Mate Selection Reflection Paper

After reading the chapter(s) from Lamanna, Riedmann, and Stewart (2018) and Balswick and Balswick (2014) (provided in learning activities > week 3), how does the sociological view of mate selection compare to the Biblical view? Discuss both similarities and dissimilarities using both the textbook and the supplemental reading. How has this impacted your personal view of the mate selection process? Papers must be 2-3 pages (not including title and references) and in APA format. 

Note: You are required to utilize both your textbook and the Balswick and Balswick (2014) reading (located as a pdf in Blackboard this week) to write your paper this week or it will be considered incomplete.

Human services

54 M a r r i a g e

r e p o r t e d t h a t ” f e m a l e s r a t e d i n t e l l i g e n c e , s t a b i l i t y , c o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s, h e i g h t ,

e d u c a t i o n , social s k i l l s , a n d p o l i t i c a l / r e l i g i o u s c o m p a t i b i l i t y s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher

t h a n males, w h e r e a s males r a t e d g o o d l o o k s h i g h e r t h a n f e m a l e s ” (262).

Wenzel a n d E m e r s o n (2009, 341) r e p o r t t h a t socially a n x i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s

believe o t h e r s are less l i k e l y t o select t h e m w h e n c o m p a r e d t o s o c i a l l y n o n –

a n x i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s . M c G e e a n d S h e v i n (2009, 67) f o u n d t h a t persons w i t h

a g o o d sense o f h u m o r are perceive d as m o r e a t t r a c t i v e as p o t e n t i a l mates.

M o n t o y a (2008, 1315) i n d i c a t e s t h a t ” a t t r a c t i v e perceivers e x p e c t e d t o date

m o r e a t t r a c t i v e t a r g e t s w h i l e u n a t t r a c t i v e perceivers e x p e c t e d t o d a t e less at-

t r a c t i v e t a r g e t s . ”

A Christian Perspective on Mate Selection

T a k e n t o g e t h e r , t h e v a r i o u s s o c i o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s o f m a t e s e l e c t i o n c o m p o r t

w e l l w i t h t h e t h e o l o g i c a l m o d e l o f f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t w e presented i n

chapter 1 . T h i s w i l l becom e clear as w e describe w h a t m a t e s e l e c t i o n w o u l d

be l i k e i f i t d e v e l o p e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r i n c i p l e s suggested i n o u r t h e o l o g i c a l

m o d e l : c o m m i t m e n t , grace, e m p o w e r m e n t , a n d i n t i m a c y .

A t the b e g i n n i n g o f c o u r t s h i p , t h e r e is a m i n i m a l degree o f c o m m i t m e n t

b e t w e e n t h e p a r t n e r s . W i t h a n i n c r e a s e d degree o f c o m m i t m e n t comes a n

increased sense o f t r u s t a n d security. A n d as m u t u a l c o m m i t m e n t increases,

grace can be e x p e c t e d t o g r o w p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y Grace is e x p e r i e n c e d t h r o u g h

acceptance a n d a p p r e c i a t i o n by t h e p a r t n e r . T h e presence o f grace p r o m o t e s

a f e e l i n g o f s e c u r i t y because d i f f e r e n c e s are respected a n d because there is an

a t m o s p h e r e o f forgiveness w h e n e v e r f a i l u r e occurs. T h e p a r t n e r s are valued

a n d accepted f o r w h o t h e y are a n d n o t f o r w h a t they m i g h t be o r d o f o r the

o t h e r .

O u t o f grace emerges a m u t u a l e m p o w e r m e n t process. I n t h e early stages

o f c o u r t s h i p , t h e c o u p l e may o p e r a t e o n a q u i d p r o q u o basis ( s o m e t h i n g f o r

s o m e t h i n g ) , w i t h each a t t e m p t i n g t o have p e r s o n a l needs m e t t h r o u g h the

r e l a t i o n s h i p . W h e r e t h e r e is a m i n i m a l degree o f c o m m i t m e n t a n d accep-

tance, p a r t n e r s are l i k e l y t o t h i n k m o r e i n t e r m s o f w h a t t h e y c a n get f r o m

a r e l a t i o n s h i p r a t h e r t h a n w h a t t h e y c a n c o n t r i b u t e t o i t . T h e e m p o w e r m e n t

m o d e l is h o p e f u l i n t h a t i t shows t h a t love c a n be elevated above self-centered

exchange. A d e p t h o f c o m m i t m e n t a n d grace can i m b u e e a c h p a r t n e r w i t h

a genuine desire t o e m p o w e r by b o t h g i v i n g t o a n d r e c e i v i n g f r o m the other.

T h i s involves b e i n g interested i n t h e g r o w t h o f the o t h e r p e r s o n a n d f i n d i n g

ways t o e n c o u r a g e t h e p a r t n e r t o r e a c h h i s o r her greatest p o t e n t i a l a n d thus

t o be a l l t h a t G o d created h i m o r h e r t o b e .

M.ik- S e l e c t i o n a n d C o h a b i r a t i o n 55

Some c o u r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s are n o t e m p o w e r i n g b u t r a t h e r are based o n

i n i i i i i a l d e p e n d e n c y W h e n c o u p l e s are overly d e p e n d e n t o n each other, t h e y

u i u l t o d e m a n d t h a t the p a r t n e r m e e t t h e i r every n e e d . T h e y f a i l t o d e v e l op

i l u i r o w n resources as they l o o k t o each o t h e r t o m e e t a l l t h e i r needs. T h e

I ‘ x p c c t a t i o n s a n d d i s a p p o i n t m e n t s are e x t r e me w h e n p a r t n e r s focus solely o n

each o t h e r . T h e t e n d e n c y t h e n is t o be possessive a n d d e m a n d i n g r a t h e r t h a n

c i i i p o w e r i n g . Such a desperate n e e d f o r the o t h e r p u t s g r e a t pressure o n t h e

i c l . i i i o n s h i p a n d o f t e n results i n t u r m o i l , jealousy, a n d c h a o s .

( : o d e p e n d e n c y is the exact o p p o s i t e o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n as n o t e d i n t r i n i t a r –

i.ui t h e o l o g y , w h e r e distinctiveness a n d u n i t y are i n t e r m i n g l e d . D i f f e r e n t i a t e d
11.1 r i n e t s are r e s p o n s i b l e t o G o d f o r t h e i r lives a n d t h e r e f o r e b r i n g u n i q u e g i f t s
I I 1 1 he c o u p l e r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h e y act i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p o u t o f s t r e n g t h r a t h e r
ill.111 d e f i c i t . T h e y are able t o ask f o r w h a t they w o u l d l i k e w i t h o u t d e m a n d –
i n g the p a r t n e r p r o v i d e i t . B e i n g c e n t e r e d i n C h r i s t gives t h e m confidence t h a t

( K K ! is t h e best resource t o g u i d e , e m p o w e r , n u r t u r e , i n s p i r e , a n d soothe. T h e y

l i i o k to G o d f o r p e r s o n a l g r o w t h b u t also o p e n l y share a n d o f f e r themselves

lo t . i c h o t h e r i n t h a t process. W h e n spouses c l i n g t o each o t h e r f o r dear l i f e

III a r a g i n g r i v e r , t h e y p e r p e t u a t e a n e n a b l i n g system i n w h i c h t h e y b o t h are
likely t o d r o w n together. B u t w h e n s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , t h e y are a s t r o n g

resource f o r each o t h e r so t h a t w h e n o n e is s t r u g g l i n g , t h e p a r t n e r is s t a n d i n g

cm s o l i d g r o u n d t o e x t e n d a h e l p i n g h a n d .

I’.cclesiastes 4 : 9 – 1 2 refers t o t h i s idea t h a t t w o s u f f i c i e n t persons are b e t –

i n i j i a n o n e a l o n e . Because t h e y b r i n g t h e i r u n i q u e s t r e n g t h s t o the u n i o n ,

i l i i y can be t h e r e f o r each o t h e r r a t h e r t h a n be d r a g g e d d o w n i n a n o v e r l y

dependent r e l a t i o n s h i p . ” T w o are b e t t e r t h a n o n e , because t h e y have a g o o d

icvv.ird f o r t h e i r t o i l . For i f they f a l l , o n e w i l l l i f t u p t h e o t h e r ; b u t woe t o o n e

w h o is a l o n e a n d falls a n d does n o t have a n o t h e r t o h e l p . A g a i n , i f t w o l i e

l(| ‘̂,l•ther, t h e y keep w a r m ; b u t h o w c a n one keep w a r m alone? A n d t h o u g h

(ine m i g h t p r e v a i l against a n o t h e r , t w o w i l l w i t h s t a n d o n e . A t h r e e f o l d c o r d
I N not q u i c k l y b r o k e n . ” B e i n g u n i t e d i n u n i q u e strengths a n d m a k i n g G o d t h e

c r n t e r o f t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p (a t h r e e f o l d c o r d ) presents a w o n d e r f u l i m a g e o f

i n . i r i t a l p a r t n e r s h i p a n d u n i o n .

We l i v e i n a s o c i e t y t h a t e n c o u r a g e s p e o p l e t o t h i n k t h a t t h e y can have

i n s i . i n t g r a t i f i c a t i o n . T h i s m e n t a l i t y c a r r i e s over i n t o t h e d a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p ,

v\I re p e o p l e l o o k f o r i n s t a n t s e x u a l i n t i m a c y . T h e p r e v a l e n c e o f a n i n s t a n t

x c x i i a l g r a t i f i c a t i o n e t h i c has r e s u l t e d i n t h e e m e r g e n c e o f t h e c o n c e p t o f

” h o o k i n g u p , ” d e f i n e d as i n t i m a t e p h y s i c a l b e h a v i o r o u t s i d e o f a c o m m i t –

i i i l r e l a t i o n s h i p . H o o k i n g u p seems t o be less a b o u t d a t i n g i n o r d e r t o g e t

ii> k n o w t h e o t h e r a n d m o r e a b o u t s e x u a l f u l f i l l m e n t . Research o n h o o k i n g

np . i i n o i i g c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s r e p o r t s t h a t i t can r e s u l t i n b o t h p o s i t i v e a n d

56 M a r r i a g e

n e g a t i v e experiences, ” w i t h w o m e n b e i n g m o r e l i k e l y t o r e p o r t i t as a n e g a –

t i v e e x p e r i e n c e t h a n m e n ” ( O w e n a n d F i n c h a m 2 0 1 1 ) . N e g a t i v e e m o t i o n a l

r e a c t i o n s w e r e r e l a t e d t o ” r e p o r t s o f depressive s y m p t o m s a n d f e e l i n g s o f

l o n e l i n e s s , ” w h i l e p o s i t i v e e m o t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h a d t o d o w i t h h o p e f o r t h e

p o s s i b i l i t y o f a c o m m i t t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p (321). T h i s f i n d i n g seems t o p o i n t o u t

t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f the b i b l i c a l w i s d o m t h a t s e x u a l i n v o l v e m e n t is best w h e n

p a r t

o f a c o m m i t t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p .

I n o u r t h e o l o g i c a l m o d e l , i n t i m a c y e n t a i l s a d e e p level o f k n o w i n g a n d

b e i n g k n o w n t h r o u g h u n d e r s t a n d i n g , l i s t e n i n g , c a r i n g , a n d s h a r i n g . I t is n o t

s i m p l y a p h y s i c a l o r s e x u a l e n c o u n t e r b u t a d e e p l y f e l t process o f b e c o m i n g

k n o w n . A c c o r d i n g l y , i n t i m a c y b u i l d s o n c o m m i t m e n t , grace, a n d e m p o w –

e r m e n t . U s i n g these f o u n d a t i o n a l b i b l i c a l c o n c e p t s , p e o p l e w h o t r u s t t h e

c o m m i t m e n t , w h o e x p e r i e n c e acceptance a n d f o r g i v e n e s s d u r i n g c o u r t s h i p ,

a n d w h o f i n d t h e i r p a r t n e r i n t e r e s t e d i n a n d a c t i v e l y a f f i r m i n g e m p o w e r m e n t

d u r i n g t h e c o u r t i n g p r o c e s s w i l l feel safe e n o u g h t o be m o r e h o n e s t a n d

r e v e a l i n g . T h e y are w i l l i n g t o t a k e o f f t h e i r m a s k s a n d resist t h e t e m p t a –

t i o n t o p u t o n pretenses. T h e y share w i t h a d e s i r e t r u l y t o k n o w each o t h e r .

T h e c o u p l e is m o r e i n t e r e s t e d i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e o t h e r p e r s o n t h a n

i n t h e m e r e pleasure t h a t p e r s o n can give i n a s u p e r f i c i a l sexual e n c o u n t e r .

I n t i m a c y o f t h i s n a t u r e l e a d s t o deeper levels o f c o m m i t m e n t , g r a c e , a n d

e m p o w e r m e n t .

C e r t a i n beliefs a b o u t m a t e s e l e c t i o n , suc h as ” l o v e is e n o u g h ” o r ” t h e r e

is a o n e a n d o n l y f o r m e , ” m a y be a serious h i n d r a n c e i n d i s c e r n i n g G o d ‘ s

w i l l . A research study has i d e n t i f i e d seven such constraining beliefs t h a t l i m i t ,

i n h i b i t , h i n d e r , o r p e r p e t u a t e exaggerated o r false e x p e c t a t i o n s a b o u t m a t e

s e l e c t i o n ( C o b b , L a r s o n , a n d W a t s o n 2003). T h e b e l i e f s t h a t ” t h e r e is a o n e

a n d o n l y , t h a t love is e n o u g h , t h a t c o h a b i t i n g b e f o r e m a r r i a g e w i l l i m p r o v e

chances o f b e i n g h a p p i l y m a r r i e d , t h a t I w i l l have c o m p l e t e assurance, t h a t

t h e m a t c h w i l l make a p e r f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h a t c h o o s i n g s h o u l d be easy a n d

e f f o r t l e s s , a n d t h a t o n e s h o u l d choose s o m e o n e t o m a r r y w h o s e p e r s o n a l

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are the o p p o s i t e o f t h e i r o w n ” seem t o adversely a f f e c t m a t e

s e l e c t i o n . T h e s e m y t h s b l u r t h e c l a r i t y o f v i s i o n n e e d e d w h e n c h o o s i n g a

m a t e . T h e s t u d y discovered t h a t ” m e n a n d w o m e n w e r e f o u n d t o be e q u a l l y

s u s c e p t i b l e t o c o n s t r a i n i n g b e l i e fs a b o u t m a t e s e l e c t i o n , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f

t h e O n e a n d O n l y belief, t h e I d e a l i z a t i o n belief, a n d t h e C o m p l e t e A s s u r a n c e

b e l i e f , a l l o f w h i c h w o m e n a p p e a r t o e n d o r s e t o a s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r d e g r e e ”

( 2 2 9 ) . A n a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g w o r t h n o t i n g is t h a t M o r m o n s h a d s i g n i f i c a n t l y

f e w e r c o n s t r a i n i n g b e l i e f s , w h i c h a l o n g w i t h t h e i r s t r o n g emphasis o n m a r –

r i a g e p r e p a r a t i o n may p a r t i a l l y a c c o u n t f o r t h e i r l o w e r d i v o r c e rate s w h e n

c o m p a r e d t o n o n – M o r m o n s .

