cohabitation research articles

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Ten Years of Marriage and Cohabitation Research in the Journal of Family and Economic Issues

Affiliation.

• 1 Brigham Young University, 2101 JFSB, Provo, UT 84606 USA.
• PMID: 33110342
• PMCID: PMC7579851
• DOI: 10.1007/s10834-020-09723-7

I reviewed the 36 marriage and cohabitation studies from the Journal of Family and Economic Issues articles published between 2010-2019. Nearly all of the studies used quantitative methods, and two-thirds of them used publicly available nationally-representative data. The studies fell into roughly five, unevenly sized groups: family structure, relationship quality, division of labor/employment, money management, and an "other" category. Suggestions for future research include applying some of the important questions within the articles to underrepresented groups, further examining the process of how finances and relationship quality interrelate and doing more applied and translational research.

Keywords: Cohabitation; Financial distress; Financial issues; Marriage.

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interestThe author declares that he has no conflicts of interest regarding this manuscript and its publication in the Journal of Financial and Economic Issues.

Similar articles

• Relationship quality and family formation in Europe. Blom N, Perelli-Harris B, Wiik KA. Blom N, et al. Adv Life Course Res. 2023 Mar;55:100527. doi: 10.1016/j.alcr.2023.100527. Epub 2023 Jan 18. Adv Life Course Res. 2023. PMID: 36942640
• So happy together … Examining the association between relationship happiness, socio-economic status, and family transitions in the UK. Perelli-Harris B, Blom N. Perelli-Harris B, et al. Popul Stud (Camb). 2022 Nov;76(3):447-464. doi: 10.1080/00324728.2021.1984549. Epub 2021 Oct 19. Popul Stud (Camb). 2022. PMID: 34665681
• Cohabitation and marriage during the transition between adolescence and emerging adulthood: A systematic review of changes in weight-related outcomes, diet and physical activity. Werneck AO, Winpenny EM, Foubister C, Guagliano JM, Monnickendam AG, van Sluijs EMF, Corder K. Werneck AO, et al. Prev Med Rep. 2020 Nov 28;20:101261. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101261. eCollection 2020 Dec. Prev Med Rep. 2020. PMID: 33344148 Free PMC article. Review.
• Family Matters: Decade Review from Journal of Family and Economic Issues . Kelley HH, LeBaron AB, Hill EJ. Kelley HH, et al. J Fam Econ Issues. 2021;42(Suppl 1):20-33. doi: 10.1007/s10834-020-09706-8. Epub 2020 Sep 2. J Fam Econ Issues. 2021. PMID: 32895603 Free PMC article. Review.
• The Economic Foundations of Cohabiting Couples' Union Transitions. Ishizuka P. Ishizuka P. Demography. 2018 Apr;55(2):535-557. doi: 10.1007/s13524-018-0651-1. Demography. 2018. PMID: 29470783
• Perceived financial burden is indirectly linked to sexual well-being via quality of life among couples seeking medically assisted reproduction. Allsop DB, Péloquin K, Saxey MT, Rossi MA, Rosen NO. Allsop DB, et al. Front Psychol. 2023 Apr 4;14:1063268. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1063268. eCollection 2023. Front Psychol. 2023. PMID: 37082570 Free PMC article.
• Change in Financial Stress and Relational Wellbeing During COVID-19: Exacerbating and Alleviating Influences. Kelley HH, Lee Y, LeBaron-Black A, Dollahite DC, James S, Marks LD, Hall T. Kelley HH, et al. J Fam Econ Issues. 2023;44(1):34-52. doi: 10.1007/s10834-022-09822-7. Epub 2022 Feb 9. J Fam Econ Issues. 2023. PMID: 36820278 Free PMC article.
• Bedtime and the Budget: Longitudinal, Actor-Partner Connections between Sleep Quality and Financial Management Behaviors in Newlywed Couples. Saxey MT, Dew JP, Yorgason JB. Saxey MT, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Dec 21;20(1):55. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20010055. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022. PMID: 36612376 Free PMC article.
• The ABC-X's of Stress among U.S. Emerging Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Relationship Quality, Financial Distress, and Mental Health. LeBaron-Black AB, Yorgason JB, Curran MA, Saxey MT, Okamoto RM. LeBaron-Black AB, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Oct 12;19(20):13125. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192013125. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022. PMID: 36293701 Free PMC article.
• The Social and Economic Impact of Covid-19 on Family Functioning and Well-Being: Where do we go from here? Andrade C, Gillen M, Molina JA, Wilmarth MJ. Andrade C, et al. J Fam Econ Issues. 2022;43(2):205-212. doi: 10.1007/s10834-022-09848-x. Epub 2022 May 27. J Fam Econ Issues. 2022. PMID: 35669394 Free PMC article.
• Addo FR. Financial integration and relationship transitions of young adult cohabiters. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2017;38(1):84–99. doi: 10.1007/s10834-016-9490-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
• Allred, C. (2019). Gray divorce rate in the US: Geographic Variation, 2017. Family Profile, No. 20, 2019. Retrieved April 15, 2020 from https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/allred-gray-di... .
• Becker GS. A treatise on the family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1981.
• Britt SL, Huston SJ. The role of money arguments in marriage. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2012;33(4):464–476. doi: 10.1007/s10834-012-9304-5. - DOI
• Britt SL, Roy RRN. Relationship quality among young couples from an economic and gender perspective. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2014;35(2):241–250. doi: 10.1007/s10834-013-9368-x. - DOI

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Measuring Marriage and Cohabitation: Assessing Same-Sex Relationship Status in the Current Population Survey

Corresponding author: [email protected]

• Standard View
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Wendy D. Manning , Krista K. Payne; Measuring Marriage and Cohabitation: Assessing Same-Sex Relationship Status in the Current Population Survey. Demography 1 June 2021; 58 (3): 811–820. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9162213

Download citation file:

• Reference Manager

Since June 26, 2015, marriages to same-sex couples have been legally recognized across every state in the United States, bringing new challenges to measuring relationship status in surveys. Starting in 2015 for select households and in 2017 for all households, the Current Population Survey (CPS) used a new household roster that directly identified same-sex and different-sex cohabiting and married couples. We gauge how the estimates and characteristics of same-sex couples vary according to old and new roster categories using the 2015/2016 and 2017/2018 CPS. Employing the new roster, we distinguish the sociodemographic characteristics of married and cohabiting same-sex couples. These findings have implications for the measurement of same-sex couples and our understanding of marriage among sexual minorities.

• Introduction

The June 26, 2015, landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges ensured the legality of marriages to same-sex couples throughout the United States. Federal social science data collection efforts have made considerable strides in keeping pace with the shifting legal landscape. The Current Population Survey (CPS) data are the first publicly released data that allow the direct measurement of marriage and cohabitation among same-sex couples. We use the term same-sex in this paper because it reflects the actual wording used in the surveys, but we recognize that the measurement of gender and sex are conceptually nuanced and not interchangeable.

Establishing counts and characteristics of same-sex couples in census data has been possible since 1990 using the decennial census (DC) and since 1995 using the CPS, but obtaining accurate measurement remained elusive. The identification of same-sex couples entailed a two-stage process. Respondents identified their sex and the sex of all household members, with response options of “male” and “female.” The relationship status “wife/husband” was at the top of the roster, and “unmarried partner” was at the bottom of the roster ( Table 1 ). Same-sex and different-sex cohabiting and married couples were identified by combining the gender and relationship status questions. 1

Data editing strategies have been deployed to count same-sex couples. The 1990 DC and the 1995 CPS assumed that the sex responses were errors for those who responded as same-sex married couples and recoded them as different-sex married couples ( Cohn 2011 ; Gates 2010 ). Starting in 2000 for the DC, 2010 for the CPS, and 2008 for the American Community Survey (ACS), sex was assumed to be correctly identified, and same-sex married couples were reclassified as same-sex cohabiting couples ( Cohn 2011 ; Gates 2010 ; Lofquist and Ellis 2011 ). Significant measurement error was identified ( Black et al. 2007 ; Gates 2015 ; Gates and Steinberger 2009 ; Kreider and Lofquist 2015 ; O'Connell and Feliz 2011 ; O'Connell and Gooding 2006 ): relatively few errors in a large population of different-sex married couples had a substantial impact on the estimates of the relatively small population of same-sex married couples. Recognition of these errors lead to the release of preferred DC estimates, and Gates (2015) modified ACS counts based on allocation flags for sex, marital status, and marriage year. In 2013, the Census Bureau released data distinguishing same-sex married and cohabiting couples using the ACS. However, until 2017, the CPS continued recoding same-sex married couples as same-sex cohabiting couples through data edits.

After considerable testing, the Census Bureau invoked a new strategy to measure same-sex couples. The new roster included relationship options of “opposite-sex” or “same-sex” spouse/husband/wife and partners, and it reorganized the categories so that partners followed spouses ( Table 1 ). The new roster categories were introduced for select households in 2015 and were distributed to all households in 2017. This new roster will be included in the 2020 DC and the 2019 ACS.

We have two key objectives. First, we examine how estimates and characteristics of same-sex couples differ using the old roster in the 2015/2016 CPS and the new roster in the 2017/2018 CPS. Although some variation may be due to change over time, the time frame is quite narrow and affords the only opportunity for direct contrasts of the results based on the new categories and sequencing. 2 We expect that the characteristics of respondents answering the new roster will more strongly reflect the sociodemographic profile of cohabiting couples (younger, more mobile, and fewer resources) because of the shift in the identification of cohabitors. At the same time, the new roster may result in greater counts of both same-sex cohabiting and married couples because individuals in same-sex relationships see a clearly labeled option for them to respond. The new roster may also reflect more general growth as a result of increased social and legal support for sexual minorities. 3

Second, we report the first census-based sociodemographic characteristics of cohabitation and marriage among same-sex couples applying the new roster. We anticipate that same-sex married couples will be more socioeconomically advantaged, will have more residential stability, will have higher rates of homeownership, and will be older than same-sex cohabiting couples. These results have implications for our understanding of the levels and correlates of cohabitation and marriage among same-sex couples.

• Data and Methods

Our analysis of the identification of same-gender couples relies on data spanning 2015 to 2018 from the March Annual Social and Economic Supplements (ASEC) of the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series-Current Population Survey (IPUMS-CPS) ( Flood et al. 2018 ), the U.S. Census Bureau Research File (2017 March ASEC), and the U.S. Census Bureau Bridge File (2018 March ASEC). 4 The CPS is a nationally representative survey that is jointly sponsored by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau. All data are weighted; replicate weights are applied to generate empirically derived standard errors. The CPS questionnaires are administered by telephone or in-person.

In May 2015, the CPS provided incoming sample members with new response options for the question on relationship to the householder. Spouses and partners were able to identify as “opposite-sex” or “same-sex,” and partners were moved from the end of the roster to near the top ( Table 1 ). By the 2017 ASEC, all rotation groups received the new roster.

We pool the 2015/2016 data (prior to the full implementation of the new roster) and pool the 2017/2018 data (following the full implementation of the new roster). To generate the cleanest parallel samples possible while maximizing sample size and avoiding the double counting of households, we pool two sets of consecutive CPS files for these analyses ( Figure 1 ). Pooling years in the CPS requires caution because the same household is interviewed across multiple months following an interview rotation cycle ( Figure A1 , online appendix). The first set represents relationship data collected via the old roster categories from respondents in Months 5–8 of their data collection cycles in 2015 and 2016 ( N  = 394 same-sex couples). The second set represents data collected via the new roster response categories from respondents in Months 1–4 of their collection cycles 2017 and 2018 ( N  = 537 same-sex couples); this set produced the first data allowing researchers to distinguish couples who were married and cohabiting using the new roster.

All variables are constructed at the couple level. Given the small share of the U.S. population living in same-sex coresidential relationships, the coding strategy aims to optimize couple-level detail without compromising statistical power. Same-sex couples are identified with the CPS coding based on the roster, sex, direct question about cohabiting partners, and marital status ( Kreider and Gurrentz 2019 ).

Household composition is recoded into three categories to distinguish among couples who lived in (1) couple-only households, (2) households with the couple and at least one biological/step-/adopted child (and possibly others), and (3) households with the couple and others who were not biological/step-/adopted children.

We include gender, age, race/ethnicity, nativity status, and residence of the couple. Couple sex is coded as a binary variable, with 1 indicating male and 0 indicating female. Although this coding offers a limited conceptualization of gender, it is the only option available. We determine the age of the younger partner and code it categorically: 18–29, 30–39, 40–49, and 50+. We compute the couple's age gap by subtracting the younger member's age from the older member's age. The couple's race/ethnicity is coded into one of four categories: (1) both non-Hispanic Black, (2) both non-Hispanic White, (3) both Hispanic, and (4) interracial/interethnic and/or non-Hispanic other (Asian, American Indian, or two or more racial/ethnic groups). Nativity of the couple is coded as 1 if at least one member of the couple is foreign-born, and as 0 otherwise. Residential history identifies couples in which at least one member moved in the previous year. Couples currently living in a metropolitan area are identified with a binary variable (metro =1). Region of current residence is coded based on census regions: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West.

We include four indicators of socioeconomic status. Educational attainment of the couple is coded as (1) both members had a high school diploma or less, (2) only one member had at least a bachelor's degree, or (3) both members had at least a bachelor's degree. Couples' employment status is coded as (1) both members worked full-time, (2) one member worked full-time, or (3) neither member worked full-time. Housing tenure is based on whether respondents owned their home or rented. The mean household income per person in the household is coded in 2018 dollars.

Estimates of same-sex couples increased by about 45% across the period studied. Some of this increase was due to actual growth in the number of same-sex couples: the number of such couples in the ACS increased by 12% during this period (U.S. Census 2019 ). 5 Although we cannot directly examine the source of increase, these results suggest that the new roster was responsible for a nontrivial share of the increase in same-sex couples in the CPS.

The distribution of same-sex couples based on the old and new rosters is presented in Table 2 . Same-sex couples differ in several significant ways depending on the roster. About 25% of same-sex couples had a member aged 18–29 based on the new roster, compared with 18% based on the old roster. Similarly, 26% of same-sex couples had a partner aged 50 or older based on the new roster, compared with 38% based on the traditional roster. Partners' race/ethnicity differs based on roster type: the new roster estimates that three-fifths (59.5%) of same-sex couples were both White, in contrast to two-thirds (68%) as estimated using the old roster. The new roster estimates greater shares of Hispanic couples than the old roster. Estimates of having moved in the previous year are greater in the new roster versus the old roster. Greater shares of couples with a modest education (high school diploma or less) are identified in the new than the old roster (42% vs. 35%). The employment levels are higher in the new roster in contrast to the old roster: both partners were employed full-time in 54% of couples in the new roster, compared with 42% in the old roster.

Table 3 presents, to our knowledge, the first analysis distinguishing same-sex cohabiting and married couples with new roster data. Cohabitation is slightly more common than marriage: about 55% of same-sex couples were cohabiting, and 45% were married. The distribution according to gender is split evenly. Married same-sex couples more often had children present in their home (26%) than cohabiting couples (14%). The age distribution is disparate, with 34% of cohabitors but only 13% of married same-sex couples including a partner younger than 30. About 20% of same-sex cohabiting couples included a partner aged 50 or older, compared with 44% for same-sex married couples. About one-half of same-sex cohabiting couples included a partner who is a racial/ethnic minority, in contrast to one-third of married couples. In about 21% of same-sex cohabiting couples, at least one partner had moved in the previous year, compared with 7% of same-sex married couples. Fewer cohabiting couples than married couples were homeowners. Finally, household income was higher among married couples than among cohabiting couples.

The new roster categories in the CPS offer an opportunity to track marriage among same-sex couples and establish the share married among coresiding same-sex couples. The findings show the importance of adopting new strategies to measure family relationships. The Census Bureau implemented this new household roster across surveys, including the DC, CPS, ACS, Survey of Income and Program Participation, and American Housing Survey. We expect that this new roster will result in greater counts of same-sex couples. We find that using the new roster results in the identification of a younger, more racially/ethnically diverse, and more modestly educated group of same-sex couples than employing the old roster.

