Secular-individualist views and poor communication skills are commonly used to explain cohabitation instability. The present study sheds light on the process through which similarity of such views becomes salient to long-term (‘‘committed’’) cohabiters’ relationships. Based on a couple-level analysis of interview data collected from 20 Israeli committed cohabiters, we argue that value-based similarity (in the present case, a secular-individualist commonality), together with constant work on communication based on a sense of partner exceptionality, are central to couples’ ability to experience their disagreements as marginal and to take pride in their intimate communication. We found a cohabiting identity to consolidate in the course of this process, contributing to the couples’ conception of their cohabitation as better than marriage.
Axinn, W.G., & Thornton, A. ( 1992). The relationship between cohabitation and divorce: Selectivity or causal influence. Demography, 29, 357-374.
2.
Barlow, A., Burgoyne, C., Clery, E., & Smithson, J. ( 2008). Cohabitation and the law: Myths, money and the media . British Social Attitudes: 24th Report, 29-52.
3.
Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995). The normal chaos of love . Cambridge: Polity Press.
4.
Benjamin, O. ( 2001). Changing intimate relationships: An Israel-UK comparison . Community, Work & Family, 4, 173-193.
5.
Berscheid, E., & Lopes, J. ( 1997). A temporal model of relationship satisfaction and stability . In R. J. Sternberg, & M. Hojjat (Eds.), Satisfaction in close relationships , (pp. 129-159). New York: Guilford Press.
6.
Brown, S.L. ( 2003). Relationship Quality Dynamics of Cohabiting Unions, Journal of Family Issues, 24(5), 583-601.
7.
Brown, S.L. ( 2004). Moving from cohabitation to marriage: Effects on relationship quality. Social Science Research, 33, 1-19.
8.
Brown, S.L., Sanchez, L.A., Nock, S.L., & Wright, J.D. ( 2006). Links between premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital quality, stability and divorce: A comparison of covenant versus standard marriages. Social Science Research, 35, 454-470.
9.
Bumpass, L.L., & Lu, H.H. ( 2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29-41.
10.
Bumpass, L.L., Sweet, J.A., & Cherlin, A. ( 1991). The role of cohabitation in declining rates of marriage . Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 913-927.
11.
Cancian, M.F. ( 1987). Love in America: Gender and self-development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Cohan, C.L., & Kleinbaum, S. ( 2004). Toward a greater understanding of the cohabitation effect: Premarital cohabitation and marital communication. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 180-192.
13.
DeJong-Gierveld, J. ( 2004). Remarriage, unmarried cohabitation, living apart together: Partner relationships following bereavement or divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 236-243.
14.
Fenstermaker, S., & West, C. (Eds.) (2002). Doing gender, doing difference: Inequality, power and institutional change. London: Routledge.
15.
Fogiel-Bijaoui, S. ( 1999). Families in Israel: Postfeminism, feminism and the state . In D. Izraeli, A. Friedman, et al. (Eds.), Sex, gender, politics: Women in Israel (pp. 107-167). Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuhad (Hebrew).
16.
Giddens, A. ( 1991). Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge : Polity Press.
17.
Giddens, A. ( 1992). The transformation of intimacy. Cambridge : Polity Press.
18.
Giorgi, A. ( 1985). Phenomenology and psychological research. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
19.
Hackstaff, K.B. ( 1999). Marriage in a culture of divorce. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
20.
Haskey, J. ( 2001). Cohabitation in Great Britain: Past, present and future trends - and attitudes. Population Trends, 103, 3-25.
21.
Heritage, J. ( 1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge : Polity Press.
22.
Hochschild, A. ( 1983). The managed heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.
23.
Hochschild, A. ( 1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York: Penguin.
24.
Hohmann-Marriot, B.E. ( 2006). Shared beliefs and the union stability of married and cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1015-1028.
25.
Jamieson, L. ( 1999). Intimacy transformed? A critical look at the ‘‘Pure Relationship’’. Sociology, 33, 477-494.
26.
Jamieson, L., Anderson, M., McCorne, D., Bechhofer, F., Stewart, R., & Lu, Y. ( 2002). Cohabitation and commitment: Partnership plans of young men and women. Sociological Review, 50, 356-377.
27.
Kalmijn, M. ( 2005). Attitude alignment in marriage and cohabitation: The case of sex role attitudes. Personal Relationships, 12, 521-535.
28.
Katz, R. ( 2001). Effects of migration, ethnicity, and religiosity on cohabitation . Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32(4), 587-599.
29.
Lavee, Y., & Katz, R. ( 2002). Division of labor, perceived fairness, and marital quality: The effect of gender ideology. Journal of Marriage and Family , 64, 27-39.
30.
Moloney, M., & Fenstermaker, S. (2002). Performing and accomplishment: Reconciling feminist conceptions of gender. In S. Fenstermaker, & C. West (Eds.), Doing gender, doing difference: Inequality, power and institutional change (pp. 189-204). London: Routledge.
31.
Nock, S.L. ( 1995). A comparison of marriages and cohabiting relationships . Journal of Family Issues, 16, 53-76.
32.
Remennick, L. ( 2000). Childless in the land of imperative motherhood: Stigma and coping among infertile Israeli women. Sex Roles, 43, 821-841.
33.
Reynolds, J., & Mansfield, P. ( 1999). The effect of changing attitudes to marriage on its stability . High divorce rates: The state of the evidence on reasons and remedies, vol 1. London : The Lord Chancellor’s Department Research Secretariat .
34.
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.
35.
Smock, P.J. ( 2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology , 26, 1-20.
36.
Smock, P.J., Huang, P., Manning, W.D., & Bergstrom, C.A. (2006). Heterosexual cohabitation in the United States: Motives for living together among young men and women . Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Population Studies Center (Report 06-606).
37.
Stafford, L., Kline, S.L., & Rankin, C.T. ( 2004). Married individuals, cohabiters, and cohabiters who marry: A longitudinal study of relational and individual well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(2), 231-248.
38.
Thornton, A., Axinn, W.G., & Hill, D.H. ( 1992). Reciprocal effects of religiosity, cohabitation and marriage . American Journal of Sociology, 98, 628-651.
39.
Waller, M. ( 2008). How do disadvantaged parents view tensions in their relationships? Insights for relationship longevity among at-risk couples. Family Relations, 57, 128-143.
40.
West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (2002). Power, Inequality and the accomplishment of gender: An ethnomethodological view. In C. West & S. Fenstermaker (Eds.), Doing gender, doing difference: Inequality, power and institutional change (pp. 41-54). New York: Routledge.
