Cohabitation and commitment: partnership plans of young men and women

Popular commentators on marriage and the family often interpret the increase in heterosexual couples living together without marrying as reduced willingness to create and honour life‐long partnerships. Survey and in‐depth interviews with samples of 20–29 year olds living in an urban area of Scotland finds little support for the postulated link between growing cohabitation and a weakened sense of commitment to long‐term arrangements. Most of the cohabiting couples strongly stressed their ‘commitment’. Socially acceptable vocabularies of motive undoubtedly influenced answers but interviews helped to explore deeper meanings. Many respondents’ views were consistent with previous research predictions of a weakening sense of any added value of marriage. At the same time, some respondents continued to stress the social significance of the distinction between marriage and cohabitation, consistent with research interpreting cohabitation as a ‘try and see’ strategy part‐way to the perceived full commitment of marriage. The notion that ‘marriage is better for children’ continued to have support among respondents. While, on average, cohabiting couples had lower incomes and poorer employment situations than married couples, only very extreme adverse circumstances were presented as making marriage ‘too risky’. Pregnancy‐provoked cohabitation was not always in this category. Cohabitation was maintained because marriage would ‘make no difference’ or because they ‘had not yet got round to’ marriage. Most respondents were more wary of attempting to schedule or plan in their personal life than in other domains and cohabitees’ attitudes to partnership, including their generally ‘committed’ approach, do not explain the known greater vulnerability of this group to dissolution.     

Living apart together

Traditionally, marriage has been the social institution for couples that have been together for a long period. Some decades ago a new social institution appeared in the Western world: non-marital cohabitation, although this was slower to be accepted in some countries than in others. Living Apart Together (LAT) relationships, are a new phenomenon which seems to have the potential of becoming the third stage in the process of social change. In contrast to couples in commuting marriages which have one household in common, couples living in LAT relationships have one household each. We discuss some data on the frequency of LAT relationships in Sweden and Norway as well as some varieties of the phenomenon. Our analysis suggests that the existence of cohabitation as a social institution, alongside marriage, is a necessary precondition for LATs to be recognised as a social institution. LAT relationships could not exist unless a preceding social institution of cohabitation also exists.     

‘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.     

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.     

Premarital Cohabitation and Housework: Couples in Cross‐National Perspective

The authors examine the effect of premarital cohabitation on the division of household labor in 22 countries. First, women do more routine housework than men in all countries. Second, married couples that cohabited before marriage have a more equal division of housework. Third, national cohabitation rates have equalizing effects on couples regardless of their own cohabitation experience. However, the influence of cohabitation rates is only observed in countries with higher levels of overall gender equality. The authors conclude that the trend toward increasing cohabitation may be part of a broader social trend toward a more egalitarian division of housework.     

The changing meaning of cohabitation and marriage

"In the Netherlands, the social meaning of both marriage and cohabitation has changed. Cohabitation started as an alternative way of living, developed into a temporary phase before marriage, and finally became a strategy for moving into a union gradually....This article addresses the question whether or not individual past and current life-course experiences become increasingly important in explaining the differentiation of entry into marriage across female birth cohorts, and yet become decreasingly important in explaining the differentiation of entry into cohabitation across female birth cohorts. This question is examined using a non-proportional hazard model. Empirical evidence supports this hypothesis strongly, in that both past determinants such as family size or religion and current life-course determinants such as work or education change in their impact on cohabitation and marriage across birth cohorts."     

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.     

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.     

Social, Economic, and Attitudinal Characteristics of Cohabitation in Israel

This article examines cohabitation in Israel. Since the 1980s cohabitation has been on the rise, with heterosexual couples living together without being legally married. The purpose of this article is to address the following questions: What are the characteristics of cohabitation; what economic circumstances affect cohabitation; why is cohabitation chosen over “family” and is it becoming a threat to the family institution? The sample consisted of 50 couples. Our major findings were that cohabitation does not seem to be an alternative to marriage, but a prelude to it. We found a high correlation between the cohabitants' willingness to marry and their willingness to have children in the future. Cohabitants live in rented apartments, usually do not share a bank account, and have no formal economic agreement.     