M . i i e Selection and C o h a b i t a t i o n 57

(ioliabitation: A Path toward or Alternative to Marriage

V n t u a l l y a l l i n d u s t r i a l i z e d societies i n t h e l a s t fifty years have e x p e r i e n c e d

,1 d r a m a t i c increase i n c o h a b i t a t i o n . T h i s increase is t r u e f o r p r e m a r i t a l c o –
l i . i b i t a t i o n a n d c o h a b i t a t i o n f o l l o w i n g d i v o r c e o r t h e d e a t h o f a s p o u s e . I n

i l n ‘ U n i t e d States, c o h a b i t a t i o n has i n c r e a s e d s e v e n t e e n – f o ld b e t w e e n 1960

, I I K 1 2 0 1 0—f r o m a b o u t 450,000 people i n 1960 t o m o r e t h a n 7.5 m i l l i o n t o d a y
( W i l c o x 2 0 1 1 , 7 5 ) . M o s t m a r r i a g e s a n d r e m a r r i a g e s t a k i n g p l a c e t o d a y w i l l

In preceded by a c o h a b i t i n g a r r a n g e m e n t .

O u r g o a l i n t h i s s e c t i o n is t o develop a C h r i s t i a n perspective o n t h e t o p i c .

We d r a w o n e x i s t i n g research, m a i n l y s e l f – r e p o r t e d responses t o survey research

q u e s t i o n n a i r e s o r i n t e r v i e w s , t o u n d e r s t a n d t h i s p h e n o m e n o n m o r e f u l l y We

11 insider the reasons p e o p l e choose t o c o h a b i t a n d e x a m i n e t h e i m p a c t o f t h i s
I r e n d . We offer a respons e t o c o h a b i t a t i o n t h a t is i n f o r m e d by b o t h b i b l i c a l
.Mill social-scientific l i t e r a t u r e . We begin by a d d r e s s i n g the q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r
p i e m a r i t a l c o h a b i t a t i o n is a n alternative to m a r r i a g e o r a step toward m a r r i a g e .

Is Cohabitation a Step toward Marriage?

A c t u a l l y , p r e m a r i t a l c o h a b i t a t i o n is n o t a n e w i d e a , f o r as e a r l y as 1966

. M i i h r o p o l o g i s t M a r g a r e t M e a d p r o p o s e d a t w o – s t e p p l a n for single a d u l t s . T h e

l i i s t step, trial marriage, w o u l d be a t i m e f o r t h e c o u p l e t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r

I hey were c o m p a t i b l e ; a n d the second step w o u l d be t o legalize the union w h e n

the c o u p l e decided t o have c h i l d r e n . A f e w years later, Scriven (1968) p r o p o s e d

.1 three-stage p l a n w h e r e b y a r e l a t i o n s h i p p r o g r e s s e d f r o m sexual satisfaction,
t o social security, t o sensible spawning. T h e i d e a was f o r c o u p l e s t o establish

I o i i t r a c t s f o r stated p e r i o d s o f t i m e a n d p e r i o d i c a l l y renew t h e m as t h e y saw

l i t . I n 1997, M c R a e s u r m i s e d t h a t c o h a b i t a t i o n w o u l d serve as a t y p e o f m a r –

r i a g e p r e p a r a t i o n , a stage t h a t occurs b e t w e e n c o u r t s h i p a n d m a r r i a g e . H e

teasoned t h a t c o h a b i t i n g w o u l d give t h e c o u p l e a chance t o test t h e degree o f

e o n i p a t i b i l i t y , a n d i f t h e i r personalities ” f i t , ” t h e y w o u l d move t o m a r r i a g e .

What Does Culture Have to Do with It?

I n t e r m s o f a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f c o h a b i t a t i o n i n v a r i o u s c u l t u r e s , H e u v e l i n e

.11 i d T i m b e r l a k e (2004) f o u n d t h a t c o h a b i t a t i o n h a d d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s w i t h
respect t o f a m i l y f o r m a t i o n , values, a n d c u l t u r a l s a n c t i o n s . T h e y d e s c r i b e a

c o n t i n u u m o f a t t i t u d e s , based o n t h e i r s t u d y o f c o h a b i t a t i o n i n s i x t e e n i n d u s –

I r i a l societies. A t o n e e n d o f the s p e c t r u m , c o h a b i t a t i o n is marginal because i t

is c u l t u r a l l y rejected o r even p e n a l i z e d i n these societies. Societies w i t h a m o r e

m o d e r a t e v i e w may a c c e p t c o h a b i t a t i o n as a p r e l u d e t o m a r r i a g e b u t expect

58 M a r r i a g e

the l e g a H z a t i o n o f m a r r i a g e p r i o r t o b r i n g i n g c h i l d r e n i n t o t h e h o m e . M o r e

o p e n c u l t u r e s d i s t i n g u i s h c o h a b i t a t i o n as an alternative to marriage o r a stage

in the marital process; a n d at t h e o t h e r e n d o f the s p e c t r u m are culture s t h a t

give t o t a l a c c e p t a n c e ( n o r t h e r n E u r o p e a n c o u n t r i e s ) w h e r e c o h a b i t a t i o n is

a c t u a l l y indistinguishable from marriage w i t h c e r t a i n l e g a l r i g h t s .

N o r t h A m e r i c a is somewhere i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h i s c o n t i n u u m , where co-

h a b i t a t i o n is c o n s i d e r e d an a l t e r n a t i v e single lifestyl e as w e l l as a n a l t e r n a t i v e

t o m a r r i a g e . I n t h e U n i t e d States, age seems t o make a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h a t ” o l d e r

c o h a b i t e r s are m o r e l i k e l y t o v i e w t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p as a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o m a r –

riage, whereas y o u n g e r c o h a b i t e r s v i e w t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p as a p r e l u d e t o i t ”

( K i n g a n d S c o t t 2005, 271). I n g e n e r a l , t h e m o r e a c c e p t i n g a society’s a t t i t u d e

t o w a r d c o h a b i t a t i o n , the m o r e c o h a b i t a t i o n w i l l be d e f i n e d as an a l t e r n a t i v e

t o m a r r i a g e ( P e r e l l i – H a r r i s a n d Gassen 2012).

Making the Decision to Cohabit

I n an e f f o r t t o answer the q u e s t i o n a b o u t w h y c o u p l e s choose t o c o h a b i t ,

H u a n g et a l . ( 2 0 1 1 , 876) r e p o r t t h a t t h e p r i m a r y motives f o r c o h a b i t i n g i n c l u d e

” s p e n d i n g t i m e t o g e t h e r , s h a r i n g expenses, a n d e v a l u a t i n g c o m p a t i b i l i t y . ”

M a n y c o u p l e s a d m i t t e d l y decide t o c o h a b i t f o r the c o n v e n i e n c e , c o m p a n i o n –

s h i p , a n d e x c l u s i v e sexual r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a chosen p a r t n e r , regardless o f

w h e t h e r t h e r e is a n i n t e n t i o n t o m a r r y o r n o t .

W H A T D O E S L O V E H A V E T O D O W I T H I T ?

Since t h e r o l e o f r o m a n t i c love w a s addressed p r e v i o u s l y , w e s u m m a r i z e

o n l y t h a t w h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s m o d e r n f o r m s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p c o u p l i n g f r o m the

past is t h e g r e a t e r f r e e d o m y o u n g a d u l t s have t o p u r s u e s e x u a l / r o m a n t i c rela-

t i o n s h i p s w i t h o u t p a r e n t a l i n v o l v e m e n t . N o longer is m a r r i a g e an e c o n o m i c

a r r a n g e m e n t , c o n t r o l l e d and a r r a n g e d by parents, b u t a p a r t i c i p a n t – r u n system

i n w h i c h t h e c o n c e p t o f love drive s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p . A d e c o u p l i n g o f e c o n o m –

ics, sex, a n d c o m m i t m e n t f r o m m a r r i a g e has led t o a g r o w i n g n u m b e r w h o

choose t o c o h a b i t a n d delay m a r r i a g e (the m e d i a n age f o r f i r s t m a r r i a g e n o w

stands at 26 f o r w o m e n a n d 28 f o r m e n ) . C o p e n et a l . (2012) n o t e , ” I f e n t r y

i n t o any t y p e o f u n i o n , m a r r i a g e o r c o h a b i t a t i o n , is t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t , t h e n

the t i m i n g o f a f i r s t u n i o n o c c u r s a t r o u g h l y the same p o i n t i n the l i f e course

as m a r r i a g e d i d i n the p a s t . ”

W H A T D O E S C O M M I T M E N T H A V E T O D O W I T H I T ?

By its v e r y n a t u r e , a c o h a b i t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p is one i n w h i c h c o m m i t m e n t is

a m b i g u o u s . P o p e n o e a n d W h i t e h e a d (2002) believe a h i g h c o m m i t m e n t e t h i c

M.iie S e l e c t i o n a n d C o h a b i t a t i o n 59

IS necessary f o r m a r i t a l s t a b i l i t y , so they w a r n a g a i n s t c o h a b i t a t i o n f o r t h a t

very r e a s o n . M a r r i a g e researcher a n d C h r i s t i a n t h e r a p i s t Scott Stanley a n d c o l –

leagues (2006) describe c o h a b i t i n g as ” r e l a t i o n s h i p i n e r t i a ” i n w h i c h c o h a b i t e r s

. H V ” s l i d i n g ” r a t h e r t h a n ” d e c i d i n g ” o n a m a r i t a l p a r t n e r . H e concludes t h a t

n u n w h o l i v e w i t h w o m e n t h e y e v e n t u a l l y m a r r y are n o t as c o m m i t t e d t o t h e

u n i o n as t h o s e w h o d i d n o t l i v e w i t h t h e i r mates b e f o r e m a r r i a g e .

S m o c k (2000) d i s c o v e r e d t h a t c o h a b i t i n g m e n a n d w o m e n d i f f e r i n t h e

vv.iy t h e y c o n c e p t u a l i z e c o m m i t m e n t . She f o u n d t h a t w o m e n t e n d t o perceive

> i i h a b i t a t i o n as a step p r i o r t o m a r r i a g e , whereas m e n are i n c l i n e d t o v i e w

K i l i a b i t a t i o n as a step p r i o r t o m a k i n g a c o m m i t m e n t . W h e n i t c o m e s t o

i l i a w b a c k s o f c o h a b i t i n g , H u a n g et a l . (2011) f o u n d t h a t ” m e n [are] m o r e

c o n c e r n e d a b o u t loss o f f r e e d o m , w h i l e w o m e n arc m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h d e –

l.iys i n m a r r i a g e , ” p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t gender n o r m s a b o u t r e l a t i o n s h i p i n t i m a c y

govern c o h a b i t i n g u n i o n s (876).

R h o a d e s , Stanley, a n d M a r k m a n (2006, 553) r e p o r t t h a t ” m e n w h o c o h a b –

iiecl w i t h t h e i r spouse b e f o r e e n g a g e m e n t were less d e d i c a t e d t h a n m e n w h o

c o h a b i t e d o n l y a f t e r e n g a g e m e n t o r n o t at a l l b e f o r e m a r r i a g e , ” a n d a f t e r

m a r r i a g e , these husbands w e r e “less d e d i c a t e d t o t h e i r wive s t h a n t h e i r w i v e s

were t o t h e m . ” These r e s e a r c h e r s w o n d e r i f s o m e c o u p l e s w h o o t h e r w i s e

w o u l d n o t have m a r r i e d e n d u p m a r r i e d due t o w h a t t h e y refer t o as the inertia

of cohabitation. I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e c o u p l e s i m p l y r e m a i n s i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p

regardless o f q u a l i t y o r f i t . T h e o b v i o u s i m p l i c a t i o n is t h a t persons d o n o t

make t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s a b o u t m a r r i a g e e x p l i c i t p r i o r t o c o h a b i t i n g , a n d t h a t

becomes a p r o b l e m after t h e y m a r r y

In a representative sample o f 1,294 u n m a r r i e d i n d i v i d u a l s c o m p a r i n g c o h a b –

it m g w i t h n o n c o h a b i t i n g ( d a t i n g ) r e l a t i o n s h i p s , R h o a d e s , Stanley, a n d M a r k –

i n . i n ( 2 0 1 2 , 3 4 8 ) f o u n d t h a t i n i t i a l l y ” c o h a b i t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s were c h a r a c t e r –

ized by m o r e c o m m i t m e n t , l o w e r s a t i s f a c t i o n , m o r e n e g a t i v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n ,

and m o r e p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n t h a n d a t i n g [ n o n c o h a b i t i n g ] r e l a t i o n s h i p s . ”

These a u t h o r s s u m m a r i z e t h a t t h e t r a n s i t i o n f r o m d a t i n g t o c o h a b i t a t i o n is

i l e c l i n i n g ” i n m o s t indices o f r e l a t i o n s h i p q u a l i t y as w e l l as i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l

1 1 i i n m i t m e n t a f t e r c o h a b i t a t i o n b e g a n , t h o u g h t h e f r e q u e n c y o f sex increase d

t e m p o r a r i l y . ”

E V E N T U A L O U T C O M E S

W h i l e these studies are q u i t e b l e a k w h e n i t c o m e s t o m a r i t a l o u t c o m e s , a

c o u p l e ‘ s o r p a r t n e r ‘ s v i e w a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a u n i q u e c o h a b i t a t i o n agree-

m e n t is c e r t a i n l y an i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r i n w h e t h e r t h e y w i l l end u p i n a stable

I I I .1 t r i a g e . I t is p r o b a b l y w i s e t o recognize t h a t f o r s o m e couples c o h a b i t a t i o n
IS an alternative t o m a r r i a g e a n d f o r o t h e r s i t is c o n s i d e r e d a stage i n t h e

60 M a r r i a g e

r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t leads t o m a r r i a g e . Each i n t e r p r e t a t i o n m i g h t be t r u e o f d i f –

f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s a n d b o t h m i g h t be t r u e o f t h e same i n d i v i d u a l s a t d i f f e r e n t

t i m e s i n t h e i r lives.

