Catching the Speeding Train

Catching the Speeding Train
Scott M. Stanley University of Denver

Young people are unsure they can count on marriage.
They simply do not think that it is really possible. They believe in the ideal but don’t trust it. They put it off until they have developed total independence capability (in case the marriage fails). Some put more trust in their vocational careers than in the vocation of marriage.

Signs of the Loss of Confidence in Marriage

Sign: Marrying Later and Later
Marrying very young is risky, but the trend is so far the other way, now. Median ages of first marriage now 27 (men) and 25 (women). People put off marriage until they have developed a total ability to be independent (as insurance, just in case).

Source: William Galston, 2008 “The Changing Twenties”
Never married at 25 (%):

The Reality for a Growing Number

The Riskier Path Sex before commitment: sex even before there is a relationship is increasingly common. Having children outside of marriage Having children from multiple partners Serial cohabitation Greater numbers of sexual partners Cohabitation, especially before engagement

What happens in the sandbox stays in the sandbox.
Or, maybe not . . .

The Reality for Too Many

Romantic and Sexual Relationships Affect Everything
“Your love life is not neutral.” Marline Pearson One’s love life affects . . . School achievement Work Economic opportunities Health risks Future relationship quality and marital success William Galston 1) Finish high school. 2) Don't have kids until you marry. 3) Wait until you are at least 20 to marry.

Sign: Seeking the Perfect Love
Popenoe and Whitehead conducted a national survey of 1,003 people aged 20 to 29 (61% never married). 94% of never-married singles agree that ‘when you marry you want your spouse to be your soul mate, first and foremost." Popenoe, D., & Whitehead, B. D. (2001). Who wants to marry a soul mate? See

Sign: Growth of Cohabitation
Blurring the edges around being in and out of relationships Belief that testing helps (And testing is the reason associated with the worst outcomes: Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2009)

Children and Cohabitation
39% of cohabiting households include children At least 20% of children in the U.S. will at some point live in a cohabiting household. The odds of a couple being together two years after the birth of a child are 6 times greater in marriage than cohabitation. Additionally, the percentage of children who are born to unmarried mothers has increased over the past several decades. For many years, these mothers were considered “single,” but it is likely the case that many of them are actually in cohabiting relationships. Around 39% of cohabiting households include children (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). Some of these children are the biological children of both partners, but often they are the biological child of just one of the partners. In 2007, 3% of children in the United States lived with both of their parents and their parents were unmarried; 68% of children lived with both of their parents and their parents were married to each other (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). More generally, researchers have estimated that at least 20% children will live in a cohabiting household at some point while growing up (Bumpass & Lu, 2000). This percentage will likely increase with time, as cohabitation is becoming increasingly common. Bumpass & Lu, 2000; U.S. Census Bureau, 2007; Galston, 2008

Note: There are important differences based on race and income
There are certainly average differences in propensities and risk based on race and income. Smock, P. J., & Manning, W. D. (2004). Living together unmarried in the United States: Demographic perspectives and implications for family policy. Law & Policy, 26, This is a complex subject. However, mechanisms of risk can be the same when mean differences are large. Need more research here and many other places.

People Still Want THIS: Acceptance and Security in Life-Long Love in Marriage
Genesis 2:24-25 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. (NIV)

The Essence of Commitment
“Commitment is making a choice to give up other choices.” From The Power of Commitment (Stanley, 2005) Commitment is fundamentally about choosing something or someone for the future.

What is Commitment? Personal Dedication Constraint

Commitment is Needed Because Life’s Pursuits Have Ups and Downs
Romantic Relationships Marriage Education and career goals Personal care

Why does commitment develop? A Psychological Perspective
Stanley, S. M., Lobitz, W. C., & Dickson, F. (1999). Using what we know: Commitment and cognitions in marital therapy. In W. Jones & J. Adams (Eds), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp ). New York: Plenum. Stanley, S. M. (2002, July). What is it with Men and Commitment, Anyway? Keynote address to the 6th Annual Smart Marriages Conference. Washington D. C. (paper is available on the PREP website

Attachment and Commitment
Attachment can lead one to make a commitment, . . . . . . but attachment is NOT the same as making the decision to commit. Commitment secures the attachment.

insecurities about attachment and
Societal conditions are generating high numbers of people who have issues in relationships: insecurities about attachment and low confidence about relationships and marriage By the way, a true expert in thinking about attachment insecurity and the effects on relationships speaks in this time slot tomorrow morning. Sue Johnson “Hold Me Tight”

Maybe I Do

The need: clear, well-formed commitment
The reality: relationship patterns that are becoming more typical undermine the development of commitment. Thinking Like an Economist The Endowment Effect People over-value what they already possess. Economist Richard Thaler: the Ownership or Status Quo Bias Loss Aversion emphasis of psychologists Kahneman and Tversky Popular concept now in popular books Ariely Harford Apply this concept to being on a path that you did not carefully choose but will come to value more simply because you are on it.

