Cohabitation, Parental Divorce, & Marital Success

A “Cohabitation Effect”? Cohabitation, Parental Divorce, & Marital Success

THESIS

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Jennifer M. Hunt

Graduate Program in Human Ecology

The Ohio State University

2009

Master's Examination Committee:

Claire M. Kamp Dush, Advisor

Anastasia Snyder

Jennifer M. Hunt

2009

Abstract

This thesis sets out to expand the literature on the “cohabitation effect”; that is, the idea that couples who cohabit before marriage have greater marital instability than couples who do not live together before marriage. I test two competing hypotheses. First, the selection/cumulative risk perspective arguing that cohabiters already possess numerous risk factors associated with poor relationship outcomes, so the addition of exposure to parental divorce makes these specific cohabiters even worse off. Following this hypothesis, I predict the children of divorce who cohabit will have lower levels of marital quality and a greater risk of divorce as compared to the children of intact families who cohabit. Also, all respondents who cohabit will have lower levels of marital quality and a greater risk of divorce as compared with the children of intact families who do not cohabit. The second hypothesis favors the differential experience of cohabitation perspective. This assumes that children of divorce want to prevent what they went through while experiencing their own parents’ divorce, so they may use cohabitation as way to “weed out” a bad relationship before marriage. So I hypothesize that children of divorce who cohabit will have higher levels of marital quality and a lower risk of divorce as compared to the children of intact families who cohabit. Also, the children of divorce who do not cohabit will have lower levels of marital quality and a high risk of divorce as compared to the children of intact families who do not cohabit. Overall, the results supported the selection/cumulative risk perspective. I found that, regardless of parental ii divorce, premarital cohabitation, or the other controls, the number of risks for divorce an individual possessed was strongly, and significantly associated with poorer marital outcomes, even stronger than the impact of parental divorce and premarital cohabitation in every instance. In one model I did find support for the differential experience of cohabitation perspective. The experience of a parental divorce led to less reported marital happiness in both cohabiters and non-cohabiters. Yet when an individual experienced a cohabiting relationship and a parental divorce, reported marital happiness increased, even after taking into account the risk score.

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to extend special thanks and acknowledgement to the following people:

Dr. Claire Kamp Dush for her support and advice in creating this document.

Dr. Anastasia Snyder for her expertise and feedback in revising this document.

Vita

May 2004 ...... Marion Technical College (Post Secondary)

May 2004 ...... Kenyon College (Post Secondary)

2008 ...... B.A. Psychology, University of Toledo

2009 ...... M.S. Human Development and Family

Science, The Ohio State University

Fields of Study

Major Field: Human Ecology

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgments ...... iv

Vita ...... v

List of Tables...... vii

List of Figures ...... viii

Review of Literature ...... 1

Hypotheses ...... 11

Method ...... 12

Results ...... 17

Discussion ...... 24

References ...... 37

List of Tables

Table 1. Sample Selection ...... 30

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Study Variables...... 31

Table 3. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression Analyses for Parental Divorce,

Premarital Cohabitation, and Marital Happiness ...... 32

Table 4. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression Analyses for Parental Divorce,

Premarital Cohabitation, and Marital Interaction ...... 33

Table 5. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression Analyses for Parental Divorce,

Premarital Cohabitation, and Divorce Proneness ...... 34

Table 6. Logistic Regression Analyses for Parental Divorce, Premarital Cohabitation, and Offspring Divorce ...... 35

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1. The Interaction of Premarital Cohabitation and Parental Divorce for Marital

Happiness ...... 36

viii

Review of Literature

In 2004, nearly 4.6 million U.S. households were maintained by heterosexual cohabiting couples (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). Cohabitation is not only growing more and more common in Western societies, but it is also more widely accepted as a natural precursor to marriage (Thorton & Young-DeMarco, 2001). Although the definition of what constitutes a “cohabiting relationship” has been a debate of both research scholars and everyday couples, no one can argue that the shift in acceptable living arrangements has drastically changed the marriage ideal. Likewise, while the reasons for cohabiting before marriage vary with each couple, one thing has stayed consistent; cohabitation has been associated with poor marital outcomes again and again. Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman

(2006) have labeled this notion the "cohabitation effect".

While the “cohabitation effect” may be the label given to marriages preceded by cohabitation that end in divorce or permanent separation, the reason these marriages are ending is because marital quality diminished or never existed in the first place. Research shows that individuals who are satisfied with their intimate relationships live longer, are physically healthier (Kiecold-Glaser & Newton, 2001), and are better parents (Grych &

Fincham, 1990). Likewise, studies have indicated that an individual’s relationship satisfaction is influenced by the perception of the partner’s love attitudes, perceived empathy, and other forms of relationship communication (Meeks et al., 1998).

This paper sets out to elaborate on previous findings of the “cohabitation effect” by examining the role parental divorce and premarital cohabitation have on offspring’s future relationship success using the Martial Instability Across the Life Course dataset.

Cohabitation and Marital Quality and Stability

Researchers have suggested that marriages preceded by a cohabiting union have a higher risk of martial instability and lower marital quality (Kamp Dush, Cohan, &

Amato, 2003), less supportive behavior, less time spent together in shared activities, and a greater perceived likelihood of future martial dissolution (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002;

Kamp Dush et al., 2003). Brown (2004) extended this idea by considering the issue of timing with regards to couples cohabiting. Her results showed that married couples who cohabited before their engagement reported more negative communication, lower satisfaction, and more physical aggression than those who cohabited only after engagement or marriage. More recently, Rhoades, Stanley, and Markman (2009) found that cohabiting before an engagement, even only with one’s future spouse, is associated with lower marital quality and higher divorce potential.

Given the accumulated evidence that premarital cohabitation is associated with marital dysfunction, the question remains: why are so many people still cohabiting?

Johnson et al., (2002) and Smock & Manning (2009) found that many young adults believe cohabitation is a good way to test their relationship prior to marriage. Also, with the steady digression of the economy, it is not foolish to believe that couples are cohabiting for the sole purpose of saving money. Another possible reason for continued prevalence of cohabitation, as previously discussed before, is the tendency to cohabit

2 after becoming engaged (Oppenheimer, 2003). Despite these suggestions, research has also found that the decision to cohabit is often not deliberate at all (Manning & Smock,

2005). The growing idea of relationship inertia has become particularly relevant to cohabiting relationships that turn to marriages. The central theme of relationship inertia is that some couples who otherwise would not have married end up married partly because they cohabit (Stanley et al., 2006). As Stanley and colleagues pointed out, the work of

Manning and Smock (2005) found that most couples slide from non-cohabitation to cohabitation before fully realizing what is happening; often it is a non-deliberative and incremental process. This seems to suggest that many cohabiting couples find themselves in the middle of relationship transitions (i.e. from non-cohabiting to cohabiting or from cohabiting to marriage) without fully considering the implications. Compared with couples that enter directly into marriage, couples who cohabit first have a higher risk of martial dissolution (Heaton, 2002).

