1. Fractured Foundations: How Emerging Patterns of Partnering Undermine Marital Commitment Prof. Scott M. Stanley University of Denver November 6 th, 2009 1

2. Raley & Bumpass (2003) The Topography of the Divorce Plateau Half of all first marriages will dissolve –(based current trends; representing a leveling off on a plateau) HOWEVER “Our understanding of family stability is impaired if we focus only on divorce rates: for example, children’s family lives have become increasingly unstable during the plateau in the divorce rate (Bumpass & Lu 2000).”

3. 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.

4. The Hope Based in Desire 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)

5. A Research Summary that will Clear Everything Up for You “Some research, however, suggests that Catholics’ behavior is less consistent or predictable than one would expect given the Church’s emphasis on marriage.” From a truly excellent study on how adolescents’ religious beliefs relate to cohabitation and marriage in early adulthood: Eggebeen, D., & Dew, J. (2009). The role of religion in adolescence for family formation in young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 108 – 121. 5

6. The Essence of Commitment Making the choice to give up other choices. (Stanley, 2005) Having a long-term time horizon The essence: Choosing Us with a Future –a lasting oneness

7. Why does commitment develop? A Psychological Perspective

13. Maybe I Do

14. The need: clear, well-formed commitment The reality: relationship patterns that are becoming more typical undermine the development of commitment.

15. Transition and Risk

16. “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 –Higher rates of domestic violence –Higher rates of infidelity Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002; Forste & Tanfer, 1996; Kamp Dush et al., 2003; Phillips & Sweeney, 2005; Stafford et al., 2004; Stanley et al., 2004; Teachman, 2003

17. Explaining the Cohabitation Effect 1 ) It’s about the people who cohabit. 2) It’s about the experience of cohabitation changing values about marriage. 3) It’s about cohabitation creating inertia that makes it harder to break up. e.g., Lillard, Brien, & Waite, 1995; Axinn & Barber, 1997; Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman, 2006

18. Is Selection Everything? Probably not Effect not covaried away: –Demaris & MacDonald (1993) –Cohan & Kleinbaum (2002) –Kamp Dush, Cohan, & Amato (2003) –Kline (Rhoades), Stanley, et al. (2004) –Stanley, Whitton, & Markman (2005) –Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman (2006) –Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman (2009) JFP –Stanley, Rhoades, Amato, Johnson, & Markman (in preparation)

19. A Core Concept: Inertia Inertia (physics): resistance to changes in motion or direction

20. Inertia Our work emphasizes a negative effect of inertia, starting with national survey data from 1995. –Stanley & Markman, 1995 –Stanley, Whitton, & Markman, 2004 –Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2004 –Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman, 2006 –Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2009 –Stanley & Rhoades, 2009 Similarities with Norval Glenn’s Premature Entanglement, but many differences.

21. What is Commitment? (as couples experience it over time) Personal Dedication Constraint (the basis of inertia) Stanley & Markman (1992)

22. Dedication Commitment and Cohabitation History by Gender Stanley, Whitton, & Markman, 2004 Controlling for religiosity difference does not take away the dedication difference. Effect size for male dedication difference =.68

23. The Inertia Hypothesis (Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman, 2006 ) Is there a subset of men who would not have married their current spouse had they not increased constraints by cohabiting? More generally, do the increased constraints of cohabitation keep some relationships together that would otherwise end?

24. Inertia should be a non-factor if one has already clarified mutual, long-term commitment prior to increasing constraints.

25. The theory of inertia predicts: –Highest risk: cohabiting before clarifying commitment –Lower risk: cohabiting at marriage –Lower risk: cohabiting after mutual, public clarity on commitment (e.g., engagement) A Scientific Prediction

26. Theory and Findings Thus Far We find this prediction to be supported everywhere we have been able to test it. Supported in at least five data sets where it is possible to test. Sample studies: Kline (Rhoades), G. H., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Olmos-Gallo, P. A., St. Peters, M., Whitton, S. W., & Prado, L. (2004). Timing Is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased risk for poor marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 311-318. Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J. (2006). Pre-engagement cohabitation and gender asymmetry in marital commitment. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 553-560. 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, 107-111.