Is There a Growing Crisis in Commitment?
Options multiplying (Hard to choose) Keeping it fuzzy (ambiguity is not keeping it real but it feels safe) Relationships cast adrift (reduced scaffolding for teens and emerging adults) Ambiguity We hypothesize that ambiguity feels safer than clarity when clarity is perceived to be associated with increased risk of rejection and loss. First, some people may perceive ambiguity regarding the nature and direction of romantic relationships as practical, at least up until they are ready for marriage. Marriage is totally unambiguous, but it is also associated with both increased costs of exiting and high rates of instability. Ambiguity about commitment and the future can allow a romantic relationship of uncertain future and quality to continue for some time without being associated with the pressure of marriage. A second perceived benefit of ambiguity can be posited in relation to demographic trends and deeper attachment dynamics the development of insecure-avoidant characteristics seems increasingly likely If it is not totally clear when a relationship begins or how serious it really is, it may be believed that it will hurt less when it ends. ambiguity can mask differences and, therefore, allow for a higher level of liking between people than could be sustained if more detailed information were salient. Norton, Frost, & Ariely (2007)

Ambiguity Feels safer than clarity.
Clarity is perceived as associated with increased risk of rejection and loss.

Why Might Ambiguity be Desired?
Because of changing trends, an increasing number of children will not experience stable homes with their own parents. Many will experience repeated relationship transitions by their parents. I predict a growing number of people in our population will have attachment problems. Insecure and avoidant attachment: What does ambiguity offer each?

Why Does Ambiguity Matter?
Commitment is unambiguous. Commitment’s central role is to secure attachment. Marriages that thrive have emotional safety and commitment safety.

Cohabitation: Ambiguous Commitment
If a couple tells you they are living together, what do you know about their commitment level? Generally, almost nothing. However, exceptions to this exist. In lower income communities with lots of barriers to marriage, cohabitation does signify high commitment for some couples. Engagement, on the other hand . . .

What about sexual exclusivity? Are cohabiters more committed?
Cohabiters are no more likely than daters to be sexually faithful. Maddox Shaw, Rhoades, Allen, Stanley, Markman: Predictors of Extradyadic Sexual Involvement in Unmarried Opposite-Sex Relationships. Under review.

Joint Investments and the Odds of Staying Together
Relationship Development Study (RDS): NICHD Funded Study (Stanley, Rhoades, Markman) 1500, 18 to 34 year old, unmarrieds Many joint investments are related to remaining together, for example (Rhoades et al., 2010): shared gym membership sharing a cell plan having vacation plans joint lease or buy home together joint account paying on each other’s credit card

What’s not related to staying together? Having a child together
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2010). Should I stay or should I go? Predicting dating relationship stability from four aspects of commitment. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5),

Sliding vs. Deciding + Dedication is all about daily decisions.

“The Cohabitation Effect”
Couples who cohabit premaritally are 1.26 – 1.86 times more likely to divorce Premarital cohabitation is associated with: Lower marital satisfaction Poorer perceived and observed communication in marriage More marital conflict etc. etc. Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002; Forste & Tanfer, 1996; Kamp Dush et al., 2003; Phillips & Sweeney, 2005; Stafford et al., 2004; Stanley et al., 2004; Teachman, 2003; Stanley, Rhoades, et al., in press

Premarital cohabitation is associated with:
More negative communication in marriage (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002; Kline et al., 2004; Stanley et al., 2004; Thomson & Colella, 1992) Lower levels of marital satisfaction (Nock, 1995; Stafford et al., 2004; Stanley et al., 2004) The erosion over time of the value/view of marriage and childrearing (Axinn & Barber, 1997; Axinn & Thornton, 1992) Higher perceived marital instability (Kamp Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003; Stafford et al., 2004; Thomas & Colella, 1992) Lower levels of male commitment to spouse (Rhoades (Kline) et al., 2006; Stanley et al., 2004) Greater likelihood of divorce (DeMaris & Rao, 1992; Kamp Dush et al., 2003; Philips & Sweeney, 2005; Teachman, 2003; Stanley, Amato, Johnson, & Markman, 2006) I combined two slides here so you don’t have to spend as much time.