Parental Divorce and Marital Quality and Stability

The intergenerational transmission of divorce and children’s subsequent marital quality and stability has been studied in the field as a frequent hypothesis as to why more than half of marriages today are ending. Results from a study done by Cunningham &

Thorton (2007) found that parental divorce during childhood increased children's tolerance for cohabitation in adulthood. This study also found that mothers' attitudes toward cohabitation continue to influence adult children's attitudes toward cohabitation well into adulthood. More specifically, a study done by Conger, Cui, Bryant, and Elder

(2000) used observational data from 193 families and found that interpersonal behavior

3 between parents in 1989 to 1992 (when offspring were young adolescents) predicted offspring's interpersonal behavior with romantic partners in 1997 (when offspring were in early adulthood).

More pertinent to the current study, accumulated evidence has shown that children whose parents separate or divorce are, on average, more likely to exhibit problematic behavior, have poorer mental health and academic performance, and have more social difficulties and lower self-concepts than children whose parents remain married (Amato, 1994). The negative effects attributed to divorce or dissolution are often apparent before the actual physical separation (Morrison & Cherlin, 1995). Amato and

Booth (1997) however found that the difference between children from divorced and intact families was very modest, and partly due to the level of marital conflict that preceded it. Furthermore, they found an interaction between divorce and the level of pre- divorce parental conflict. Where pre-divorce conflict between parents was high, children were better off following the divorce, a finding also reported by Jekielek (1998).

However, when pre-divorce conflict was low, the children as adults were less happy and had lower self-esteem and psychological well-being. In conclusion, the rise in marital disruption has been beneficial to some children while being detrimental to others (Burns

& Dunlop, 2002).

This phenomenon could be attributed to social learning theory. This widely accepted theory posits that children can learn by observing the behaviors of others and the outcomes of those behaviors. Social learning theory suggests that many behaviors can be learned, at least partly, through modeling. As Bandura (1971; 1977) reported, children’s

4 attitudes may become similar to parents’ attitudes as a result of children’s observation and imitation, or children’s attitudes may be similar to the attitudes of parents because parents have engaged in active forms of socialization such as support or control (Gecas &

Seff, 1990). Research by Kunz (2000) suggested the presence of divorce appears to influence children’s marriage, both with an increase of marital difficulties and a subsequent increase in the likelihood to divorce because of a learned pattern for divorce.

Using female subjects from the National Survey of Families and Households, Bumpass et al. (1991) determined that parental divorce increases the odds of disruption within the first 5 years of marriage by 70%; this held true for both White and African American women.

Perspectives on the Intersection of Cohabitation and Parental Divorce

There is an ongoing debate in research involving cohabitation and the mechanisms by which cohabitation affects subsequent martial quality and stability.

Previous literature has focused on two explanations. I extend these perspectives by pulling in the literature on parental divorce. In the first explanation for the association between cohabitation and marital quality and stability, it is hypothesized that selection factors associated with entering a cohabiting union, not the experience of cohabitation itself, negatively impact the marital union. I extend this theory by combining it and a cumulative risk perspective. The second perspective focuses on the actual experience of cohabitation whereby scholars have argued that the actual experience of cohabitation changes relationship attitudes and behaviors. I extend this perspective to the potential

5 differential impact of cohabitation for children from divorced families versus intact families.

Selection/Cumulative Risk Perspective. The selection of bad marriage partners into cohabitation has been a topic of recent research efforts trying to understand the means by which cohabitation is linked to divorce. This idea argues that individual characteristics play a role in why some people are more likely to cohabit than others.

These selection factors can include individuals’ specific experiences prior to entering their relationship (Booth & Johnson, 1988), age, race, educational attainment, history of prior cohabiting unions, and parental divorce. This could also include relationship specific factors, like physical violence (Rogge & Bradbury, 1999), and frequent break- ups. Attitudes and values concerning marriage, as well was parental behavior, attitudes and values on children’s decisions concerning premarital sex and union formation (Axinn

& Thorton, 1992) may play a role into why certain people are statistically more likely to cohabit than others. Previous research has indicated that children of parents who are less committed to the institution of marriage or are more approving of divorce may be more likely to enter nonmarital cohabiting unions (Axinn & Thornton, 1992). Likewise, individuals who have previously been in a cohabiting relationship are more likely to engage in subsequent cohabiting unions (Lichter & Qian, 2008).

Furthermore, Sassler (2004) found that cohabiters may lack good relationship and/or communication skills, which in turn could explain why many cohabiters are seen

“cycling between partners”. Selection factors like depression or post traumatic stress

6 disorder may also negatively affect their ability to stay in relationships that lead to healthy and committed marriages (Cherlin, Burton, Hurt, & Purvin, 2005).

As selection factors for the individual and couple increase, relationship risks accumulate. Most of the selection factors reviewed above are also risk factors for divorce.

A cumulative risk model, first introduced by Dawber, 1980, stems from the assumption that disparate causal and developmental paths can lead to similar outcomes (Rauer et al,

2008). In a relationship context, the cumulative risk model can be used to determine if and how an individual’s experience of multiple risks moderates the association between a particular risk factor and subsequent relationship satisfaction (Gutman, Sameroff, &

Cole, 2003). One of more significant risk factors found in recent literature has been parental divorce. With the divorce rate now over 50%, many young people entering marriages and cohabiting relationships have experienced the dissolution of their parents’ marriage. As Pamela Smock has stated regarding the qualitative sample of cohabiters in

Manning and Smock (2005) article “Everyone had a divorce story. Either their parents, their relatives, their friends, or all of these, had been divorced” (Swanbrow, 2009).

Therefore, among many married couples who lived together before marriage, the risk factor of parental divorce is combined with the other selection characteristics that many cohabiters are already plagued with, making the accumulation of risks for poor marital quality and stability even higher.

To summarize, cohabiters bring many risk factors into their cohabiting union, and if they marry, into their marriage as well. Cohabiters who have also experienced a parental divorce are adding another risk factor to their accumulated risks, which under the

7 cumulative risk model means they should fare worse than cohabiters who did not experience the divorce of their parents. These cohabiters should fare better in their relationship based solely on the fact that they have one less highly significant risk. It is also possible that the inclusion of a cumulative risk score as a control variable might account for the parental divorce and premarital cohabitation effects because risk factors are associated both with premarital cohabitation, and with parental divorce.