D o c s Premarital Cohabitation Lead to Marital Adjustment?

T h e i n i t i a l p r e d i c t i o n b y socia l scientists t o p r e m a r i t a l c o h a b i t a t i o n was

t h a t i t w o u l d lead t o b e t t e r m a r r i a g e s ( T r o s t 1975). T h i s s t e m m e d f r o m the

i d e a t h a t c o h a b i t i n g w o u l d serve as a s c r e e n i n g d e v i ce t h a t w o u l d l a t e r ensure

t h e c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f p r o s p e c t i v e spouses ( D a n z i n g e r 1976). I t w a s f u r t h e r

r e a s o n e d t h a t c o h a b i t e r s w o u l d g a i n e x p e r i e n c e i n i n t i m a c y a n d t h e r e f o r e

d e v e l o p a greater degree o f r e l a t i o n a l c o m p e t e n c e necessary f o r a n e n d u r i n g

a n d f u l f i l l i n g m a r r i a g e ( P e t e r m a n 1975).

A n a c c u m u l a t i o n o f research o n the o u t c o m e o f m a r r i a g e s a t i s f a c t i o n pre-

ceded by c o h a b i t a t i o n has f a i l e d t o s u p p o r t t h o s e o p t i m i s t i c p r e d i c t i o n s . N o c k

(1995) f o u n d t h a t c o h a b i t e r s , w h e n c o m p a r e d t o m a r r i e d persons, h a d p o o r e r

r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h p a r e n t s a n d expressed l o w e r levels o f c o m m i t m e n t a n d

h a p p i n e s s w i t h c o m p a r a b l e m a r r i e d i n d i v i d u a l s . K u l u a n d B o y l e (2010 , 881)

i n d i c a t e d t h a t c o h a b i t a t i o n p r i o r t o m a r r i a g e w a s related t o l o w e r c o m m i t m e n t

t o t h e p a r t n e r , increased i n c i d e n c e o f d i v o r c e , l o w e r m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n , a n d

h i g h e r rates o f w i f e i n f i d e l i t y Treas (2000) r e p o r t e d t h a t c o h a b i t i n g c o u p l e s

are m o r e l i k e l y t o e x p e r i e n c e i n f i d e l i t y , w h i l e B i n s t o c k and A r l a n d (2003) f o u n d

t h a t c o h a b i t i n g couple s w e r e m o r e l i k e l y t o separate a n d less l i k e l y t o r e c o n c i le

a f t e r a s e p a r a t i o n w h e n c o m p a r e d t o m a r r i e d c o u p l e s . A a r s k a u g , K e i z e r , a n d

L a p p e g a r d (2012) g a t h e r e d a large sample o f 41,760 m a r i t a l a n d c o h a b i t i n g

u n i o n s across E u r o p e a n d have c o n f i r m e d t h a t c o h a b i t a t i o n is related t o m a r i t a l

i n s t a b i l i t y i n E u r o p e a n societies. T h e y r e p o r t t h a t ” i n a l l c o u n t r i e s c o h a b i t e r s

m o r e o f t e n h a d b r e a k u p p l a n s a n d were less s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s

t h a n i n d i v i d u a l s w h o m a r r i e d ” (389). These researchers f u r t h e r r e p o r t t h a t the

d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t i s f a c t i o n w e r e greatest i n those c o u n t r i e s w h e r e

c o h a b i t a t i o n was least p r e v a l e n t .

I n 1988, one o f t h e m o s t extensive studies based o n a n a t i o n a l r a n d o m sam-

p l e o f over 2,000 m a r r i e d persons f o u n d t h a t w h e n c o m p a r e d t o n o n c o h a b i t i n g

c o u p l e s , those w h o m a r r i e d a f t e r h a v i n g c o h a b i t e d experienced l o w e r levels o f

m a r i t a l success i n the f o l l o w i n g f o u r respects: (1) t h e y h a d less marital interac-

tion—determined by s p e n d i n g t i m e t o g e t h e r e a t i n g meals, s h o p p i n g , v i s i t i n g

f r i e n d s , w o r k i n g o n p r o j e c t s , o r g o i n g o u t f o r l e i s u r e l y o r recreationa l a c t i v i t i e s ;

(2) t h e y h a d m o r e f r e q u e n t a n d m o r e serious marital disagreements—including

b e h a v i o r s such as s l a p p i n g , h i t t i n g , p u n c h i n g , k i c k i n g , o r t h r o w i n g t h i n g s at

each o t h e r ; (3) they w e r e m o r e p r o n e t o marital instability—shown t h r o u g h

M . i i f Selection a n d C o h a b i t a t i o n 61

,u l i o n s such as t h i n k i n g the m a r r i a g e w a s i n t r o u b l e o r c o n s i d e r i n g the idea

III g e t t i n g a d i v o r c e ; t a k i n g d i v o r ce a c t i o n such as t a l k i n g t o f r i e n d s o r t h e i r
ipouse a b o u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f d i v o r c e , o r c o n s u l t i n g w i t h clergy, counselor,

111 a t t o r n e y ; o r a c t u a l l y s e p a r a t i n g f r o m t h e spouse o r filing a p e t i t i o n f o r
divorce; a n d (4) these couples r e p o r t e d a h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e o f divorce ( B o o t h

, i i i d J o h n s o n 1 9 8 8 ) .

A l t h o u g h s u b s e q u e n t research c o n t i n u e d t o s u p p o r t B o o t h a n d Johnson’s

i i i k l i n g s , T h o m s o n a n d C o l e l l a (1992) i n t e r p r e t e d the greater d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n

previously c o h a b i t i n g marriages as h a v i n g m o r e t o d o w i t h t h e u n c o n v e n t i o n a l

,111 nudes a n d l i f e s t y l e s o f these c o u p l e s t h a n the f a c t t h a t t h e y h a d c o h a b i t e d .
\\g m o r e l i b e r a l a t t i t u d e s , such c o u p l e s possessed a g r e a t e r f r e e d o m t o

express d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d t o separate o r d i v o r c e w h e n t h i n g s d i d n o t go w e l l .

I liiwcver, D e M a r i s a n d M a c D o n a l d (1993) disagreed w i t h t h i s c o n c l u s i o n ,

• . i . i i i n g t h a t ” c o n t r o l l i n g f o r u n c o n v e n t i o n a l i t y h a d o n l y a m i n i m a l i m p a c t

n i l ihe c o h a b i t a t i o n e f f e c t ” (406), a n d p o i n t e d o u t t h a t ” a l t h o u g h f a m i l y at-

1 nudes a n d b e l i e f s t e n d t o p r e d i c t t h e attractiveness o f a c o h a b i t i n g l i f e s t y l e ,
iliey d o n o t a c c o u n t f o r differences b e t w e e n c o h a b i t e r s a n d n o n – c o h a b i t e r s

III i n s t a b i H t y ” ( 3 9 9 ) .
In a s t u d y o f over 9,000 responses t o a n a t i o n a l survey, Stets (1993) came t o

I lie f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n : ” A f t e r c o n t r o l l i n g f o r o t h e r f a c t o r s , results i n d i c a t e
ili.it p r i o r c o h a b i t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s n e g a t i v e l y influenc e c u r r e n t m a r r i e d a n d
i n h a b i t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s ” (236). A l t h o u g h n o t h a v i n g t h e d a t a t o c o n f i r m i t ,

Siets speculated t h a t those w h o h a d c o h a b i t e d w i t h s o m e o n e o t h e r t h a n the

i i i i e n d e d spouse are predisposed t o p r o b l e m s i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t c a r r y over

I n f u t u r e r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
A d m i t t e d l y , these studies are q u i t e d e s p a i r i n g w h e n i t c o m e s t o c o h a b i t a –

i i nn r e l a t i o n s h i p s a n d f u t u r e m a r i t a l success. H o w e v e r , i t is also i m p o r t a n t
I n u n d e r s t a n d t h e d y n a m i c s t h a t o c c u r f o r those c o h a b i t e r s w h o e v e n t u a l l y
i i i . i r r y t o b u i l d a successful m a r r i a g e a n d r e m a i n m a r r i e d . Perhaps there are

l e i t a i n q u a l i t i e s t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o e v e n t u a l m a r i t a l success. A t t h i s p o i n t ,

II may be h e l p f u l t o a t t e m p t t o d e c i p h e r s o m e o f the m o r e c o m p l e x f a c t o r s
l i n k i n g p r e m a r i t a l c o h a b i t a t i o n a n d e v e n t u a l m a r i t a l s t a b i l i t y o r i n s t a b i l i t y

In the a r t i c l e “Reassessing the L i n k b e t w e e n P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n a n d

M a r i t a l I n s t a b i l i t y , ” Steffen R e i n h o l d (2010) gives ” s o m e s u p p o r t t o the thesis

111.11 the o n c e – s t r o n g association b e t w e e n p r e m a r i t a l c o h a b i t a t i o n a n d m a r i t a l
I list a b i l i t y has w e a k e n e d over t i m e . ” C o p e n et a l . (2012,2) l i k e w i s e surmise t h a t
.illh o u g h ” i t has been w e l l d o c u m e n t e d t h a t w o m e n a n d m e n w h o c o h a b i t w i t h
I heir f u t u r e spouse before first m a r r i a g e are m o r e l i k e l y t o d i v o r c e t h a n those
w h o d o n o t . . . recent research suggests t h a t the association b e t w e e n p r e m a r i t a l

ei i h a b i t a t i o n a n d m a r i t a l i n s t a b i l i t y f o r first marriages has w e a k e n e d over t i m e . ”

62 M a r r i a g e

Is There a Selective Factor?

C e r t a i n l y there are c o h a b i t i n g c o u p l e s w h o have b e e n successful i n f o r m i n g

q u a l i t y m a r r i a g e s , so we ask t h e q u e s t i o n a b o u t selective f a c t o r s t h a t m i g h t

be at w o r k . B r o w n et a l . (2006, 454) conclud e t h a t ” s e l e c t i o n f a c t o r s l a r g e l y

a c c o u n t f o r t h e deleterious effects o f p r e m a r i t a l c o h a b i t a t i o n o n m a r i t a l suc-

cess.” F o r e x a m p l e , c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (less t r a d i t i o n a l , m o r e

i n d e p e n d e n t , less c u l t u r a l l y c o n s t r a i n e d , etc.) m a y p u t s o m e c o h a b i t e r s a t

h i g h e r r i s k f o r m a r i t a l i n s t a b i l i t y K u l i k (2011, 120) f o u n d t h a t ” t h e n o n c o –

h a b i t i n g w o m e n r e p o r t e d b e t t e r levels o f a d j u s t m e n t o f spousal c o h e s i o n a n d

d i s p l a y o f a f f e c t i o n , a n d t h e y u s e d strategies o f c o n c e s s i o n t o resolve m a r i t a l

c o n f l i c t s t o a greater e x t e n t t h a n d i d w o m e n w h o c o h a b i t e d . ”

I n t h e i r s t u d y o f a n a t i o n a l l y representative s a m p l e o f w o m e n , D e M a r i s a n d

M a c D o n a l d (1993) r e p o r t e d t h a t especially among serial cohabiters t h e r e is

greater i n s t a b i l i t y a m o n g f i r s t – m a r r i e d couples. T e a c h m a n (2003) f o u n d t h a t

p r e m a r i t a l sex a n d p r e m a r i t a l c o h a b i t a t i o n are p r e d i c t i v e o f m a r i t a l d i s s o l u t i o n

b u t only f o r w o m e n w h o h a d sex o r c o h a b i t e d w i t h m e n other than their future

husband. C o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r s l i k e these need t o be c o n s i d e r e d w h e n m a k i n g

p r e d i c t i o n s and/or g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s a b o u t c o h a b i t e r s w h o eventuall y m a r r y

P o o t m a n a n d M i l l s (2012, 357) f o u n d t h a t ” j o i n t i n v e s t m e n t s increased as

i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o m m i t m e n t i n c r e a s e d . ” C o h a b i t e rs w h o have n o marriag e p l a n s

invest t h e least w h i l e c o u p l e s w h o d i r e c t l y m a r r i e d w i t h o u t p r i o r c o h a b i t a –

t i o n i n v e s t e d t h e m o s t . T h i s r e s e a r c h w o u l d raise t h e q u e s t i o n a b o u t joint

commitment i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d degree o f investment a c o u p l e m a k e s

i n t h e i r f u t u r e r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d e v e n t u a l m a r i t a l success a f t e r c o h a b i t a t i o n .

K u l u a n d B o y l e (2010, 881) agree t h a t i t is i m p o r t a n t t o c o n s i d e r t h e p r i o r

c o m m i t m e n t f a c t o r w h i l e r e p o r t i n g general i n c r e a s e d i n c i d e n c e o f d i v o r c e ,

l o w e r m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n , l o w e r c o m m i t m e n t t o t h e p a r t n e r , a n d h i g h e r rates

o f w i f e i n f i d e l i t y

C l a r k b e r g , Stolzenberg , a n d W a i t e (1995) give i n d i r e c t s u p p o r t f o r a self-

selection e x p l a n a t i o n i n t h e i r a n a l y s i s o f over 12,000 responses t o a n a t i o n a l

survey T h e y c o n c l u d e d t h a t ” t h e c h o i c e between c o h a b i t a t i o n a n d m a r r i a g e is

affected by a t t i t u d e s and values t o w a r d w o r k , f a m i l y , use o f leisure t i m e , money,

a n d sex r o l e s , as w e l l as t o w a r d m a r r i a g e i t s e l f ” (609) . T h u s , the r e l a t i o n s h i p

b e t w e e n c o h a b i t i n g and d i v o r c e is r e a l , b u t one c a n n o t say t h a t c o h a b i t a t i o n

alone c o n t r i b u t e s t o d i v o r c e .

