Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:01:11.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Understanding Romantic Relationships Among Emerging Adults: The Significant Roles of Cohabitation and Ambiguity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2010

By
Scott M. Stanley ,
Galena K. Rhoades  and
Frank D. Fincham
Edited by
Frank D. Fincham  and
Ming Cui
Frank D. Fincham
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Ming Cui
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Get access

Summary

Cohabitation has become a common element of the path that emerging adults travel as they navigate romantic relationships before settling down into marriage. There has been an explosion in the practice of cohabiting before marriage, and many emerging adults now cohabit regardless of marriage intentions. Along with the wide availability of birth control and the increased likelihood of nonmarital sex, cohabiting reflects fundamental changes in how men and women date and mate. This chapter describes this growing trend, including how individuals during the period of emerging adulthood view cohabitation and how they can be affected by it as they pursue their romantic relationship and family goals.

LIVING TOGETHER OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE: A NEW NATIONAL TREND

Many changes have occurred in family demography in the United States over the past several decades. One of the most significant changes is an increase in the number of couples who live together without being married. The U.S. Census now inquires about romantic partners sharing a household, and the last report indicated that unmarried couples were living together in 4% to 6% of U.S. households. This upward trend in cohabitation is likely linked with many other changes in recent decades, including the diminishing number of U.S. households that involve married couples and, most significantly for the focus of this book, the trend toward delaying marriage until the late 20s.

Type
Chapter
Information
Romantic Relationships in Emerging Adulthood , pp. 234 - 251
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amato, P. R., & DeBoer, D. D. (2001). The transmission of marital instability across generations: Relationship skills or commitment to marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1038–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Axinn, W. G., & Barber, J. S. (1997). Living arrangements and family formation attitudes in early adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59, 595–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axinn, W. G., & Thornton, A. (1992). The relationship between cohabitation and divorce: Selectivity or causality? Demography, 29, 357–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, S. L., & Booth, A. (1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship quality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 668–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bumpass, L. L., & Lu, H.-H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children's family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandra, A., Martinez, G. M., Mosher, W. D., Abma, J. C., & Jones, J. (2005). Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Bethesda, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.Google ScholarPubMed
Cherlin, A. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cui, M., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). The differential effects of parental divorce and marital conflict on young adult romantic relationships. Personal Relationships.CrossRef
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fields, J. (2004). America's families and living arrangements: March 2003 (Current Population Report, P20–553). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
Fussell, E., & Furstenberg, F. F. (2005). Race, nativity, and gender differences in the transition to adulthood in the 20th century. In Settersten, R. A., Furstenberg, Jr F. F.., & Rumbaut, R. (Eds.), On the frontier of adulthood: Theory, research, and public policy (pp. 46–75). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Galston, W. A. (2008). The changing twenties. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teenage Pregnancy.Google Scholar
Glenn, N. D. (2002). A plea for greater concern about the quality of marital matching. In Hawkins, A. J., Wardle, L. D., & Coolidge, D. O. (Eds.), Revitalizing the institution of marriage for the twenty-first century: An agenda for strengthening marriage (pp. 45–58). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Glenn, N. D., & Marquardt, E. (2001). Hooking up, hanging out, and hoping for Mr. Right: College women on dating and mating today. New York: Institute for American Values.Google Scholar
Harmon-Jones, E., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2002). Testing the action-based model of cognitive dissonance: The effect of action orientation on postdecisional attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 711–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hewitt, B., & de Vaus, D. (2009). Change in the association between premarital cohabitation and separation, Australia 1945–2000. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 353–361.
Kamp Dush, C. M., Cohan, C. L., & Amato, P. R. (2003). The relationship between cohabitation and marital quality and stability: Change across cohorts? Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 539–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, G. H., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Olmos-Gallo, P. A., St. Peters, M., Whitton, S. W., et al. (2004). Timing is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased risk for poor marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 311–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindsay, J. M. (2000). An ambiguous commitment: Moving into a cohabiting relationship. Journal of Family Studies, 6(1), 120–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2005). Measuring and modeling cohabitation: New perspectives from qualitative data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 989–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLanahan, S. (in press). Children in fragile families. In Carlson, M. & England, P. (eds.), Changing families in an unequal society.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007). Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 97–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popenoe, D., & Whitehead, B. D. (2001). Who wants to marry a soul mate? In Popenoe, D. & Whitehead, B. D., The state of our unions: The social health of marriage in America (pp. 6–16). Piscataway, NJ: National Marriage Project.Google Scholar
Raley, R. K., & Bumpass, L. (2003). The topography of the divorce plateau: Levels and trends in union stability in the United States after 1980. Demographic Research, 8, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhoades, G. K., & Stanley, S. M. (2009). Relationship education for individuals: The benefits and challenges of intervening early. In Benson, H. & Callan, S. (Eds.), What works in relationship education: Lessons from academics and service deliverers in the United States and Europe (pp. 44–54). Doha, Qatar: Doha International Institute for Family Studies and Development.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009a). Couples' reasons for cohabitation: Associations with individual well-being and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 233–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009b). The pre-engagement cohabitation effect: A replication and extension of previous findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 107–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009c). Working with cohabitation in relationship education and therapy. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 8, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sassler, S. (2004). The process of entering into cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 491–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smock, P. J. (2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, L., Kline, S. L., & Rankin, C. T. (2004). Married individuals, cohabiters, and cohabiters who marry: A longitudinal study of relational and individual well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M. (2002, June). What is it with men and commitment anyway?Paper presented at the Smart Marriages Conference, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://prepinc.com/main/docs/commitment.pdfGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 595–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M., & Rhoades, G. K. (2009). Marriages at risk: Relationship formation and opportunities for relationship education. In Benson, H. & Callan, S. (Eds.), What works in relationship education: Lessons from academics and service deliverers in the United States and Europe (pp. 21–44). Doha, Qatar: Doha International Institute for Family Studies and Development.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Amato, P. R., Markman, H. J., & Johnson, C. A. (in press). The timing of cohabitation and engagement: Impact on first and second marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family.
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding vs. deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M., Whitton, S. W., & Markman, H. J. (2004). Maybe I do: Interpersonal commitment and premarital or nonmarital cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 496–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teachman, J. (2003). Premarital sex, premarital cohabitation and the risk of subsequent marital dissolution among women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 444–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1009–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uecker, J. E., & Stokes, C. E. (2008). Early marriage in the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 835–846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ventura, S. J. (2009). Changing patterns of nonmarital childbearing in the United States (NCHS Data Brief, No. 18). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waller, W., & Hill, R. (1951). The family: A dynamic interpretation. New York: Dryden.Google Scholar
Whitton, S. W., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2008). Effects of parental divorce on marital commitment and confidence. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 789–793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×