A limitation of our study is that our comparisons cover a critical time following the legalization of same-sex marriage and may reflect an actual change in the number and composition of same-sex couples. However, these comparisons are the only way to compare the application of the old and new roster using the same data source.

In addition, these data are restricted to questions about sex, and new measurement of gender identity is warranted. The new roster enables improved identification of same-sex couples, and our findings are consistent with the argument that the old rosters missed some same-sex couples and underestimated cohabiting couples ( Kreider and Gurrentz 2019 ). However, challenges in providing accurate estimates remain. Small sample sizes of same-sex partners/spouses in addition to U.S. Census Bureau edits to ensure consistency make identifying sources of change in estimates of same-sex partners difficult to establish. Even though we focus on same-sex couples in this paper, the new roster likely provides more accurate estimates of different-sex cohabiting couples. We hope that data providers modify their rosters, and thereby change the measurement of same-sex couples, to align with the census strategy. As administrative counts (via marriage licenses) of same-sex marriages are expanded across states, they may provide another potential source of counts of the number of same-sex marriages during a specific period.

The estimates presented here are, to our knowledge, the first to distinguish relationship status using the new roster. A substantial share of same-sex couples are married (45%), and the characteristics of cohabiting and married couples differ in critical ways. Cohabiting same-sex couples less often have children present, are younger, are more mobile, more often rent their homes, and earn less than their married counterparts. The ability to measure relationship status leads to new understandings of same-sex couples and opens the door to research on whether and how marriage matters for same-sex couples.

New opportunities to study same-sex couples using census data are emerging. Our findings demonstrate the utility of the new roster in identifying family structure for same-sex couples. Given that the CPS includes questions about health, health insurance, and economic well-being, the new roster sets the stage for innovative research about the implications of marriage for adult and child well-being.

• Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the extremely helpful comments provided by the reviewers for this manuscript, as well as the U.S. Census Bureau staff who have ensured more accurate measurement of same-gender couples. This research benefited from resources provided by the Center for Family and Demographic Research at Bowling Green State University with core funding from The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (P2CHD050959).

In 2007, the CPS introduced the direct cohabitation question that established the “line number” of partners.

Kreider and Gurrentz (2019) extensively detailed the CPS data editing and processing of same-sex couples. They identified more cohabiting and fewer married couples when relying on the new roster categories than when recoding the data by replacing the old roster using the new roster categories. This strategy provides evidence based on recodes of the new roster, not an actual comparison of the old and new rosters.

The increase in the count of same-sex couples in the ACS using the old roster and no change in data edits was about 12% over the period (U.S. Census Bureau 2019). The Census Bureau does not recommend comparing CPS and ACS estimates of same-sex couples because of the distinct interview modes, data edits and processing, and weighting strategies ( Kreider and Gurrentz 2019 ).

The Research and Bridge files include the coding and edits following the new roster categories. The Research files are available from https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2017/demo/income-poverty/2017-cps-asec-research-file.html . The Bridge Files are available from https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2018/demo/income-poverty/cps-asec-bridge.html .

Confirming this magnitude of increase is analysis of Gallup data on same-sex marriages, there was a 13% increase in estimates of same-sex married couples between 2015 and 2017 ( Jones and Gates 2015 ; Romero 2017 ).

Supplementary data

Data & figures.

Analytic samples by March CPS year and month in the sample. Each respondent is in the sample for two cycles of four consecutive months. The first cycle of four consecutive months is designated as Months 1–4, and the second is designated as Months 5–8. Like-shaded months in the CPS sample represent Months 1–4 and 5–8 of the data collection cycles for each group of respondents. The analysis of the old roster is based on Months 5–8 in 2015 and 2016. The analysis of the new roster sample is based on Months 1–4 in 2017 and 2018. This strategy ensures that the pooled data represent just one interview per household respondent.

CPS household roster categories

Sources: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar16.pdf for panel A. https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/questionnaires/Demographics.pdf?# for panel B.

Descriptive statistics of same-sex couples in the CPS

Source: Current Population Survey.

Marital and cohabitation status were included in the roster but not released.

Only 16 same-gender couples who are both Black are in the old roster data.

† p  < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01

Descriptive statistics of same-sex couples by relationship status with the new roster, 2017/2018

Source: Current Population Survey Research/Bridge Files.

p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

• Previous Issue
• Previous Article
• Next Article

Advertisement

Supplements

Citing articles via, email alerts, related articles, related topics, related book chapters, affiliations.

• About Demography
• Editorial Board
• For Authors
• Rights and Permissions Inquiry
• Online ISSN 1533-7790
• Print ISSN 0070-3370
• Copyright © 2024
• Duke University Press
• 905 W. Main St. Ste. 18-B
• Durham, NC 27701
• (888) 651-0122
• International
• +1 (919) 688-5134
• Information For
• Advertisers
• Book Authors
• Booksellers/Media
• Journal Authors/Editors
• Journal Subscribers
• Prospective Journals
• Licensing and Subsidiary Rights
• View Open Positions
• email Join our Mailing List
• catalog Current Catalog
• Accessibility
• Get Adobe Reader

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Pre-Cohabitation Conversations for Relationships: Recommended Questions for Discussion

• Original Paper
• Published: 13 July 2021
• Volume 45 , pages 131–145, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Kristina S. Brown   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7504-9552 1 ,
• Brooke Schmidt   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8779-9561 2 ,
• Cate Morrow   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8747-2921 3 &
• Gaston Rougeaux-Burnes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7409-7672 4  

5917 Accesses

2 Citations

228 Altmetric

29 Mentions

Explore all metrics

Moving in together is an important transition in a relationship. For many, it is often a shift to the next phase of the relationship indicating higher levels of commitment. Whether the partners are married, plans to get married, or marriage is not part of their future, there are important conversations to be had prior to this transition. As such, this article presents recommended pre-cohabitation conversations with question prompts for partners to explore prior to moving in together. To best understand the dynamics of cohabiting that informed the questions, a review of the literature on cohabitation is presented. Additionally, race and culture, religion, and sexual and gender identity will be highlighted as essential conversation considerations especially as the majority of the literature is centered around white, hetero, and monogamous relationships. Created by a group of couple and family therapy graduate trainees based on the literature and their own personal and professional experiences, the pre-cohabitation conversations are organized into three categories– relationship negotiations, household rules, and communication. These conversations are recommended to be used both by therapists with their clients as well as for direct use by partners following the questions presented within. The topics represent a comprehensive range of relationship issues including consideration of unique issues as presented in the literature with the goal of aiding partners in successful management of their transition to a shared living space.

Similar content being viewed by others

Beliefs About Premarital Cohabitation: Do Individuals Believe Living Together Helps Divorce-Proof Marriage?

A critical review of help-seeking for couples therapy: clinical implications and next steps, understanding relationship labels: a content analysis of consensual non-monogamous relationship agreements.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Cohabitation is broadly defined as living together in an intimate relationship without marriage. Despite marital status being the ultimate demonstration of relational commitment, the opportunity to marry has not always been available to all. For many, cohabitation was the only way to demonstrate such commitment; for others, it was the preference. Though the 5–4 decisions on June 26, 2015 in the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Fourteenth Amendment requiring recognition and granting of same-sex marriages was a victory (for love; Liptak, 2015 ), it did not unilaterally shift the significance of cohabitation. Living together is an important step for many as they negotiate the meaning and impact cohabitation has on their relationship status. This shift is true for all romantic constellations which are represented in this article through the use of inclusive terminology such as “relationship” and “partners” (Jordan, 2018 ). The authors’ intentional selection of this preferred language differs from the majority of the literature which is centered around white, hetero, and monogamous relationships and is considered to be “mononormative language and microaggressions” (Jordan, 2018 , p. 122). When the word “couple” is used in this paper, it is as a direct reference to or from the literature. Despite the now equality of marriage and Justice Kennedy’s declaration that marriage is the “keystone of our social order” (Liptak, 2015 , para. 3), many have different experiences and values around marriage and may still view cohabitation as the goal for their relationship. The authors of this article believe that those in relationships decide for themselves what and how to demonstrate commitment. We contend that cohabitation is one way romantic constellations evolve their relationship and that it is a time of change for all. We recommend a deeper exploration of expectations in anticipation of the shifting dynamics within the relationship during and after this transition.

Recent trends suggest that more relationships have opted to live together both before marriage or instead of marriage as cohabitation becomes more acceptable (Eickmeyer & Manning, 2017 ). Lichter ( 2010 ) reported that “cohabitation is increasingly a prelude to marriage” (p. 758). Reasons for this shifting trend are explored at the outset of this article including, for example, a concept called Sliding Vs Deciding™ introduced by Stanley, Rhoades, and Markham in 2006. This is when partners do not overtly make the decision to move their relationship to a shared living space, but rather end up cohabiting due to external circumstances without an overt decision. Whether they live together before marriage, move in after marriage, or do not plan to marry, there are essential conversations and important topics for the partners to explore. This is particularly crucial as they may underestimate the importance and impact of this transition, as Lamidi et al. ( 2019 ) highlighted that without consideration of issues and negotiations, cohabiting partners are more likely to end their relationship.

Through an exploration of cohabitation in the literature, it became apparent that though the potential outcomes were appropriately explored, the types of topics and discussions that would be helpful in this transition stage were not as fully represented. Recommendations for essential relationship questions were more often found to be pre-marital with assumptions that it was only with marriage that partners would cohabit. In response and with the goal of inclusivity, couple and family therapy trainees and their faculty, all with a variety of personal and professional experiences around cohabiting, co-created a list of pre-cohabitation conversation topics and questions to address prior to moving in together. The list of questions was created from both reviews of the literature and the collective personal and professional experiences of this group of couple and family therapists. This article could serve as a resource to both therapists for use with clients and/or as a tool for partners to use independently. The pre-cohabitation conversations also aim to fill the gap of resources for this specific relationship transition. Similar tools focus on pre-marital questions without consideration of the impact and privilege of this narrow focus. These important topics for partners to attend to prior to moving in together are organized into three categories—relationship negotiations, household rules, and communication—with questions for exploration across each grouping.

As the literature on cohabiting highlighted concerns about the lack of commitment in relationships who live together without marriage (Stanley et al., 2006 ), the goal of these conversations is to aid partners in successfully bringing their lives together while creating a shared narrative with explicit understanding of the meaning of cohabitation including roles and responsibilities. This may be especially important with cohabitation on the rise and common perceptions from younger generations that it prevents divorce and is seen as a “good trial run for marriage” (Bagley et al., 2020 , p. 284). Further, by co-creating these questions from a collective and wide range of identities and experiences as well as a critical look at the literature, the goal was to continue to decenter the singular identity of the white, heterosexual, and monogamous couple as presented in the majority of the literature and expand the definition of romantic constellations to be inclusive of all partners and relationships.

Literature Review

Statistical information demonstrates that cohabiting is a trend that has been shifting, especially in the U.S., where the numbers of those living together without marriage is on the rise (Horowitz et al., 2019 ). The Pew Research Center surveyed adults between 18 and 44 years of age in 2013 through 2017 (n = 9,834) discovering that 69% find it acceptable to live together without marriage (Horowitz et al., 2019 ). Another 16% of adults report cohabiting to be acceptable if they plan to marry while 14% of adults say it is never acceptable to live together without marriage regardless of their plans for the future (Horowitz et al., 2019 ). These statistics highlight perceptions of cohabitation found in the literature while actual numbers of those who are cohabiting are also on the rise. Stanley et al. ( 2006 ) reported 50–60% of partners live together before marriage. Lichter ( 2010 ) revealed that “nearly one-half of American women of reproductive age are either currently cohabiting or have premaritally cohabited in the past” (p. 747). Utilizing the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, Wagner ( 2019 ) found that younger generations considered cohabitation as less of a commitment when they are not ready for marriage, or as an alternative to marriage. Cohabitation is also increasing for older adults that live together later in life as the number of people ohabiting over the age of 50 increased by 75% from 2007 to 2016 (Horowitz et al., 2019 ).

Amato ( 2015 ) determined that non-marital cohabitation provides many of the same benefits as marriage including “companionship, intimacy and everyday assistance. And like married couples, cohabiting relationships [also] benefit financially” (pp. 6–7). Pirani and Vignoli ( 2016 ) looked at relationship satisfaction from a longevity perspective (in Italy) and found that “since 2011 cohabitors are no longer less satisfied with their family life than married people” (p. 607). Cohabitation has also had an impact on subsequent marriage; Eickmeyer and Manning ( 2017 ) found that the numbers of cohabiting relationships that transition to marriage have decreased, “only one-third of recent cohabiting cohorts' transition to marriage by five years compared to over half (57%) in the 1980s” (p. 60). Research also provided varying information on the “success” of cohabiting, which is defined by the literature as marriage, to the “failures” which ranged from breaking up or living together with no plans to marry. This dyadic idea of success and failure around cohabitation does not incorporate the many relationship identities and decisions along the spectrum between cohabitation and marriage that were the focus in the development of these pre-cohabitation conversations.

• Cohabitation

Factors that often influence the decision to live together included sexual satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, commitment, relationship stability, relationship attitudes, and communication (Busby et al., 2019 ). These elements of a relationship are recommended to be at the forefront for discussion before officially moving in together, however it is very possible for people to move in without any consideration or conversation of any of these issues. First introduced by Stanley et al. ( 2006 ), this is called Sliding Vs Deciding™ which describes a “phenomenon of moving through relationship transitions such as cohabitation without fully considering the implications” (p. 506). In the process of sliding, partners may find themselves sharing a living space without an overt conversation or decision. This can cause a lack of clarity about the reason and partners could have differing or even opposing beliefs about the purpose and significance of living together as well as the future path of their relationship. Stanley et al. ( 2010 ) stated that in a national sample of those cohabiting, 66% reported that they had slid into their living arrangements.

Contextual factors in sliding situations like this may include job loss or housing issues for one partner that results in moving in together without a specific decision. Other examples of sliding are when one partner stays the night at the other’s home and all of sudden all of their belongings are there and they do not go home anymore, or one partner’s lease has ended, and they find themselves living together earlier than they might have overtly decided. Reasons range from internal mechanisms to external timelines that have dictated this transition. With a significantly growing number of partners sliding into cohabitation, there is a missed opportunity for intentionality in moving through this transition that could have positive benefits for the future of the relationship. The pre-cohabitation conversations invite a thorough understanding and investigation of common and potential relationship risks, encourage engagement in shared meaning making of commitment and future-oriented plans, and an exploration of the intersections of their individual identities as the partners form a household.

Risks of Cohabiting

Though perception of cohabitation is improving and numbers of those living together (without marriage) are increasing, it is important to acknowledge that cohabitation has been linked to negative relationship outcomes. Busby et al. ( 2019 ) found this to be especially true when the cohabiting does not have the goal of marriage as marriage can represent a shared and articulated goal. Busby et al. ( 2019 ) realized that the more clearly the goals, wants, needs, and commitment are communicated, the more successful the cohabitation will be. Without this, partners who cohabit may experience higher levels of conflict which contributes to relational problems. Inertia theory, the idea that “couples who otherwise would not have married end up married partly because they cohabit” (Stanley et al., 2006 , p. 503), may account for why these incompatible cohabiting relationships eventually marry and then divorce supporting the negative, yet not accurately represented, consequences of cohabitation. Stanley et al. ( 2006 ) further found that “the inertia perspective suggests that some relationship transitions increase constraints and favor relationship continuance regardless of fit, knowledge of possible relationship problems, or mutual clarity about commitment to the future of a relationship” (p. 502). As cohabitation (and not marriage or cohabitation without marriage) could place these same constraints on a relationship, the application of these findings supports the importance of intentionality around expectations for both living together and the impact of cohabitation on the future of the relationship.

Stanley et al. ( 2006 ) also pointed to earlier studies (e.g. Axinn & Thornton, 1992 ) on cohabiting as examples of the cohabiting effect, which is the belief that the act of cohabiting (before marriage) itself was the reason for poorer marital outcomes. Critiquing these findings through the lens of the inertia theory, Stanley et al. ( 2006 ) noted that rather than evidence as a direct attack on cohabitation, living with a partner for a long time and/or with multiple partners, i.e., serial cohabiting, leads to “erosion of esteem or valuing of marriage and childrearing over time” (p. 500) as well as decreasing marital motivation and commitment. As many of the early studies on cohabitation were evaluated through the lens that marriage is the ultimate goal of relationships, those who successfully live together without marriage may also have been considered as a failed relationship. For many, there are different levels of expectations and purposes between cohabiting and marriage as well as an incongruence with the construct of marriage which can make the choice to live together more appealing.