O t h e r researchers make t h e p o i n t t h a t a single f a c t o r e x p l a n a t i o n b e t w e e n

p r e m a r i t a l c o h a b i t a t i o n a n d m a r i t a l i n s t a b i H t y is f a u l t y . A s t u d y based o n over

6,000 r e s p o n d e n t s i n G e r m a n y c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e same ” f a c t o r s t h a t increase

divorce rates also increase p r e m a r i t a l c o h a b i t a t i o n r a t e s ” ( B r u d e r l , D i c k m a n n ,

M . i l c S e l e c t i o n and C o h a b i t a t i o n 63

. i n d E n g l e h a r d t 1997, 2 0 5 ) . I n s u r v e y i n g over 5 , 0 0 0 C a n a d i a n w o m e n . H a l l

(I ‘^96) c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p r e m a r i t a l c o h a b i t a t i o n a n d

d i v o r c e c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d b y t h e tendency f o r c o h a b i t e r s t o i d e a l i z e a p u r e

r e l a t i o n s h i p (in w h i c h o n e is s e l f – a c t u a l i z e d ), w h i c h eventuall y ” c o n t a m i n a t e s ”

i n , i r r i a g e reality (1). P h i l l i p s a n d Sweeney (2005) f o u n d t h a t p r e m a r i t a l c o h a b i –

1,11 i o n w a s p o s i t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s u b s e q u e n t m a r i t a l d i s r u p t i o n a m o n g
IK m – H i s p a n i c w h i t e p o p u l a t i o n s b u t n o t a m o n g n o n – H i s p a n i c b l a c k o r M e x i –
i ,111 A m e r i c a n s . I n a s i m i l a r v e i n . K i n g a n d S c o t t (2005, 271) d i s c o v e r e d t h a t
” o l d e r c o h a b i t e r s r e p o r t s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r levels o f r e l a t i o n s h i p q u a l i t y a n d

s i . i b i l i t y t h a n y o u n g e r c o h a b i t e r s , a l t h o u g h t h e y are less l i k e l y t o have p l a n s

l o m a r r y t h e i r p a r t n e r s . ”

Based o n a sample o f 2 , 7 3 7 r e s p o n d e n t s , M u s i c k a n d B u m p a s s ( 2 0 1 2 , 1)

l o n n d t h a t the change i n ” a range o f measures t a p p i n g psychological w e l l – b e i n g ,

h e a l t h , a n d social t i e s ” is s i m i l a r i n c o h a b i t i n g a n d m a r r i a g e r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

They c o n c l u d e , ” O v e r a l l , difference s tend t o be s m a l l a n d appear t o d i s s i p a t e

over t i m e , w h e n the g r e a t e r i n s t a b i l i t y o f c o h a b i t a t i o n is t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t . ”

T h e N a t i o n a l C e n t e r f o r H e a l t h Statistics r e p o r t e d evidence f r o m t h e N a –

i i o n a l Survey o f F a m i l y G r o w t h ( f r o m a s a m p l i n g o f nearly 13,000 p e o p l e ) t h a t

I he difference s i n m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t a n d o u t c o m e between m a r r i e d p e r s o n s
w h o h a d a n d w h o h a d n o t c o h a b i t e d is s m a l l (Jayson 2010).

T h e r e are i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s t o keep i n m i n d as a c o u p l e t r a n s i t i o n s f r o m

c o h a b i t a t i o n t o m a r r i a g e . C a r e m u s t be t a k e n t o resist the a s s u m p t i o n o f a

s t r o n g causal relationship b e t w e e n c o h a b i t a t i o n a n d m a r i t a l f a i l u r e . F a c t o r s

to t a k e i n t o account i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g : t h e degree o f c o m m i t m e n t ; v a l u i n g

, i n d m a k i n g m a r r i a g e a n d f a m i l y l i f e a p r i o r i t y ; c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d c o n f l i c t

r e s o l u t i o n l i f e s k i l l s , r e c o g n i z i n g m a r i t a l e x p e c t a t i o n s , and d e v e l o p i n g a d i f f e r –

e n t i a t e d u n i t y ; m a k i n g j o i n t decisions a b o u t c h i l d r e n , roles, a n d careers; a n d

b e i n g i n v o l v e d i n a n e x t e n d e d f a m i l y and/or f a i t h c o m m u n i t y t h a t s u p p o r t s

, i n d encourages c o v e n a n t v o w s .

How Does Cohabitation Impact Children?

T h i n k i n g b e y o n d t h e p r o s a n d cons o f p r e m a r i t a l c o h a b i t a t i o n f o r a c o u –

p l e , w e n o w consider h o w c h i l d r e n are i m p a c t e d . H e u v e l i n e a n d T i m b e r l a k e

(2004) c i t e studies e s t i m a t i n g t h a t between 25 a n d 40 percent o f a l l c h i l d r e n

s p e n d s o m e t i m e i n a c o h a b i t i n g a r r a n g e m e n t . B r o w n (2006) r e p o r t t h a t w h e n

c o m p a r e d t o c h i l d r e n g r o w i n g u p w i t h m a r r i e d c o u p l e s , c h i l d r e n g r o w i n g u p

w i t h c o h a b i t i n g c o u p l e s t e n d t o have w o r s e l i f e o u t c o m e s . Since c o h a b i t i n g

p . I r e n t s break u p at a m u c h h i g h e r rate t h a n m a r r i e d p a r e n t s , t h e i m p a c t o f

c o h a b i t i n g o n c h i l d r e n c a n be d e v a s t a t i n g .

64 M a r r i a g e

A r o n s o n (2004) finds t h a t a m o n g m o t h e r s w i t h i n f a n t s , t h o s e i n c o h a b i t –

i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s t e n d t o fare f a r w o r s e e c o n o m i c a l l y t h a n m a r r i e d m o t h e r s .

Popenoe a n d W h i t e h e a d (2005) p o i n t t o e v i d e n c e o f h i g h e r r i s k o f sexual

abuse a n d p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e a m o n g c h i l d r e n i n c o h a b i t i n g u n i o n s . D e L e i r e a n d

K a l i l (2005, 286) r e p o r t the r a t h e r s o b e r i n g finding t h a t ” c o h a b i t i n g – p a r e n t

f a m i l i e s , c o m p a r e d t o m a r r i e d – p a r e n t f a m i l i e s , spend a g r e a t e r a m o u n t o n

t w o a d u l t g o o d s ( a l c o h o l a n d t o b a c c o ) a n d a smaller a m o u n t o n e d u c a t i o n . ”

T h e i m p l i c a t i o n s are t h a t c o h a b i t i n g p a r e n t s invest less i n t h e w e l f a r e o f t h e i r

c h i l d r e n t h a n m a r r i e d parents d o .

I n a s t u d y o f 2 , 1 6 0 f a m i l i e s , Schmeer ( 2 0 1 1 , 1 8 1 ) r e p o r t s ” w o r s e h e a l t h f o r

c h i l d r e n b o r n t o c o h a b i t i n g parents . . . t h a n f o r c h i l d r e n w i t h stable m a r r i e d

p a r e n t s . ” I n a d d i t i o n , i t seems t h a t stabl e c o h a b i t a t i o n is n o b e t t e r f o r c h i l d

h e a l t h t h a n c o h a b i t a t i o n d i s s o l u t i o n , a n d a c h i l d ‘ s h e a l th is b e t t e r a m o n g the

c o h a b i t i n g p a r e n t s w h o m a r r y t h a n f o r t h o s e w h o d o n o t m a r r y

Sociologists D a v i d Popenoe a n d B a r b a r a W h i t e h e a d (2003, 2 0 0 4 , 2005) at

R u t g e r s U n i v e r s i t y have c o m p l e t e d a c o m p r e h e n s i v e r e v i e w o f research o n

c o h a b i t a t i o n b e f o r e m a r r i a g e i n t h e i r y e a r l y r e p o r t o n the state o f m a r r i a g e i n

t h e U n i t e d States. T h e y c a u t i o n y o u n g a d u l t s t o t h i n k t w i c e a b o u t c o h a b i t i n g

p r i o r t o m a r r i a g e , o f f e r i n g the f o l l o w i n g f o u r p r i n c i p l e s . F i r s t , consider not

living together at all before marriage, since there is no evidence to support

the view that cohabiting will result in a stronger marriage. T h e e v i d e n c e ,

t h e y suggest, s h o w s t h a t l i v i n g t o g e t h e r b e f o r e m a r r i a g e increases t h e chance

o f d i v o r c i n g a f t e r m a r r i a g e . T h e e x c e p t i o n m a y be f o r those c o u p l e s w h o are

c o m m i t t e d t o m a r r i a g e , have f o r m a l l y a n n o u n c e d t h e i r e n g a g e m e n t , a n d have

chosen a w e d d i n g d a t e .

T h e second p r i n c i p l e is don’t make a habit of cohabiting. T h e y see the

evidence as r e f u t i n g t h e p o p u l a r m y t h t h a t persons l e a r n t o d e v e l o p better

r e l a t i o n s h i p s f r o m a n u m b e r o f f a i l e d c o h a b i t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s . R a t h e r , m u l –

t i p l e c o h a b i t a t i o n is repeatedly f o u n d t o be a s t r o n g p r e d i c t o r o f the f a i l u r e

o f f u t u r e r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

T h e t h i r d p r i n c i p l e is limit cohabitation to the shortest possible period

of time. T h e i n t e n t a n d s p i r i t o f t h i s a d v i c e is based o n t h e i r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t

t h e l o n g e r one lives t o g e t h e r w i t h a p a r t n e r , t h e m o r e l i k e l y i t is t h a t the l o w –

c o m m i t m e n t e t h i c o f c o h a b i t a t i o n w i l l t a k e h o l d . P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a c o h a b i t –

i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p c a n have an e r o d i n g effect n o t o n l y o n t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s ‘ v i e w

o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f c o m m i t m e n t b u t a l s o o n societal e t h i c s , w h i c h value

u n c o n d i t i o n a l c o m m i t m e n t as a basis f o r m a r r i a g e a n d f a m i l y l i f e .

T h e f o u r t h p r i n c i p l e is don’t cohabit when children are involved. T h e s p i r i t

o f t h i s p r i n c i p l e is b a s e d o n t h e v a l u e t h a t c h i l d r e n need a n d s h o u l d have

p a r e n t s w h o are c o m m i t t e d t o s t a y i n g t o g e t h e r f o r t h e m .

M.Ke S e l e c t i o n a n d C o h a b i t a t i o n 65

W h i l e P o p e n o e a n d W h i t e h e a d w r i t e as social s c i e n t i s t s , n o t as advocates

lin a C h r i s t i a n v i e w o f m a r r i a g e , t h e i r advice c e r t a i n l y c o m p o r t s w e l l w i t h

I lie b i b l i c a l w i s d o m t h a t m a r r i a g e is t o be based o n l i f e l o n g covenant c o m –
i i i i i m e n t s . T h o s e w h o make a m a r i t a l covenant w i t h t h e i r p a r t n e r w i l l have

.1 better c h a n c e f o r s t a b i l i t y a n d h a p p i n e s s t h a n those w h o m e r e l y slide i n t o
111.irriage t h r o u g h d e f a u l t .

,\ Perspective on Cohabitation

A C h r i s t i a n response t o c o h a b i t a t i o n needs t o be f o r m u l a t e d at several d i f –

I c i c n t levels. W e o r g a n i z e o u r r e s p o n s e a r o u n d f o u r q u e s t i o n s : (1) W h a t is t h e

ii. u u r e o f c o m m i t m e n t i n c o h a b i t i n g re lationships? (2) W h e n are t w o p e o p l e
iii. i r r i e d i n t h e s i g h t o f God? (3) Is c o h a b i t a t i o n a t h r e a t t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f
iii. u r i a g e ? (4) H o w s h o u l d t h e c h u r c h r e s p o n d t o c o h a b i t i n g couples?

W H A T I S T H E N A T U R E O F C O M M I T M E N T

I N C O H A B I T I N G R E L A T I O N S H I P S ?

T h e p r o m i n e n t reasons p e o p l e e n t e r c o h a b i t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n c l u d e l o v e ,

l o m p a n i o n s h i p , sexual e x c l u s i v i t y , e c o n o m i c s , a m b i v a l e n c e t o w a r d m a r r i a g e ,

loneliness, a n d peer pressure. W h e r e a s m a n y o f these are u n d e r s t a n d a b l e rea-

M i ns f o r l i v i n g w i t h a c o m p a n i o n , t h e noticeabl e m i s s i n g piece is c o m m i t m e n t .
I here is a m b i v a l e n c e t o t h e i d e a o f m a k i n g a v o w b e f o r e G o d t o c o m m i t

iliemselves t o each o t h e r f o r a l i f e t i m e . T h e b i b l i c a l c o n c e p t o f a ” o n e – f l e s h

u n i o n ” blessed by G o d is the essential m i s s i n g piece i n a c o h a b i t i n g a r r a n g e –

ment. W h e r e a s a n exclusive s e x u a l u n i o n is a n i m p o r t a n t aspect o f c o h a b i t a –

i i o n , just as i t is i n m a r r i a g e , c o v e n a n t p r o v i d e s an e n d u r i n g , o n g o i n g , f a i t h f u l

c o m m i t m e n t t h r o u g h a l l aspects o f m a r r i e d l i f e . I t is hesed (the H e b r e w r o o t

lor ” c o v e n a n t ” ) love t h a t p r o m i s e s a f a i t h f u l g i v i n g o f o n e s e l f t o the o t h e r a n d

keeping t h e best interest o f t h e o t h e r i n m i n d ” f o r b e t t e r o r w o r s e , r i c h e r o r

poorer, i n sickness a n d h e a l t h , a n d u n t i l d e a t h p a r t s . ” T h e m o d e l o f u n c o n –

i l i i i o n a l c o v e n a n t c o m m i t m e n t is a s c r i p t u r a l ideal f o r m a r r i a g e .

