Sense and sensibility: cohabitation in ‘cohabitation land’

In many European countries, cohabitation has become a prevailing practice. Norway is one of the countries leading this trend; cohabitation before marriage is the norm and a majority of couples become parents before they (eventually) marry. This article explores the meaning of cohabitation for Norwegian couples today through a qualitative analysis of interviews with 17 urban, heterosexual couples. As the trend towards increased cohabitation has emerged so strongly in Norway, such analysis may provide important insights into the possible implications of more widespread cohabitation in Europe. Why is cohabitation so attractive to young Norwegians today? Why do most couples postpone marriage until after they have children? The main finding is that cohabitation in this context is understood as acting according to important norms about intimate relationships. Cohabitation is a way of dealing with the complexity of attitudes towards love and relationships in late modernity. The option of living together outside marriage makes it possible for couples to be sensible (not committing themselves ‘too much’) as well as living together when they want to develop a relationship and are ‘in love’.     

Investments in Marriage and Cohabitation: The Role of Legal and Interpersonal Commitment

Cohabiters have been shown to invest less in their relationship than married couples. This study investigated the role of legal and interpersonal commitment by examining heterogeneity within marital and cohabiting unions. Going beyond the dichotomy of cohabitation versus marriage, different union types were distinguished by their level of legal and interpersonal commitment, followed by an assessment of their association with joint investments (specialization, having children together, purchasing a home). Using panel data from The Netherlands (N =2,362), the authors found considerable heterogeneity within marital and cohabiting unions. Joint investments increased as interpersonal commitment increased, with cohabiters without marriage plans investing the least and couples who directly married without prior cohabitation investing the most. The relationship between investments and legal union types was less straightforward and often challenged expectations, prompting the authors to elaborate on alternative explanations for their findings.     

‘All together now!’ Couples and the ontological problem of cohabitation as a form of life

The aim of this essay is that of analysing cohabitation as a form of life, according to its ontological status. This way of investigating leads to a comparison with marriage as a specific institution and with the conversation rules between partners. From the empirical analysis of more than 50 interviews with cohabitating couples comes the idea of a relationship whose intent is reciprocal care and assistance in everyday life. In other words, cohabitation is not a mere refusal of marriage as an institution, in the perspective of the interviewed, but seems to represent the lifestyle that best expresses the political ideal of a liberal-democratic society based on conversation between free and consenting individuals. At first glance cohabitation shows an ontological status of its own, a sort of ‘marriage conversation’. Yet, deploying a deeper way of analysis and following a critical realist and relational epistemology, one can notice that such status is influenced by an abstract expansion of the present as the only possible dimension for the couple. As soon as one thinks about shared future plans, the implied call of a married perfection of one's life experience strikes back, revealing the existence of a hidden rule towards marriage as a form of life. The importance of cohabitation is now conceived as the relevance of contingency and unselected opportunities. This fact reveals the limits of the individualized perspective influencing the everyday life of cohabiting couples. Doubts on ontological independence of cohabitation are still many, with its constant and ambivalent reference to the marriage dimension.     

Premarital Cohabitation,Husbands' Commitment,and Wives' Satisfaction with the Division of Household Contributions

Abstract

Recent research suggests that cohabiting men with plans to marry do more housework than those without plans to marry. Building on mis finding and drawing from commitment theory, we asked whether premarital cohabitation history and husbands' commitment were associated with satisfaction with the division of household contributions in marriage (N = 171 couples). There were no significant effects of cohabitation history (i.e., whether the couple started cohabiting before planning marriage versus after planning or not until marriage) on satisfaction with the division of household contributions during the early years of marriage. However, husbands' dedication was associated with wives' levels of satisfaction with the division of household contributions, even after controlling for marital adjustment and wives' own dedication. The practical implications of these links between men's commitment and women's satisfaction with the division of household contributions are discussed.     

Cohabitation in the United States and Britain: Demography,kinship, and the future

Cohabitation is a rapidly changing aspect of family life in the United States and Britain. This article describes the demography of cohabitation, considers the place of cohabitation in the kinship system, and speculates on the future of cohabitation. I argue that three processes—cohort replacement, socialization that occurs when children live with cohabiting parents, and social diffusion—will foster continued increases in rates of cohabitation. These processes are also likely to increase variation in the types of cohabiting relationships that couples form. Understanding the meaning of cohabitation in the kinship system requires distinguishing between individuals' attitudes about their own relationships and the composition of cohabiting unions at the population level.     