Explaining the Cohabitation Effect
It’s about the people who cohabit. Researchers call this a selection effect.

New National Study Funded by National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman (Pis) Random, fairly representative sample of 1,294 individuals 18-34 years old 60% women, 40% men All unmarried (68% dating, 32% cohabiting) Longitudinal: mail surveys every 4 to 6 mo. Recruited ages 18 to 34, in serious romantic relationship. Add a line in there somewhere that recruiting for 2 months gets us average of 2 years or more (interestingly enough).

Who Cohabits? Compared to daters with plans to marry, those cohabiting with plans to marry… Are older Have less education Are more likely to already have children Have had more sexual partners Are more likely to have divorced (or never married) parents Experienced more conflict in their families growing up Have more favorable attitudes toward divorce and less favorable attitudes toward marriage Are less religious Random, national, diverse sample of 1,294 individuals 18-34 years old 60% women, 40% men All unmarried (68% dating, 32% cohabiting) (% of sample) -Cohabiters who are planning marriage: 122 (9%) -Cohabiters who are not planning marriage: 292 (23)% -Serious, exclusive daters who are planning marriage: 399 (31%) -Serious, exclusive daters who are not planning marriage: 477 (37%)

Is Selection Everything?
It surely plays an important role, for example: Lillard, Brien, & Waite, 1995 Woods & Emery, 2002 Brown, Sanchez, Nock, & Wright 2006 But, many studies show cohabitation effect not fully explained by selection, for example: Demaris & MacDonald (1993) Cohan & Kleinbaum (2002) Kamp Dush, Cohan, & Amato (2003) Stafford, Kline, & Rankin (2004) Kline, et al. (2004) Stanley, Whitton, & Markman (2004) Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman (2009) Stanley, Rhoades, Amato, Markman, & Johnson (in press) The Problem with an Over-Reliance on Selection as an explanation for risks Many risks in life have aspects of selection that favors who will manifest the negative outcome. Yet, the selection factors also lead to behavior that, itself, adds to the negative outcomes. For example: Alcoholism Financial illiteracy

2) It’s about the experience of cohabitation changing values about marriage. Axinn & Thornton, 1992 Axinn & Barber, 1997

3) It’s about cohabitation creating inertia that makes it harder to break up. Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding vs. Deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55,

Premarital Cohabitation and Dedication to Partner
This dedication difference remains significant when controlling for religiosity. Effect size for male dedication difference = .68

The Inertia Hypothesis (Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman, 2006)
Stanley, Whitton, & Markman (2004): Men who cohabited premaritally were less dedicated to wives in marriage. (We often find this true for women, too, but more often with the men.) Would some of these men not have married their wives if they had not cohabited with them? Thinking Like an Economist The Endowment Effect People over-value what they already possess. Economist Richard Thaler: the Ownership or Status Quo Bias Loss Aversion emphasis of psychologists Kahneman and Tversky Popular concept now in popular books Ariely Harford Apply this concept to being on a path that you did not carefully choose but will come to value more simply because you are on it.

Testing this Theory Inertia should be a non-factor for those who have already clarified mutual, long-term commitment prior to cohabiting. Those engaged or married before cohabiting should be at lower risk. We find this result everywhere we have been able to test it (4 published studies). We find this prediction to be supported everywhere we have been able to test it. A longitudinal sample (those married in late 90s) A large survey sample (those married in 1990s) A recent, national married sample (those married between 1997 and 2007) In new national sample, before people marry

Replication of Engagement and Planning Effect
Kline, G. H., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Olmos-Gallo, P. A., St. Peters, M., Whitton, S. W., & Prado, L. (2004). Timing is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased risk for poor marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009). The pre-engagement cohabitation effect: A replication and extension of previous findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Amato, P. R., Markman, H. J., & Johnson, C. A. (2010). The timing of cohabitation and engagement: Impact on first and second marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, Goodwin, P. Y., Mosher, W. D., & Chandra, A. (2010). Marriage and cohabitation in the United States: A statistical portrait based on Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth. Vital Health Stat 23 (28). Washington D.C.: National Center for Health Statistics.

increases in constraint. For material constraints: ES = 1.5
Negative Communication 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Before Transition After Dedication 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 Before Transition After Perceived Constraints 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 Before Transition After These are very large increases in constraint. For material constraints: ES = 1.5

Cohabitation before marriage or engagement may make it easy to miss differences in levels of commitment. Ambiguity makes it harder to detect asymmetries. This is why books like “He’s Just Not That Into You” have become best sellers.