T h e c o h a b i t i n g c o u p l e may have a d i f f i c u l t t i m e g r a s p i n g t h e value o f c o v –

enant love. I n d e p e n d e n c e i n s t e a d o f m u t u a l i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e l i m i t s the deep-

est p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f acceptance, e m p o w e r m e n t , a n d i n t i m a c y W h e n p a r t n e r s

are u n c e r t a i n a b o u t p e r m a n e n t c o m m i t m e n t , t h e y are p r o n e t o keep s o m e

ilistance a n d p r o t e c t themselves r a t h e r t h a n o p e n u p i n v u l n e r a b l e ways t o

o n e a n o t h e r . A r e l a t i o n s h i p o f r e l u c t a n c e , a fear o f b e c o m i n g t o o a t t a c h e d ,
p i l l s e m o t i o n a l b a r r i e r s u p r a t h e r t h a n b r e a k i n g t h e m d o w n . T h u s , o n e o f

I lie biggest p r o b l e m s w i t h c o h a b i t a t i o n is t h a t i t c a n i n h i b i t deeper levels o f
personal s h a r i n g a n d k n o w i n g . H o l d i n g oneself b a c k l i m i t s g r o w t h t h r o u g h

66 M a r r i a g e

m u t u a l e m p o w e r m e n t i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d keeps p a r t n e r s f r o m d e v e l o p i n g

the deepest c a p a c i t y f o r i n t i m a c y a n d l o v i n g .

I t takes c o u r a g e t o k n o w o n e s e l f a n d t h e n reveal t h a t self t o a p a r t n e r . A

c l a r i f i e d sense o f self a l l o w s a p a r t n e r t o s u r r e n d e r i n s e l f – g i v i n g w a y s . T h e

” f o r e v e r ” c o v e n a n t c o m m i t m e n t p r o v i d e s a c a p a c i t y t o share w i t h o u t f e a r .

D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n gives p a r t n e r s f r e e d o m t o express p e r s o n a l l o n g i n g s a n d fears

as w e l l as r e s p o n d t o the p a r t n e r ‘ s t h o u g h t s , feelings , needs, a n d desires. C o m –

m u n i c a t i n g covenant love t h r o u g h t h o u g h t a n d a c t i o n , regardless o f o b v i o u s

flaws a n d f a i l u r e s , means p a r t n e r s are able t o be ” n a k e d a n d n o t a s h a m e d . ”

T h e r e is n o l o n g e r a need t o p r o t e c t oneself f r o m a d e e p e r a t t a c h m e n t . G r a c e –

f i l l e d l o v e gives p a r t n e r s t h e c o u r a g e t o r i s k l e t t i n g themselves be k n o w n .

C o v e n a n t , g r a c e , e m p o w e r m e n t , a n d i n t i m a c y are t h e essential i n g r e d i e n t s

o f a c o m m i t t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p .

W H E N A R E T w o P E O P L E M A R R I E D I N T H E S I G H T O F G O D ?

T h e c o v e n a n t a l basis f o r C h r i s t i a n m a r r i a g e is m o d e l e d a f t e r the c o v e n a n t

G o d m a d e w i t h I s r a e l . G o d is p i c t u r e d as t r u s t w o r t h y a n d forever f a i t h f u l

i n e x p r e s s i n g u n c o n d i t i o n a l l o v e t o t h e p e o p l e o f G o d . T h e very f o u n d a t i o n

o f c o v e n a n t love is p e r m a n e n c e , u p o n w h i c h s e x u a l a n d e m o t i o n a l i n t i m a c y

are b a s e d . T r u s t w o r t h i n e s s a n d f a i t h f u l n e s s are t h e f r u i t o f a f o r e v e r l o v e

t h a t e s t a b l i s h e s a s o l i d f o u n d a t i o n f o r secure c o n n e c t i o n . T h e d e e p e n i n g o f

love t h r o u g h o u t the years e x p a n d s i n t o an even f u l l e r a n d m o r e c o m p l e t e

c o v e n a n t .

James O l t h u i s (1975) argues t h a t S c r i p t u r e calls f o r t w o m a i n c o n d i t i o n s

t o be p r e s e n t between t w o p e r s o n s w h o j o i n t h e i r lives t o g e t h e r : ( I ) t h a t t h e

r e l a t i o n s h i p be based o n a m u t u a l l y shared covenantal c o m m i t m e n t and (2) t h a t

i t be c o n s u m m a t e d t h r o u g h s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e . T h i s places the d e c i s i o n t o

m a r r y s q u a r e l y o n the t w o p a r t i c i p a n t s i n v o l v e d . I f O l t h u i s ‘ s u n d e r s t a n d i n g

o f S c r i p t u r e is c o r r e c t , a c o u p l e c a n cement t h e i r c o v e n a n t c o m m i t m e n t i n a

v a r i e t y o f w a y s , w i t h o u t f u l f i l l i n g a l l o f the societal e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r m a r r i a g e .

T h i s leads t o several i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n s .

F i r s t , does t h e c o u p l e need c o n s e n t f r o m p a r e n t s o r f a m i l y before t h e y c a n

be c o n s i d e r e d m a r r i e d before G o d ? W h i l e p a r e n t a l c o n s e n t was p a r t o f J e w i s h

m a r r i a g e d u r i n g b i b l i c a l t i m e s , t h i s was a c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e based o n t h e m a t e –

s e l e c t i o n process. W h e r e a s p a r e n t a l consent is c e r t a i n l y d e s i r a b l e, i t w o u l d

be d i f f i c u l t t o f i n d s c r i p t u r a l e v i d e n c e t h a t i t is a r e q u i r e m e n t f o r m a r r i a g e .

S e c o n d , does a c o u p l e need t o m a k e t h e i r c o m m i t m e n t before a c o m m u n i t y

o f believers before they are m a r r i e d i n G o d ‘ s sight? O n e c o u l d argue t h a t w h i l e

i t is w i s e t o have s u p p o r t f r o m a f a i t h c o m m u n i t y , i t is n o t a s c r i p t u r a l d i r e c t i v e .

Ray T a n n a h i l l (1980) p o i n t s o u t t h a t ecclesiastical c o n s e n t t o m a r r y a c t u a l l y

M . i l r S e l e c t i o n and C o h a b i t a t i o n 67

began i n the t w e l f t h c e n t u r y w h e n the R o m a n C a t h o l i c C h u r c h d e c r e e d t h a t

Mi.ii riage c o u l d c o m m e n c e o n l y by consent o f t h e C h u r c h .
T h i r d , is the c o n s e n t o f c i v i l a u t h o r i t i e s needed? T h o s e w h o b e l i e ve t h a t

|ieisons s h o u l d have t h e c o n s e n t o f the c i v i l a u t h o r i t i e s p o i n t t o h e a l t h c o n –

i e i i i s — f o r e x a m p l e , b l o o d tests f o r negative R h f a c t o r o r sexually t r a n s m i t t e d

. l i s e a s e s — w h i c h have r a m i f i c a t i o n s f o r each p a r t n e r a n d t h e i r f u t u r e c h i l d r e n .

A l s o , i t gives spouses c e r t a i n l e g a l , financial, a n d p r o p e r t y r i g h t s . W h i l e ther e

i n – excellent reasons t o seek the consent o f c i v i l a u t h o r i t i e s , i t w o u l d be d i f –

I k l i l t t o s u p p o r t t h i s as a s c r i p t u r a l m a n d a t e .

T b l l o w i n g a ” l e t t e r o f t h e l a w ” i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e , o n e c o u l d argue

t h : i t n o n e o f the above c o n d i t i o n s are r e q u i r e d t o be m a r r i e d i n G o d ‘ s s i g h t .

At the same t i m e , we t h i n k i t is i m p o r t a n t t o u n d e r s t a n d the s p i r i t o f t h e law,

w h i c h recognizes f a m i l y , c o m m u n i t y , and c i v i l s t r u c t u r e s t h a t s u p p o r t m a r r i a g e .

( i o h a b i t i n g couples w h o say they are m a r r i e d ” b e f o r e G o d ” b u t f a i l t o m a k e

It i n i b l i c , miss o u t o n a v i t a l source o f c o l l e c t i v e e n c o u r a g e m e n t . T h e s t r e n g t h
I li a c o m m i t m e n t m u l t i p l i e s w h e n i t is m a d e b e f o r e a w i t n e s s o f believers w h o

o f f e r resources as w e l l as a place o f a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . T h e w i s d o m o f m a k i n g

c o m m i t m e n t s w i t h i n a b e l i e v i n g c o m m u n i t y is especially n o t i c e a b l e d u r i n g

t lines o f t r o u b l e . A c o u p l e depends o n o t h e r s t o keep t h e m r e s i l i e n t w h e n l i f e
stresses c o m e t h e i r way.

Pa rtn ers w h o f a i l t o l e g a l i z e t h e i r ” m a r r i a g e ” lose o u t o n t h e g o v e r n m e n t ‘ s

o b l i g a t i o n t o l o o k o u t f o r t h e w e l f a r e o f each p a r t n e r , the c o u p l e , a n d t h e i r

c h i l d r e n . T h i s e s p e c i a l l y has r a m i f i c a t i o n s f o r spouses a n d t h e i r c h i l d r e n i n

r e g a r d t o financial a n d p r o p e r t y r i g h t s , benefits t h a t o c c u r w h e n a r e l a t i o n s h i p

has t h e legal s u p p o r t o f s o c i e t y T h e r e is a sense i n w h i c h a p e r s o n a l c o m m i t –

m e n t is m a i n t a i n e d t h r o u g h a s u p p o r t i v e c o m m u n i t y a n d s o c i e t y

Some endorse a m u t u a l covenant c o m m i t m e n t m a d e b e t w e e n a n u n m a r –

r i e d m a n a n d w o m a n b e f o r e G o d a n d sealed t h r o u g h sexual i n t e r c o u r s e as

the m i n i m a l b i b l i c a l s t a n d a r d ; others believe t h e r e is a need f o r t h e c o m m i t –

m e n t t o be made i n t h e presence o f the C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y and/or w i t h i n

t h e accepte d f o r m a l s t r u c t u r e o f c i v i l s o c i e t y T h e c e r e m o n y a n d t h e license
are aspects t h a t serve t o i n t e g r a t e a c o u p l e i n t o s o c i e t y E v i d e n c e p o i n t s t o

t h e f a c t t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c ethic i n o u r s o c i e t y keeps p e o p l e f r o m f u l l y

r e a l i z i n g t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f p e r s o n a l c o m m i t m e n t s t h a t are e m b e d d e d i n a

c o m m u n i t y c o n t e x t .

Is C O H A B I T A T I O N A T H R E A T T O T H E I N S T I T U T I O N O F M A R R I A G E ?

T h e c h u r c h m u s t m a k e a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n h o w i t responds t o i n d i v i d u a l s

w h o are i n c o h a b i t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s a n d h o w i t responds t o c o h a b i t a t i o n as a

j i r a c t i c e . We advocate t h a t C h r i s t i a n s s h o u l d o f f e r grace t o c o h a b i t i n g couples

68 M a r r i a g e

over law. A t t h e societa l level, w e d o believe t h a t c o h a b i t a t i o n poses a t h r e a t

t o m a r r i a g e a n d f a m i l y s t a b i l i t y I n response, the c h u r c h c a n o f f e r a n i n f o r m e d

voice t o s u p p o r t societa l p r a c t i c e s t h a t u n d e r g i r d m a r r i a g e a n d f a m i l y l i f e .

A t present, m a r r i a g e i n the U n i t e d States is the accepted w a y o f r e c o g n i z i n g

a social a n d l e g a l l y b i n d i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a m a n a n d a w o m a n , a n d

co ha bi ters d o n o t have t h a t p r o t e c t i o n .

A t stake is t h e u n i q u e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d status g r a n t e d t o m a r r i a g e by t h e

f o u n d e r s o f o u r c o u n t r y R a t h e r t h a n b e i n g a passive a g e n t , t h e c h u r c h can be

an active p a r t i c i p a n t i n the l e g a l / p o l i t i c a l system. I n S w e d e n , f o r e x a m p l e , 30

percent o f a l l c o u p l e s s h a r i n g a h o u s e h o l d are u n m a r r i e d ( T o m a s s o n 1998)

a n d have s i m i l a r l e g a l r i g h t s as m a r r i e d persons r e g a r d i n g p a r e n t i n g a n d eco-

n o m i c b e n e f i t s . T h i s becomes a d i s i n c e n t i v e t o m a r r y T h e l e g i t i m a t e c o n c e r n

is the f u r t h e r e r o s i o n o f m a r r i a g e as a n i n s t i t u t i o n i n society, w h i c h can lead

t o s h o r t e r u n i o n s , a h i g h e r rate o f b r e a k u p s , and a n increase i n the n u m b e r

o f c h i l d r e n g r o w i n g u p i n s i n g l e – p a r e n t h o m e s .

T h e n e g a t i v e i m p a c t o f c o h a b i t a t i o n o n c h i l d r e n c o n t i n u e s t o be a grave

concern t o t h e c h u r c h . C h i l d r e n b o r n t o c o h a b i t i n g c o u p l e s are less l i k e l y t o

spend t h e i r c h i l d h o o d i n a t w o – p a r e n t h o m e t h a n are c h i l d r e n b o r n t o m a r r i e d

couples. T h e r e is a m p l e evidence t h a t t h e e c o n o m i c a n d e m o t i o n a l i m p a c t o f

divorce o n c h i l d r e n has deleteriou s effects o n t h e m .

H o w S H O U L D T H E C H U R C H R E S P O N D T O C O H A B I T I N G C O U P L E S ?

T h e r e are a v a r i e t y o f c o h a b i t i n g s i t u a t i o n s based o n a n u m b e r o f d i f f e r i n g

c r i t e r i a f o r c o h a b i t a t i o n — t h a t i s , degre e o f c o m m i t m e n t , age o f c o h a b i t –

ers, p r e m a r i t a l v e r s u s p o s t m a r i t a l c o h a b i t a t i o n , t h e a b s e n c e o r presence

o f c h i l d r e n , o r t h e i n t e n t t o have c h i l d r e n . A d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f h o w

t h e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y c a n w i s e l y r e s p o n d t o each o f these c o h a b i t i n g

s i t u a t i o n s is b e y o n d t h e l i m i t s o f t h i s c h a p t e r . W e d o o f f e r s o m e g e n e r a l

g u i d e l i n e s , h o w e v e r , a b o u t h o w t h e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y c a n best r e s p o n d

t o these d i f f e r e n t scenarios .