“No Matter What,Good or Bad,Love is Still There”: Motivations for Romantic Commitment Among Black Cohabiting Couples

Given the increasing number of couples that use cohabitation as a pathway or alternative to marriage, few studies to date have examined the factors that facilitate relationship entry and commitment. Recent study findings reveal children born to Black mothers as compared with White mothers have a 72% higher risk of experiencing their parents’ separation by year 3 and Black married parents have 5.33 times the risk of separating within 3 years after their child's birth relative to White married parents. However, few studies to date have examined the factors that increase the likelihood that cohabiting Black couples will enter and remain in a committed relationship. To fill the current void that exists in the literature and through the use of phenomenology as the foundation, I asked 30 low-income cohabiting Black couples the following question: “What do you think motivated your partner to commit to you?” Qualitative analysis of the responses revealed the following six themes: (1) no response/unsure, (2) physical appearance, (3) emotional and tangible support, (4) honesty and friendship, (5) love and commitment, and (6) personality and treatment. Implications for practitioners, policy, and research are also provided.     

Adolescent Well‐Being in Cohabiting,Married, and Single‐Parent Families

Cohabitation is a family form that increasingly includes children. We use the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health to assess the well‐being of adolescents in cohabiting parent stepfamilies (N= 13,231). Teens living with cohabiting stepparents often fare worse than teens living with two biological married parents. Adolescents living in cohabiting stepfamilies experience greater disadvantage than teens living in married stepfamilies. Most of these differences, however, are explained by socioeconomic circumstances. Teenagers living with single unmarried mothers are similar to teens living with cohabiting stepparents; exceptions include greater delinquency and lower grade point averages experienced by teens living with cohabiting stepparents. Yet mother's marital history explains these differences. Our results contribute to our understanding of cohabitation and debates about the importance of marriage for children.     

Perceptions of Emotional Closeness and Commitment Among African American Couples: Implications for Promoting Relationship Stability

This study investigated how married and cohabiting African Americans define and experience emotional closeness and commitment because these processes have been shown to be directly linked to relationship stability. Thirty married and 30 cohabiting African American couples participated. Couples were between the ages of 21 and 45 years and had been in their relationship between 3 and 15 years. Interviews were conducted with the couples in their homes and were aimed at yielding a co-construction of couples’ views of these constructs. Specifically, this co-construction involved an examination of the ways men and women in married and cohabiting relationships define and experience emotional closeness and commitment. Special attention was devoted to examining the themes elicited from these interviews and illuminate the specific ways in which married and cohabiting African American couples consider emotional closeness and commitment. In general, few differences were apparent in their perceptions of emotional closeness. However, married couples were more likely to report that commitment played a large role in their decision to be together. Conversely, cohabiting couples expressed different views of commitment, often stating that commitment played a minimal role in their relationship or that they experienced commitment in ways that were not linked to the legal affirmation of their relationship. Implications for future research and practice include the importance of pinpointing the individual and cultural deterrents that affect the relationship stability of low income African American couples.     

Children and the Stability of Cohabiting Couples

Theory and empirical evidence generally credit children with creating stability in their parents’ marriages, but whether children have a similar effect on cohabiting unions has not been previously investigated in the United States. This article uses the National Survey of Family Growth (N = 2,716) to evaluate the effects of children on the stability of couples who cohabit. The article distinguishes between conceptions and births because the two have different implications for union stability. The results indicate that children conceived during cohabitation are associated with greater stability of their parents’ relationship, particularly for Whites and Latinos, whereas children conceived and born during cohabitation are not. In addition, the effect of children on couple stability depends on whether the couple is cohabiting or has transitioned into marriage.     

Mental Well‐Being Differences in Cohabitation and Marriage: The Role of Childhood Selection

Prior studies have found that marriage benefits well‐being, but cohabitation may provide similar benefits. An analysis of the British Cohort Study 1970, a prospective survey following respondents to age 42, examines whether partnerships in general, and marriage in particular, influence mental well‐being in midlife. Propensity score matching indicates whether childhood characteristics are a sufficient source of selection to eliminate differences in well‐being between those living with and without a partner and those cohabitating and married. The results indicate that matching on childhood characteristics does not eliminate advantages to living with a partner; however, matching eliminates differences between marriage and cohabitation for men and women more likely to marry. On the other hand, marriage may provide benefits to women less likely to marry unless they have shared children and are in long‐lasting partnerships. Hence, childhood selection attenuates differences between cohabitation and marriage, except for women less likely to marry.     

‘Would you like to present me with a piece of your wardrobe?’ The fortuitous reasons for cohabiting

The purpose of the article is to analyse the reasons for cohabiting. Or, in other words, the reasons for which marriage is postponed and not flatly excluded. In fact, from the data (interviews with 50 cohabitating couples) it appears that cohabitation is a fortuitous and occasional event rather than a conscious and reflective choice made by the couples: cohabitation is the best practice and a prompt solution to likewise practical and urgent problems. So, there is a sort of gap between intention and the effective realization of the decision which determines both the choice of cohabiting and the one of marrying. In fact, most of the reasons which could explain marriage (being Catholic, the solemnity of the marriage, a moment of joy) – which could reach or go beyond the moment of acting on the basis of a specific intention – have to face many other choices that continue to be attractive or based on other reasons (cohabitation is as if it was marriage, the wedding is expensive). And the couples act exactly following these reasons, ignoring the original or desired intention. On the contrary, this intention is further strengthened or confirmed by these other reasons. For explaining the behavior of the couples, the author thinks that the category of akrasia is helpful since it shows how the couple mirrors and reformulates those fortuitous reasons which, at the beginning, affected the choice of going to live together in an active way, trying to overcome the casual order.     

“First Train Out”: Marriage and Cohabitation in the Context of Poverty,Deprivation, and Trauma

There has been a steep rise in the proportion of children born to and living with unmarried parents. Unmarried parents are increasingly likely to cohabitate, especially low-income couples, placing their children at elevated psychosocial risk. This life history study of poor, White single mothers suggests that the current focus on differences between married and cohabiting poor women may overstate underlying similarities in factors associated with their partner formation and dissolution and that poor women's decisions about marriage and cohabitation must be understood in a developmental context that reflects the stacking, over time, of multiple forms of vulnerability to unstable partnerships, single motherhood, and continuing poverty into adulthood.     

People who live apart together (LATs): new family form or just a stage?

‘Living apart together’ – that is being in an intimate relationship with a partner who lives somewhere else (LAT) – is increasingly recognised and accepted as a specific way of being in a couple. On the face of it, this is a far cry from the ‘traditional’ version of couple relationships, where co-residence in marriage was placed at the centre and where living apart from one's partner would be regarded as abnormal, and understandable only as a reaction to severe external constraints. Some commentators regard living apart together as a historically new family form where partners can pursue a ‘both/and’ solution to partnership – they can experience both couple intimacy, but at the same time maintain personal autonomy and pre-existing commitments. Alternatively, others see LAT as just a ‘stage’ on the way to cohabitation and marriage, where LATs are not radical pioneers moving beyond the family, but are cautious and conservative, and simply show a lack of commitment. Behind these rival interpretations lies the increasingly tarnished spectre of individualisation theory. Is LAT some sort of index for a developing individualisation in practice? We take this debate further by using information from the 2006 British Social Attitudes Survey and from in-depth interviews with LAT partners. We find that LATs do resemble cohabitating (unmarried) couples in demographic and social terms, but also display quite diverse origins and motivations. One group of LATs do not see themselves as couple partners at all, but more as special boy/girlfriends. Others live apart mainly in response to external circumstances. But some LATs do seem to be developing a new way of living in their relationships, as a means of balancing both couple intimacy and personal autonomy over the longer term.     

Earnings and Expenditures on Household Services in Married and Cohabiting Unions

Despite the rise in women’s paid employment, little is known about how women and their partners allocate money to outsource domestic tasks, especially in unmarried unions. Tobit analyses of 6,170 married and cohabiting couples in the 1998 Consumer Expenditure Survey test hypotheses that recognize gender inequality between partners, gender typing of household tasks, and differences between cohabitation and marriage. Women’s earned income is more important than men’s for spending on female tasks. Men’s earnings are not more important for male tasks, but the earnings of married men are more strongly linked to expenditures on female tasks than are the earnings of cohabiting men. The research indicates that working women leverage their earnings to reduce their domestic burden through outsourcing.     