The Differential Effect of Cohabitation Perspective. To suggest that only selection factors determine who will or will not cohabit and the outcomes of that relationship is leaving out a large part of the equation: the union itself. Some scholars argue that cohabitation is not just selective of certain types of people, but that the experience itself changes the attitudes of cohabiters. Axinn and Thornton (1992) found that commitment to marriage does not vary according to marital or cohabitation experiences. However, they also found that after cohabiting, people were more accepting of divorce than they had been before cohabiting. Furthermore, a study done by Amato and Rogers (1999) found that married individuals who took on a more “liberal” view of divorce reported declines in marital happiness and increases in marital conflict. These findings seem to suggest that the experience of cohabitation may weaken subsequent marital quality and stability by changing the way people think about divorce and/or marriage as a whole. It could be said then that cohabitation is detrimental for children from intact families because they are likely to still have the traditional values and norms placed on marriage ideals. Cohabitation could be beneficial, however, to children from divorced or permanently separated families because they may use it as a “trial run” of a

8 serious relationship, while avoiding the effects of a divorce. Manning and Smock reiterate this when describing their study sample, “The results of this study showed that cohabiters, for the most part, used cohabitation as a vehicle to “test drive” what a marriage would be like, therefore a mistake leads to a break-up rather than a divorce”.

Edin and Reed (2005) provide research to support the idea of aversion to divorce by not marrying. An analysis of the Fragile Families Survey found that couples with characteristics that make them more susceptible to divorce (being younger or less educated, reporting serious relationship conflict or abuse) are less likely to marry even if they have other characteristics that are strongly associated with entry into marriage. They continue by adding data from several qualitative studies suggesting that the poor may be reluctant to marry simply because of a perception that the risk of divorce is high. The most appealing alternative to the altar is cohabitation. As Edin and Reed (2005) continue, “cohabitation allows enough flexibility for the couple to stay together even in the face of financial trouble or relationship problems”. Once a couple that is divorce- averse cohabits successfully, they may then get married, hence potentially making their marriage a stronger union than if they had not “test drove” the relationship ahead of time.

In summary, based on the work of Axinn and Thornton (1996) suggesting that the experience of cohabitation leads to more liberal views on divorce, I expect that for children of intact homes, who presumably do not hold these views, cohabitation will lead to poorer marital outcomes than children from divorced households. For the children of divorce, premarital cohabitation should be associated with higher marital quality and

9 stability as they reap the benefits of test-driving their relationship prior to making a formal commitment.

Hypotheses

I will first attempt to replicate previous results regarding the association between marital quality and divorce and premarital cohabitation and parental divorce.

Hypothesis 1. Parental divorce and premarital cohabitation will each be associated

with lower levels of martial quality, including marital happiness, interaction, and

divorce proneness and a greater risk of divorce.

Next, I will test two competing hypotheses that follow from the perspectives outlined above.

Hypothesis 2. Following the selection/cumulative risk perspective, the children of

divorce who cohabit will have lower levels of marital quality and a greater risk of

divorce as compared to the children of intact families who cohabit. Also, all

respondents who cohabit will have lower levels of marital quality and a greater

risk of divorce as compared with the children of intact families who do not

cohabit.

Hypothesis 3. Following the differential experience of cohabitation perspective,

the children of divorce who cohabit will have higher levels of marital quality and

a lower risk of divorce as compared to the children of intact families who cohabit.

The children of divorce who do not cohabit will have lower levels of marital

quality and a high risk of divorce as compared to the children of intact families

who do not cohabit.

Method

Sample

The analysis is based on the study of Marital Instability over the Life Course

(Booth, Amato, & Johnson, 1998). Telephone interviewers used a random-digit-dialing procedure to obtain a national sample of 2,033 married individuals 55 years of age and under in 1980. In 1992, interviewers contacted 471 adult offspring (19 years of age or older) of the original respondents. The median age was 23 and 85% were 30 or younger.

Daughters made up about half of the sample (51%). About ¼ were living at home with parents, although half of these had returned home after living away from their parents for a period of time. One-fourth of the sample were college graduates, although 13% were still continuing their educations. In terms of marital status, most had never been married, though 35% were married and 6% were divorced or separated. Of those who were married, 92% were in their first marriages. Twenty-nine percent of the offspring had children of their own. In relation to parental divorce, most (81%) had continuously married parents; 10% lived with a stepparent because of divorce in 1980, and another 9% experienced a parental divorce between 1980 and 1992 (Amato & Booth, 1997).

Between 1992 and 1995, the offspring sample changed in predictable ways. For example, those with college degrees increased from 25% to 36%, those married increased from 35% to 45%, and those with children increased from 29% to 40%. An additional

220 children who had reached the age of 19 since 1992 were interviewed in 1997. These

12 figures represent an overall response rate of 80% across all eligible adult offspring. Note that only one child per family was interviewed. The cross-sectional sample for our study consists of pooled data from the 471 young adults interviewed in 1992 and the 220 young adults interviewed in 1997. The sample was restricted to those who were married.

Therefore, the total sample included 306 married offspring. In 2000, marital status information was collected from 92% of the adult offspring interviewed in 1997.

The current study focused primarily on the offspring data. Of the offspring, 326 were eligible because I observed them in their marriage (as observed in either 1992 or

1997) and reported whether or not they had lived together prior to marriage (no observations were missing on this variable), and if they had reported whether or not there parents had divorced (1 observation was missing on this variable).

This dataset was the most suitable to use for many reasons. First, the Marital

Instability Across the Life Course dataset has a rich measure of marital quality, that encompasses marital happiness, marital interaction, and divorce proneness, as well as other measures not used in this study. Other nationally representative datasets were considered, but were ruled out with the following concerns. The National Survey of

Families and Households is older than what our study was looking for. The cohabiters were from 1988 and there is little information regarding relationship quality. Likewise the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 uses cohabiters from the early 80’s and is lacking on sufficient relationship quality measures. Also, the National Longitudinal

Survey of Youth 1997 and the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health lack

13 the rich relationship quality measures I was looking for, as well as being too young to have divorced.

Independent Variables

The two independent variables were parental divorce and cohabitation prior to marriage. Parental divorce was measured with the question “Have your parents ever divorced or separated permanently?” at each wave. Responses were coded as 1 = yes and

0 = no. Cohabitation prior to marriage was coded 1 = yes and 0 = no.

Dependent Variables

Marital quality was assessed using scales based on marital happiness, marital interaction, and divorce proneness. I used the marital quality variables as reported on the first time I observe them in their marriage (either in 1992 or 1997). A brief description of these scales follow.