1 . T h e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y p r o m o t e s a n d encourages t h e b i b l i c a l standar d
o f a p e r m a n e n t covenant c o m m i t m e n t between t w o p e o p l e before G o d ,
p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h r o u g h t h e c o m p e l l i n g influenc e o f m o d e l i n g .

2. T h e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y o f f e r s h o s p i t a l i t y , l o v i n g l y r e a c h i n g o u t t o
a l l w h o e n t e r t h e i r d o o r s , o f f e r i n g covenant, grace, e m p o w e r m e n t , a n d
c o n n e c t i o n , w h i c h p r o v i d e s a p l a c e o f b e l o n g i n g a n d s e c u r i t y

3. T h e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y o p e n l y receives c h i l d r e n a n d f a m i l y m e m b e r s
i n t o t h e c h u r c h f a m i l y , g i v i n g t h e m a g l i m p s e o f t h e f a i t h f u l , t r u s t w o r t h y
presence o f love a n d s u p p o r t o f G o d ‘ s p e o p l e .

M a l e S e l e c t i o n a n d C o h a b i t a t i o n 69

4. T h e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y offers a publi c c e r e m o n y w i t h i n the c o m m u n i t y
o f f a i t h t o celebrate t h e c o v e n a n t u n i o n w h e n c o u p l e s decide t o m a r r y ,
w i t h n o s t i g m a or s h a m e p l a c e d o n t h e m o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n .

5. T h e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y c o n t i n u e s t o s h o w love a n d grace, a c c e p t i n g

p e o p l e as t h e y are i n t h e love o f C h r i s t w i t h o u t c o e r c i o n .

6. T h e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y becomes a t r u s t w o r t h y place a n d l o v i n g c o m –

m u n i t y a n d never t u r n s away anyone w h o seeks G o d .

We believ e t h a t the c h u r c h o f t e n deprives c o h a b i t i n g couples o f a g e n u i n e

place o f c a r i n g a n d b e l o n g i n g a n d t h a t we have so m u c h t o offer t h e m i n o u r

K i m m u n i t i e s o f f a i t h . I f ther e is a d e c i s i o n t o m a k e c o v e n a n t vow s, i t behooves

I he c h u r c h t o s u p p o r t t h e m t h r o u g h a m e a n i n g f u l p u b l i c c e r e m o n y E l a b o –
I ,ite a n d expensive w e d d i n g c e r e m o n i e s may keep s o m e f r o m m o v i n g t o w a r d
I his. H e l p i n g w i t h a s i m p l e c e r e m o n y t h a t i n c l u d e s c o n g r e g a t i o n a n d f a m i l y
m e m b e r s as a witness t o t h e c o v e n a n t vows is r e a l l y t h e i m p o r t a n t t h i n g .

H e r e are j u s t a c o u p l e e x a m p l e s o f instances w h e r e t h e f a i t h c o m m u n i t y

was able t o p r o v i d e s u p p o r t i n s m a l l b u t s i g n i f i c a n t w a y s . J u d y ‘ s m o t h e r w o r e

.1 s i m p l e g o l d dress f o r her w e d d i n g ceremony a f t e r t h e Sunday n i g h t c h u r c h
service. H e r a u n t a n d u n c l e s t o o d w i t h t h e m , a n d t h e c h u r c h p r o v i d e d cake

. i n d coffee f o r a s m a l l r e c e p t i o n a f t e r w a r d . Jack’s p a r e n t s h a d a s i m i l a r cer-

e m o n y a f t e r the Sunday m o r n i n g c h u r c h service. T h e y i n v i t e d the f a m i l y a n d

.1 f e w s p e c i a l f r i e n d s over t o t h e house f o r a l i g h t S u n d a y b r u n c h r e c e p t i o n .
A w e d d i n g w a s an o c c a s i o n t o s u p p o r t the c o u p l e ‘ s c o v e n a n t c o m m i t m e n t

w i t h o u t a l l t h e fuss a n d f l a i r o f a n expensive, e l a b o r a t e w e d d i n g . B o t h o u r

p a r e n t s w e r e m a r r i e d m o r e t h a n s i x t y years, a c o v e n a n t c o m m i t m e n t t h a t

lasted over t h e i r l o n g lives.

Perhaps t h e greatest c h a l l e n g e t o t h e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y is t o o f f e r g r a c e

i n t h e m i d s t o f the t e n s i o n f e l t w h e n those w h o e n t e r t h e c h u r c h t o l e a r n o f

Ciod a n d G o d ‘ s ways have a d i f f e r e n t set o f value systems. T h e d i s c o u r a g i n g

t r u t h is t h a t l i v i n g o u t s i d e o f b i b l i c a l l y based n o r m s c a n negatively affect o n e ‘ s

a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d those n o r m s . F o r e x a m p l e , A x i n n a n d Barbe r (1997) f o u n d ,

” T h e m o r e m o n t h s o f e x p o s u re t o c o h a b i t a t i o n t h a t y o u n g people e x p e r i e n c e d ,

the less e n t h u s i a s t i c t h e y w e r e t o w a r d m a r r i a g e a n d c h i l d b e a r i n g ” a n d t h e

m o r e a c c e p t i n g o f divorce ( 6 0 8 ). R a t h e r t h a n r e a c t i n g w i t h j u d g m e n t o r fear,

the c h u r c h is t h e place t h a t o p e n s w i d e its d o o r s , w e l c o m i n g a l l t o c o m e a n d

l e a r n o f t h e ways o f Jesus.

I n i t s stance t o w a r d the p r a c t i c e o f c o h a b i t a t i o n , w e believe t h a t the c h u r c h

can e r r i n t w o ways: either by f a i l i n g t o u p h o l d t h e sacred p u r p o s e o f m a r r i a g e

o r by c o n d e m n i n g a n d s h u t t i n g o u t those w h o c o h a b i t . I n u p h o l d i n g m a r r i a g e

as G o d ‘ s w a y w i t h one h a n d , w e s h o u l d e x t e n d G o d ‘ s grace w i t h t h e o t h e r .

70 M a r r i a g e

O u r gospel m u s t be f u l l o f truth a n d grace. T h e c h u r c h needs t o be t h e very

p l a c e t h a t reaches o u t t o seekers, b o t h thos e l i v i n g o u t s i d e b i b l i c a l n o r m s a n d

t h o s e f o r w h o m b i b l i c a l b e h a v i o r has n o t yet b e c o m e p a r t o f t h e i r lives. T h e

c h u r c h w i l l have a m i n i m a l i m p a c t o n t h e lives o f those w h o are c o h a b i t i n g

u n t i l i t clearly offers t h e h a n d s o f b o t h t r u t h and grace.

A c o u p l e m a y be o n a p a t h t o C h r i s t w i t h o u t even k n o w i n g i t . W h e n a

c o h a b i t i n g c o u p l e establishes a covenant c o m m i t m e n t , they have u n d e r s t o o d

s o m e t h i n g essential a b o u t G o d ‘ s way. T h e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y c a n n u r t u r e

a c o u p l e ‘ s n a t u r a l i n c l i n a t i o n t o c o n t i n u e t o m o v e i n G o d ‘ s w a y t h r o u g h p a –

t i e n c e , respect, a n d love t h a t p o i n t s t h e m i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n . B e i n g c o m p a s s i o n –

ate r a t h e r t h a n j u d g m e n t a l comes o u t o f t h e assurance t h a t G o d , w h o is the

f i n a l j u d g e , is the one w h o loves m o s t f u l l y . ” C h r i s t ‘ s love sees us w i t h t e r r i b l e

c l a r i t y a n d sees us w h o l e . C h r i s t ‘ s love so w i s h e s o u r j o y t h a t i t is r u t h l e s s

a g a i n s t e v e r y t h i n g i n us t h a t d i m i n i s h e s o u r j o y ” (Buechner 1 9 9 2 , 5 8 ) . S t r i v i n g

t o h e l p c o h a b i t i n g c o u p l e s f i n d the j o y o f c o v e n a n t love is a g r e a t p r i v i l e g e .

T h e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y needs t o s h o w f o r t h G o d ‘ s love i n f a i t h f u l , engag-

i n g w a y s t h a t w i l l d r a w t h o s e w h o c o h a b i t c l o s e r t o the way, t h e t r u t h , a n d

t h e m o r e a b u n d a n t l i f e .

Discerning God’s W i l l

M a r r i a g e is a n i m p o r t a n t , sacred event i n m o s t societies. M a r r i a g e is p i v o t a l

because i t is necessary t o t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l w e l l – b e i n g o f the i n d i v i d u a l s i n –

v o l v e d , the social w e l l – b e i n g o f the m a r r i e d c o u p l e a n d f a m i l y , t h e e c o n o m i c

w e l l – b e i n g o f c o m m u n i t i e s , a n d the s u r v i v a l o f society itself. O n e a d v a n t a g e

o f p a r e n t – a r r a n g e d m a r r i a g e is t h a t i t p r o t e c t s y o u n g p e o p l e f r o m t h e pres-

s u r e , c o n f u s i o n , a n d a g o n y o f h a v i n g t o m a k e s u c h a m a j o r d e c i s i o n o n t h e i r

o w n . T h e o b v i o u s d i s a d v a n t a g e is the i m p a c t o f e x c l u d i n g t h e c o u p l e f r o m

t h i s c r i t i c a l process, w h i c h has e n o r m o u s i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e r e s t o f t h e i r

l i v e s . T h i s leads us t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f h o w C h r i s t i a n s are t o a p p r o a c h t h e

m a t e – s e l e c t i o n process.

T o answer t h i s q u e s t i o n , we m u s t b e g i n b y c o n s i d e r i n g h o w o n e come s t o

d i s c e r n G o d ‘ s w i l l i n t h e m a t t e r o f c h o o s i n g a m a t e . F i r s t , a c o u p l e c o n t e m –

p l a t i n g m a r r i a g e w i l l w a n t t o v i e w t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t h r o u g h t h e t h e o l o g i c a l

a n d b i b l i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p lenses we have p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s chapter. A s t h e y l o o k

a t t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p h i s t o r y i n l i g h t o f these v a l u e s , t h e y w i l l b e g i n t o answer

t h e m a t e – s e l e c t i o n q u e s t i o n t h r o u g h t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h each o t h e r . M a n y

c o u p l e s already r e c o g n i z e t r o u b l e i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p d u r i n g c o u r t s h i p b u t

d e n y t h e seriousness o f t h e p r o b l e m s . For t h i s r e a s o n , l o n g e n g a g e m e n t s are

M . u i ‘ Selection a n d C o h a b i t a t i o n 7 1

p i i d i c t i v e o f successful m a r r i a g e . W h e n t h e c o u p l e gets b e y o n d t h e r o m a n t i c

‘.i.ige d u r i n g t h e m o n t h s a n d years p r i o r t o m a r r i a g e i n a l o n g e n g a g e m e n t ,

l l u y g a i n a m o r e r e a l i s t i c idea a b o u t m a n a g i n g t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h e y w i l l

h.ive e x p e r i e n c e d c o n f l i c t s a n d s t r u g g l e s d u r i n g t h i s t i m e a n d have a g o o d

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h o w t h e y deal w i t h e a c h o t h e r i n t h e p r o c e s s . T h e y w i l l

h.ive had t i m e t o see each o t h e r i n a l l s o r t s o f s i t u a t i o n s a n d b e e n w i l l i n g t o

discuss t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s a b o u t roles a n d f u t u r e plans .

We s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t t h a t a c o u p l e i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e a r n a l l t h e y c a n a b o u t

i l i i i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t h r o u g h a p r e m a r i t a l i n v e n t o r y i d e n t i f y i n g s t r e n g t h s a n d

we.iknesses i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . D a v i d O l s o n ‘ s Prepare/Enrich (1998) is a

125-item q u e s t i o n n a i r e used b y c l e r g y a n d c o u n s e l o r s t o assess a c o u p l e ‘ s

chances f o r a s u c c e s s f u l m a r r i a g e . T h e i n v e n t o r y matches each p e r s o n ‘ s re-

sponses t o q u e s t i o n s i n m a j o r areas such as personality , f r i e n d s h i p s , c o n f l i c t ,

( ( u n m u n i c a t i o n , f i n a n c e , sex, v i e w s o n c h i l d r e n , a n d f a m i l y o f o r i g i n . I t has

proven t o be q u i t e a c c u r a t e i n p r e d i c t i n g w h e t h e r a c o u p l e w i l l be successful o r

evt-ntually d i v o r c e (Fowers, M o n t e l , a n d O l s o n 1996). A n o t h e r h e l p f u l i n v e n –

t o r y is the ” P r e p a r a t i o n f o r M a r r i a g e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ” ( H o l m a n , L a r s o n , a n d

I l a r m e r 1994). I t consists o f 178 i t e m s t h a t evaluate the f o l l o w i n g five areas

I hat are p r e d i c t i v e o f m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d s t a b i l i t y : (1) degree o f u n i t y i n

\, a t t i t u d e s , a n d beliefs; (2) p e r s o n a l readiness f o r m a r r i a g e (the i n d i c a t o r s

include e m o t i o n a l h e a l t h a n d m a t u r i t y , self-esteem, a n d i n d e p e n d e n c e f r o m

(ine’s f a m i l y o f o r i g i n ) ; (3) p a r t n e r readiness ( c o m m u n i c a t i n g a b i l i t y a n d skills,

H c l f – d i s c l o s u r e , a n d e m p a t h i c b e h a v i o r ) ; (4) c o u p l e readiness ( a g r e e m e n t o n

li.isic issues, s t a b i l i t y o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p , a p p r o v a l o f each o t h e r ‘ s f r i e n d s a n d

relatives, a n d r e a l i s t i c e x p e c t a t i o n s ) ; a n d (5) b a c k g r o u n d a n d h o m e e n v i r o n –

ment ( s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e h o m e e n v i r o n m e n t , the q u a l i t y o f t h e h o m e e n v i –

r o n m e n t , the q u a l i t y o f the p a r e n t – c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p , a n d absence o f p h y s i c a l

. I I K I sexual abuse). I f ther e are deficiencies i n one o r several o f these areas, the

I o i i p l e m u s t d e t e r m i n e i f they can o v e r c o m e t h e obstacle.

We d e f i n i t e l y believe these assessment t o o l s can p r o v i d e c o n c r e t e i n f o r m a –

i i o n t h a t w i l l h e l p a c o u p l e d e t e r m i n e t h e p o t e n t i a l success o f t h e i r f u t u r e

together. C o u p l e s s h o u l d spend t i m e d i s c u s s i n g these r e l a t i o n s h i p d y n a m i c s

.11 id process t h e r e s u l t s o f the i n v e n t o r i e s w i t h a t r u s t e d c o u n s e l o r o r m i n i s t e r ;
grapple h o n e s t l y w i t h f a m i l y o f o r i g i n a n d m u l t i c u l t u r a l c h a l l e n g e s; take t i m e

111 w o r k o u t a f i n a n c i a l b u d g e t ; a t t e n d w o r k s h o p s o n r e l a t i o n s h i p s k i l l develop-
m e n t ; be aware o f p e r s o n a l i t y dif f e r e n ce s , a n d consider h o w t h e y m i g h t affect

the r e l a t i o n s h i p ; d e a l o p e n l y w i t h sexual r e l a t i o n s h i p issues w i t h a c o u n s e l o r

. I I K I read a n d discuss a n i n f o r m a t i v e b o o k o n the subject. T a k i n g advantage

o f r e a d i n g a b o o k s u c h as Saving Your Marriage before It Starts ( P a r r o t t a n d

P a r r o t t 1996) c a n also h e l p couples p r e p a r e f o r m a r r i a g e .

72 M a r r i a g e

N o o n e p a r t i c u l a r way o f f i n d i n g G o d ‘ s w i l l is best f o r everyone, b u t i n m o s t

cases a c o m b i n a t i o n o f a c t i v i t i e s is advisable. H e r e are f o u r specific g u i d e l i n e s

f o r c o u p l e s t o consider w h e n s e e k i n g G o d ‘ s d i r e c t i o n a b o u t m a r r i a g e . F i r s t ,

l o o k t o G o d d i r e c t l y t h r o u g h p r a y e r , Bible study, a n d m e d i t a t i o n . Second, seek

w i s d o m a n d i n p u t f r o m p a r e n t s , s i g n i f i c a nt f a m i l y m e m b e r s , and g o o d f r i e n d s .

T r u s t e d p e o p l e w h o k n o w a n d are w i l l i n g t o be h o n e s t a b o u t each p a r t n e r ‘ s

i n d i v i d u a l strengths and weaknesses w i l l prove i n v a l u a b l e . T h i r d , as m e n t i o n e d

e a r l i e r , c o u p l e s s h o u l d g o t h r o u g h a p r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g process i n w h i c h

a l l aspects o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p are e x a m i n e d h o n e s t l y , a n d they s h o u l d s p e n d

t i m e c l a r i f y i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s w i t h a n objective p r o f e s s i o n a l o r pastor. F o u r t h ,

t h e y c a n seek w i s d o m f r o m t r u s t w o r t h y C h r i s t i a n s i n t h e i r c o m m u n i t y o f

f a i t h . T h o s e i n the b o d y o f C h r i s t p r o v i d e a c o m m u n a l perspective t h a t w i l l

h e l p a f f i r m o r d i s a f f i r m t h e c o u p l e ‘ s d e c i s i o n – m a k i n g process.

Based o n these suggestions , w e advise t h a t a c o u p l e can best d i s c e r n G o d ‘ s

w i l l t h r o u g h a b i b l i c a l l y b a l a n c e d a p p r o a c h t h a t is o p e n t o i n p u t f r o m t h r e e

s o u r c e s — t h e i n d i v i d u a l s d i r e c t l y c o n c e r n e d , f a m i l y a n d close f r i e n d s , a n d t h e

C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y , w h i c h t o g e t h e r can serve as a chec k against an i n c o r r e c t

d e c i s i o n . W h e n decisions are m a d e w i t h o u t i n p u t f r o m a l l three sources, t h e r e

is a g r e a t e r p r o b a b i l i t y o f e r r o r . G i v e n the p o w e r o f p a s s i o n a n d the c o n t e m –

p o r a r y e m p h a s i s o n i n t i m a c y i n r o m a n t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s , t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c

bias is t h e m o s t l i k e l y t o have f a t a l consequences . F a m i l y bias is t y p i c a l o f

p a r e n t a l a r r a n g e m e n t s . W h e n p a r e n t s are d i s c e r n i n g C h r i s t i a n s , t h e y c a n be

a n i n v a l u a b l e source o f w i s d o m , t h o u g h they m a y have a l i m i t e d p e r s p e c t i v e

because o f p e r s o n a l o r c u l t u r a l biases. C h r i s t i a n – c o m m u n i t y bias is p r o b a b l y

t h e m o s t d i f f i c u l t t o detect since i t is generally f e l t t h a t a c o r p o r a t e b o d y is less

p r o n e t o b i a s . H o w e v e r , a n o b v i o u s dange r is t h e p o w e r a p a r t i c u l a r l e a d e r

(or leaders) may w i e l d . L e a d e r s also have h u m a n l i m i t a t i o n s a n d are t h e r e f o r e

c a p a b l e o f u s i n g t h e i r i n f l u e n c e i n m i s g u i d e d w a y s . P a r t i c u l a r l y t r o u b l i n g are

c o m m u n i t i e s i n w h i c h c o n g r e g a n t s are r e q u i r e d t o s u b m i t t o an a u t h o r i t a t i v e

leader o u t o f l o y a l t y

E v e n i f o n e concedes t h e w i s d o m o f t h i s m o d e l , t h e r e is always t h e p o s –

s i b i l i t y o f disagreement. C o n s e q u e n t l y , the i n d i v i d u a l s , f a m i l y , a n d C h r i s t i a n

c o m m u n i t y s h o u l d w o r k t o g e t h e r t o b r i n g a b o u t a c o n g r u o u s d e c i s i o n t h a t

w i l l e n h a n c e the p r o b a b i l i t y o f a l a s t i n g c o v e n a n t .

Establishing M a r r i a g e

Moving toward Differentiated Unity

E ^ ach spouse’s e x p e r i e n c e s g r o w i n g u p i n h i s o r her p a r t i c u l a r f a m i l y o f o r i g i n are m a j o r p r e p a r a t i o n s f o r m a r r i a g e . A c c o r d i n g l y , m a r r i a g e involves m o r e t h a n a u n i t i n g o f t w o i n d i v i d u a l s ; i t is also a u n i t i n g
of t w o e x t e n d e d f a m i l i e s . B r i n g i n g aspects o f t w o c u l t u r a l l y diverse f a m i l i e s
n i t o a n e w u n i t is a process o f a f f i r m i n g t h e best o f b o t h c u l t u r e s (sense o f

b e l o n g i n g ) a n d d i s c o v e r i n g t h e spouses’ o w n sense o f i d e n t i t y as a c o u p l e .

In t h e process, t h e y m a y c h o o s e t o d i s c a r d s o m e o f t h e i r h e r i t a g e , e x p a n d

.ispects o f i t , a n d create a u n i q u e u n i o n t h a t exceeds w h a t e i t h e r o f t h e m

w o u l d be o n t h e i r o w n . F o r m i n g a n e w r e l a t i o n s h i p as a c o u p l e d i s t i n g u i s h e s

each o f t h e m f r o m t h e i r f a m i l y o f o r i g i n (the f a m i l y each grew u p i n ) a n d at

i h e same t i m e keeps each o f t h e m c o n n e c t e d w i t h i t . W e begin t h i s c h a p t e r b y

r e c o g n i z i n g the i m p a c t o f f a m i l y o f o r i g i n as w e l l as o t h e r i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s

i h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o m a r i t a l q u a l i t y

I’actors That Predict Marital Quality

Researchers have i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e categories o f f a c t o r s t h a t are p r e d i c t i v e o f

m a r i t a l q u a l i t y — b a c k g r o u n d a n d c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s , i n d i v i d u a l t r a i t s a n d

73

Chapter 5
Love and Choosing a Life Partner
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

Chapter Outline
Love and Commitment
Mate Selection: The Process of Selecting a Committed Partner
The Marriage Market
Assortative Mating: A Filtering Out Process
Heterogamy in Relationships
Meandering Toward Marriage: Developing the Relationship and Moving Toward Commitment
Dating Violence: A Serious Sign of Trouble
The Possibility of Breaking Up
Nurturing Loving and Committed Relationships
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Love and Commitment
Love is viewed as the primary reason for getting and staying married.
Loving involves the acceptance of partners for themselves.
Loving requires empathy and commitment.
Commitment is characterized by a willingness to work through problems and conflicts as opposed to calling it quits when problems arise; it involves consciously investing in the relationship.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Love
Marriages between individuals with a relatively secure attachment style that take place around age 25 and are between partners who grew up in intact families are the most likely to be satisfying and stable.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Defining Love
Committed lovers have fun together; they also share tedious times.
They express themselves freely.
They do not see problems as indications that their relationship is over.
They work to maintain their relationship.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Gender Differences in Love
Though love is thought to be the domain of women, recent research suggests that some boys are becoming less focused on casual sex and more on romance.
Women are more resilient when it comes to love and breakups.
Despite gendered expectations, love is important and meaningful to men. “Romantic rituals” are often required of men.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love
Three components of love:
Intimacy – close, connected feelings.
Passion – drives that lead to romance, physical attraction, and sexual consummation.
Commitment – the decision to love someone and maintain that love.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love
The three components develop at different times:
Passion is quickest to develop and quickest to fade.
Intimacy develops more slowly.
Commitment develops more gradually still.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love
Consummate Love
Composed of all three components, is “complete love, …a kind of love toward which many of us strive, especially in romantic relationships.”
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Attachment Theory and Loving Relationships
A secure attachment style is associated with better prospects for a committed relationship.
An insecure/anxious attachment style entails “fear of abandonment” with possible consequences such as jealousy or trying to control one’s partner.
An avoidant attachment style leads one to pass up or shun closeness or intimacy.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Facts about Families:
Six Love Styles
Eros
Characterized by intense emotional attachment and powerful sexual feelings or desires.
Storge
An affectionate, companionate style of loving focused on deepening mutual commitment, respect, friendship, and common goals.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Facts about Families:
Six Love Styles
Pragma
Involves rational assessment of a potential partner’s assets and liabilities.
Agape
Emphasizes unselfish concern for the beloved’s needs even when that requires personal sacrifice.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Facts about Families:
Six Love Styles
Ludus
Emphasizes enjoying many sexual partners rather than searching for a serious relationship.
Mania
Rests on strong sexual attraction and emotional intensity. It differs from eros in that manic partners are extremely jealous and moody, and their need for attention and affection is insatiable.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Three Things Love Is Not
Martyring
Manipulating
Limerence
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Love Isn’t Martyring
Martyrs may:
Be reluctant to suggest what they want.
Allow others to be constantly late and never protest.
Help loved ones develop talents while neglecting their own.
Be sensitive to others’ feelings and hide their own.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Love Isn’t Manipulation
Manipulators may:
Ask others to do something that they could do.
Assume that others will happily do whatever they choose.
Be consistently late.
Want others to help them develop their talents but seldom think of reciprocating.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Love Isn’t Limerence
People in limerence fantasize about being with the limerent object in all kinds of situations.
Limerence is characterized by little, if any, concern for the well-being of the limerent object.
Limerence can turn into genuine love, but more often than not, it doesn’t.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Mate Selection: The Process of Selecting a Committed Partner
Positive attitudes about the relationship, coupled with realistically positive assessments of a spouse’s personality traits, are important to marital stability.
Supportive interaction results in greater marital satisfaction.
Greater marital satisfaction, in turn, results in the greater likelihood of marital stability (staying married).
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

A Time-Ordered Sequential Model of Relationship Outcomes
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Minimizing Mate Selection Risk
Letting go of misconceptions we may have about love and choosing a partner. Common love myths include:
The right person will meet all my needs
I can change my partner
Love will conquer all
Love is a feeling
We’ll live happily ever after
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

The Marriage Market
Individuals enter the marriage market armed with resources—personal and social characteristics—and then bargain for the best “buy” that they can get.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Arranged Marriages
Not uncommon in the less Westernized parts of Asia and Africa.
Assisted marriages have become more common today. Children marry only when they themselves accept their parents choice.
Couples in arranged marriages are expected to develop a loving relationship after the marriage.
Some studies indicate that satisfaction among couples with arranged marriages have found no differences in marital satisfaction between couples who have had input in their mate selection.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Free-choice Culture
The United States is an example of a free-choice culture:
People choose their own mates, although typically they seek parents’ and other family members’ support for their decision.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Arranged Marriage
In arranged marriages, families and community do the bargaining, based on assets such as status, possessions, and dowry.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Free-Choice Marriage
In freely chosen marriages, the individuals perform a more subtle form of bargaining, weighing the costs and benefits of personal characteristics, economic status, and education.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Social Exchange
The ideas of bargaining resources in relationships come to us from exchange theory
Individuals pick the relationship that is most rewarding or least costly.
In romantic relationships individuals have resources: beauty, personality, status, skills, maturity, intellect, originality, etc.
Individuals also have costly attributes: being demanding, low status, geographic inaccessibility, etc.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

The Traditional Exchange
Women trade their ability to bear children and perform domestic duties, along with sexual accessibility and attractiveness, for a man’s protection, status, and support.
Both women and men can experience gender related disadvantages in the traditional exchange.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