Busby et al. ( 2019 ) determined further risk in the lack of conversation, as well as the casualness of dating and sex within partnerships, which were more often affiliated with cohabiting than with marriage. Horowitz et al. ( 2019 ) looked at levels of trust and satisfaction amongst partnerships determining that these factors are higher for married versus cohabiting relationships; they found 74% of those married versus 58% of those cohabiting believe their partner has their best interest, and that 68% of those married believe their partner always tells the truth versus 54% of those cohabiting. Statistics like these highlighted the necessity of transparency and compromise at the outset of a relationship which has been found to be absent in the high numbers of relationships that slide into living together. Other examples included 56% of those married believe their partner handles money responsibly versus 40% of those cohabiting and 46% of those married believe that household chores are divided equally versus 34% of those cohabiting (Horowitz et al., 2019 ). This research suggests that both finances and chores are examples of essential topics to overtly discuss not only before moving in together but to maintain as ongoing negotiations and compromise as part of sharing a household. By incorporating these research findings into the development of the pre-cohabitation conversations, the goal is to discuss these preventatively to remediate risk factors of cohabitation as well as create a framework and skill for ongoing relationship conversations. By acknowledging the listed threats and removing marriage as the only defined success of cohabitation, the pre-cohabitation conversations encourage partners to create their own definitions of a successful relationship.

Commitment and Impact on Marriage

Though living together has been found to be beneficial to mental health including such benefits as companionship and financial partnership, research has shown that there are lower levels of commitment from cohabiting people (Amato, 2015 ). Stanley and Markham ( 1992 ) proposed the idea of commitment theory early on in their decades of research on relationships. Commitment theory is the individual weighing of dedication (level of commitment) versus constraints (barriers to leaving) in a relationship (Stanley and Markham 1992 ). This is connected to the cohabiting effect which maintains that cohabiting partners tended to stay together because it was easier than breaking up, demonstrating high constraint and low dedication (Stanley et al., 2006 ). In redefining commitment as individual to each relationship rather than marriage as the ultimate goal, these pre-cohabitation conversations aspire to view relationships through a lens of social justice which is inclusive of all rather than shaped by societal expectations.

Stanley et al. ( 2006 ) further clarified that the ambiguous nature of cohabiting does not on its own inherently increase dedication to the relationship, but it is the act of moving in together that significantly increases constraints to ending the relationship. Therefore, Stanley et al. ( 2006 ) established that “cohabiting itself may not cause risks as much as it makes it harder to terminate a riskier union” (p. 504), resulting in partners who may stay together simply because it is harder to leave the relationship. With cohabitation due to Sliding Vs Deciding™ occurring at such high rates suggests that it is the lack of forethought rather than the actual act of cohabitation that could be resulting in such findings. Stanley et al. ( 2006 ) states.

One of the most important suggestions to emerge from the inertia perspective is that couples should talk candidly about the meaning of cohabiting, commitment levels (e.g., where does each partner see the relationship headed?), and potential constraints to stay together that they might experience during cohabitation. (p. 507)

The history and shift of the meaning of cohabitation and the findings presented around the risks supported the creation of the pre-cohabitation conversations presented in this article as essential to not only the process, but also to forming a relationship built on a foundation of co-defined commitment. In furthering the development of the pre-cohabitation conversations, a deeper look at marginalized identities and relationships to incorporate an understanding of both the historical hazards and successes of cohabitation across identities is presented.

Considerations for Marginalized Identities and Relationships

When partners move through various transitions in their relationship, it impacts those around them including their family of origin, their social location, and their professional identities; these transitions are also conversely informed by each of these factors. Important to the decision to move in together are consideration of each of their individual and shared identities, values, and traditions that they bring to the relationship. Historically, gender has been utilized as a lens through which to view decisions for cohabiting, what cohabitation means, and division of household roles, e.g. men take out the trash and women do the cooking. Additionally important to understand is the learned messages about gender that the partners were bringing into the relationship. In developing the pre-cohabitation conversations, race and culture, religion, gender and sexual identity, and relationship structure were also considered despite a lack of literature specifically focusing on cohabitation within these identities.

Race and Culture

Of the discovered literature, representation was limited further marginalizing experiences of cohabitation for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) as well as interracial and intercultural relationships. Though rates of marriage through a racial and cultural lens were presented in the previously mentioned study by the Pew Research Center as reported by Horowitz et al. ( 2019 ), the demographics included no further specific information other than approximately 25% of the participants (n = 9,834) were nonwhite and an acknowledgement of an underrepresentation of diversity (Keeter, 2019 ). Though the authors of this article acknowledge these limitations, the lack of representation in the literature on cohabitation invites consideration of these findings. Horowitz et al. ( 2019 ) reported that 55% of White adults ages 18–44 have never been married, as have 48% of Latinx adults. By contrast, only 34% of Black adults have been married (Horowitz et al., 2019 ). Differences across racial and ethnic groups are more modest for living together: 62% of white adults have cohabited, compared with 59% of Black adults and 56% of Latinx adults (Horowitz et al., 2019 ). This sampling illustrates a higher percentage of cohabitation experiences in comparison to marriage and rates of cohabitation across white, Black, and Latinx respondents to be more similar.

The literature revealed very little of this specific perspective of cohabitation and race. For example, in a dated article, Schoen and Weinick ( 1993 ) utilized the 1987–99 National Survey of Families and Households, where racial demographics was limited to the binary of “black and nonblack” (p. 411). In reviewing more expansive research on cohabitation, articles seemed to be consistently confirming very little differences regarding rates of cohabitation across race and culture though the continued absence of representation of, e.g., Asian and Pacific Islanders, Indigenous, Native, and Multiethnic experiences was noted. For example, in their research on rates of serial cohabitation, Lichter et al. ( 2010 ) accounted for factors such as education and family structure in childhood as they found that women without a degree and women whose parents separated have higher odds of serial cohabiting. Further, Kennedy and Bumpass ( 2008 ), who looked at cohabitation and children’s living arrangements, found that across racial identities women live with their partners at similar rates and “the lengthening of cohabitation occurred universally across race and ethnic groups” (p. 1674). Understanding that perception of rates of cohabitation may not have been influenced by race and culture due to lack of representation focused the development of the pre-cohabitation conversations on individuals and expectations that may be informed by these identities.

When partners identify a shared religion to be at the core of their identity, benefits may include a strengthened relationship by reinforcing affective bonds through a joint activity (Henderson et al., 2018 ). Holding a shared belief system may not only promote more meaningful interactions but may also help when it comes to finding areas of agreements, for example, around children, financial, and household issues, etc. (Henderson et al., 2018 ). However, shared religious identities is not necessary for a successful relationship. Though benefits such as these have been presented in the literature supporting partners share this identity, religion has been primarily “identified as an important source in opposition to nonmarital cohabitation and sex” (Henderson et al., 2018 , p. 1909). As such, many religions do not endorse cohabiting (Xu et al., 2005 ) and highly religious people are less likely to live together prior to marriage (Stanley et al., 2004 ). Not only does this keep those who identify within those religious beliefs from cohabiting, Gault-Sherman and Draper ( 2012 ) found that “regardless of one’s individual beliefs regarding cohabitation, the existence of a large group of religious others may prevent many from cohabiting in an effort to avoid embarrassment or social sanctions” (p. 62). Henderson et al. ( 2018 ) found that conservative Protestants and Latter-day Saints tend to be the most against sexual activity before marriage and are therefore less likely to favor cohabiting. But this stance assumes that the decision to live together represents the decision to engage in sex. Cohabiting romantic constellations can include relationships that live together without sex. For example, asexual individuals or relationships that are waiting for marriage regardless of their cohabitation status.

In reviewing the literature on cohabitation and religion, the limited findings were centered around Christian denominations. Though both Henderson et al. ( 2018 ) and Rougeaux-Burnes ( 2013 ) focused on shared religious beliefs and affiliation and influence on decision-making, absent were specific explorations of a diversity of faith and spirituality with cohabitation. Higher levels of satisfaction in relationships were found in Henderson et al.’s ( 2018 ) examination of the National Survey of Religion and Family Life (n = 468) with 42% of African American respondents. The researchers found that “shared religious beliefs may foster intimacy, making it easier for couples to treat one another with love, affection, and respect” (p. 1922). Rougeaux-Burnes ( 2013 ) discovered that “religion or cultural customs” received the greatest levels of response from college-age participants with “approximately one-third of both male and female respondents [having] selected this factor as their reason to not live with a romantic partner” (p. 57) . Demonstrating the influence of religion, the two primary responses to factors that prevented partners from deciding to live together without or prior to marriage included their morals and values as well as fear for the future (Rougeaux-Burnes, 2013 ). In narrative responses to this mixed methods study, Rougeaux-Burnes ( 2013 ) found that five females highlighted cohabiting as consistent with “non religious morals [ sic ]” and “not believing in sexual relations before marriage” (p. 59). Conversely, Horowitz et al. ( 2019 ) identified in the Pew Research Center data that 74% of Catholics and white Protestants, who do not self-identify as born-again or Evangelical, say it is acceptable for unmarried partners to live together with or without a plan to marry. The literature on religion and cohabitation seems to be highlighting a determining impact on the decision to live together, especially in regards to sex before marriage. Differing religious beliefs across different faiths may also influence the negotiations—both content and style—partners bring to decisions around cohabitation, their shared household, and how this shift may change their relationship.

Sexual and Gender Identity

Research has historically focused on heterosexual couples and traditional gender roles (Addison & Coolhart, 2015 ) especially within understanding cohabitation. Understanding relationships of different identities and romantic constellation structures including same-sex, transgender and non-binary individuals, consensually non-monogamous relationships which is inclusive of open, swinging, and polyamory (Jordan, 2018 ) were essential to the development of the pre-cohabitation conversations. Despite this importance, there was a significant gap in the literature though several attempts at queering processes (e.g. Oswald et al., 2005 ) specifically challenged this within family therapy. For example, Jordan ( 2018 ) highlights that “a simple indication of monogamy’s pervasiveness exists in our professional titling as marriage and family therapists” (p. 109). The creation of these pre-cohabitation conversations embraces Oswald et al.’s ( 2005 ) recommendations to view this transition to a shared living space through a queer lens in spite of the lack of representation.

In the Pew Research Center’s findings as presented by Horowitz et al. ( 2019 ) throughout this article, the goal was to conduct a nationally representative survey. But, in their sample of the 5579 married adults and 880 adults who were living with an unmarried partner, only 9% of the participants identified as same-sex relationships. Further descriptions of different sexual and gender identities did not appear to be included. Due to this small sample size, Horowitz et al. ( 2019 ) was unable to draw comparisons between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships or present any specific finding significant to this population’s experiences of cohabitation. This is especially important because prior to same-sex partners' ability to legally marry in 2015, their primary presentation as a committed relationship was most often signified by cohabitation. As such, the available data for those in heteronormative couples is astronomical compared to that of same-sex relationships. Further, the lack of diversity of sexual and gender identity beyond same-sex partners further widens this gap in the literature.

In one of only a few studies on cohabiting same-sex partners, Kurdek ( 2004 ) found their relationships were not significantly different then heterosexual relationships on measures of psychological adjustment, personality traits, relationship styles, conflict resolution, and social support. In a study of same-sex partners on the significance of living together and the importance of marriage, Haas and Whitton ( 2015 ) found that same-sex relationships reported four major themes in regard to the significance of living with their partner: cohabitation symbolized commitment, provided emotional support, made them a family, and they were able to share a life together. Many participants in the study considered cohabiting to be a big step in their relationship that was taken seriously and discussed (Haas & Whitton, 2015 ) in opposition to those who would slide into cohabitation. In states where same-sex marriage was not legal at the time of their publication, Haas and Whitton ( 2015 ) also reported that participants viewed living together as “the strongest level of commitment available” on par to marriage (p. 1249). In the same study, 90% of cohabiting same-sex partners reported that marriage was important to their relationship for reasons such as legal benefits and financial protections, relationship legitimacy, equal rights, and relationship validation, indicating that many same-sex partners who live together may decide to marry when given the option (Haas & Whitton, 2015 ).

Manning et al. ( 2016 ) looked at same-sex partners “because relationship stability is a key indicator of well-being among different-sex couples” (p. 938) and confirmed that weaker social and legal support may create greater instability in same-sex relationships but ultimately determining both “cohabiting unions appear similarly stable” (p. 951). In this study, Manning et al. ( 2016 ) had 2283 partners ranging in age from 16 to 87 years old of which 126 participants identified as same-sex partners. It is important to note that some of these people lived in states (in Europe) that did not legalize marriage or support cohabiting for same-sex partners. In terms of sociodemographic factors, same-sex cohabiting partners had higher levels of education and higher household income than different-sex partners (Manning et al., 2016 ). Looking further into this study there was no statistical difference in levels of stability for same-sex relationships. The findings were not reliable with their hypothesis of higher stability for same-sex partners due to having a more advantaged sociodemographic standing to different-sex partners.

Consensual Non-Monogamous Relationship Structures More recent literature intended to be inclusive still falls short by continuing to operate under the dyadic assumption that a relationship only includes two individuals. Consensual non-monogamy (CNM) has recently gained increased levels of visibility in mainstream U.S. media but remains a marginalized population despite 4–5% of individuals in the U. S. self-identifying as being in a consensually non-monogamous relationship (Conley et al., 2013 ). Prior to this more recent understanding of CNM, these relationship structures were often viewed through a lens of infidelity. Individuals in CNM relationships have multiple partners which may or may not include sex, romance, partnership, love, etc. or any combination of the above with the understanding and consent of each person involved (Conley et al., 2013 ). Those in CNM relationships may live on their own, live with one partner (often called a “primary partner” or “nesting partner”), or live with multiple partners. However, in this review of the literature, specific studies on CNM relationships and cohabitation were absent. As such the relationship between CNM and cohabitation remains unstudied and is included in future ideas for research. Despite the gap in the literature, questions regarding expansion of the relationship structure are included in the pre-cohabitation conversations for discussion.

Development of Pre-Cohabitation Conversations

Prior research has been done on the outcomes around the overt decision to live together including a look at the decision-making process. Priem et al. ( 2015 ) looked specifically at the deciding conversations of non-engaged cohabiting relationships. The authors reported that 84% did have a conversation prior to cohabiting based on yes/no self-report; they then analyzed conversations finding the length and content to vary significantly (Priem et al., 2015 ). Priem et al. ( 2015 ) organized coded conversations of participants across three themes—relational topics, logistical topics, and justification topics. Relational topics included “deciding” conversations, such as the implications of cohabiting, levels of commitment in the relationship, and family reactions and support, which indicated a more serious contemplation of the decision to live together (Priem et al., 2015 ). Conversely, both logistical (where they would live) and justification (ease/convenience) topics were found to indicate a sliding conversation, in which cohabiting was assumed and the reported conversation centered more around how the cohabiting would work (Priem et al., 2015 ). Even among partners who reported having had a conversation prior to living together, the content and purpose of these conversations varied widely. Nonetheless Owen et al. ( 2013 ) found that “regardless of relationship status… those who reported more thoughtful decision-making processes also reported more dedication to their partners, higher satisfaction with the relationship, and fewer extradyadic involvements” (p. 135). This supports the need and positive benefits of creating structured pre-cohabitation conversations as presented in this article especially as there is a lack of resources for this specific transition; available relationship questions have been specifically targeted and created for pre- marital conversations. This focus precludes many of the identities who have been left out.

