Cohabitation and Marriage Development of courtship and dating 3 stages of marriage in the U.S. Marriage Market Narrowing the field – sequential theories Cohabitation: Who cohabits? Cohabitation: Why cohabit? Summary: Changes in Union Formation Staying Single

Early 19 th century: Courtship Publicly visible processPublicly visible process Rules and restrictionsRules and restrictions Usually visited in woman’s homeUsually visited in woman’s home Parents were presentParents were present Role of love increasedRole of love increased

Early 1900’s: Modern “Dating” May have been result of 3 inventions:May have been result of 3 inventions: –Car –Telephone –Movies Strict rules and gender rolesStrict rules and gender roles Away from home – increased freedomAway from home – increased freedom Became way to select marriage partnerBecame way to select marriage partner

1970’s on: Dating Less Connected to Marriage Marriage became “optional”Marriage became “optional” Average age of marriage increasedAverage age of marriage increased Increase in divorceIncrease in divorce Rise in premarital intercourseRise in premarital intercourse Cohabitation became commonCohabitation became common Dating as end in itselfDating as end in itself Dating less formal – large groups, initiated by either sex, new modes of communication.Dating less formal – large groups, initiated by either sex, new modes of communication.

3 Stages of Marriage Institutional Marriage (till 1900’s)- based on economics, duty, obligation. Little choice.Institutional Marriage (till 1900’s)- based on economics, duty, obligation. Little choice. Companionship Marriage (early 20 th cent.) – partnership, division of labor. Emotional and sexual compatibilityCompanionship Marriage (early 20 th cent.) – partnership, division of labor. Emotional and sexual compatibility Individualized marriage (late 20 th cent.) – self development, flexible roles, communication. Less obligationIndividualized marriage (late 20 th cent.) – self development, flexible roles, communication. Less obligation

The Marriage Market Like labor market:Like labor market: –Supply –Preferences –Resources 2 recent theories:2 recent theories: –Specialization: exchange housework, paid work –Income pooling: both partners contribute $, so $ less important than other things

Field of Eligibles Homogamy is usual – partners have similar characteristics.Homogamy is usual – partners have similar characteristics. Variables that affect eligibilityVariables that affect eligibility –Age –Race (about 3% interracial in 2000) –Religion –Class –Similarity, proximity

Narrowing the field: Stages in Mate Selection Murstein: Stimulus-Value-Role TheoryMurstein: Stimulus-Value-Role Theory Stimulus Stage: Meeting, initial attractionStimulus Stage: Meeting, initial attraction Value Stage: Compatibility of values, goals, beliefsValue Stage: Compatibility of values, goals, beliefs Role Stage: Evaluate partner’s “fit” in terms of role conceptions – what do I want in a spouse?Role Stage: Evaluate partner’s “fit” in terms of role conceptions – what do I want in a spouse?

Kerckhoff’s Filter Theory Eligibility Complementarity Consensus “Right One” Age, race, religion, educ., etc. Values Needs Similar persons Eligible persons

Adams’ Theory Opportunity Attraction Valued Behaviors Salient Homogeneity Value consensus Positive self- disclosure Role Compatibility Empathy “Right One” Commitment Escalators No opportunity No attraction Salient heterogeneity Negative self-disclosure Incompatibility No empathy Not committed Alternative attraction Original attraction Deeper attraction Barriers to breakup

Cohabitation The sharing of a household by unmarried persons who have a sexual relationshipThe sharing of a household by unmarried persons who have a sexual relationship U.S. Census: “Unmarried partner” householdsU.S. Census: “Unmarried partner” households 10x increase since x increase since 1970 –4.9 million households –600,000 are same-sex –May reflect counting difficulties

Who Cohabits? Age: 20’s and 30’sAge: 20’s and 30’s Half of young adults cohabit before marryingHalf of young adults cohabit before marrying Less educated, lower incomeLess educated, lower income More common after 1 st marriageMore common after 1 st marriage 39% have children; usually from earlier relationship39% have children; usually from earlier relationship

No legal obligationNo legal obligation Pure relationship: love for its own sakePure relationship: love for its own sake Financial advantagesFinancial advantages Probably not permanent arrangementProbably not permanent arrangement Why Cohabit? Alternative to Marriage

Most cohabitants expect to marry Cohabitation mayMost cohabitants expect to marry Cohabitation may –Test relationship –Delay decision to marry (esp. if young) Most don’t discuss this (latent function)Most don’t discuss this (latent function) Why Cohabit? Stage in the Marriage Process

Cohabitation does not predict marital success Shorter in durationShorter in duration Based on emotional bond – less investedBased on emotional bond – less invested Less likely to pool moneyLess likely to pool money Less likely to involve children (of both partners)Less likely to involve children (of both partners) Select group – less conventional, less religious, less able to afford marriageSelect group – less conventional, less religious, less able to afford marriage

Growing appeal of singlehood Def: Never married by age 44Def: Never married by age 44 16% of men, 12% of women16% of men, 12% of women –Traditional family not for everyone –Culture emphasizes personal fulfillment –Financial independence for women –Sexual freedom –Unmarried parenthood

Types of never-married singles (Shostak): Ambivalent would marry if right person comes along, but not looking Resolved Don’t ever want to marry Wishful Actively seeking partner Regretful Would have liked to marry, feel it’s too late. Often middle aged professional women. Temporary Involuntary Voluntary Permanent