The Decline of Status Exchange?
Women expect greater financial success from potential husbands than vice versa, even if they themselves are employed.
Still, wives today are just as likely to have more education than their husbands.
One study found no difference between men and women in their desire for a financially successful mate or one who takes on domestic roles.
Matching: The tendency of individuals to select partners with characteristics similar to their own.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Assortative Mating: A Filtering Process
Individuals gradually filter those they think would not make the best spouse.
Research has shown that people are willing to date and live with a wider range of individuals than they would marry (assortative mating).
Mate selection involves narrowing down possibilities until a suitable partner is found.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Homogamy: Narrowing the Pool of Eligibles
People tend to marry people of similar race, age, education, religious background, and social class.
The “pool of eligible” starts out large but is made smaller by propinquity (geographic area), desired demographic and social characteristics, physical attraction, and personal and lifestyle factors.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Pool of Eligibles
A group of individuals who, by background or birth, are considered most likely to make compatible marriage partners.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Reasons for Homogamy
Geographic availability (propinquity): Geographic segregation, which can result from either discrimination or strong community ties, contributes to homogamous marriages
Demographic and social filter: We tend to form committed relationships with people who are socially similar to ourselves (endogamy).
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Reasons for Homogamy
Physical attraction filter: Most individuals marry a partner of similar physical attractiveness as their own.
Personality and lifestyle filter: Personality traits can set the tone of the “emotional climate” of marriages.
Cohabitation and engagement: This final filter provides family and friends one last opportunity to approve the relationship before marriage.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Importance of Cohabitation
Cohabitation is increasingly thought of as part of the marriage process.
People intuitively believe that cohabitation allows them to evaluate a potential spouse’s compatibility. Some studies indicate this may not be true, however.
Selection hypothesis: People who cohabit differ from those who don’t, and these differences translate into higher divorce rates.
Experience hypothesis: Cohabiting experiences themselves affect individuals so that they are more likely to divorce once married.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Heterogamy in Relationships
Heterogamy refers to choosing someone who is dissimilar in race, age, education religion or social class.
Exogamy is marrying outside one’s group.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Interracial and Interethnic Heterogamy
Interracial marriages include unions between partners of the white, black, Asian, or Native American races with a spouse outside their own race.
Unions between Hispanics and others, as well as between Asian/Pacific Islander or Hispanic ethnic groups, are interethnic marriages.
In 2014, only 5 percent of all marriages were between spouses of different races, up from less than 1 percent in 1970.
However, in 2014 12 percent of newlyweds married someone of a different race.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Percentage of newlyweds who married someone of a different race, 2013
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Reasons for Interracial and Interethnic Relationships
Racial/ethnic groups are relatively small and have a smaller pool of eligible partners in their own groups.
Status exchange hypothesis—trading “superior” racial/ethnic status for “superior” economic status.
Some concern has been expressed about educated black men choosing spouses from other races.
Acceptance of interracial/interethnic marriage is growing; it is especially high among minorities, younger adults, and those with college degrees.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Heterogamy: Interfaith Relationships
About 45 percent of married couples married outside their religion.
Being highly educated seems to lessen individuals’ commitment to religious heterogamy.
Because Americans are becoming less religious, religious heterogamy can be expected to continue its decline.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Heterogamy and Relationship Quality and Stability
Social scientists find that marriages that are homogamous in age, education, religion, and race are the most stable.
However, some studies do not support worse outcomes for heterogamous relationships.
Interreligious marriages tend to be more stressful and less stable than homogamous ones.
Private choices are intertwined with public issues.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Meandering Toward Marriage: Developing the Relationship and Moving Toward Commitment
Sociologists have long been interested in two central questions: What first brings people together? What keeps them together?
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Meandering Toward Marriage: Developing the Relationship and Moving Toward Commitment
Young people today “meander toward marriage,” feeling that they’ll be ready to marry when they reach their late twenties or so.
Young adults express need to explore as many options as possible before settling down.
Dating scripts govern behavior in the getting-to-know-you stage of dating relationships. These are highly gendered.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Contemporary Dating
There is considerable variation in premarital romantic relationships.
Contemporary dating seems to include some aspects of traditional dating (e.g., sexual behavior) but lacks the commitment associated with being “boyfriend” and “girlfriend.”
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Dating versus “Nondating”
Both men and women in the study said that a typical date involved 1) initiation, 2) the date itself, and 3) an outcome.
Parents are very involved in overseeing their children’s behavior.
Nondating is generally sexual in nature (e.g., “hooking up”).
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Issues for Thought: Sexual Assault and Acquaintance Rape
What can you do to help prevent sexual assault and acquaintance rape?
What should you do if you or a friend is raped or assaulted?
What would or should you do if a friend or acquaintance of yours was known to be the perpetrator of a sexual assault?
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Technology and Dating
The rapid increase in technology profoundly affected dating relationships, especially with how couples meet.
Texting and instant messaging have become important in romantic relationships.
It is unclear if digital communication is replacing in-person communication for couples (substitution hypothesis).
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

From Dating to Commitment
From an interaction-constructionist perspective, qualitative research with serious dating couples shows that they pass through a series of fairly predictable stages.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

The Wheel of Love
Four stages of love
Rapport – rests on mutual trust and respect
Self-revelation – sharing intimate information
Mutual dependency – developing interdependence
Needs fulfillment – developing emotional exchange and support
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Reiss’s Wheel Theory of the Development of Love
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Some Things to Talk About
Couples should talk about matters such as the following:
When should a relationship be dissolved and under what circumstances?
What are your expectations and attitudes regarding sex?
Do you want children?
Will partners equally share breadwinning and caretaking responsibilities or not?
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Dating Violence: A Serious Sign of Trouble
Dating violence typically begins with verbal or psychological abuse and tends to occur over jealousy, with a refusal of sex, after illegal drug use or excessive drinking, or upon disagreement about drinking behavior.
Many women and men are victims of controlling behavior that may or may not include physical violence.
Technology is often used to monitor a partner’s activities and whereabouts.
A recent study of 28 female undergraduates in abusive dating relationships found that some of these women felt “stuck” with their partner. A majority had assumed a “caretaker identity” similar to martyring.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Indicators of Dating Violence
Handles ordinary disagreements with inappropriate anger or rage
Struggles to regain self-control when a minor issue triggers anger
Goes into tirades
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Indicators of Dating Violence
Quick to criticize or verbally mean
Unduly jealous, restricting, and controlling
History of violence in previous relationships
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

The Possibility of Breaking Up
According to the exchange perspective, couples choose to stay committed or to break up by weighing the rewards of their relationship against its costs.
When costs outweigh rewards, when there are desirable alternatives, when one’s relationship does not match one’s ideal, when little has been invested, and when there are fewer barriers to breaking up, couples are more likely to do so.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Nurturing Loving and Committed Relationships
Maintaining a satisfying long-term relationship is challenging.
Couples who establish a positive relationship while dating have more successful marriages later on.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Chapter 6
Nonmarital Lifestyles: Living Alone, Cohabiting, and Other Options
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

*

Chapter Outline
What Does It Mean to Be Single?
Reasons for More Unmarrieds
Singles: Their Various Living Arrangements
Cohabitation and Family Life
Maintaining Supportive Social Networks and Life Satisfaction
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

What Does It Mean to Be Single?
Many college students think of “being single” as not being in a romantic relationship.
Some believe that “being single” means to have never been married.
To the U.S. Census Bureau, single simply means unmarried.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Reasons for More Unmarrieds
In 1970, fewer than 28% of U.S. adults were single; today, there are as many singles as married people.
This change is due to a growing proportion of widowed elderly, a high divorce rate, young adults postponing marriage, along with a growing incidence of cohabitation.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Marital Status of U.S. Population
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Marital Status of U.S. Population
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Reasons for More Unmarrieds
Major reasons for more unmarrieds are due to several social factors: demographic, economic, technological, social, and cultural.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Demographic, Economic, and Technological Changes
The sex ratio (number of men to women in a given society or subgroup) influences marital options and singlehood.
Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, the United States had more men than women.
Today this is reversed due to changes in immigration patterns and greater improvement in women’s health.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Demographic, Economic, and Technological Changes
In 1910 there were nearly 106 men for every 100 women.
In 2012, there were about 96 men for every 100 women.
Beginning with middle-age, there are increasingly fewer men than women.
Sex ratio differs somewhat for various racial/ethnic categories.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Demographic, Economic, and Technological Changes
Expanded educational and career options for college-educated women have led many to postpone marriage.
Middle-aged, divorced women with careers tend to view marriage as a bad bargain once they have gained financial and sexual independence.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Demographic, Economic, and Technological Changes
The fact that many men’s earning potential has declined, relative to women’s, may make marriage less attractive to both genders.
Growing economic disadvantage and uncertainty make marriage less available to many who might want to marry but feel they can’t financially afford it.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Demographic, Economic, and Technological Changes
With effective contraception, sexual relationships outside marriage, without great risk of unwanted pregnancy, became possible.
New conception technologies offer the possibility for planned pregnancy to unpartnered heterosexual women as well as same-sex couples.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Social and Cultural Changes
Emerging adulthood: People spend more time in higher education or exploring career options than in the past.
It is now widely accepted that young people will have sexual intercourse before marriage.
As American culture gives greater weight to autonomy, many find that singlehood is more desirable than marriage.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Social and Cultural Changes
Being unmarried has become an acceptable option, rather than the deviant lifestyle that it was once thought to be.
Cohabitation is emerging as a socially accepted alternative to marriage.
Getting married is no longer the only way to gain adult status.
Marriage has become less strongly defined as permanent.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Singles: Their Various Living Arrangements
Living Alone
Living Apart Together
Living with Parents
Group or Communal Living
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Living Alone
Individuals living alone make up over one-quarter of U.S. households—up from 8% in 1940.
The likelihood of living alone increases with age in all racial/ethnic groups and is markedly higher for older women than for older men.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Living Apart Together
Living apart together (LAT): A couple is engaged in a long-term relationship but each partner maintains a separate dwelling.
Difficult to ascertain number of these relationships, but it is clearly emerging in the U.S.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Living with Parents
The percentage of young adults living at home has increased dramatically since 2000.
Reasons are both cultural and economic.
Boomerangers—adult children who had previously left home but then returned.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Living with Parents
About 25% of boomerangers report the situation is bad for their relationship with their parents; 25% say it is good; 50% say it has not affected their relationship.
About 60% of parents have positive things to say about their adult children moving back home.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Living with Parents
Some believe young people have been “coddled” and are unprepared for life as independent adults. Others cite the trend of “emerging adulthood” as a prime reason.
Today’s parents may expect to serve as “collaborators” in their children’s transition to adulthood.
However, conflict between parents and adult children can be an issue.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Percentage men and women ages 18 to 34 living with a parent or relative
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Group or Communal Living
Communes: Situations or places characterized by group living
“Accordion” families provide economic and emotional/social functions.
Communal living is designed to provide enhanced opportunities for social support and companionship.
Financial considerations and the desire for companionship encourage romantically involved singles to share households.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Cohousing
Co-housing started in Denmark and spread to the United States in the early 1980s.
Cohousing complexes typically provide private areas with communal kitchens and often have community gardens.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Cohabitation and Family Life
Cohabitation: Unmarried couples living together
One of the most important changes in family life in the past 40 years
By 2013, an estimated 65 percent of women aged 19 to 44 had cohabited—up from 33 percent in 1987.
This trend is expected to increase.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Percentage of women ages 19 to 44 who have ever cohabited, by age
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

A Closer Look at Diversity
The meaning of cohabitation varies along racial and ethnic lines.
Puerto Ricans have a long history of consensual marriages.
Exposure to other cultural systems changes norms of cohabitation acceptance.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Cohabitating
Cohabitation remains illegal in a handful of states.
Cohabitation means different things to different people, but it is very much a family status, though one in which the levels of certainty about commitment are less than in marriage.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Cohabitation: A four-stage process
Stage 1: Vast majority of heterosexuals marry without cohabiting first.
Stage 2: More people cohabit, but mainly as a form of courtship before marriage.
Stage 3: Cohabiting becomes a socially acceptable alternative to marriage.
Stage 4: Cohabitation and marriage become virtually indistinguishable.
Social scientists believe the U.S. is currently transitioning from stage 2 to stage 3.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Characteristics of Cohabiters
Cohabiters are younger, less educated, earn less income, and are likely to have relatively permissive attitudes toward sex.
Nonhispanic whites have a slightly higher rate of cohabitation than African Americans and Hispanics.
About 75% of cohabiters are younger than 45, though the proportion of middle-aged cohabiters has increased over the past two decades.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Why Do People Cohabit?
As a prelude to marriage
As an alternative to marriage
As an alternative to being single
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

The Cohabiting Relationship
Cohabiters are less homogamous than marrieds and are twice as likely as marrieds to be interracial.
For a variety of reasons, cohabiting relationships are relatively short-term.
Relationship quality of “long-term” cohabiting couples (together for at least 4 years) differ little from marrieds in conflict levels, amount of interaction, or relationship satisfaction
For both marrieds and long-term cohabiters, relationship satisfaction declines with the addition of children to the household.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Cohabitation and Intimate Partner Violence
More intimate partner violence among cohabitaters than among marrieds.
Prominent selection effect exists.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

As We Make Choices: Some Things to Know about the Legal Side of Living Together
Domestic Partners
Residence
Bank Accounts
Power of Attorney for Finances
Credit Cards
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Property
Insurance
Wills and Living Trusts
Health Care Decision Making
Children
Breaking Up

© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Cohabitating Parents and Outcomes for Children
More than half of all nonmarital births occur to cohabiting mothers.
In 2015, 39% of cohabiting heterosexual households contain children under age 18.
Having a child while cohabiting does not necessarily increase a couple’s odds of staying together, but conceiving a child during cohabitation and then marrying before the baby is born does increase union stability.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Children’s Outcomes
Instability with cohabitation (intermittent cohabitation) is related to problematic outcomes for children.
Cohabiting parents spend less on their children’s education than do marrieds.
Adolescents are more likely to experience earlier premarital intercourse, higher rates of school suspension, and antisocial and delinquent behaviors.
Compared to single-parent homes, children do benefit economically.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Cohabiting Same-Sex Couples
There are about 800,000 same-sex couple households in the U.S. Nearly one-fifth have children.
Twice as many female same-sex couples as male same-sex couples have children.
About 80,000 same-sex couples are in civil unions or registered as domestic partners.
Today, between 55-60% of Americans favor legal marriage for same-sex couples.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Maintaining Supportive Social Networks and Life Satisfaction
For singles, it’s important to develop and maintain supportive social networks of friends and family.
Single people place high value on friendships, and they are also major contributors to community services and volunteer work.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Maintaining Supportive Social Networks and Life Satisfaction
Life satisfaction is associated with income as well as marital status.
People in secure interpersonal heterosexual or same-sex relationships, and those who socialize often with friends and family, are happier than those who spend considerable time alone.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Maintaining Supportive Social Networks and Life Satisfaction
Living arrangements of unmarrieds form a continuum of social attachment; not all singles are socially unattached or isolated.
Living alone can be lonesome. However, it does not necessarily imply a lack of social integration or meaningful connections with others.
A crucial part of one’s support network involves valued friendships.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied, or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.