Though the literature on cohabitation provided a richness of information, there is not only a gap in the representation of all romantic constellations and identities but also consideration of the many day-to-day negotiations partners navigate. Risks, impact on commitment and marriage, and exploration of marginalized identities as presented in the literature review was found to be lacking not only an inclusive definition of relationships, but also considerations of “everyday” issues such as transportation, pets, decorating, or guests. A group of graduate trainees within the COAMFTE-accredited foundational course in the MA in Couple and Family Therapy at Adler University specifically filled these gaps as part of an in-class activity of the required relationship course. A total of 17 students (one was absent that day) across two sections had the same task to review readings assigned for class on cohabitation, i.e., a preliminary literature review, and then break into small groups with the goal of developing essential questions and conversation topics for partners to discuss prior to moving in together. The groups came together within each section to develop a complete list. One section of the class created a list of topics and questions in the following categories: family of origin traditions and routines, chores, transportation, finances, guests/pets, expectations around spending time together and apart, communication, social media, and the future of the relationship and other decisions. The second section went through the same process and developed the following categories: balance and compromise, expectations of intimacy, privacy and individual identity, budgeting, views on the future including the relationship and understanding each other’s goals and families, and communication. With overlapping themes as well as unique topics in each group, the two lists were merged by one student, and then further organized by the first author into three categories of pre-cohabitation conversations focusing on relationship negotiations, household rules, and communication.

As the questions were created from both the collective preliminary review of the literature, a more in-depth review by the authors of this article, and the collaboration of couple and therapy graduate trainees, it is important for the creators of the questions to provide their social location and experiences with cohabitation. Demographics presented in Table  1 are of the 17 contributors to the development of the pre-cohabitation topics for conversation including the demographics of the professor as they also contributed from their own personal and professional experiences.

The contributors also provided information about their experiences of cohabiting at the time the topics were developed—13 had previous experiences of living together including two who had lived with more than one partner for a total of 15 separate experiences of cohabiting. These cohabitations lasted from 8 to 44 months with an average of 20.2 months. Four led to an engagement with three marriages and the fourth was engaged (prior to moving in together) with a set wedding date. Another disclosed that cohabiting, not marriage, was the shared goal of their relationship leading “to a committed partnership.” Ten cohabiting experiences resulted in the ending of their relationship with two clarifying that the relationship ended, but “not directly after [living together].”

Pre-Cohabitation Conversations

Not only are each of the three categories comprehensive representing the wide exploration of cohabitation research and experiences, but they are also organized sequentially though partners can also skip around as well as go back and forth. The different topics include open-ended questions to encourage conversation. Those in a relationship are first encouraged to define what cohabitation means for each of them, their partnership, and the future for them individually and as a relationship. Understanding this helps the relationship move into the first category of questions, relationship negotiations. Throughout the first category, partners build on their foundational definition of cohabitation and further consider the purpose of living together by talking about intimacy and family of origin including their individual and relationship identities. Suggested questions within each of these topics are listed in Table 2 . Though the recommendation is to begin the conversation by defining cohabitation, this definition will be revised and refined as partners learn more about each other, their intentions for moving in together, and as they progress through the questions.

The second category of pre-cohabitation conversations focuses on household roles beginning with questions and negotiations around chores, finances, transportation, pets, and guests. When partners develop arrangements around topics listed in this second category, it is recommended that they begin with each person’s strengths and then frequently revisit the division of responsibilities to check in. For example, if the partners divide chores, some people love to cook but hate to schedule and plan the meals or shop for ingredients. They could allocate roles aligned with these preferences and then revisit the arrangements six weeks later to see how each person is doing with their responsibilities. Further revisions to allocation of chores can be made as needed. Table 3 lists the different recommended questions in the negotiation of household roles including chores, finances, transportation, pets, and guests as well as specific examples of considerations under each.

Communication is essential to this process even though it is included as the third category. Basic rules for communication include speaker/listener and understanding intent and impact as necessary skills. This third category is specifically about the rules around communication, better understanding each other’s communication needs and styles, and then specific topics for discussion. This category intends to also encourage conversation about more emotionally laden issues like the logistics of living together and future-oriented conversations about goals and plans. By sequentially including these topics in the third category, the intention is for the partners to have developed and practiced communication skills moving through the first two categories as well as gained a deeper and shared understanding of this transition to cohabitation, each other, and their relationship.

Though this can feel counter-productive, it is also recommended that the partners talk about potential “exit strategies” if living together is not working out. This could either signal the end of the relationship, or they realize they were not yet ready to move in together and should slow down their timeline. By talking about this prior to sharing a household, they may adjust their relationship plans as a result or move into cohabitation with greater confidence. Table 4 includes recommended questions around different communication topics.

In many ways, these three categories of pre-cohabitation conversations could be seen as a verbal contract; it asks the partners to share both their hopes and their expectations of this transition in their relationship. As part of this “contract,” it is important to schedule “check-ins” as described above with negotiations. Relationships are fluid and change. Check-ins are advised to occur frequently at the start of living together, i.e., every six weeks for the first six months, and then again both when problems arise as well as when life(stage) changes occur. Examples of changes include engagements, marriage, children, loss (e.g., family members or employment, moving (upsizing and downsizing), etc. Partners are also encouraged to revisit these three categories or any specific questions within a category as well as any additional topics that may have emerged during these conversations that are important to their specific romantic constellation and negotiated relationship.

Recommendations for Therapists and Couples

The developed list of pre-cohabitation conversation questions was created to be utilized prior to moving in together. Therapists may use these questions as prescribed in therapy or modify them to meet each specific relationship’s needs. These topics may also be used directly by partners (without a therapist) in their developing relationship as they come to know more about each other and make decisions about their shared path. These conversation categories may also be adapted for use in times of duress to help re-center the relationship. For example, with struggling relationships, Stanley et al. ( 2006 ) recommends exploring clients’ histories including an assessment for Sliding Vs Deciding™ around not only cohabiting, but also other major life decisions such as having sex, becoming monogamous, having children, etc., or the possibility of inertia-based reasons for moving in together or staying together. A single category or questions from different categories can also be focused on according to their struggles, life transitions, or places of desired growth. For example, empty nesters may revisit the household roles category as the family members who share the roles and responsibilities shift—who will take the trash out now that the designated child chores have shifted back to the empty-nester parents?

At the core of these pre-cohabitation conversations is an invitation for the relationship to develop a cohesive and shared identity practicing not only communication skills, but also navigating negotiation, compromise, collaboration, and disagreement. By utilizing this structured approach, partners can practice and develop their own rhythm for use throughout their relationship. For example, “therapists could work with clients to build awareness of their expectations for relationships, identify current and past relationship dynamics or schemas that may influence the decision-making process, and empower clients to make healthy decisions” (Owen et al., 2013 , p. 146). Though these categories of questions are geared toward creating conversation within the relationship, it is also valuable for use with singles and those seeking out relationships, specifically aiding in understanding one’s own intentionality about dating and their desires and needs from a partner.

Diversity Limitations

Many of the studies referenced in the review of the literature lack perspectives on diversity in cohabiting; most are based on white, heterosexual, and monogamous two-person relationship structures, i.e., couples. The authors intentionally used the words “partner(s)” and “relationship” to decenter the exclusivity of the word “couples” as represented in the literature. Early studies addressed religion and faith and the intersection of these values around cohabitation prior to marriage, but there is also importance in understanding racial and culturally informed beliefs about cohabiting. Several studies did look through a gendered lens regarding the differences between men and women and cohabitation, but the majority of the literature is skewed heteronormatively (Allen & Mendez, 2018 ) and does not include the experiences of transgender and non-binary individuals. Future research is encouraged to better understand both the values that individuals bring to the relationship that are inherently part of their racial, cultural, and religious identity, but also the differences for partners of varying sexual and gender identities.

An additional limitation of the presented topics for discussion is the exclusion of issues specific to those who currently have children. Avellar and Smock ( 2005 ) reported that 40% of households have at least one child. Bumpass and Lu ( 2000 ) report that 40% of children are likely to live in a cohabiting household—not marital—at one time in their life. The inclusion of children in cohabiting relationships is a delicate process that requires significant discussion, preparation, and planning that is beyond the scope of this article. There are also additional legal implications regarding parenting and decision-making in non-married relationships or for partners who bring a child into the relationship and home from a previous relationship. These issues require additional negotiation that is not included in the pre-cohabitation conversation questions.

Future Research

Future research ideas include studying the impact of using the list of pre-cohabitation conversations and soliciting feedback both from those in relationships and therapists as well as individuals who have utilized the lists in the different ways prescribed. By exploring the application of the pre-cohabitation conversations specifically with those deciding to move in together, the goal would be to determine if the process solidifies and assists partners in making this decision regardless of the results. It may be that the process will help partners decide not to move in together due to conflicting ideas, values, and opinions which is an equally valuable outcome. Follow-up research could also help determine how the different categories fit their relationships, if partners are able to adhere to negotiations, decisions, and definitions developed throughout the process, and how their communication skills are impacted. This would also allow refinement of the categories and the questions. Now that marriage is available to all dyadic partnerships in the United States, also of interest is how the meaning of cohabitation for same-sex relationships shifted or whether cohabitation remains as highly a significant decision as previous to 2015 as well as what this meant for romantic constellations larger than a dyad. Additionally, it is recommended that future research embrace a feminist and queer approach to continue to highlight the voices of those marginalized identities, including race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and relationship structures.

Unique to the timing of this article is also the coronavirus pandemic. During this time, there are many who may have moved in together due to external pressures of quarantine and shelter-in-place. Higher numbers of relationships may be sliding into living together rather than making an intentional decision because of the constraints of COVID-19. Additionally, many relationships may not have been able to separate or change their living arrangements because of restrictions and financial impacts of the pandemic. Throughout, and after the implications of COVID-19 are better understood, living conditions may be atypical due to the pandemic restrictions. Research regarding overall cohabitation shifts and trends during the pandemic as well as longer-term outcomes of those sliding decisions would contribute to the overall literature and further explore the theories around inertia and commitment.

Without strong communication skills and practiced space to engage in difficult conversations, many romantic constellations may struggle through the shifts and transitions in their relationship. Many partners either do not take the time or are not afforded the time to have overt and transparent conversations about their relationship and its future. Though the literature recommends intentionality with overt discussions especially in the transition to marriage (Owens et al., 2013 ; Stanley et al., 2006 ), these pre-cohabitation conversations fill the gap providing an informed tool to be used by therapists and relationships. For many, cohabitation may be the earliest significant transition in a partnership. By focusing on this stage, the developed pre-cohabitation conversations create opportunity for discussion and development of skills that could be beneficial throughout the relationship.

Addison, S. M., & Coolhart, D. (2015). Expanding the therapy paradigm with queer couples: A relational intersectional lens. Family Process, 54 (3), 435–453.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Allen, S. H., & Mendez, S. N. (2018). Hegemonic heteronormativity: Toward a new era of queer family theory. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10 , 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12241

Article   Google Scholar  

Amato, P. R. (2015). Marriage, cohabitation and mental health. Family Matters, 96 , 5–13.

Google Scholar  

Avellar, S., & Smock, P. J. (2005). The economic consequences of the dissolution of cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67 (2), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00118.x

Axinn, W. G., & Thornton, A. (1992). The relationship between cohabitation and divorce: Selectivity or causal influence? Demography, 29 (3), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/2061823

Bagley, L. A., Kimberly, C., Marino, A., Clark, P., & Pomeroy, C. (2020). Beliefs about premarital cohabitation: Do individuals believe living together helps divorce-proof marriage? Contemporary Family Therapy, 42 , 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-019-09524-7

Bumpass, L., & Lu, H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54 (1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/713779060

Busby, D. M., Willoughby, B. J., & McDonald, M. L. (2019). Is it the sex, the romance, or the living together? The differential impact of past sexual, romantic, and cohabitation histories on current relationship functioning. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 8 (2), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000117

Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13 (1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x

Eickmeyer, K. J., & Manning, W. D. (2017). Serial cohabitation in young adulthood: Baby boomers to millennials. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80 (4), 826–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12495

Gault-Sherman, M., & Draper, S. (2012). What will the neighbors think? The effect of moral communities on cohabitation. Review of Religious Research, 54 , 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-011-0039-9

Haas, S. M., & Whitton, S. W. (2015). The significance of living together and the importance of marriage in same-sex couples. Journal of Homosexuality, 62 (9), 1241–1263. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1037137

Henderson, A. K., Ellison, C. G., & Glenn, N. D. (2018). Religion and relationship quality among cohabiting and dating couples. Journal of Family Issues, 39 (7), 1904–1932. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X17728982

Horowitz J., Graf N., & Livingston, G. (2019, November 6). Marriage and cohabitation in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/11/06/marriage-and-cohabitation-in-the-u-s/

Jordan, L. S. (2018). “My mind kept creeping back this relationship can’t last”: Developing self-awareness of monogamous bias. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 30 (2), 109–127.

Keeter, S. (2019, February 27). Growing and improving Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel . Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/2019/02/27/growing-and-improving-pew-research-centers-american-trends-panel/#why-a-survey-panel

Kennedy, S., & Bumpass, L. L. (2008). Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research, 19 (1), 1663–1692. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.47

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kurdek, L. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 66 (4), 880–900. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00060.x

Lamidi, E. O., Manning, W. D., & Brown, S. L. (2019). Change in the stability of first premarital cohabitation among women in the United States, 1983–2013. Demography, 56 (2), 427–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-019-00765-7

Lichter, D. T., Turner, R. N., & Sassler, S. (2010). National estimates of the rise in serial cohabitation. Social Science Research, 39 (5), 754–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.11.002

Liptak, A. (2015, June 26). Supreme Court ruling makes same-sex marriage a right nationwide . The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html

Manning, W. D., Brown, S. L., & Stykes, J. B. (2016). Same-sex and different-sex cohabiting couple relationship stability. Demography, 53 (4), 937–953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-016-0490-x

Oswald, R., Blume, L., & Marks, S. (2005). Decentering heteronormativity: A proposal for family studies. In V. Bengtson, A. Acock, K. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: An interactive approach (pp. 143–165). UK: Sage.

Owen, J., Rhoades, G. K., & Stanley, S. M. (2013). Sliding versus deciding in relationships: Associations with relationship quality, commitment, and infidelity. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 12 (1), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2013.779097

Pirani, E., & Vignoli, D. (2016). Changes in the satisfaction of cohabitors relative to spouses over time. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78 , 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12287

Priem, J. S., Bailey, L. C., & Steuber Fazio, K. (2015). Sliding versus deciding: A theme analysis of deciding conversations of non-engaged cohabiting couples. Communication Quarterly, 63 (5), 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1078388

Rougeaux-Burnes, G.A. (2013). Gender differences in attitudes towards cohabitation among young adults who have never cohabited [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The School of Professional Psychology at Forest Institute.

Schoen, R., & Weinick, R. M. (1993). Partner choice in marriages and cohabitations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55 , 408–414. https://doi.org/10.2307/352811

Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54 (3), 595–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/353245

Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55 (4), 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17413729.2006.00418.x

Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment: Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2 (4), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00060.x

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 (4), 496–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X03257797

Wagner, B. G. (2019). Marriage, cohabitation, and sexual exclusivity: Unpacking the effect of marriage. Social Forces, 97 (3), 1231–1256. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy082

Xu, X., Hudspeth, C. D., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2005). The timing of first marriage: Are there religious variations? Journal of Family Issues, 26 (5), 584–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X04272398

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge their fellow contributors to the topics list (in alphabetical order), Ayanna Allen, Trish Andrews, Donesha Collier, Alejandra Franco, Kayla Harris, W. Patrick McIntyre, Briana Moretti, Tara O’Leary, Marcela Ramirez, Kaitlin Roach, Christina Sanchez, Justin Sato, Catherine Schumacher, Paris Thomas, and Helen Wyatt. They would like to especially thank Kayla Harris for merging the two sections of topics in preparation for final development of the pre-cohabitation conversations. Additionally, we would like to especially thank Reviewer #3 for their thoughtful feedback, excellent recommendations, and challenges to help develop this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Couple and Family Therapy Department, Adler University, 17 North Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL, 60602, USA

Kristina S. Brown

McKeever Health and Clinical Services, Flossmoor, IL, USA

Brooke Schmidt

Cynthia Holmes, LCSW, LLC Private Practice, Chicago, IL, USA

Cate Morrow

The Family Center for Therapy and Assessment, Lubbock, TX, USA

Gaston Rougeaux-Burnes

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the article in order of authorship. Acknowledgements are made to contributors to the development of important topics included in the pre-cohabitation conversations.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina S. Brown .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Brown, K.S., Schmidt, B., Morrow, C. et al. Pre-Cohabitation Conversations for Relationships: Recommended Questions for Discussion. Contemp Fam Ther 45 , 131–145 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-021-09594-6

Download citation

Accepted : 30 June 2021

Published : 13 July 2021

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-021-09594-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Couples therapy
• Sexual and gender identity
• Consensual non-monogamy
• Communication
• Therapy resource
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Cohabitation Is Rising Globally

Cohabitation is rising, but a new ruling proves we still have ways to go..