Marital happiness. Marital happiness was based on 11 items that measured how happy people felt about aspects of their marriage (e.g., the amount of understanding received from the spouse, the spouse as a companion, the sexual relationship), as well as how happy people felt about their marriages overall. Response options consisted of 1 = not too happy, 2 = pretty happy, and 3 = very happy. The alpha reliability coefficient for this scale was .83, with higher scores indicating greater happiness.

Marital interaction. To measure marital interaction, respondents were asked how often they engaged in five activities with their spouse. These activities included: eating dinner, shopping, visiting friends, working on projects around the house, and going out

14 for recreational activities. Responses ranged from 1 = never; 4 = almost always), with higher scores indicating more interaction. The alpha reliability coefficient for this scale was .60.

Divorce proneness. The scale of divorce proneness was a 27-item measure dealing with divorce-related thoughts. These items included thinking about divorce and divorce-related behaviors like discussing divorce with your spouse. Higher scores on this scale indicated greater marital instability. The alpha reliability coefficient for this scale was .87.

Divorce. Divorce was measured by the month and year of divorce in1997, and by a dichotomous indicator in 2000. I ran a logistic regression using the pooled dichotomous indicator of divorce from the data in 1997 and 2000, because the month and year of divorce was not asked in 2000. I compared the results of both sets of analyses to test the robustness of my findings.

Cumulative Risk Score. As previously stated by Rauer et al. (2008), a risk factor is any variable thought to increase the likelihood that the relationship will experience difficulties. Rather than using selection variables individually, our analyses focused on combining the individual risk factors into one cumulative risk score. This variable was a combination of dichotomized risk factors previously found to be associated with poorer relationship outcomes. The individual variables that made up this risk score included race, order of marriage, education level, welfare use, age at marriage, substance abuse, and domestic violence. All of the variables were coded as 0 (risk absent) or 1(risk present). Race was coded as 0 for white and 1 for any race other than white; order of

15 marriage was coded as 0 for being in a 1st order marriage and 1 for a 2nd order marriage or above; education level was coded as 0 for anything above a high school level education and 1 for anything high school level or below; welfare use was coded as 0 = not using any public assistance and 1 = using public assistance; age was coded as 0 if age at marriage was above 23 and 1 if age at marriage was 22 years or younger; substance abuse was coded as 0 = no form of drug abuse cited and 1= if a drug abuse problem in the marriage was cited and the same for domestic violence, 0 being given when no abuse was cited and 1 being given if domestic violence was a problem in the marriage. I summed the number of risk factors present for each of the participants resulting in scores that ranged from 0-5. However, only 6 participants scored a 4 or 5 on this scale, so the scale was recoded to range from 0-3, where respondents with a score of 3 or more risk factors were coded as 3.

Control Variables

Gender was coded 1 = wife and 0 = husband. Age and duration of marriage were coded in years. Note, again, that the control variables were measured the first time the individual was observed in their marriage.

Results

Analytic Plan

To test Hypothesis 1, I ran a series of regressions as follows:

1. I ran ordinary least squares or logistic regressions (for the dichotomous

indicator of divorce) to test the associations between parental divorce and

premarital cohabitation and marital happiness, interaction, divorce proneness, and

divorce (Model 1 in each table).

To test Hypotheses 2 and 3, I examined the pattern of results after running the following analyses:

4. First, I re-ran the ordinary least squares and logistic regressions described in

Model 1 to test the associations between parental divorce and premarital

cohabitation and marital happiness, interaction, divorce proneness, and divorce,

this time including an interaction term between parental divorce and premarital

cohabitation (Model 2 in each table).

5. I finished by running four additional models, first re-running Model 2,

controlling first for the control variables and second controlling for both the

control variables and risk score (Models 3 and 4 respectively, in each table).

After completing the statistical analyses described above, I examined the pattern of results for a pattern of results that were consistent with the selection/cumulative risk perspective or the differential experience of cohabitation perspective as outlined above.

Parental Divorce, Cohabitation, and Marital Happiness

The results for marital happiness can be seen in Table 3. In the first model, without controls or the interaction term, I found no significant association between premarital cohabitation or parental divorce and marital happiness. However, when the interaction term was added to the model, I found that it was significant such that the children of divorce who cohabited prior to marriage had significantly more marital happiness than the children of intact families who did not cohabit (see Figure 1).

Following conventions outlined by Amato, Booth, Johnson, and Rogers (2007) that an effect size (Cohen’s d; β/SD) of less than one-fifth of a standard deviation difference between groups is weak, between .20 and .39 of a standard deviation is moderate, between .40 and .59 are strong, and an effect size of .60 or greater is very strong, the 0.62 effect size of the interaction indicated a very strong effect. The interaction effect remained significant and the coefficient increased after the addition of controls for age, gender, and marital duration. The addition of the controls for age, gender, and marital duration also improved the overall model fit such that the F statistic of the full model was now significant.

In the final model, I controlled for the risk score to test whether the interaction could be accounted for by the risks the cohabiters have accumulated before and during the relationship. I found that the risk score was strongly, and negatively, related to marital happiness. For each additional risk, the marital happiness of the respondent decreased by about a third of standard deviation, a moderate effect. However, even after the addition of the risk score, the interaction term was significant, and the term for

18 parental divorce moved from marginally significant to significant at the p < 0.05 level such that those who experienced a parental divorce had lower levels of marital happiness.

It should also be noted that marital duration was significantly and negatively related to marital happiness as well.

Therefore, as I hypothesized, the risk score was significantly related to lower levels of marital happiness. That is, consistent with the selection/cumulative risk perspective, the higher the risk score the lower the level of marital happiness. However, consistent with the differential experience of cohabitation perspective, I also found that children of divorce who had cohabited prior to marriage had a higher level of reported martial quality than the children of intact families who did not cohabit prior to marriage.

Parental Divorce, Cohabitation, and Marital Interaction

The results for marital interaction can be seen in Table 4. In the first model, without controls or the interaction term, I found no significant association between premarital cohabitation or parental divorce and marital interaction. Likewise, when the interaction term is added to the model, it was also insignificant. Therefore based on these analyses, the children of divorce who cohabited prior to marriage did not have significantly more or less marital interaction than the children of intact families who did not cohabit. The interaction effect remained insignificant after the addition of controls for age, gender, and marital duration. This was not in support of the differential experience of cohabitation perspective, as the children who experienced a parental divorce and cohabited before marriage did not have more interactions with their spouse when compared to children from intact homes who cohabited prior to marriage. Marital

19 duration was however significant such that the longer the marriage was intact the more interaction that was reported even after the risk score was added to the model.