People who live apart together (LATs) – how different are they?

‘Living apart together’– that is being in an intimate relationship with a partner who lives somewhere else – is increasingly recognised and accepted as a specific way of being in a couple. On the face of it, this is a far cry from the ‘traditional’ version of couple relationships, where co‐residence in marriage was placed at the centre and where living apart from one's partner would be regarded as abnormal, and understandable only as a reaction to severe external constraints. Some commentators regard living apart together as a historically new family form where LATs can pursue a ‘both/and’ solution to partnership – they can experience both the intimacy of being in a couple, and at the same time continue with pre‐existing commitments. LATs may even de‐prioritize couple relationships and place more importance on friendship. Alternatively, others see LAT as just a ‘stage’ on the way to cohabitation and marriage, where LATs are not radical pioneers moving beyond the family, but are cautious and conservative, and simply show a lack of commitment. Behind these rival interpretations lies the increasingly tarnished spectre of individualisation theory. Is LAT some sort of index for a developing individualisation in practice? In this paper we take this debate further by using information from the 2006 British Social Attitudes Survey. We find that LATs have quite diverse origins and motivations, and while as a category LATs are often among the more liberal in family matters, as a whole they do not show any marked ‘pioneer’ attitudinal position in the sense of leading a radical new way, especially if age is taken into account.     

Is the Cohabitation–Marriage Gap in Money Pooling Universal?

Numerous studies have shown that cohabitors are less likely to pool their money than married couples. The authors raise the question of whether the marriage–cohabitation gap in money pooling varies according to the level of institutionalization of cohabitation in the society. They compared 2 Canadian regions with very different demographic regimes. The francophone province Québec has the highest proportion of cohabiting couples in the world, whereas the levels of cohabitation are moderate in other Canadian provinces. Moreover, the 2 regions differ in their legal systems (civil code vs. common law) and legal regulation of cohabitation. Using data from the Canadian 2011 General Social Survey (N = 9,852), the authors found that cohabitors in both regions are less likely to pool their money together. Nevertheless, they did not confirm the hypothesis that the marriage–cohabitation gap is smaller in Québec despite the higher levels of institutionalization of cohabitation in this region.     

The Tempo of Sexual Activity and Later Relationship Quality

Rapid sexual involvement may have adverse long‐term implications for relationship quality. This study examined the tempo of sexual intimacy and subsequent relationship quality in a sample of married and cohabiting men and women. Data come from the Marital and Relationship Survey, which provides information on nearly 600 low‐ to moderate‐income couples living with minor children. Over one third of respondents became sexually involved within the first month of the relationship. Bivariate results suggested that delaying sexual involvement was associated with higher relationship quality across several dimensions. The multivariate results indicated that the speed of entry into sexual relationships was negatively associated with marital quality, but only among women. The association between relationship tempo and relationship quality was largely driven by cohabitation. Cohabiting may result in poorer quality relationship because rapid sexual involvement early in the romantic relationship is associated with entrance into shared living.     

Grasping the Diversity of Cohabitation: Fertility Intentions Among Cohabiters Across Europe

The authors examined the association between different meanings of cohabitation and fertility intentions. Using data from the Generations and Gender Surveys on 5,565 cohabiters from 9 European countries (Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Norway, Romania, and Russia), they proposed a cohabitation typology based on attitudes toward marriage, intentions to marry, and perceived economic deprivation. Despite substantial variation in the prevalence and types of cohabiting relationships across Europe, cohabitation has become a living arrangement within which childbearing intentions are commonly formed and at times carried out. The authors found that the meaning that cohabiters attached to their union influenced significantly their short‐term fertility intentions, net of other covariates. Cohabiters who viewed their unions as a prelude to marriage were the most likely to plan to have a child in the near future, both in Western and Eastern European societies. The association between fertility intentions and marriage intentions was particularly strong among cohabiters who do not as yet have children in common, but it was also present in a more muted form among cohabitating parents. The findings suggest that, although marriage and childbearing are becoming less closely linked life events, they are not disconnected decisions for a large majority of cohabiters across Europe.