Posted January 28, 2022 | Reviewed by Tyler Woods

• Living with a partner and establishing a partnership without being married is becoming more universally acceptable.
• Cohabitation rates are expected to moderate relationship patterns where cohabitation and marriage are clearly distinguishable.
• The consequences of such a cultural change will be that relationship formation becomes more varied across the globe.

Boris Johnson and his partner, Carrie Symonds, live together as the first unmarried couple in No 10. Downing Street. But while cohabitation is celebrated in some parts of the world, it is not in many other parts.

A Zimbabwean woman has just won a $650,000 (R10 Million) award from the estate of her late partner after a long process in the country’s Constitutional Court. The only problem was that she cohabited with her partner instead of marrying him. The court finally ruled that such relationships are a legitimate family structure, and deserved respect and recognition under the law.

Indeed, there is a cultural shift affecting the proportion of singles in the population across the globe. Fears of commitment to marriage and aversions to the risk of divorce are contributing to the number of couples choosing to cohabitate for significant periods of time before getting married, or indeed cohabitate indefinitely without getting married at all [1-3] .

Once frowned upon, the option of living with a partner and establishing a partnership without being married is becoming more universally acceptable. In some cases, cohabitation is as common or more common than marriage [4, 5] . The increased legitimacy of cohabitation, as well as increasing frustration or disillusion with the institution of marriage, has resulted in more couples choosing not to get married [6, 7] .

In some contexts, there is an immediate impact on the proportion of singles in the population; cohabitating relationships are less stable and more short-lived than are marriages, and are more likely to end up in separation, independent of age, income, or the number of children [2] . As such, a higher proportion of individuals are expected to spend longer periods of time as singles (certainly not a bad thing in and of itself).

Care should be taken, however, in estimating the significance of cohabitation trends and opinions on relationship patterns. In some contexts, cohabitation has become closer to marriage both socially and legally, with common marriage law providing similar rights to formal marriage commitments in the U.S., Australia, and Europe [8] . To that end, it could be that the effect public opinion on cohabitation has on relationship formation and dissolution is moderated by the extent to which cohabitation is an acceptable replacement for formal marriage. In other words, if cohabitation was truly indistinguishable from marriage legally and socially, cohabitation trends would not have a significant effect on the proportion of singles in the population. Some have argued that this is already the case in parts of Mexico and Latin America [9, 10] .

Cohabitation rates are expected to moderate relationship patterns where cohabitation and marriage are clearly distinguishable. Currently, this would include most countries and societies, though a blurring of the differences between the two could eventually make the difference between cohabitation and marriage less relevant.

In any case, cohabitation is rising globally. In the U.K., for an obvious example, the overall number of families rose by 8 percent between 2008 and 2018, according to data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Yet, the number of cohabitating couple families grew faster than married-couple families, up 25.8 percent over the decade. The sure consequence of such a change is that relationship formation becomes more varied across the globe, and it is time to discuss the implications of such a change.

Elyakim Kislev (Ph.D.) is the author of Happy Singlehood and Relationships 5.0 .

1. Lewis, J., The End of Marriage? Books, 2001.

2. Morgan, P.M., Marriage-lite: The rise of cohabitation and its consequences. Vol. 4. 2000, London: Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society.

3. Sweet, J.A. and L.L. Bumpass, Young adults views of marriage cohabitation and family. 1990.

4. Heaton, T.B. and R. Forste, Informal unions in Mexico and the United States. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 2007: p. 55-69.

5. Martin, T.C., Consensual unions in Latin America: Persistence of a dual nuptiality system. Journal of comparative family studies, 2002. 33(1): p. 35-55.

6. Zimmermann, A.C. and R.A. Easterlin, Happily ever after? Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and happiness in Germany. Population and Development Review, 2006. 32(3): p. 511-528.

7. Bramlett, M.D. and W.D. Mosher, Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States. Vital health statistics, 2002. 23(22): p. 1-32.

8. Perelli-Harris, B., et al., Towards a deeper understanding of cohabitation: insights from focus group research across Europe and Australia. Demographic Research, 2014. 31(34): p. 1043-1078.

9. Esteve, A., et al., The Expansion of Cohabitation in Mexico, 1930-2010: The Revenge of History?, in Cohabitation and Marriage in the Americas: Geo-historical Legacies and New Trends, A. Esteve and R. Lesthaeghe, Editors. 2016.

10. Esteve, A., R. Lesthaeghe, and A. López‐Gay, The Latin American cohabitation boom, 1970–2007. Population and Development Review, 2012. 38(1): p. 55-81.

Elyakim Kislev, Ph.D. , is a faculty member at the Hebrew University and the author of Happy Singlehood: The Rising Acceptance and Celebration of Solo Living.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that could derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face triggers with less reactivity and get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Volume 8, Issue 6, 2024
• Advance Articles
• Special Issues
• Calls for Papers
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Submit to the GSA Portfolio?
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• About Innovation in Aging
• About The Gerontological Society of America
• Editorial Board
• GSA Journals
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Cohabitation, conflict of interest, marriage, cohabitation, and divorce in later life.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Susan L Brown, Matthew R Wright, Marriage, Cohabitation, and Divorce in Later Life, Innovation in Aging , Volume 1, Issue 2, September 2017, igx015, https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx015

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Older adults are at the forefront of family change as a declining share experiences lifelong marriage and rates of cohabitation and divorce in later life continue to rise. The goal of this article is to review recent scholarship on marriage, cohabitation, and divorce among older adults and identify directions for future research. The varied family experiences characterizing the later life course demonstrate the importance of moving beyond marital status to capture additional dimensions of the marital biography, including transitions, timing, duration, and sequencing. Cohabitation operates as an alternative to marriage for older adults and is increasingly replacing remarriage following divorce or widowhood. The gray divorce rate has doubled in recent decades as older adults abandon marriage in favor of unmarried partnerships or singlehood. The retreat from marriage among older adults raises important questions about the ramifications of family change for health and well-being as well as access to caregivers given that spouses historically have been the primary source of care.

Our review indicates that a growing segment of older adults may be at risk for poorer health outcomes and at the same time have fewer informal sources of support, necessitating additional institutional mechanisms for ensuring the health and well-being of today’s older population.

U.S. family life is characterized by marked demographic change. Recent decades have witnessed a retreat from marriage, sustained high levels of divorce, and a rapid acceleration in unmarried cohabitation ( Cherlin, 2010 ; Kennedy & Ruggles, 2014 ). Older adults have not been immune to family change. In fact, some of the most dramatic shifts in family life are occurring among adults aged 50 years and older ( Cooney & Dunne, 2001 ). Today’s baby boomers (born 1946–1964), for example, were the generation that as young adults popularized premarital cohabitation and experienced the divorce revolution. Now entering older adulthood, boomers remain at the vanguard of family change, eschewing marriage, and embracing unmarried partnerships such as cohabitation. They are also driving the gray divorce revolution, which is largely a reverberation of the initial run-up in divorce decades ago. Many of the boomers who first divorced as young adults got remarried and are divorcing yet again ( Brown & Lin, 2012 ).

Our goal is to review the recent literature on older adult (which we define as aged 50 years and older) marriage, cohabitation, and divorce. Later life couplehood is no longer confined to the boundaries of marriage. Older adults are taking advantage of the flexibility afforded by unmarried partnerships, including cohabitation ( Calasanti & Kiecolt, 2007 ). A growing share does not seem to feel compelled to remain coupled. Long-term marriages are increasingly ending through divorce and most individuals who call it quits are not repartnering ( Brown, Lin, Hammersmith, & Wright, 2016 ). Using Census data, we establish how levels of marriage, cohabitation, and divorce have shifted over time among older adults, documenting the drops in marriage and widowhood and the increases in divorce and cohabitation for men and women. Additionally, we outline the theoretical and conceptual explanations for these current patterns and consider the ramifications of these changes for individual health and well-being. There are many well-established explanations for the benefits associated with marriage, such as the resource perspective, crisis perspective, and cumulative disadvantage theory, but theorizing on cohabitation and divorce in later life is limited. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of directions for future theoretical and empirical research on family change in later life.

Marital Status

The proportion of U.S. adults who are currently married is at a historic low ( Cherlin, 2010 ), and this retreat from marriage is apparent among older adults. Over the past quarter century, the share of men ages 50 years and older who are married has declined from 78% in 1990 to 67.3% in 2015 (see Table 1 ) (data from 1990 decennial census and 2015 American Community Survey). For older women, the percentage married has stagnated, hovering at 52.6% in 1990 and 52.7% in 2015. This stability reflects a corresponding decline in widowhood as women’s husbands are living longer these days. Widowhood fell slightly among men from 7.5% in 1990 to 5.7% in 2015. The decline was sharper for women, whose levels of widowhood plummeted from 31.6% to 18.9%. Meanwhile, being divorced is now more prevalent among both men and women. In 1990, 8.1% of men and 10.1% of women were divorced. In 2015, figures stood at 14.3% for men and 18.1% for women. Likewise, the shares of never-married and cohabiting older adults have risen over the past 25 years. Among men, 5% were never-married in 1990 versus 9.1% in 2015. For women, the growth in the never-married has been more modest, increasing from 4.9% in 1990 to 7.7% in 2015. Cohabitation levels more than doubled among men from 1.5% to 3.6% and from less than 1% to 2.6% between 1990 and 2015 for women. Underscoring the growing diversity of marital statuses in later life, these patterns signal that traditional lifelong marriage that eventuates in spousal loss is decreasingly characteristic of the older adult family life course.

Percentage Distribution of Marital Status for Men and Women, 1990 and 2015

Note : The figures for 1990 come from the decennial census data and the 2015 figures are from the American Community Survey. Calculations by the authors.

This declining prevalence of marriage during the second half of life is driven largely by the baby boomer generation. As of 2015, more than one in three boomers (37%) was unmarried (authors’ calculation using the 2015 American Community Survey). This share will grow in the coming years as more boomers experience marital dissolution through either gray divorce or widowhood and do not subsequently remarry. Unmarried boomers are disadvantaged compared with married boomers. Despite similar education levels, poverty is four times higher among unmarried than married boomers, and disability is twice as high ( Lin & Brown, 2012 ). Economic disadvantage combined with potentially fewer sources of social support leave unmarried older adults particularly vulnerable in the event of a health crisis ( Zhang, Liu, & Yu, 2016 ). With fewer boomers having a spouse, it is unclear who will provide care to them as they experience health declines.

The Marital Biography

As the family life course experiences of older adults become more varied, it is important to move beyond current marital status. Other factors, such as prior marital transitions, their timing, the duration of time spent in particular marital statuses, and the sequencing of these transitions combine to shape health and well-being ( Cooney & Dunne 2001 ; Hughes & Waite, 2009 ; Reczek, Pudrovska, Carr, Thomeer, & Umberson, 2016 ; Zhang et al., 2016 ). Marital dissolution, for instance, has enduring negative effects on individual health in midlife, even for those who remarry. Remarriage offsets only some of the health disadvantage linked to marital disruption, whether through divorce or spousal loss. Time spent in either the divorced or widowed state is related to worse health outcomes, including chronic conditions and mobility limitations ( Hughes & Waite, 2009 ), although not to cardiovascular disease ( Zhang & Hayward, 2006 ). Still, marital disruption itself is associated positively with cardiovascular disease ( Zhang & Hayward, 2006 ). Timing also matters: the detrimental health outcomes associated with divorce attenuate whereas the negative effects of widowhood intensify with age for women ( Liu, 2012 ). Consistent with the cumulative disadvantage perspective, dissolutions appear to have additive negative effects on health, as individuals who experience two divorces fare worse, on average, than those who only divorce once ( Dupre, Beck, & Meadows, 2009 ; Zhang, 2006 ). Moreover, the negative health effects of divorce are not necessarily immediately apparent and can emerge years later ( Hughes & Waite, 2009 ), reinforcing the stress model perspective that stipulates marital dissolution is a stressful life event that often involves enduring, chronic strains which take a toll on health ( Zhang et al., 2016 ).

Marriage and Well-being

In fact, researchers have challenged the conventional finding that marriage is advantageous for well-being, arguing instead that the apparent gains to marriage are actually due to the detrimental influences of disruption on health ( Williams & Umberson, 2004 ). Ultimately, the health benefits of marriage are less apparent today than a generation ago. The gap between the married and never-married has shrunk for men and the negative health outcomes associated with marital disruption are more severe, particularly among women ( Liu & Umberson, 2008 ). These findings challenge the marital resources model which stipulates that marriage provides spouses with psychological, economic, and social benefits that should enhance well-being ( Zhang et al., 2016 ) and longevity ( Dupre et al., 2009 ). Likewise, there are notable differentials by gender and race in the benefits of marriage with men and Whites typically enjoying more advantages than women and non-Whites, although the gender differential may be attenuating ( Carr & Springer, 2010 ). One way to shed new light on gender dynamics and marriage is to consider same-sex couples ( Umberson & Kroeger, 2016 ). Now that same-sex marriage is legal across the United States, researchers can investigate whether same-sex couples realize benefits from marriage akin to different-sex couples.

Marital benefits are contingent on marital quality with the greatest gains accruing to those with the happiest marriages. In poorer quality marriages, the health benefits are often negligible or even negative compared to the alternative of getting divorced ( Zhang et al., 2016 ). Marital strain exacerbates the decline in self-rated health that typically occurs over time, and this effect is larger at older ages ( Umberson, Williams, Powers, Liu, & Needham, 2006 ). For individuals with a disability or functional limitations, a high quality marriage helps to minimize the psychological burdens related to quality of life whereas a low quality marriage diminishes mental health and quality of life ( Bookwala, 2011 ). The association between marital quality and health increases with age and the linkage is more pronounced for women than men ( Liu & Waite, 2014 ).

The Growth in Cohabitation

Cohabitation is now growing more rapidly among older than younger adults. As depicted in Figure 1 , the number of cohabitors aged 50 years and older has more than quadrupled since 2000, rising from roughly 951,000 to over 4 million in 2016. In the past decade alone, the number of individuals aged 50 years and older who were cohabiting surged 85% from 2.3 to 4 million ( Stepler, 2017b ). One reason for the rise of cohabitation in later life is because fewer older adults are married, meaning a larger share is eligible to cohabit. Several demographic trends have contributed to growth in unmarried older adults. First, there has been a slight increase in people who never marry, especially for men ( Lin & Brown, 2012 ). Second, the rise in gray divorce (i.e., among those aged 50 years and older) results in newly single individuals who increasingly form cohabiting unions rather than remarriages ( Brown et al., 2016 ). Third, remarriage rates have declined 60% in recent decades and have stalled among older adults ( Brown & Lin, 2013 ; Sweeney, 2010 ). Together, these factors signal an increase in the number of adults who could cohabit. But the older adult cohabitation rate also has risen. Since 2000, the share of unmarried adults who are cohabiting has doubled from 7% to 14% (authors’ calculations using the 2000–2016 Current Population Survey). Cohort replacement has contributed to a rise in favorable attitudes towards cohabitation among older adults. Baby boomers are especially likely to be supportive of cohabitation compared with older cohorts ( Brown & Wright, 2016 ).

Number of cohabiting individuals aged 50 years and older, 2000–2016.

Why Cohabit?

The rising popularity of older adult cohabitation was first documented more than two decades ago ( Chevan, 1996 ; Hatch, 1995 ). This early research articulated numerous economic and social benefits of cohabitation in later life. The economies of scale traditionally confined to marriage also can be achieved through cohabitation and without the legal obligations marriage involves. Couples can live together in a close, intimate partnership and pool their resources to the extent that it works for them. By remaining unmarried, they are not legally responsible for the partner’s medical expenses nor do the partners have any claims to each other’s assets. Cohabitation enables couples to preserve their financial autonomy, ensuring their wealth transfers to their offspring rather than their partner. Likewise, unmarried couples can continue to receive Social Security and pension benefits that may terminate upon remarriage. Granted, in some cases marriage holds unique advantages, such as when one partner does not have access to health insurance or when marriage would provide a larger Social Security benefit ( Chevan, 1996 ).

There are also social reasons to cohabit in later life. An incomplete institution in which the norms and expectations for partners’ roles lack clear definition, cohabitation requires couples to actively construct their relationship dynamics (cf., Nock, 1995 ). This process can create conflict and disagreement, but it is also an opportunity for couples to carve out alternative relationship scripts that do not hew to traditional marital expectations ( Vespa, 2013 ). Men may find cohabitation desirable because it gives them access to a resident partner who provides social support ( de Jong Gierveld, 2002 ). Women may favor cohabitation because it is not predicated on the gendered caregiving obligations typifying marriage, allowing them to preserve some of their autonomy ( McWilliams & Barrett, 2014 ; Talbott, 1998 ; Watson & Stelle, 2011 ). Older cohabitors are less likely to provide care to their partners than are older married spouses ( Noël-Miller, 2011 ).

The Role of Cohabitation in Later Life

The meaning or purpose of later life cohabitation is unique. Whereas cohabitation among young adults tends to operate as a prelude to marriage or an alternative to singlehood, culminating in either marriage or separation within a year or two of its inception, cohabitation among older adults functions as a long-term alternative to marriage ( King & Scott, 2005 ). The relationship quality and stability of older cohabitors exceeds that of younger cohabitors, even though older cohabitors are relatively unlikely to report plans to marry their partners ( King & Scott, 2005 ). Indeed, cohabitation in later life tends to be quite stable, with an average duration of nearly ten years ( Brown, Bulanda, & Lee, 2012 ; Brown & Kawamura, 2010 ). Only a minority of older cohabiting couples wed or break up. Rather, the most common union outcome for older cohabitors is dissolution resulting from the death of the partner ( Brown et al., 2012 ). The relationship dynamics of later life cohabitation are akin to remarriage. Older cohabitors and remarried individuals report comparable levels of emotional satisfaction, openness, pleasure, interaction, criticism, and demands, although cohabitors are less likely than remarried individuals to say their relationships are very happy ( Brown & Kawamura, 2010 ).

Profile of Older Cohabitors

As for demographic profiles, older adult cohabitors are distinct from both older remarried and unpartnered individuals. Table 2 provides a portrait of the previously married, differentiating among individuals aged 50 years and older who are cohabiting, remarried, or unpartnered using the 2015 American Community Survey. Nearly all (89%) older adult cohabitors are previously married ( Brown, Lee, & Bulanda, 2006 ). The majority of cohabiting and remarried older adults are men, whereas over two-thirds of unpartnereds are women. The median age of cohabitors (60) is younger than both remarrieds (63) and singles (68). Over 80% of remarrieds are White, compared to just over three-quarters of cohabitors and 70% of unpartnereds. The majority of both cohabitors (85%) and unpartnereds (56%) are divorced. Remarried individuals have more education than either cohabitors or unpartnereds, on average. Over one-quarter of remarried older adults have at least a college degree, whereas just over one-fifth of cohabitors and one-fifth of unpartnereds have a college degree or more. Cohabitors are the most likely to be working (62%). Over half of remarried respondents report being employed, and just 37% of unpartnereds are working. The high employment level of cohabitors does not yield the economic returns that remarried individuals enjoy. Remarried individuals have the highest median household income at $101,027, followed by cohabitors with $88,829, and $55,519 among unpartnered persons. Over one-fifth of cohabitors (21%) and 17% of unpartnereds report being poor compared with less than 5% of remarrieds. More than one-third of unpartnered older adults have a disability versus about one-fifth of cohabitors and remarried individuals. Finally, approximately 10% of older cohabitors have no health insurance, whereas only 6% of unpartnereds and 4% of remarried individuals are uninsured.

Percentage Distributions of Demographic, Economic, and Health Characteristics of Previously Married Adults Aged 50 and Older, by Union Status, 2015

Note : Data come from the 2015 American Community Survey. Calculations by the authors. NA = not applicable.

This national portrait echoes earlier research showing that older cohabitors tend to have fewer economic resources, including wealth and homeownership, than their remarried counterparts despite having largely comparable education and employment levels ( Brown et al., 2006 ). Nonetheless, research on later life union formation shows that wealthier individuals are not more likely to remarry than to cohabit ( Vespa, 2012 ). The economic advantages accruing to cohabitors versus unpartnered older adults ( Brown et al., 2006 ) align with work showing wealth is positively associated with forming a cohabiting (or marital) union in later life ( Vespa, 2012 ). Cohabitors typically report the weakest social ties to friends and family ( Brown et al., 2006 ). For cohabiting women, having friends and family close by is associated with a lower likelihood of marrying and a greater chance of breaking up with the partner ( Vespa, 2013 ), which suggests that women with larger support networks may be less committed to their cohabiting partners because they have alternative sources of social support. Cohabiting women who receive entitlement income are also less likely to marry ( Vespa, 2013 ), reinforcing the notion that cohabitation allows individuals, especially women, to maintain financial independence. The transition to marriage among older cohabiting couples, while unusual, appears to follow a gendered pattern of exchange in which men are most likely to marry when they are in poor health and have considerable wealth whereas women’s marriage entry is highest when they have little wealth and excellent health ( Vespa, 2013 ). In other words, men exchange economic security for women’s caregiving and vitality.

Cohabitation and Health Outcomes

Given that most cohabiting unions are quite stable and operate as an alternative to marriage in later life, it is possible that older cohabitors enjoy health benefits that are on par with those of older married individuals. There is limited research on the well-being of older cohabitors. An early cross-sectional study indicated that the levels of depressive symptoms did not differ for women by union type but that married men reported fewer symptoms, on average, than did cohabiting men. Cohabiting men’s psychological well-being was comparable to that of married and cohabiting women ( Brown, Bulanda, & Lee, 2005 ). A more recent, longitudinal examination came to a different conclusion about men, namely, that the psychological well-being of cohabitors is similar to or even better than that of marrieds whereas women’s psychological well-being did not vary by union type ( Wright & Brown, 2017 ). The physical health benefits of cohabitation are largely unexplored. There is no mortality advantage of marriage versus cohabitation for Blacks ( Liu & Reczek, 2012 ). Among Whites, cohabitation is associated with higher mortality than marriage but this differential diminishes with age ( Liu & Reczek, 2012 ), perhaps reflecting the unique role of cohabitation as an alternative to marriage in later life.

Same-Sex Cohabitation

Research on same-sex cohabiting older adults is slim. Same-sex cohabiting older adults are more socioeconomically advantaged than different-sex cohabitors and appear more comparable to different-sex married older adults ( Baumle, 2014 ; Manning & Brown, 2015 ). Same-sex male cohabitors are largely similar to different-sex married men in terms of physical health but experience more psychological distress. Same-sex female cohabitors report poor mental and physical health and more functional limitations than different-sex married women ( Gonzales & Henning-Smith, 2015 ). A similar pattern occurs when comparing individuals in same-sex couples to those in different-sex couples: men have equivalent health outcomes whereas women’s health is worse, on average, in same-sex than different-sex cohabiting couples ( Baumle, 2014 ). These differentials emerge despite evidence that same-sex couples monitor and encourage healthy behaviors for their partners ( Reczek, 2012 ). The health advantages experienced by same-sex cohabitors, when they exist, are largely due to their high socioeconomic status, otherwise their health outcomes are similar to unpartnereds ( Liu, Reczek, & Brown, 2013 ). A key task for future research is to address whether those in same-sex or different-sex cohabiting or marital unions experience similar health outcomes and whether these outcomes vary by gender ( Fredriksen-Goldsen & Muraco, 2010 ).

The Gray Divorce Revolution

The fragility of later life marriages is at an all-time high. Since 1990, the gray divorce rate has doubled, rising from 4.9 divorced persons per 1,000 married persons to 10 per 1,000 in 2015 ( Brown & Lin, 2012 ; Stepler, 2017a ). In 2010, more than one-quarter of individuals who divorced were over age 50, compared to just 1 in 10 in 1990 ( Brown & Lin, 2012 ). The scope of the gray divorce revolution will intensify in the coming years with the aging of the population. Even if the gray divorce rate remains unchanged, by 2030 the number of persons experiencing gray divorce is estimated to grow by one-third merely due to the larger size of the older adult population ( Brown & Lin, 2012 ). The rise in gray divorce is remarkable considering that the overall divorce rate has been stable since 1990 and is falling among younger adults, reflecting the growing selectivity of marriage for this age group ( Kennedy & Ruggles, 2014 ).

More than three decades ago, scholars identified key social and demographic trends foretelling a rise in later life divorce ( Berardo, 1982 ; Uhlenberg & Myers, 1981 ). First, Uhlenberg and Myers (1981) noted that widespread divorce created new norms about the acceptability of calling it quits. As individuals experienced divorce either first hand or within their social networks, the stigma attached to divorce diminished. Thus, exposure (direct or indirect) to divorce could encourage couples to seek a divorce when they are dissatisfied with their marriage. Second, the increase in remarriage that accompanied the divorce revolution also portended a rise in subsequent divorce as remarriages are at higher risk of divorce than first marriages. Indeed, the gray divorce rate is 2.5 times higher for those in a remarriage than a first marriage ( Brown & Lin, 2012 ). Remarried couples tend to be less homogenous and this heightens their chances of divorce. Also, remarriage frequently results in stepfamilies, which present considerable challenges for couples as they blend children from prior relationships. The obstacles associated with stepfamily formation are so formidable that it can take five to seven years for families to reach equilibrium. Yet, many couples divorce within a few years of remarrying. Individuals who have experienced divorce are more likely to divorce again in the event of an unsatisfactory marriage ( Amato, 2010 ). One reason why the divorce rate is lower in first marriages is because some fraction of them are unhappy but refuse to get divorced. A third factor is women’s employment. The dramatic increase in wives’ labor force participation when these older people were at their prime changed the marital bargain by making wives less dependent on their husbands ( Schoen, Astone, Kim, Rothert, & Standish, 2002 ). Many wives now have sufficient financial autonomy that they can afford to get divorced. Finally, lengthening life expectancies have changed the calculus about divorce. Individuals who survive to age 65 can expect to live another 20 years, which could be a long time to spend with someone from whom one has grown apart. Adults are living healthier longer, which could nudge them to make a significant life change like gray divorce. The centrality of marriage has receded in modern society and living alone or with an unmarried partner are now viable alternatives ( Cherlin, 2004 ).

The gray divorce revolution is unfolding in a larger social context in which the meaning of marriage (and divorce) has shifted dramatically in recent decades ( Wu & Schimmele, 2007 ). The prevailing framework of individualized marriage, marked by self-fulfillment, flexible roles, and open communication, pervades across the generations ( Cherlin, 2004 ). Like their younger counterparts, older adults hold marriage in high esteem but also have lofty expectations for what constitutes a good marriage. When one’s marriage fails to live up this standard, divorce is viewed as an acceptable solution. Qualitative research on gray divorce reveals that growing apart is a common reason why older couples call it quits. After raising children and having careers, many couples retire only to find that they do not enjoy spending time together ( Bair, 2007 ).

Predictors of Gray Divorce

From a life course perspective, it is plausible that key turning points such as an empty nest, retirement, or failing health could prompt couples to reflect on their marriage and decide to get divorced. These turning points are invoked in the narratives of individuals who experience gray divorce ( Bair, 2007 ). But empirical research reveals they are not associated with a couple’s risk of gray divorce. Rather, the same factors that are associated with divorce earlier in the adult life course are most salient for gray divorce, too. Marital duration is inversely associated with divorce and remarriages tend to be of shorter duration than first marriages. Interracial couples are more likely to experience gray divorce than same race couples. Marital quality is negatively associated with divorce. And couples with fewer economic resources, namely wealth, are at greater risk of gray divorce ( Lin, Brown, Wright, & Hammersmith, 2016 ).

Consequences of Later Life Divorce

Divorce is among the most stressful life events and it can take years for individuals to recover psychologically, socially, and financially. There is little work on the consequences of gray divorce ( Carr & Pudrovska, 2012 ) but it seems likely that the range of outcomes for older adults is more varied than for younger adults. On the one hand, older adults who wanted to get divorced, are financially secure, and in good health may experience few or no downsides to calling it quits. Their quality of life could actually improve following divorce. On the other hand, individuals who are vulnerable due to financial hardship or poor health could be devastated by a gray divorce. Unlike their younger counterparts, they do not have decades remaining in the labor force to make up for the financial losses associated with divorce. Poor health could impede their ability to work, compounding financial difficulties. Navigating health declines without the support and care of a spouse may pose significant challenges to gray divorced individuals, diminishing their well-being. For example, a recent study by Karraker and Latham (2015) suggests that healthy midlife married couples are at risk of gray divorce with the onset of wife’s heart problems, but not when the husband’s health declines.

One-third of first later life marital dissolutions now occur through gray divorce rather than widowhood, making it vital that researchers broaden their scope to encompass both dissolution pathways ( Brown et al., 2016 ). Gray divorce results in two individuals eligible to repartner and they are much more likely to form a new union than those who experience dissolution through spousal death. Thus, we can expect later life repartnering to climb in the coming years. Still, as shown in Figure 2 , few gray divorced women form either a remarriage (15%) or a cohabitation (9%). The levels of repartnering are somewhat higher for gray divorced men at 28% for remarriage and 15% for cohabitation, but most remain single ( Brown et al., 2016 ).

Repartnership status by dissolution type and gender. Note: Statistics are from Table 2 of Brown et al. (2016) and reflect the 2010 repartnership status of individuals who had experienced divorce or widowhood at age 50 years or older.

An important task for future research is to evaluate whether the outcomes associated with gray divorce are similar to widowhood as well as whether repartnering reduces the negative effects of disruption. From a financial standpoint, it seems gray divorce and widowhood may be largely equivalent for men, but for women, gray divorce is often a bigger economic shock. Among those who are age-eligible for Social Security, 27% of gray divorced women are in poverty compared with just 13% of widowed women. For men, the share is about 13% regardless of dissolution type. Those who have repartnered are unlikely to be poor at only about 4% ( Lin, Brown, & Hammersmith, 2017 ). Divorce also shapes the relationships between fathers and their adult children. Older men receive less support from their adult children if they are divorced from the children’s mother ( Lin, 2008 ). Later life divorce is also tied to decreased contact with adult children, especially for fathers ( Kalmijn, 2013 ). In turn, repartnering following divorce further weakens men’s relationships to their children ( Kalmijn, 2013 ; Noël-Miller, 2013 ).

The past few decades have witnessed rapid change in the family formation and dissolution patterns of older adults. Declining shares of older adults are either married or widowed, and rising proportions are cohabiting, divorced, or never-married. The changing marital status composition of older adults foregrounds the salience of the larger marital biography, encompassing not merely current marital status but also transitions and their key features, including timing, duration, and sequencing. Multiple transitions, especially the experience of marital disruption, can be detrimental to health and well-being and these negative outcomes often persist over time and even after repartnering occurs ( Hughes & Waite, 2009 ; Zhang et al., 2016 ).

The varied marital biographies of today’s older adults raise a host of questions about the diverse trajectories of the family life course after age 50. Here, we reviewed recent research that focuses on marriage, cohabitation, and divorce in later life. But family pathways are not restricted to marriage or even to coresidential relationships. Non-coresidential partnerships, including dating and living apart together (LAT) relationships, are arguably more common than is cohabitation in later life but they remain understudied ( Brown & Shinohara, 2013 ; Connidis, Borell, & Karlsson, 2017 ; Lewin, 2016 ). Dating relationships are concentrated among the most advantaged unmarried older adults, with those who have higher levels of education and are in better health the most likely to be dating ( Brown & Shinohara, 2013 ). LAT relationships, which can be conceptualized as long-term dating relationships that are unlikely to eventuate in either cohabitation or marriage, offer unprecedented flexibility and autonomy by allowing couples to define their obligations and responsibilities to one another within a framework of a high commitment relationship ( Benson & Coleman, 2016 ; Connidis et al., 2017 ; Duncan & Phillips, 2011 ; Upton-Davis, 2012 ). Older adults in LAT relationships report less happiness than do cohabitors and married individuals, but also less relationship strain, which aligns with the notion that LAT couples can establish the relationship expectations and norms that work for them ( Lewin, 2016 ).