27. A Personal Note I am presenting an important research finding here; I’m not making a theological statement regarding cohabitation after engagement and prior to marriage. 27

28. Who is Most Likely To Cohabit? What we know: Some characteristics are associated with cohabiting prior to clarity about commitment to marriage (engagement or marriage) –Lower relationship quality –Parental divorce –Lower income –More mental health problems –Less religious

29. To Be Clear Inertia suggests that part of risk of cohabiting is that it may increase the likelihood that poorer quality relationships will continue. 29

30. Sliding vs. Deciding What Selection May Not Explain

31. Sliding vs. Deciding Inertia and accumulating constraints: Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding vs. Deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499 - 509. Couples Slide 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.

32. New National Quantitative Study Funded by National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) –Co-Investigators: Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman Random, national, diverse sample of –1,294 individuals –18-34 years old –All unmarried (68% dating, 32% cohabiting)

33. How does it Begin? 1/3 1/3 “We didn’t think about it or plan it. We slid into it.” “We talked about it, but then it just sort of happened.” “We talked about it, planned it, and then made a decision together to do it.” How did you start living together?

34. When does cohabitation begin? Among those cohabiting: –66% started cohabitation before plans –23% started cohabitation with plans, but no engagement –11% started cohabitation with engagement People who were already engaged are more likely to have made a decision about cohabiting.

35. How Things Happen 35

36. A Lower Risk Sequence (A Theoretical Model)

37. A Higher Risk Sequence (A Theoretical Model)

38. What’s the concern about Sliding? Key information on risk comes after one has constrained options to act on it. Sliding generates constraints outside of initial awareness. Sliding generates constraints before dedication is fully developed.

39. Constraint & Consent: Impact on Commitment Making choices under conditions of increased constraint undermines commitment: –Constraint reduces freedom to fully consent. –Constraint reduces the information revealed by a choice. 39

40. Why Deciding Matters Commitment is making the choice (decision) to give up other choices. (Stanley, 2005) Deciding transitions will set up stronger commitment and follow-through. –I choose you. –I chose this path. –Cognitive Dissonance and action tendencies (e.g., Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones)

41. Points of Application in the Ministry of Marriage Teaching, Preaching, & Counseling 41

42. Pre Pre Marital Education Start marriage education in the teens. Address anxiety about marriage directly, and things individuals can do to boost confidence based on reality. Help people see that some relational steps can be life-altering, and sliding through amounts to giving up options before making a choice. 42

43. Pre-Marital Preparation There is a good deal of evidence that it works (or at least, various forms do). Carroll, J. S., & Doherty, W. J. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of premarital prevention programs: A meta-analytic review of outcome research. Family Relations, 52, 105-118. Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B. (2008). Does marriage and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 723 -734. Stanley, S. M. (2001). Making the Case for Premarital Education. Family Relations, 50, 272–280. Stanley, S. M., Amato, P. R., Johnson, C. A., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Premarital education, marital quality, and marital stability: Findings from a large, random, household survey. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 117- 126. 43

44. Pre-Marital Preparation Cont’d Transition is not transformation. Probe, with couples, how the commitment developed that led to the desire to wed. Where sliding has been the rule, help couples convert to a full “I do.” 44

45. Lower Income Couples High regard for marriage. Less access to it, and less ability to succeed in it, because of risk factors. Consider ministry of providing them with opportunities for very nice church wedding at some very low cost.

46. Counseling in Tough Times Look for fault-lines in original commitment. Counseling may be very different with a “maybe I do” couple than full volitional choice couple. Can we help couples to form foundation now that didn’t get poured early on? 46

47. For more information: my blog: www.slidingvsdeciding.comwww.slidingvsdeciding.com PREP website: www.PREPinc.comwww.PREPinc.com (for pdf of this talk, see Scott’s corner by clicking on any section on first page, and then look for link in middle of menu bar) 47

48. There are many articles one could read on aspects of this presentation. Probably the best, single article on these themes is a book chapter that is available online. It gives a summary of research on relationship and marriage education and a very detailed presentation of the transition and risk issues I discussed here. Available at www.relationshipeducation.infowww.relationshipeducation.info The chapters for download are on right side of page. You want the first one: Stanley & Rhoades 48