Cohabitation Transitions Among Low-income Parents: A Qualitative Investigation of Economic and Relational Motivations

At the intersection of the cohabitation and residential mobility literatures is an opportunity to better understand the factors that shape cohabitation choices for low-income couples. By investigating push and pull factors associated with cohabitation, this study aimed to identify linkages between cohabitation transitions and the broader socioeconomic context within which they occur. Collecting data from both members of low-income couples and carefully tracking all residential and cohabitation transitions made it possible to identify a wide range of push and pull factors that motivate couples to move. The findings suggest that cohabitation transitions were often motivated by economic necessity. Romantic partnerships, while important, were less frequently mentioned than other factors (i.e., interpersonal negotiations, finances, housing quality) in determining a couple’s living arrangements. These findings have important implications for understanding the complex relationship between economic and non-economic factors that shape romantic relationships.     

Changes in conjugal life in Canada: Is cohabitation progressively replacing marriage?

This article aims first to contrast the trends of marriage and cohabitation across different regions in Canada, and second, to assess whether cohabitation constitutes a new stage in the progression to marriage, or an alternative to marriage altogether. Based on various empirical demographic indicators, the analysis shows profound differences across the country. In Quebec, cohabiting unions are now widely accepted as forming the basis for family life, whereas they still largely constitute a childless prelude to marriage elsewhere in Canada. The authors discuss the role of different religious and cultural backgrounds, and of recent changes in the relationships between men and women, in accounting for the divergent evolution observed.     

Cohabitation and Marriage: Complexity and Diversity in Union-Formation Patterns

Nonmarital cohabitation and marriage are now fundamentally linked, a fact that is routinely reflected in current research on union formation. Unprecedented changes in the timing, duration, and sequencing of intimate co-residential relationships have made the study of traditional marriage far more complex today than in the past. It is now clear that a white, middle-class, American-centric research template has become increasingly anachronistic. In this review article, we begin by providing an overview of contemporary theory, empirical approaches, and demographic trends in cohabitation and marriage, focusing primarily on the United States, but also distinguishing the U.S. from patterns found in other high-income societies, including European countries, Canada, Australia, and in East Asia. We place the spotlight on the causes and consequences of union transitions. We identify the commonalities between cohabitation and marriage, but also key differences that are expressed unevenly across different populations and cultural groups. The rise in nonmarital cohabitation has upended conventional theoretical models and measurement approaches to the study of traditional marriage, complicating matters but also reinvigorating family scholarship on union formation and its implications for partners, children, and society.     

Cohabiting couples: rethinking money in the household at the beginning of the twenty first century

This paper assesses the implications of existing research on the intra‐household economy for current debates about the emergence of new forms of radically democratic intimate relationships in ‘late modern’ or ‘world risk’ society. The different ways in which couples organise money are particularly important in evaluating these debates because as Pahl (1989 , 1997 , 1999 ) argues, money can be seen as a tracer for other aspects of a couples’ lives together, especially the power relationship between them. One of the groups currently thought to be in the vanguard of shifts to new forms of egalitarian and radically democratic intimate relationships are heterosexual cohabiting couples. So far however, there has been little, if any, research on the ways in which cohabiting couples organise money, particularly in Britain. This paper therefore assesses the possible implications of existing research on the intra‐household economy amongst heterosexual couples in the UK and elsewhere, for the ways in which cohabiting couples may possibly be organising household money in Britain today, and what light this sheds on current debates about shifts towards greater equality in new forms of intimate relationships. One of the main questions underlying the discussion concerns the extent to which trends towards individualisation in intimate relationships are coming to be associated with greater sharing and equality in the distribution of financial resources, as Giddens’ (1992 ) thesis would lead us to expect, or whether as Pahl (1999 ) and others ( Jamieson, 1999 ) have suggested, an increasing proportion of couples may now be coming to use individualised or privatised systems of money management which while enhancing individual control over finances, may nevertheless still be associated with the maintenance and reproduction of some very traditional gender inequalities between male and female partners, albeit in a new and apparently impersonal, ‘marketised’ form.     

A Study of Commitment and Relationship Quality in Sweden and Norway

The Scandinavian countries are often cited as examples of countries where cohabitation is largely indistinguishable from marriage. Using survey data from Norway and Sweden (N = 2,923) we analyzed differences between cohabitors and married individuals in relationship seriousness, relationship satisfaction, and dissolution plans. Our analyses reveal that cohabitors overall are less serious and less satisfied with their relationships and are more likely to consider ending their current relationships than are married respondents. The views of cohabitors who report that they intend to marry their current partners within 2 years, however, differ much less from those of married respondents than cohabitors with no marriage plans. This finding suggests that even in Scandinavia cohabitors are a heterogeneous group.     

The role of cohabitation in remarriage: a replication

Previous research has demonstrated that the effects of postdivorce cohabitation on the quality of intimate relationships are similar to those of premarital cohabitation. Thus, like premarital cohabitation in first marriage, postdivorce cohabitation in general and multi-partnered postdivorce cohabitation in particular delay remarriage and diminish relationship quality (i.e. undermine happiness and stability). However, such findings are based on survey data from the 1980s, such as the first wave of the National Survey of Families and Households. Using pooled samples from the National Survey of Family Growth (1995, 2002), the present study determines whether such findings can be replicated with more recent nationally representative data collected from remarried women between the ages of 15 and 44 (n=1915). Multivariate regression analyses reveal two major findings. First, as anticipated, premarital and postdivorce cohabitation, including multi-partnered forms of cohabitation, delay remarriage. Moreover, serial cohabitation also significantly delays remarriage. Second, remarriages preceded by either postdivorce cohabitation or serial cohabitation exhibit a higher likelihood of remarital disruption (i.e. dissolution or separation). Consequently, while premarital and postdivorce cohabitation have become common in the USA, postdivorce and serial cohabitation continue to exert disruptive effects on remarriages among young American women. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.     

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.     

Decline of Real Love and Rise of Virtual Love: Love in Asia

In Japan, marriage rates have declined since 1980, and interest in romantic relationships has declined in the 21st century. This article shows, mainly based on the official statistics and surveys, that (i) people in contemporary Japanese society have become less willing to get married or even date; (ii) various forms of virtual love have emerged; and (iii) they have spread in East Asian countries in general. Marriage stems from romantic relationships. Simultaneously, it brings with it new economic life. In Japan and other East Asian countries there is an unwritten norm that marriage should be part of economic life. Therefore, satisfying romantic emotions outside real love and marriage is accepted.     

Why still marry? The role of feelings in the persistence of marriage as an institution1

Despite cohabitation becoming increasingly equivalent to marriage in some of the most ‘advanced’ Western European societies, the vast majority of people still marry. Why so? Existing theories, mostly based on various approaches tied to cognitive decision‐making, do not provide a sufficient explanation of the persistence of marriage. In this article, we argue that feelings attached to marriage, i.e. the affective evaluation of those involved in a partner relationship concerning marriage as opposed to cohabitation, explain the persistent importance of marriage as an institution. We argue that socialization, biological and social‐structural factors affect these affective evaluations. We provide a test of our hypotheses using a longitudinal study of young adults in the Netherlands. The results of our analyses are consistent with a central role of feelings in the decision to marry, as well as with a role for key moderating factors such as gender.     

Forbidden Fruit? A Longitudinal Study of Christianity,Sex, and Marriage

Does religion still play a role in explorations of romance and sexuality among adolescents and young adults in a secular society such as Norway? Does it influence the type of living arrangements chosen? A population-based sample (n = 2,454) was followed longitudinally from their midteens to their late 20s using survey and register data. Christian involvement in teenage years was associated with subsequent less “precoital” exploration, less masturbation, delayed sexual intercourse, and a smaller number of sex partners. However, there were no associations with prevalence of same-sex experiences. Christians also postponed initiating romantic relationships and chose marriage over cohabitation. Associations were reduced after controlling for confounding factors but remained significant. Some associations (for example, the form of residential union chosen) were present only in the most “active” Christians. In other areas, such as “precoital explorations” and the age at which intercourse is initiated, Christian norms seem to play a role in much broader segments of the population. The findings indicate that Christianity may continue to influence young Norwegians’ experiences of sexuality and cohabitation more than has been expected.