In short, there are arrays of relationship options for older adults that merit consideration in future research. Remarkably little is known about the basic levels and patterns of emergent relationship types, such as LAT, let alone whether and how these relationships affect the health and well-being of older adults. Greater attention to how marital biographies and current relationship type (including dating or LAT) are linked to well-being in later life is sorely needed. Theory development on nonmarital relationships is also vital as the motivations for dating or cohabitation are unlike those that prevail earlier in the life course. Bulcroft and Bulcroft’s (1991) conclusion more than a quarter century ago that explanations for dating in young adulthood do not readily apply to older adult dating remains true and extends to other relationship types such as cohabitation. Likewise, the costs and benefits of gray divorce are arguably distinctive, yet the predictors appear to be largely the same as those identified for younger adults ( Lin et al., 2016 ). This paradox merits further conceptual and empirical attention.

It is also essential to address how these partnership dynamics impinge on other family ties, namely between parents and their children. Couples often pursue LAT relationships rather than cohabit or marry because they have resident children ( de Jong Gierveld & Merz, 2013 ). Similarly, many couples choose cohabitation over remarriage at the urging of their adult children ( Bildtgård & Öberg, 2017 ). When an older adult experiences a health decline does the partner step in to help or is it the adult child who serves as the caregiver? Cohabitors cannot count on their partner like married spouses do ( Noël-Miller, 2011 ). Probably LAT and dating partners are even less likely to provide care than cohabiting partners, but this question remains unexplored. If partners and children are less willing to be caregivers, then the burden increasingly falls on institutions and society to manage the care of frail elders which could have significant public policy implications.

Aging is a global phenomenon with far-reaching ramifications for societies. Yet, comparative research on partnerships and unions in later life is slim. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, the only available information on older adult marital status distributions in other countries is now somewhat dated. The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) provides some basic insights. In 2004, individuals aged 50 and older living in ten European countries were typically in partnered relationships. About 77% of older men and 56% of older women were married. Only 1% of older men and just 0.4% of older women were cohabiting, levels that are remarkably lower than in the United States. The percentages currently divorced among older European adults, which stood at 6% and 7% for men and women, respectively, are also considerably lower than in the United States. Nearly 8% of men and 8% women were never married. Widowhood was much less common among men at 8% than women at 29% ( Kohli, Kunemund, & Ludicke, 2005 ). Of course, these overall figures belie considerable variation across European nations. In Sweden, for example, about 10% of men and 6% of women were cohabiting in 2004 ( Kohli et al., 2005 ). Globally, the proportions of older men and women who are married has grown modestly and the proportions widowed have fallen in recent decades, with both trends mainly reflecting gains in life expectancy ( Kinsella & Phillips, 2005 ). Childlessness is on the rise for older adults internationally, and the proportions divorced are also expected to increase in the coming years, reflecting family patterns established earlier in the life course and raising new questions about the availability of family support and caregiving in later life ( Kinsella & Phillips, 2005 ). Future research should pay greater attention not only to the diverse family demographic trends marking older adulthood but also how these patterns align with cross-national economic and social policies, which may provide incentives to form (or dissolve) various types of unions. And, here again, cross-national information on non-coresidential unions, such as dating and LAT relationships, appears to be lacking.

To ensure researchers can capture the richness of the family life course experiences of older adults, major national data collections on older adults may benefit from expanding beyond the narrow focus on marital status to include non-coresidential relationships such as dating and LAT. Marital biographies are now diverse, so collecting more detailed marital and cohabitation histories for same-sex and different-sex relationships is warranted to ensure researchers can identify the components of the marital biography that are most closely tied to well-being in later life ( Umberson, Thomeer, Kroeger, Lodge, & Xu, 2015 ). There is growing recognition that couple-level data offer much richer insights into aging but there are a lot of unanswered questions about how linked lives shape health outcomes. In particular, the ways in which changes in spousal health may shape one’s own outcomes are poorly understood ( Cooney & Dunne, 2001 ; Zhang et al., 2016 ). Even less is known about how nonmarital partners influence each other’s health.

Dramatic family changes are occurring during the second half of life. Today’s older adults have complex marital biographies, reflecting their varied experiences of cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Some have shunned marriage altogether whereas others are calling it quits later in life. New relationship paradigms offer attractive alternatives to marriage and even cohabitation. Gerontologists and family scholars are only beginning to investigate the patterns and consequences of these new frontiers in later life couple relationships.

This research was supported in part by the Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD050959).

None reported.

Amato , P. R . ( 2010 ). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments . Journal of Marriage and Family , 72 , 650 – 666 . doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x

Google Scholar

Bair , D . ( 2007 ). Calling it quits: Late-life divorce and starting over . New York : Random House .

Google Preview

Baumle , A. K . ( 2014 ). Same-sex cohabiting elders versus different-sex cohabiting and married elders: Effects of relationship status and sex of partner on economic and health outcomes . Social Science Research , 43 , 60 – 73 . doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.09.003

Benson , J. J. , & Coleman , M . ( 2016 ). Older adults developing a preference for living apart together . Journal of Marriage and Family , 78 , 797 – 812 . doi:10.1111/jomf.12292

Berardo , D. H . ( 1982 ). Divorce and remarriage at middle age and beyond . The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 464 , 132 – 139 .

Bildtgård , T. , & Öberg , P . ( 2017 ). New intimate relationships in later life: Consequences for the social and filial network? Journal of Family Issues , 38 , 381 – 405 . doi: 10.1177/0192513X15579503

Bookwala , J . ( 2011 ). Marital quality as a moderator of the effects of poor vision on quality of life among older adults . The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 66 , 605 – 616 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbr091

Brown , S. L. , Bulanda , J. R. , & Lee , G. R . ( 2005 ). The significance of nonmarital cohabitation: Marital status and mental health benefits among middle-aged and older adults . Journal of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological and Social Sciences , 60 , 21 – 29 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/60.1.S21

Brown , S. L. , Lee , G. R. , & Bulanda , J. R . ( 2006 ). Cohabitation among older adults: A national portrait . Journal of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological and Social Sciences , 61 , 71 – 79 . doi:10.1093/geronb/61.2.s71

Brown , S. L. , Bulanda , J. R. , & Lee , G. R . ( 2012 ). Transitions into and out of cohabitation in later life . Journal of Marriage and Family , 74 , 774 – 793 . doi: 10.1111/j.1741–3737.2012.00994x

Brown , S. L. , & Kawamura , S . ( 2010 ). Relationship quality among cohabitors and marrieds in older adulthood . Social Science Research , 39 , 777 – 786 . doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.04.010

Brown , S. L. , & Lin , I. F . ( 2012 ). The gray divorce revolution: Rising divorce among middle-aged and older adults, 1990–2010 . Journals of Geronotology, Series B: Psychological and Social Sciences , 67 , 731 – 741 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbs089

Brown , S. L. , & Lin , I. F . ( 2013 ). Age variation in the remarriage rate, 1990–2011 (pp . 13 – 17 ). Bowling Green, OH: National Center for Family & Marriage Research Family Profile .

Brown , S. L. , Lin , I. F. , Hammersmith , A. M. , & Wright , M. R. (2016). Later life marital dissolution and repartnership status: A national portrait . Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences . doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbw051

Brown , S. L. , & Shinohara , S. K . ( 2013 ). Dating relationships in older adulthood: A national portrait . Journal of Marriage and Family , 75 , 1194 – 1202 . doi: 10.1111/jomf.12065

Brown , S. L. , & Wright , M. R . ( 2016 ). Older adults’ attitudes toward cohabitation: Two decades of change . Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences , 71 , 755 – 764 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbv053

Bulcroft , R. A. , & Bulcroft , K. A . ( 1991 ). The nature and functions of dating in later life . Research on Aging , 13 , 244 – 260 . doi:10.1177/0164027591132007

Calasanti , T. , & Kiecolt , K. J . ( 2007 ). Diversity among late life couples . Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging , 31 , 10 – 17 .

Carr , D. , & Pudrovska , T . ( 2012 ). Divorce and widowhood in later life . In R. Blieszner & V. H. Bedford (Eds.), Families and aging (pp. 489 – 513 ). Santa Barbara, CA : Praeger .

Carr , D. , & Springer , K. W . ( 2010 ). Advances in families and health research in the 21st century . Journal of Marriage and Family , 72 , 743 – 761 . doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00728.x

Cherlin , A. J . ( 2010 ). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s . Journal of Marriage and Family , 72 , 403 – 419 . doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00710.x

Cherlin , A. J . ( 2004 ). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage . Journal of Marriage and Family , 66 , 848 – 861 . doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00058.x

Chevan , A . ( 1996 ). As cheaply as one: Cohabitation in the older population . Journal of Marriage and the Family , 58 , 656 – 667 . doi:10.2307/353726

Connidis , I. A. , Borell , K. , & Karlsson , S. G . ( 2017 ). Ambivalence and living apart together in later life: A critical research proposal . Journal of Marriage and Family . doi: 10.1111/jomf.12417

Cooney , T. M. , & Dunne , K . ( 2001 ). Intimate relationships in later life: Current realities, future prospects . Journal of Family Issues , 22 , 838 – 858 . doi: 10.1177/019251301022007003

de Jong Gierveld , J . ( 2002 ). The dilemma of repartnering: Considerations of older men and women entering new intimate relationships in later life . Ageing International , 27 , 61 – 78 . doi: 10.1007/s12126-002-1015-z

de Jong Gierveld , J. , & Merz , E. M . ( 2013 ). Parents’ partnership decision making after divorce or widowhood: The role of (step)children . Journal of Marriage and Family , 75 , 1098 – 1113 . doi: 10.1111/jomf.12061

Duncan , S. , & Phillips , M . ( 2011 ). People who live apart together (LATs): New family form or just a stage? International Review of Sociology , 21 , 513 – 532 . doi: 10.1080/03906701.2011.625660

Dupre , M. E. , Beck , A. N. , & Meadows , S. O . ( 2009 ). Marital trajectories and mortality among US adults . American Journal of Epidemiology , 170 , 546 – 555 . doi:10.1093/aje/kwp194

Fredriksen-Goldsen , K. I. , & Muraco , A . ( 2010 ). Aging and sexual orientation: A 25-year review of the literature . Research on Aging , 32 , 372 – 413 . doi:10.1177/0164027509360355

Gonzales , G. , & Henning-Smith , C . ( 2015 ). Disparities in health and disability among older adults in same-sex cohabiting relationships . Journal of Aging and Health , 27 , 432 – 453 . doi:10.1177/0898264314551332

Hatch , R . ( 1995 ). Aging and cohabitation . New York: Garland Pub .

Hughes , M. E. , & Waite , L. J . ( 2009 ). Marital biography and health at mid-life . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 50 , 344 – 358 . doi:10.1177/002214650905000307

Kalmijn , M . ( 2013 ). Adult children’s relationships with married parents, divorced parents, and stepparents: Biology, marriage, or residence? Journal of Marriage and Family , 75 , 1181 – 1193 . doi:10.1111/jomf.12057

Karraker , A. , & Latham , K . ( 2015 ). In sickness and in health? Physical illness as a risk factor for marital dissolution in later life . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 56 , 420 – 435 . doi:10.1177/0022146515596354

Kennedy , S. , & Ruggles , S . ( 2014 ). Breaking up is hard to count: The rise of divorce in the United States, 1980–2010 . Demography , 51 , 587 – 598 . doi: 10.1007/s13524-013-0270-9

King , V. , & Scott , M. E . ( 2005 ). A comparison of cohabiting relationships among older and younger adults . Journal of Marriage and Family , 67 , 271 – 285 . doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00115.x

Kinsella , K. , & Phillips , D. R . ( 2005 ). Global aging: The challenge of success . Population Bulletin , 60 , 1 – 42 .

Kohli , M. , Kunemund , H. , & Ludicke , J . ( 2005 ). Family structure, proximity, and contact . In A. Borsch-Supan , A. Brugiavini , H. Jurges , J. Mackenbach , J. Siegrist , & G. Weber (Eds.), Health, ageing and retirement in Europe: First results from the survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe (pp. 164 – 170 ). Mannheim, Germany : Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging (MEA) .

Lewin , A. C. (2016). Health and relationship quality later in Life A Comparison of Living Apart Together (LAT), first marriages, remarriages, and cohabitation . Journal of Family Issues . doi: 10.1177/0192513X16647982

Lin , I. F . ( 2008 ). Consequences of parental divorce for adult children’s support of their frail parents . Journal of Marriage and Family , 70 , 113 – 128 . doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00465.x

Lin , I. F. , & Brown , S. L . ( 2012 ). Unmarried boomers confront old age: A national portrait . The Gerontologist , 52 , 153 – 165 . doi: 10.1093/geront/gnr141

Lin , I. F. , Brown , S. L. , & Hammersmith , A. M . ( 2017 ). Marital biography, social security receipt, and poverty . Research on Aging , 39 , 86 – 110 . doi:10.1177/0164027516656139

Lin , I. F. , Brown , S. L. , Wright , M. R. , & Hammersmith , A. M. (2016). Antecedents of gray divorce: A life course perspective . Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences . doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbw164

Liu , H . ( 2012 ). Marital dissolution and self-rated health: Age trajectories and birth cohort variations . Social Science & Medicine , 74 , 1107 – 1116 . doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.037

Liu , H. , & Reczek , C . ( 2012 ). Cohabitation and US adult mortality: An examination by gender and race . Journal of Marriage and Family , 74 , 794 – 811 . doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00983.x

Liu , H. , Reczek , C. , & Brown , D . ( 2013 ). Same-sex cohabitors and health the role of race-ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 54 , 25 – 45 . doi:10.1177/0022146512468280

Liu , H. , & Umberson , D. J . ( 2008 ). The times they are a changin’: Marital status and health differentials from 1972 to 2003 . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 49 , 239 – 253 . doi:10.1177/002214650804900301

Liu , H. , & Waite , L . ( 2014 ). Bad marriage, broken heart? Age and gender differences in the link between marital quality and cardiovascular risks among older adults . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 55 , 403 – 423 . doi:10.1177/0022146514556893

Manning , W. D. , & Brown , S. L . ( 2015 ). Aging cohabiting couples and family policy: Different-sex and same-sex couples . Public Policy & Aging Report , 25 , 94 – 97 . doi:10.1093/ppar/prv012

McWilliams , S. , & Barrett , A. E . ( 2014 ). Online dating in middle and later life: Gendered expectations and experiences . Journal of Family Issues , 35 , 411 – 436 . doi:10.1177/0192513x12468437

Nock , S. L . ( 1995 ). A comparison of marriages and cohabiting relationships . Journal of Family Issues , 16 , 53 – 76 . doi:10.1177/019251395016001004

Noël-Miller , C. M . ( 2011 ). Partner caregiving in older cohabiting couples . The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 66 , 341 – 353 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbr027

Noël-Miller , C. M . ( 2013 ). Repartnering following divorce: Implications for older fathers’ relations with their adult children . Journal of Marriage and Family , 75 , 697 – 712 . doi:10.1111/jomf.12034

Reczek , C . ( 2012 ). The promotion of unhealthy habits in gay, lesbian, and straight intimate partnerships . Social Science & Medicine , 75 , 1114 – 1121 . doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.04.019

Reczek , C. , Pudrovska , T. , Carr , D. , Thomeer , M. B. , & Umberson , D . ( 2016 ). Marital histories and heavy alcohol use among older adults . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 57 , 77 – 96 . doi:10.1177/0022146515628028

Schoen , R. , Astone , N. M. , Kim , Y. J. , Rothert , K. , & Standish , N. J . ( 2002 ). Women’s employment, marital happiness, and divorce . Social Forces , 81 , 643 – 662 . doi:10.1353/sof.2003.0019

Stepler , R . ( 2017a ). Led by Baby Boomers, divorce rates climb for America’s 50+ population . Washington, DC: Fact Tank: Pew Research Center . http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/09/led-by-baby-boomers-divorce-rates-climb-for-americas-50-population/ .