Unexpectedly, the risk score was also significantly related to marital interaction such that the higher the risk score the more marital interaction being reported. This finding was not consistent with the hypothesis based on the selection/cumulative risk perspective, suggesting that more risks would be associated with lower levels of marital interaction as it relates to overall marital quality. As with marital happiness, the addition of the controls for age, gender, and marital duration also improved the overall model fit such that the F statistic was now significant and became even more significant with the addition of the risk score.

Parental Divorce, Cohabitation, and Divorce Proneness

The results for divorce proneness can be seen in Table 5. In the first model, without controls or the interaction term, I found a significant association between parental divorce and divorce proneness such that the experience of a parental divorce was associated with more proneness for divorce. The effect size for this variable was .28, which was a moderate effect. Once the interaction term was included in the model the effect size jumped to .46, which was strong and it continued to have a strong effect with the addition of the controls and risk score. The overall significance of the effect, however, dropped to marginal significance once the controls were added and remained marginally significant throughout the remaining models. Premarital cohabitation became significant once the controls were added, suggesting that the experience of premarital cohabitation itself may make individuals more prone to divorce, even when age, gender,

20 and duration of marriage were controlled for. This dropped from significance, however, when the cumulative risk score was added; the risks of race, marriage order, education level, welfare use, substance abuse, and domestic violence played a more significant role in divorce proneness.

In all models, the interaction term between parental divorce and premarital cohabitation was not significant. I did, however, find that the risk score was strongly and positively related to divorce proneness such that for each additional risk, a respondents proneness towards divorce increased by about 30% of a standard deviation, another moderate effect. Overall, more risks were associated with a greater the likelihood of divorce. It should also be noted that marital duration was significantly and positively related to divorce proneness as well, but dropped to marginal significance once the risk score was added.

These results partially supported my first hypothesis that parental divorce and premarital cohabitation would be associated with lower levels of marital quality, including divorce proneness. Although premarital cohabitation was only significant once the controls were added, parental divorce was significant in each model, but dropped to marginal significance once the risk score was introduced. In addition, as I hypothesized, the risk score was significantly and positively related to divorce proneness. That is, the higher the risk score the higher the probability of divorce. These findings support the selection/cumulative risk perspective, outlined in hypothesis 2. Differing from my original hypotheses, I did not find any evidence that children of divorce who had

21 cohabited prior to marriage had a higher level of divorce proneness than the children of intact families who did not cohabit prior to marriage.

Parental Divorce, Premarital Cohabitation, and Offspring Divorce

A logistic regression was conducted for the dichotomous indicator of divorce and can be seen in Table 6. Premarital cohabitation was a significant predictor of divorce in each model such that cohabiters had between 110% and 147% greater odds of divorce than non-cohabiters, depending on the model. The coefficient dropped to marginal significance with the addition of the cumulative risk score, but cohabiters still had 111% greater odds of divorce as compared to non-cohabiters. Parental divorce and the interaction term were not significant in each model. Age, gender, and marital duration also were not significant predictors of divorce. The risk score, however, was significant at the p<0.01 level. This suggests support for the selection/cumulative risk perspective, arguing that the risk factors individuals bring into their relationships are strong predictors of divorce. Each risk factor increased the odds of divorce by 78%.

Comparing these results to my previous hypotheses, my first hypothesis was partially supported; there was a significant association between premarital cohabitation and divorce in my sample. However, there was no association between parental divorce and offspring divorce, although the trend was in the hypothesized direction that the children of divorce were more likely to have experienced divorce. The second hypothesis was not fully supported in that I found no evidence that parental divorce was associated with poorer martial outcomes. I did, however, find that respondents who cohabited prior to marriage were more likely to divorce than those who did not. Finally, the differential

22 experience of cohabitation perspective was not supported suggesting that children of divorce who cohabit will have a similar risk of divorce as compared to children of intact families. These findings were consistent when both the controls and risk score were added.

Discussion

The “cohabitation effect” refers to the phenomenon of marriages preceded by cohabitation ending in divorce. This study set out to expand the literature on the cohabitation effect by examining more closely two competing theories for the role of cohabitation in the development of marital quality and stability. First, following the differential experiences of cohabitation perspective, I expected that the children of divorce who cohabited would have better marital quality and stability, as cohabitation would help them weed out bad partners and help them avoid making the same mistakes they had seen their parents make. Following the selection/cumulative risk perspective, I expected the children of divorce who cohabited to have lower levels of marital quality and a greater risk of divorce, as the combined risk of parental divorce and cohabitation would negatively impact their relationship. I also expected all cohabiters to have lower levels of marital quality and stability because the decision to cohabit would add another risk to their relationship. Overall, our results supported the selection/cumulative risk perspective. I found that, above anything else, the number of risks for divorce an individual possessed was strongly, and significantly associated with poorer marital outcomes – above and beyond the impact of parental divorce and premarital cohabitation in every instance.

In only one model did I find support for the differential experience of cohabitation perspective. The experience of a parental divorce led to less reported marital happiness

24 in both cohabiters and non-cohabiters. However, when an individual experienced both a cohabiting relationship and a parental divorce, reports of marital happiness increased, even after taking into account the risk score, or the other risks that the spouse faced. This seemed to suggest that the experience of cohabitation, combined with the experience of parental divorce may be beneficial to some couples who eventually marry. These findings seem to provide support for the perspective of Manning and Smock (2005) who argue that cohabiting unions act as “premarital divorces” and the relationships that continue to marriage are more sustainable. Regardless of age at marriage and gender, as marriage duration increased the level of martial happiness decreased. This mirrors results from a recent longitudinal study finding that marital happiness tends to wane continuously with the duration of marriage (VanLaningham, Johnson, & Amato, 2000).

While previous research has linked interpersonal behavior and interaction with parental divorce due to transmission of poor relationship skills (Amato & DeBoer, 2001), our study does not show a relationship between the amount of marital interaction and the experience of either a premarital cohabitation, a parental divorce, or both. I find that younger respondents reported less marital interaction; the longer the marriage, the more reported marital interactions. Interestingly, I found that individuals with higher risk scores were interacting more with their spouse. One idea for this result could be an exaggeration of interactions reported by high risk spouses. Empirical studies indicate that spouses may see events very differently from each other and from trained observers

(Christensen & King, 1982). Furthermore, inter-spousal agreement and agreement between spouses and observers regarding levels of negativity and frequency in marital

25 interaction are affected by several variables, including gender, level of marital distress, and whether the interactions are negative or positive (Birchler, Clopton,& Adams, 1984).

Results from this study show that the experience of a parental divorce was directly associated with divorce proneness. This held constant with the addition of age, gender, and marital duration controls, as well as a risk score that included education level, welfare use, domestic violence, substance abuse, race, and order of marriage.

Some theorists suggest that the exposure to divorce in childhood is one of the biggest predictors of future marital discord. Caspi and Elder (1998) found that adult offspring with discordant parents exhibited an abrasive interpersonal style that appeared to affect the quality of their own marriage negatively. Perhaps more closely related to the current study findings, Amato (1996) found that married offspring with divorced parents exhibited an elevated number of interpersonal problems, and these interpersonal problems, in turn, increased the odds that offspring’s marriage ended in divorce.

Turning to results of actual divorce of the offspring, I find that premarital cohabitation is a more significant indicator of offspring divorce than parental divorce or the interaction term of parental divorce and cohabitation. Even when the risk factors are added, premarital cohabitation still has a positive marginally significant relationship with divorce, suggesting that premarital cohabitation itself, regardless of the individual risk factors, plays a role in the divorces of the offspring in this study. These findings are in line with the previously mentioned work of Axinn and Thornton (1992) suggesting the experience of cohabitation was associated with increased acceptance of divorce, which has been linked to actual divorce. Furthermore, the previously sighted study by Kamp

Dush, Cohan, and Amato (2003) found that premarital cohabitation was associated with an increase of 151% in the odds of divorce. Our results, along with the aforementioned studies support the first two hypotheses of this study saying that premarital cohabitation will lead to greater marital instability and a greater risk for divorce.

All of our analyses seemed to yield support for the idea that risk factors play a role in marital quality, stability, and outcomes. To further examine the cumulated risk score used for these models I ran an additional sensitivity analysis. I recoded the risk score to include parental divorce as a risk. The models were re-run, interacting the new risk score and premarital cohabitation status. The main effect of premarital cohabitation in these models never reached significance, while the risk score was significant in each model. The interaction between the two was also non-significant, thus providing further evidence that what is important is accumulated risk for divorce and marital dysfunction, rather than the experience of premarital cohabitation.

Strengths and Limitations

Although the present study was able to further shed light on the effects cohabitation and parental divorce have on marital quality and stability, this study does not come without potential limitations. First, this study used a relatively modest sample size, which lowered our statistical power of analysis. I did not take into account other factors that could play a role in the marital quality, stability, and longevity (i.e. religiosity, conflict frequency, length of cohabitation, etc.). Also, our sample was predominantly white (94.2%) and not using public assistance (88.8 % was not in need of public assistance), so future research efforts should analyze a more diverse sample in terms of

27 race as well as welfare use, since previous research has found that welfare use reduces transitions from cohabitation into marriage (Manning & Smock, 1995) and is positively associated with divorce (Hoffman & Duncan, 1995). Finally, our measure of divorce was a dichotomy and due to a lack of data on the month and year of divorce, we were unable to do more rigorous and appropriate survival analyses on the likelihood of divorce.

Future research should replicate these results using a survival analytic framework.

Another limitation is the means by which these participants made it into our sample. The Marital Instability Across the Life Course original dataset began with telephone interviews in 1980. The offspring sample was recruited through the parents who were still participating in the longitudinal survey process in 1992. We also lack rich characteristics of the cohabiters in this study. We do not know if they cohabited with other people prior to their current partner, or their feelings about cohabitation, or whose idea it was to cohabit before marriage. This information could shed light into why certain cohabiting unions are ending and why some are not.

Despite these potential limitations, the present study does have a number of strengths. This study compares two popular and contradicting hypotheses in the field, and has found positive evidence for both sides, highlighting a possible need to combined theories as to why marriages preceded by a cohabiting union are detrimental to future marital quality and stability.

Conclusion

Regardless of intimidating statistics, it seems like cohabitation is here to stay.

Those who choose to cohabit and the characteristics and life experiences they bring to the

28 relationship seem to be factors that help explain why marriages preceded by cohabitation so often have poor marital quality and end in divorce. The results of this study provide further support for the theory that certain risk factors present in a relationship, regardless of the type of union, are likely to lead to instability and/or dissolution. Adding parental divorce and premarital cohabitation to these individual risk factors only adds to the accumulation of relationship risks. This study provides further evidence of the significance of the differential experience of cohabitation perspective and the selection/cumulative risk perspective. Perhaps the ultimate answers do not lie in one or the other, but a combination of the two. While marital quality appears to be support a differential experience of cohabitation perspective, without a similar impact on marital stability, premarital cohabiters still have a marital disadvantage.

N after N lost due % lost due

loss to exclusion to exclusion

Respondents in offspring sample 691

Lost because I never observed them in their marriage 326 365 0.52

Lost because they are missing on their cohabitation status 0 0 0.00

Lost because I am missing whether or not their parents

divorced 325 1 0.003

Table 1: Sample selection.

N M SD Min Max α

Independent Variables Parental Divorce 326 0.20 0 1 Premarital Cohabitation 326 0.45 0 1 Dependent Variables Marital Happiness 326 29.20 3.50 13 35 0.80 Marital Interaction 326 12.40 4.14 5 20 0.80 Divorce Proneness 326 15.73 10.35 7 49 0.87 Divorce 295 .13 0 1 Control Variables Gender 326 0.48 0 1 Age 326 28.07 4.40 19 47 Marital Duration 319 4.54 4.06 0 27 Risk Variables (riskscore2) 326 1.04 0.95 0 3 <= 22 years old 326 0.07 0 1 Used Welfare 324 0.12 0 1 Education Level 326 0.50 0 1 2nd or higher order marriage 326 0.08 0 1 Non-white 326 0.05 0 1 Experienced substance abuse 325 0.06 0 1 Experienced domestic violence 324 0.16 0 1 Note. All variables were measured the first time the respondent was observed married (in 1992 or 1997).

Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations of Study Variables

Marital Happiness Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 β β β β Independent Variables Premarital Cohabitation 0.16 -0.25 -0.7 -0.39 (0.40) (0.44) (0.45) (0.43) Parental Divorce 0.04 -1.34+ -1.56+ -1.54* (0.5) (0.81) (0.82) (0.78) Interaction Term Cohabitation x Parental Divorce 2.19* 2.45* 2.37* (1.02) (1.04) (0.98) Control Variables Age 0.05 -0.04 (0.06) (0.05) Female -0.13 -0.13 (0.39) (0.37) Marital Duration -0.22*** -0.15* (0.07) (0.06) Risk Score -1.27*** (0.2) Constant 29.13*** 29.29*** 29.13*** 32.59*** (0.26) (0.28) (1.47) (1.49) N 326 326 319 319 R2 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.16 F 0.09 1.59 2.9** 8.68*** Note. Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.10 Table 3: Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression Analyses for Parental Divorce, Premarital Cohabitation, and Marital Happiness

Marital Interaction Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 β β β β Independent Variables Premarital Cohabitation -0.62 -0.57 -0.23 -0.36 (0.47) (0.53) (0.54) (0.54) Parental Divorce -0.55 -0.4 -0.5 -0.51 (0.59) (0.96) (0.98) (0.97) Interaction Term Cohabitation x Parental Divorce -0.25 -0.08 -0.05 (1.21) (1.23) (1.22) Control Variables Age -0.16* -1.22+ (0.07) (0.07) Female 0.54 0.54 (0.46) (0.46) Marital Duration 0.25** 0.22** (0.08) (0.08) Risk Score 0.54* (0.25) Constant 12.80*** 12.78*** 15.84*** 14.36*** (0.32) (0.33) (1.74) (1.86) N 326 326 319 319 R2 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 F 1.68 1.13 2.65* 2.98** Note. Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.10 Table 4: Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression Analyses for Parental Divorce, Premarital Cohabitation, and Marital Interaction

Divorce Proneness Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 β β β β Independent Variables Premarital Cohabitation 1.22 1.78 2.77* 2.03 (1.18) (1.3) (1.34) (1.3) Parental Divorce 2.93* 4.83* 4.45+ 4.41+ (1.46) (2.39) (2.45) (2.36) Interaction Term Cohabitation x Parental Divorce -3.02 -2.55 -2.37 (3.01) (3.08) (2.96) Control Variables Age -0.1 0.12 (0.17) (0.16) Female 0.67 0.68 (1.15) (1.11) Marital Duration 0.51* 0.35+ (0.2) (0.19) Risk Score 3.03*** (0.6) Constant 14.59*** 14.36*** 14.27** 6.04 (0.79) (0.82) (4.37) (4.51) N 326 326 319 319 R2 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.12 F 3.21* 2.48 2.55* 5.98*** Note. Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.10 Table 5: Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression Analyses for Parental Divorce, Premarital Cohabitation, and Divorce Proneness

Offspring Divorce Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 β eβ β eβ β eβ β eβ Premarital Cohabitation 0.74 2.10* 0.90 2.47* 0.87 2.39* 0.74 2.11+ (0.35) (0.74) (0.39) (0.97) (0.40) (0.97) (0.41) (0.87) Parental Divorce 0.11 1.12 0.70 2.03 0.57 1.78 .69 2.01 (0.41) (0.46) (.69) (1.41) (.71) (1.28) (0.72) (1.46) Cohabitation x Parental Divorce -0.84 0.43 -0.66 0.52 -0.79 0.45 (0.85) (0.37) (.87) (0.45) (.88) (0.4) Independent Variables Age -0.06 0.94 -0.00 0.99 (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) Female 0.22 1.25 0.19 1.21 (.34) (0.44) (0.35) (0.43) Marital Duration 0.00 1.01 -0.03 0.96 (0.06) (0.07) (0.06) (0.07) Risk Score 0.57 1.78** (0.18) (0.33) Constant -2.23 0.11*** -2.31 0.10*** -0.73 0.48 -2.66 0.07+ (0.26) (0.03) (0.29) (0.03) (1.37) (0.66) (1.46) (0.1) N 295 295 289 289 Pseudo R2 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.07 χ2 5.13 6.06 8.62 18.41** Note. Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.10 Table 6: Logistic Regression Analyses for Parental Divorce, Premarital Cohabitation, and Offspring Divorce

33.5

31.5 Parental 29.5 Divorce

27.5 No Parental 25.5 Divorce

23.5

21.5 Premarital Cohabitation No Premarital Cohabitation

Figure 1: The Interaction of Parental Divorce and Premarital Cohabitation for Marital Happiness

References

Amato, P. (1988). Long-term implications of parental divorce for adult self-concept.

Journal of Family Issues,9,201-213.

Amato, P. (1994). Life-span adjustment of children to their parents’ divorce. The Future

of Children: Children and Divorce, 4, 143-164.

Amato, P.R. (1996). Explaining the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Journal of

Marriage and Family,58(3), 628-640.

Amato, P. R. (1999). Children of divorced parent as young adults. In E. M.

Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with Divorce, Single Parenting, and Remarriage: A

Risk and Resilience Perspective (pp. 147 – 164). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Amato, P. R. & Booth, A. (1997). A generation at risk: Growing up in an era of family

upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Amato, P.R. & DeBoer, D.D. (2001). The transmission of marital instability across

generations: Relationship skills or commitment to marriage? Journal of Marriage

and Family, 64(4), 1038-1051.

Amato, P.R. & Rogers, S.J. (1999). Do attitudes toward divorce affect marital quality?

Journal of Family Issues, 20(1), 69-86.

Axinn, W.G. & Thornton, A. (1992). The relationship between cohabitation and divorce:

Selectivity or causality? Demography, 29,357-374.

Axinn, W.G. & Thornton, A. (1996). The influences of parents’ marital dissolutions on

children’s family formation attitudes. Demography,33,66-81.

Bandura, A. (1971). Psychological modeling: Conflicting theories. Chicago: Aldine-

Atherton.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Birchler, G.R., Clopton, P.L., & Adams, N.L. (1984). Marital conflict resolution: Factors

influencing concordance between partners and trained coders. American Journal

of Family Therapy,12(2), 15-28.

Booth, A., Amato, P., Johnson, D.(1998). Marital happiness, marital duration, and the u-

shaped curve evidence from a five-wave panel study. Social Forces, 79(4), 1313-

1341.

Booth, A., & Johnson, D. (1988). Premarital cohabitation and marital success. Journal

of Family Issues, 9, 255-272.

Brown, S.L. (2004). Moving from cohabitation to marriage: Effects on relationship

quality. Social Science Research, 33(1), 1-20.

Bumpass, L. L, & Lu, H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s

family contexts in the U.S. Population Studies, 54, 29-41.

Bumpass, L. L., Martin, T. C., & Sweet, J. A. (1991). The impact of family background

and 1964 – 1980 marital factors on marital disruption. Journal of Family

Issues,12, 22-42.

Bumpass, L. L., & Sweet, J. A. (1989). National estimates of cohabitation. Demography,

26,615-625.

Bumpass, L. L., Sweet, J. A., & Cherlin, A. (1991). The role of cohabitation in declining

rates of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 913-927.

Burns, A. & Dunlop, R. (2002). Parental marital quality and family conflict: Longitudinal

effects on adolescents from divorcing and non-divorcing families. Journal of

Divorce and Remarriage, 37(1/2), 57-74.

