491-505.
16.
Smock, P.J. ( 2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology , 26, 1-20.
17.
Smock, P.J., & Manning, W.D. ( 2004). Living together unmarried in the United States: Demographic perspectives and implications for family policy. Law and Policy , 26, 87-117.
18.
Stanley, S.M., Rhoades, G.K., & Markman, H.J. ( 2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499-509.
19.
Strohm, C.Q., Seltzer, J.A., Cochran, S.D., & Mays, V.M. ( 2009). ‘‘Living apart together’’ relationships in the United States. Demographic Research, online publication. doi: 10.4054/ DemRes.2009.21.7.
20.
Surra, C.A., Boettcher-Burke, T.M., Cottle, N.R., West, A.R., & Gray, C.R. ( 2007). The treatment of relationship status in research on dating and mate selection. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 207-221.
21.
Thompson, M.M., & Holmes, J.G. ( 1986) Ambivalence in close relationships: Conflicted cognitions as a catalyst for change. In R. M. Sorrentino , & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition, volume 3: Interpersonal Context (pp. 497-530). New York: Guilford Press.
22.
Waller, W. ( 1937). The rating and dating complex. American Sociological Review, 2, 727-734.