Dedication Levels Before Marriage and Up to 7 Years Into Marriage (Ave
Dedication Levels Before Marriage and Up to 7 Years Into Marriage (Ave. 4 Years Into Marriage) Kline, Stanley, and Markman (In Press, Journal of Family Psychology) Males cohab before Marriage or engagement Before Marriage Years Into Marriage

Being the more committed one in a relationship where two people never get on the same page can be dangerous. Have you ever been on a teeter-totter? It’s possible that you haven’t been on one in your whole life because they were banned in many places for the sake of safety. What could be unsafe about a teeter-totter? Well, too often one person would be high in the air and the other would just bail and let go. PLOP. This was seriously dangerous for the one left high and dry when the other bailed. That’s a good picture of the risk we find when we give too much to a person who’s not similarly committed. It can be a hard and fast fall when they just let go.

Sliding vs. Deciding More Thought on What Selection May Not Explain

Qualitative Research on Cohabitation
Couples are Sliding across the line into cohabitation. Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2005). Measuring and Modeling Cohabitation: New Perspectives from Qualitative Data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 989 – 1002. Hyper Deciding Nock, S. L., Sanchez, L. A., & Wright, J. D. (2008). Covenant marriage and the movement to reclaim tradition. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

A Relationship Transition and Risk Model

A Lower Risk Sequence (A Theoretical Model: Stanley & Rhoades)
Information Risks Is this safe? Compatibility Is there a fit? Commitment Mutual? Decision Choose Give up other options Intend to follow-through Transition Sexual contact Biological Attachment Cohabitation Pregnancy and childbearing Marriage Inertia & Constraint Structural Relational Moral Biological & Health

A Higher Risk Sequence (A Theoretical Model: Stanley & Rhoades)
Sliding Transition Sexual contact Biological Attachment Cohabitation Pregnancy and childbearing Marriage Inertia & Constraint Structural Relational Moral Biological & Health Information Risks Is this safe? Compatibility Is there a fit? Commitment Mutual?

High Cost Slides For example + sex + living together + having a child
You slide into something that is potentially life altering. After the slide, you have less options than you had before. You find out information that would have been better to know BEFORE sliding into the situation. For example + sex + living together + having a child

What’s Cooking?

What’s the big deal about sliding?
Losing options before making a choice Sliding generates constraints before dedication is fully developed. In contrast, healthy commitment is about freely chosen constraints.

Some Sliding is Fine and Even Good
When . . . Nothing dangerous is at stake Nothing potentially life altering is happening

Why Deciding Matters: Decisions Set up Follow-Through
In long-term relationships like marriage, Deciding transitions should set up stronger follow-through than sliding transitions. I choose you. I chose this path. Cognitive Dissonance and action tendencies (e.g., Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones) What about non-long-term relationships?

Commitment and Follow Through
Clear decisions anchor commitments, in: Educational goals Work and career Relationships (love, marriage, family) Pre-commitment: Decide who you are and what you intend to do and not do.

Additional Panels Improving One’s Likelihood of a Lasting Loving Marriage

Making A Good Choice: From The Power of Commitment (2005)
Get to know the person very well before deciding to marry. One thing you can do is take the time to work together through a detailed list of core expectations to see just how compatible you are. Do not make this crucial decision in a period of emotional infatuation. Date the person for a long time.

Observe how the person treats not only you but his or her friends. Learn as much as you can about the person's priorities and values. Give more weight than your heart may want to how closely the person shares your most essential beliefs (including religious) and values in life. Wait until you are 22 or older to make such an important decision. What you think you are looking for can change a lot.

Get the opinion of friends and family who are not likely to tell you only what you want to hear. Wait until you are married to live together. It may or may not increase your risk to live together before marriage, but there is no research that shows it lowers risks for most couples.

Note from Scott: I hightly recommend the paper “What’s up with Men and Commitment” in the box.net folders at the link on the end of the next slide. Please note that the pictures of people in these slides are copyrighted and I’ve purchsed the use. So, if you want to use some of these panels in your own presentations, please remove those. Thank you. Scott

www.slidingvsdeciding.com www.PREPinc.com Articles:

Catching the Speeding Train

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Catching the Speeding Train"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Catching the Speeding Train

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Catching the Speeding Train"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback