Shacking up: University of Michigan sociologist looks at whether it's a divorce proofer or marriage buster
It's been said living together before marriage can lead to higher divorce rates and decreased marital satisfaction.
But subjects of a recent survey of 350 young people balked at this school of thought.
Two sociologists from the University of Michigan and Bowling Green State University concluded those interviewed generally don't buy that wisdom - and that young people will shack up anyway.
"One of the strongest lessons we drew is that while academics and other researchers may say cohabiting first is bad for marriage, young people don't believe that, and they certainly don't believe that in their case," said Pamela Smock, a U-M sociology professor who has studied cohabiting since the early '90s with Wendy Manning of Bowling Green.
Smock and Manning interviewed 350 working and lower middle-class adults in the Midwest ranging in age from their teens to early 30s. They published their findings this month in the issue of the newsletter of the National Council of Family Relations.
Though they typically use quantitative or data-based research, Smock and Manning went the qualitative way, meaning description-based research to better understand what living together means to people and will be like in the future. It's hard to get that sort of information from available surveys, Smock said.
Those queried viewed living together before tying the knot as a divorce-proofer rather than a marriage buster. Themes that emerged in interview subjects' explanations included: Living together is a good way to test long-term compatibility; it's a good way to gather information to decide whether or not a marriage would be advantageous; and that not getting married is the only way to avoid a divorce.
At least one study conflicts with those ideas. University of Denver researchers published findings in July in the Journal of Family Issues that suggests couples tend to slide into marriage because they're already cohabiting.
Couples who marry after living together before they're engaged are more likely get divorced, and couples who lived together before engagement reported lower satisfaction in their marriages, according to researchers.
Smock said the "sliding into marriage theory" is valid, but plenty of couples break up after living together.
"Young adults are telling us that they will not risk marriage without cohabiting. There's a Catch 22 here," she said. "The numbers do tell us that plenty of cohabiting couples do break up."
Within five years of living together, she said, about 37 percent of unmarried couples break up, 49 percent get married, and the rest are remaining cohabiting longer.
Smock and Manning say cohabiting weeds out marriages that aren't likely to succeed, noting the "premarital divorces" concept was first identified by social scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
The sociologists weren't able to study their subjects long-term to see whether their theories held true over time due to limited funding, Smock said.
"People are continuing to study that with survey data, the effect of living together," Smock said. "As far as I know there's no qualitative data. But I think it's a very good idea."
The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Comments
Dell Deaton
Fri, Sep 25, 2009 : 1:39 p.m.
Rather a useful study in that it validates some of the challenges I face every day in my practice. It shows how folks continue to wrongly believe that scientific findings don't apply to them; ie, they're willing to roll the dice in hopes of beating demonstrated odds. The confuse anecdotal evidence with reliability; ie, it didn't happen in their case, so that proves it won't happen at all. Thus, sadly, divorce court dockets continue to backlog, warnings notwithstanding.
Lady Turbo
Fri, Aug 21, 2009 : 12:38 p.m.
Hmm, I guess I fit in the "continuing to shack up" category by society's rules. We've lived together going on 11 years and our love for each other and our relationship just keep getting stronger & deeper with each year that passes. We bought wedding bands, which are still in their boxes, but we don't feel the need for a piece of paper to declare us married as long as we're deeply committed to each other. Yes, we're aware we're not legally married, and that it does have its advantages, but that doesn't change our relationship or commitment. We've made our own vows to each other and that's good enough until we both reach personal goals we want to reach before walking down the aisle. Oh, yeah...we weren't teenagers when we met or moved in together, nor are we children of the 60s (sorry to any 60s kids out there, but you know what I'm referring to)!
Ashley Baum
Fri, Aug 21, 2009 : 9:02 a.m.
Each couple's unique situation really makes a difference on the success or failure of their marriage. The key to success in marriage is communication. If you talk about (and agree to reach a common ground on) all the big, important topics: kids, religion, place to live, family, money, education, etc. then there is a high likelihood the marriage will succeed, regardless of whether or not you live together first. First and foremost you must be able to communicate openly with your partner about major life topics. After all, you are choosing to share your life with this person. I do think that living together before marriage is a good test of compatibility. I know one couple who got married without living together first and they fight about everything - even about the way the other one squeezes the toothpaste! Obviously, there are some deeper control issues than just toothpaste squeezing. It's nice to know each other's living habits, but it's much more valuable to learn more about their behavior and tolerance on a daily basis. On the other hand, I know a couple who has been together for 10 years, living together for 2, and getting married because they feel like they should. They are getting married for the wrong reasons: they feel like they should, they can't imagine starting over, and they don't want to feel like the last 10 years were a waste. You can't make your decision based on what other people have said, or what you see other couples doing. You have to look at your own relationship and see if it makes sense for you.
Ann Arbor Resident
Fri, Aug 21, 2009 : 8:50 a.m.