Casper, L. M., & Cohen, P. N. (2000). How does POSSLQ measure up? Historical

estimates of cohabitation. Demography, 37, 237-245.

Emergent family patterns: The intergenerational construction of problem behavior and

relationships., In R. A.Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within

families (pp. 218–240). Oxford, England:Clarendon Press., 1988

Cherlin, A.J., Burton, L., Hurt, T., & Purvin, D. (2005). Domestic abuse and patterns of

marriage and cohabitation: Evidence from a multi-method study.

Cherlin, A. J., Kierman, K.E., & Chase-Lansdale, P.L.. (1995). Parental divorce in

childhood and demographic outcomes in young adulthood." Demography 32:299-

318. 32:299-318.

Christensen, A., & King, C.E. (1982). Telephone survey of daily marital behavior.

Behavioral Assessment, 4(3), 327-338.

Cohan, C. L., & Kleinbaum, S. (2002). Toward a greater understanding of the

cohabitation effect: Premarital cohabitation and marital communication. Journal

of Marriage and Family, 64, 180-192.

Conger, R.D., Cui, M., Bryant, C.M., & Elder, G.H., Jr. (200). Competence in early adult

romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 224-237.

Cunningham, M., & Thornton, A. (2007). Direct and indirect influences of parents’

marital instability on children’s attitudes toward cohabitation in young adulthood.

Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 46(3/4), 125-143.

Dawber, T.R. (1980). The Framinghan study: the epidemiology of atherosclerotic

disease. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

DeMaris, A., & Leslie, G. R. (1984). Cohabitation with the future spouse: Its influence

upon marital satisfaction and communication. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 46, 77-84.

Edin, K. & Reed, J.M. (2005). Why don’t they just get married? Barriers to marriage

among the disadvantaged. The Future of Children, 15,117-137.

Furstenberg, F.F., Nord, C.W., Peterson, J.L., & Zill, N. (1983). The lifecourse of

children of divorce: Marital disruption and parental contact. American

Sociological Review, 48, 656-668.

Gecas,V. & Seff, M.A. (1990). Families and adolescents: A review of the 1980’s. Journal

of Marriage and the Family, 52, 941-958.

Grych, J.H. & Fincham, F.D.(1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A

cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin,108,267-290.

Gutman, L.M., Sameroff, A.J., & Cole, R. (2003). Academic growth curve trajectories

from 1st grade to 12th grade: Effects of multiple social risk factors and preschool

child factors. Developmental Psychology, 39, 777-790.

Heaton, T. B. (2002). Factors contributing to increasing marital stability in the US.

Journal of Family Issues,23, 392-409.

Hoffman, S.D., & Duncan, G.J. (1995). The effect of incomes, wages, and AFDC

benefits on marital disruption. Journal of Human Resources, 30(1), 19-41.

Jekielek, S.M. (1998). Parental conflict, marital disruption, and children’s emotional

well-being. Social Forces, 76, 905-935.

Johnson, C.A., Stanley, S.M., Glenn, N.D., Amato, P.A., Nock, S.L., Markman, H.J., &

Dion, M.R. (2002). Marriage in Oklahoma: 2001 baseline statewide survey on marriage

and divorce (S02096 OKDHS). Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Department of Human

Services.

Johnson, D. D., White, L. K., Edwards, J. N., & Booth, A. (1986). Dimensions of marital

quality: Toward methodological and conceptual refinement. Journal of Family

Issues, 7, 31-49.

Kamp Dush, C.M., Cohan, C.L., & Amato, P.R. (2003). The relationship between

cohabitation and martial quality and stability: Change across cohorts? Journal of

Marriage and Family, 65(3), 539-549.

Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K., & Newton, T.L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers.

Psychological Bulletin, 127,472-503.

Kline, G.H., Stanley, S.M., Markman, H.J., Olmos-Gallo, P.A., St. Peters, M., Whitton,

S.W., & Prado, L.(2004). Timing is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and

increased risk for poor marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 311-

318.

Kunz, J.(2000). The intergenerational transmission of divorce: A nine generation study.

Journal of Divorce and Remarriage,34(1/2), 169-175.

Levenson, R.W., Carstensen, L.L., & Gottman, J.M. (1994). Influence of age and gender

on affect, physiology, and their interrelations: A study of long-term marriages.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(1), 56-68.

Lichter, D.T., & Qian, Z. (2008). Serial cohabitation and the marital lifecourse. Journal

of Marriage and Family, 70(4), 861-878.

Manning, W.D., & Smock, P.J. (2005). Measuring and modeling cohabitation: New

perspectives from qualitative data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 989-

1002.

Meeks, B.S., Hendrick, S.S., & Hendrick, C. (1998). Communication, love, and

relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,15(6), 755-

773.

Morrison, D.R., & Cherlin, A.J. (1995). The divorce process and young children’s well-

being: A prospective analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 800-812.

Oppenheimer, V.K. (2003). Cohabiting and marriage during young men’s career-

development process. Demography, 40, 127-149.

Rauer, A.J., Karney, B.R., Garvan, C.W., & Hou, W. (2008). Relationship risks in

context: A cumulative risk approach to understanding relationship satisfaction.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1122-1135.

Rhoades, G.K., Stanley, S.M., & Markman, H.J. (2009). The pre-engagement

cohabitation effect: A replication and extension of previous findings. Journal of

Family Psychology, 23(1), 107-111.

Rogge, R., & Bradbury, T.N. (1999). Till violence does us part: The differing roles of

communication and aggression in predicting adverse marital outcomes. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67,340-351.

Stanley, S.M., Rhoades, G.K., & Markman, H.J. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia

and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499-509.

Stanley, S.M., Whitton, S.W., & Markman, H.J.(2004). Maybe I do: Interpersonal

commitment and premaritalor nonmarital cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues,

25 (4), 496-519.

Swanbrow, D. (2009, September 15). Extra-marital cohabitation seen as divorce cure.

Spero News. Retrieved September 28, 2009, from http://www.speroforum.com

Teachman, J. D., & Polonko, K. A. (1990). Cohabitation and marital quality and

stability in the United States. Social Forces, 69, 207-220.

Thomson, E., & Colella, U. (1992). Cohabitation and marital quality and stability:

Quality or commitment? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 259-267.

Thornton, A. (1991). Influence of the marital history of parents on the marital and

cohabitation experience of children. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 868-894.

Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage

and Family, 63, 1009-1037.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). American Fact Finder.Table Q5-P18. Marital Status by Sex,

Unmarried- Partner Households, and Grandparents as Caregivers:2000. Retrieved

March 9, 2004, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&geo_id=D&qr_name=DEC_2000_

SF4_U_QTP