I think it can be a good thing to do prior to making the legal committment. Young people need someone but they are often not ready or are too young to understand the implications of making a long term committment to someone else. On the antecode side of the story, my wife and I "shacked up" for a couple of years before we were married. 24 years and 2 sons later we are still going strong.
Brigid
Fri, Aug 21, 2009 : 5:54 a.m.
Posted on Aug 21, 2009 at 5:46 AM by brigid: The distinction is that those who shack up before they are engaged (have already decided they are compatible and are pursuing a life together) are more likely to succeed in marriage. Those who shack up because it's convenient, economical, or as some kind of "pre-marriage" test are not likely to be able to discover their "compatibility" because the basic foundation of their relationship is not love and self-sacrifice but selfishness. True love puts the best interests of the other person in front of convenience, finances or sexual needs. Marriage is about family and children really - not just the couple. If self-sacrifice isn't a part of the picture the children will suffer. Statistically, cohabiting couples have a higher rate of partner abuse and child abuse than married couples.
UPSman
Fri, Aug 21, 2009 : 5:28 a.m.
Wow and I thought the topic of this article was about "shacking up" with someone you love and if led to a healthy marriage. How in the world I found myself in a "town hall" discussion on health care (and of course the constitution) I haven't a clue!
Scott Beal
Fri, Aug 21, 2009 : 12:14 a.m.
An alternative hypothesis to explain the research findings from the Denver study: couples who are more open to the idea of co-habiting before marriage (rather than "waiting for marriage" on grounds of morality or religion) may then also be more open to the idea of dissolving an unhappy marriage. Are there any controls in the study to rule this out? I'd be interested to learn about the long term happiness of couples who co-habit vs. those who don't, rather than (or in addition to) their rates of divorce.
David Briegel
Thu, Aug 20, 2009 : 8:26 p.m.
Eagleman, use your name. The constitution used to say women and Blacks weren't equal. It doesn't say marriage is one man, one woman and it doesn't say gays can't marry. How far do you want to go while missing the point that it is one thing to be sanctimonous about "family", right to life and child welfare and it is quite different to actually do something that would make life better for children and families. Half the foreclosures and bankruptcies are due to the high rate of indebtedness due to the high cost of health care. Affordable health care for all is good for business in that they will no longer have to expend funds to stay competitive. It is amazing that business isn't behind affordable health care for all! There are so many examples of how what is good for children and families is good for the economy and business!
Messa
Thu, Aug 20, 2009 : 7:38 p.m.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that education is a right either, but I'm paying to put your kids through 12 years of school with my tax dollars. So, if you believe that everyone should pay for their own health care, everyone should pay for their own...kids...to go to school too. As for living together, I lived with my husband for 5 years before we were married for 10. The only reason we're not married now is because I'm widowed. I think they are seeing people breaking up more just because women are more able to work and support themselves now. In the old days, they just stayed married and miserable. They have the freedom to leave now.
eagleman
Thu, Aug 20, 2009 : 6:25 p.m.
Who is against health care,David? People can and should have health care. But it is NOT a right. NO where in the Constitution does it say that health care is a RIGHT. Furthermore, what does health care have to do with stability of families? People frequently have access to great health care and still come out screwed up. We see high divorce rates among ALL classes--including those that have access tyo great health care--so fail to see how acccess to health care improves familial stability. What it comes down too is that liberals like David believe that the government can eradiate aberrant behavior by throwing money at it through an unending string of social programs. What David fails to grasp is that individual change can only come as the result of the individual working for it. NO one can force anyone to change their behavior. T
David Briegel
Thu, Aug 20, 2009 : 3:29 p.m.
Instead of just focusing on the "right to life", where the parents are, what a family "should be", we need to focus on doing our best to value each and every child. I am tired of the sanctimony from people who are against health care, including mental health care, and a quality educational experience for the less affluent among us. These are the things that will make each child and our society as a whole a much better place for all! These "rights" are almost as important as "family". We should ALL be "family"!
RuralMom
Thu, Aug 20, 2009 : 12:43 p.m.
I just have to say that I was shacking up with my Husband for 10 yrs. prior to marrying him, now 6 yrs. later we are still going strong! Oh and our children know who we are!
Top Cat
Thu, Aug 20, 2009 : 12:28 p.m.
How pitiful that some children have no idea who one of their parents is. Still, the issue is not just what a family is but what it should be. Any child's interest and well being is best served with an active mother and an active father in their lives. Our society needs to put the best interests of its children above all else.
a2grateful
Thu, Aug 20, 2009 : 11:30 a.m.
The survey question is a 1970s one that entirely misses a more important concept: that of family. What is a family?... Volunteer at a public elementary school, and ask a roundtable panel of fourth graders about their family of origin. Be prepared for a shock. Very few children have "traditional" families of origin. Some have no idea who one of their parents is.... "Families" in the US circa y2k are radically different than two-parent families of the 1970s, shackup or not.... I am far more interested to know: 1) Of the people that cohabitate before marriage, how many partners do they cohabitate with before ever being married; 2) Of the people that cohabitate before marriage, are married, and are divorced, how many would cohabitate again?