Stepler , R . ( 2017b ). Number of U.S. adults cohabiting with a partner continues to rise, especially among those 50 and older . Fact Tank: Pew Research Center . http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/06/number-of-u-s-adults-cohabiting- with-a-partner-continues-to-rise-especially-among-those-50-and-older/ .

Sweeney , M. M . ( 2010 ). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century . Journal of Marriage and Family , 72 , 667 – 684 . doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00724.x

Talbott , M. M . ( 1998 ). Older widows’ attitudes towards men and remarriage . Journal of Aging Studies , 12 , 429 – 449 . doi:10.1016/s0890-4065(98)90028-7

Uhlenberg , P. , & Myers , M. A. P . ( 1981 ). Divorce and the elderly . The Gerontologist , 21 , 276 – 282 . doi: 10.1093/geront/21.3.276

Umberson , D. , & Kroeger , R. A . ( 2016 ). Gender, marriage, and health for same-sex and different-sex couples: The future keeps arriving . In S. M. McHale , V. King , J. Van Hook , & A. Booth (Eds.), Gender and couple relationships (pp. 189 – 213 ). New York : Springer International Publishing . doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21635-5

Umberson , D. , Thomeer , M. B. , Kroeger , R. A. , Lodge , A. C. , & Xu , M . ( 2015 ). Challenges and opportunities for research on same-sex relationships . Journal of Marriage and Family , 77 , 96 – 111 . doi:10.1111/jomf.12155

Umberson , D. , Williams , K. , Powers , D. A. , Liu , H. , & Needham , B . ( 2006 ). You make me sick: Marital quality and health over the life course . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 47 , 1 – 16 . doi:10.1177/002214650604700101

Upton-Davis , K . ( 2012 ). Living apart together relationships (LAT): Severing intimacy from obligation . Gender Issues , 29 , 25 – 38 . doi:10.1007/s12147-012-9110-2

Vespa , J . ( 2013 ). Relationship transitions among older cohabitors: The role of health, wealth, and family ties . Journal of Marriage and Family , 75 , 933 – 949 . doi:10.1111/jomf.12040

Vespa , J . ( 2012 ). Union formation in later life: Economic determinants of cohabitation and remarriage among older adults . Demography , 49 , 1103 – 1125 . doi:10.1007/s13524-012-0102-3

Watson , W. K. , & Stelle , C . ( 2011 ). Dating for older women: Experiences and meanings of dating in later life . Journal of Women & Aging , 23 , 263 – 275 . doi:10.1080/08952841.2011.587732

Williams , K. , & Umberson , D . ( 2004 ). Marital status, marital transitions, and health: A gendered life course perspective . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 45 , 81 – 98 . doi:10.1177/002214650404500106

Wright , M. R. , & Brown , S. L . ( 2017 ). Psychological well-being among older adults: The role of partnership status . Journal of Marriage and Family , 79 , 833 – 849 . doi: 10.1111/jomf.12375

Wu , Z. , & Schimmele , C . ( 2007 ). Uncoupling in late life . Generations , 31 , 41 – 46 .

Zhang , Z . ( 2006 ). Marital history and the burden of cardiovascular disease in midlife . The Gerontologist , 46 , 266 – 270 . doi:10.1093/geront/46.2.266

Zhang , Z. , & Hayward , M . ( 2006 ). Gender, the marital life course, and cardiovascular disease in late midlife . Journal of Marriage and Family , 68 , 639 – 657 . doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00280.x

Zhang , Z. , Liu , H. , & Yu , Y-L . ( 2016 ). Marital biography and health in middle and late life . In J. Bookwala (Ed.), Couple relationships in the middle and later years: Their nature, complexity, and role in health and illness (pp. 199 – 218 ). Washington, DC : American Psychological Association . doi:10.1037/14897-000

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2399-5300
• Copyright © 2024 The Gerontological Society of America
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

January 12, 2021

Is cohabitation still linked to greater odds of divorce.

• Rosenfeld and Roesler stand by their conclusion that the average increased risk for divorce associated with premarital cohabitation is mostly unchanged over the last 40 years.  Tweet This
• All of the studies related to the debate about whether or not the cohabitation effect still exists focus only on the odds of divorce and not on marital quality. Tweet This
• Rosenfeld and Roesler also assert that Manning, Smock, and Kuperberg do not adequately account for the timing of children in cohabiting relationships. Tweet This

You might think the question about the link between premarital cohabitation and divorce would have been settled long ago, but researchers have puzzled about it for decades and the puzzling lives on. Part of why the issue draws so much interest is that  the vast majority  of people believe that living together before marriage  should  improve the odds of doing well even though research has not supported that belief. This is an update on the latest in this long-running saga of research on the cohabitation effect. 

In 2018, Michael Rosenfeld and Katharina Roesle r published a study that contradicted the growing consensus in sociology that premarital cohabitation was no longer associated with greater odds of divorce, even though  it had been associated with poorer marital outcomes for decades . The explanation  various scholars had given  for the cohabitation effect going away are based on the diffusion perspective, which suggests that cohabitation has become so common it no longer selects for those already at higher risk, and also that it has lost the stigma it once had. But Rosenfeld and Roesler showed that the association between premarital cohabitation and divorce has  not  declined over the years in any substantial manner. They argued that prior studies showing no negative associations were based on samples that did not include marriages that had lasted long enough to fully capture the increased risk for divorce. 

Rosenfeld and Roesler also showed something new in their 2018 study: cohabitation before marriage was associated with a lower risk of divorce in the first year of marriage but a higher risk thereafter. They interpreted this finding in light of experience theories, noting that living together before marriage could give couples a leg up at the very start of marriage because there is less of an adjustment to being married and specifically to living together. But they found this advantage to be short-lived. Other factors related to experience may take over from there, such as how cohabitation can  increase acceptance of divorce . 

Rosenfeld and Roesler’s study caused a stir in the field, and this past December, the  Journal of Marriage and Family  published two pieces related to their 2018 findings. The first is a comment on the study by Wendy Manning, Pamela Smock, and Arielle Kuperberg  and the second is a response by  Rosenfeld and Roesler . The articles illuminate the complexities of cohabitation and the challenges of studying the effects in social science. 

In  a prior IFS article  on Rosenfeld and Roesler’s 2018 publication, Galena Rhoades and I described the study and competing theories for why living together before marriage can be associated with lower odds of success in marriage (i.e., selection, experience, and inertia). I refer you to that article for more background information.

The Critique by Manning, Smock, and Kuperberg

Manning, Smock, and Kuperberg make two primary criticisms of Rosenfeld and Roesler’s study. First, they argue that their statistical models include multiple and confounding measures of time. Second, they emphasize the important decisions one has to make about truncation based on age when using the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), upon which all of the studies suggesting the association has disappeared are based. Here is a sample of that complexity:

Another age truncation issue is that relatively long marriages cannot be observed with these data without bias toward those that occurred at young ages. For example, a 15-year marriage can only be observed for women who married at age 29 or younger.  (p. 3) 1

This is the basis for their assertion that it is best to limit the analytic sample for this research to marriages of 10 or fewer years duration. In essence, Manning, Smock, and Kuperberg argue that Rosenfeld and Roesler made a number of decisions about the sample and statistical modeling that are inconsistent with the prior literature and therefore not sound. They present further analyses in their response and stand by their claim that the cohabitation effect has disappeared.  

Rosenfeld and Roesler’s Reply

Rosenfeld and Roesler respond that Manning, Smock, and Kuperberg misinterpreted how time-related variables had been handled in their original study, noting that the authors of the critique could have asked for clarification instead of building arguments around false assumptions. More importantly, they further explain their belief that prior works (along with new analyses by Manning, Smock, and Kuperberg) are based on decisions that leave out 70% of the relevant, available sample. This is primarily the result of that decision to limit the analytic sample to marriages of 10 years or less duration. Manning, Smock, and Kuperberg contend that this is standard, best practice when using the NSFG, while Rosenfeld and Roesler argue the decision unnecessarily limits sample and statistical power, causing a data-based bias in favor of finding that there is no longer a divorce risk associated with premarital cohabitation. 

Their reply also makes clear just how methodologically important their prior finding is showing that premarital cohabitation is associated with lower odds of divorce in the first year of marriage but greater odds thereafter. Manning, Smock, and Kuperberg attempted to replicate that finding and did not obtain it (but using options they prefer, not the same set up as Rosenfeld and Roesler). 

Rosenfeld and Roesler point out that their critique actually does display evidence of this finding, but that the effect was not statistically significant because of the smaller sample. 2 Thus, Manning, Smock, and Kuperberg do not account for that effect in other models they run. In practice, that is not an unusual decision, but Rosenfeld and Roesler believe that this decision, along with the decision to restrict the sample based on duration of marriages, leads to analyses less likely to find the increased risk for divorce. 

Filtering out the couples who have been married longer (as MSK do) enhances the Recent Cohort Fallacy because in the very early stages of marriages, premarital cohabitation reduces the risk of marital breakups.  (p. 6)

Rosenfeld and Roesler also assert that Manning, Smock, and Kuperberg do not adequately account for the timing of children. They explain that cohabiters are much more likely than non-cohabiters to already have children at the time of marriage, and this difference has nearly doubled over the decades. Thus, cohabiting couples who married in later cohorts were quite a bit more likely than those marrying earlier to already have a child when they married, and the extra stability from having children that is changing by cohort is another factor that lowers the apparent cohort-based association between cohabitation and divorce. 3

Rosenfeld and Roesler stand by their conclusion that the average increased risk for divorce associated with premarital cohabitation is mostly unchanged over the last 40 years. 

Comment and Implications

As I stated at the outset, most people believe cohabitation should improve one’s odds of marital success. Rosenfeld and Roesler’s work suggests this may only be true very early in marriage. Otherwise, not so much. As ever on this subject, questions abound. Are marital outcomes truly worse for those who live together before marriage, and, if so, for whom? For example, it is less clear that things work the same way, on average, for  African Americans  who cohabit, and  economic disadvantage  is deeply embedded in how cohabitation relates to risk in marriage. 4

One of the most intriguing questions remains: why is there any association with risk? As Manning, Smock, and Kuperberg note, the long-accepted conclusion in sociology is that differences in marital outcomes based on premarital cohabitation are due to selection—that the added risk is really about who cohabits and who does not. Selection is surely a large part of the story. Of course, on top of that, they argue the risk is no longer evident. Rosenfeld and Roesler disagree. 

Although there are strong arguments on each side, I believe Rosenfeld and Roesler get the better of the debate. They make a compelling case for their analytic decisions and findings. Further, they clearly describe how the choices affect the findings (theirs, and that of others). 

The argument that the  overall  cohabitation effect will disappear has not been compelling to me, although I have no trouble accepting the possibility. There are two explanations for how the experience of cohabitation might increase risks for  some  couples, net of selection:  changes in attitudes 5 and inertia. My colleague Galena Rhoades and I are leading proponents of   the latter theory , which contains no obvious reason to anticipate a negative effect going away for a large subgroup of those who cohabit prior to marriage. 

Inertia emphasizes that when two people move in together, all other things being equal, they are making it harder to break up. If so, the state of the relationship—and especially the understanding between partners at the time—should matter. Some couples are, in essence, increasing the constraints to remain together (including, for some, on into having children and marrying) prior to dedication being clear, mutual, and high. 6 We believe that is part of why waiting until marriage, or at least engagement, is associated with lower risk in seven  studies . In fact, one of those  studies  is among those suggesting that the overall cohabitation effect is gone. A differential effect can easily live within an overall average effect—or average non-effect. 

Also, it is worth noting that all of the studies related to the controversy about whether or not the cohabitation effect still exists focus only on the odds of divorce and not on marital quality. In  one of our studies , we show that marital quality is lower among those who started living together before engagement or marriage (as inertia theory predicts), and in marriages occurring during the period of time when others have argued that the overall cohabitation effect no longer exists. 7

One of the other stories in this controversy is endemic to social science.  Researcher degrees of freedom  is a concept referring to the fact that the reported findings in social science come at the tail end of a great many consequential decisions by the researchers on matters of data sets, included or excluded variables, and statistical models. Rosenfeld and Roesler make a strong plea for transparency in how researchers make their decisions. They are also circumspect in stating that the extraordinary complexity of changes in marriage and cohabitation in the last five decades make it impossible to account for all that may matter when analyzing and interpreting data on this subject. 

There is no simple answer for questions about premarital cohabitation. There is no experiment one can conduct to prove X leads to Y. As Rosenfeld and Roesler put it, “. . . all models of complex reality are flawed.” Count on that, and count on the interesting saga of research on premarital cohabitation to continue. 

Scott M. Stanley is a research professor at the University of Denver and a senior fellow of the Institute for Family Studies (@DecideOrSlide). 

1. These page numbers are those in the advance, online publications of these paper. Once the articles appear in the printed journals, they will have different page numbers. 

2.This is possible because an estimate of an effect can be noisy, having a lot of variability in a sample around whatever average size of effect is obtained.

3. Although it is true that cohabiting parents are more likely to break up than married parents, including those having children prior to marrying, it is also true that having children makes it more likely a couple will stay together or stay together longer—which makes the matter a big deal in analyzing outcomes related to divorce. Rosenfeld and Roesler argue that the specific way Manning, Smock, and Kuperberg control for children at marriage makes the control variable a proxy for cohabiting before marriage, and since having children before marriage is differentially changing across cohorts, they argue that the net effect favors the overall finding that the cohabitation effect has gone away. Related to this issue of children before marriage,  Tach and Halpern-Meekin  showed that some portion of the premarital cohabitation effect is driven by premarital cohabiters being more likely to have non-marital births before marriage. One can easily argue that cohabitation and child effects are hopelessly intertwined. Still, either factor can easily be seen to have the same implications for a causal risk of the sort Galena Rhoades and I have focused on, where relationship transitions fit a pattern of constraints to stay together increasing substantially prior to maturing of dedication to be together. Such factors can  prematurely create inertia  for a relationship to continue when a different path may have seen the relationship end or helped a couple form clearer decisions supporting commitment.  

4. As one example, an important matter running through all these themes is how two people can signal commitment to each other and those around them. Cultural context is important, as I wrote  long ago : “I do, by the way, believe that cohabitation can signal higher levels of commitment (compared to not cohabiting) among some who are very poor. I think it likely that the potency of a signal is partially related to what other signals are available. For many complex reasons, marriage is so far off the radar screen in terms of experience for many in poverty that another signal like cohabitation can take on signal value.”

5. This paper by Axinn and Barber in 1997 is one of the most brilliant conceptual pieces in the literature on cohabitation. To me, the arguments are as fresh now as when they were written. 

6. Norval Glenn had made a similar suggestion around the same time we were developing our theory, focusing on the idea that “premature entanglement” foreshortened a solid search for a good match between mates ( Glenn, 2002 ). 

7. It is a fair point to note that this study of ours, in particular, is based on vastly simpler sample and design (using a random phone sample) than studies using the NSFG. On the other hand, analyses of relationship quality based on cohabitation history in existing marriage have a built-in bias against finding lower marital quality for those who cohabited prior to marriage or engagement. Such samples have already selected out those who divorced and are no longer married (thus, not in the sample), likely biasing tests for differences in marital quality toward non-significance. Still, if you think about either the experience theory of cohabitation or the inertia theory of cohabitation, we see no reason to believe the risk should abate for those who move in together prior to having figured out their intended future. 

Related Posts

Premarital cohabitation is still associated with greater odds of divorce, how moving in together makes it harder to know if he’s the one, the religious marriage paradox: younger marriage, less divorce, when it comes to child well-being, is one parent the same as two, cohabitation doesn’t compare: marriage, cohabitation, and relationship quality, technoference: how technology can hurt relationships, join the ifs mailing list.

Sign up for our mailing list to receive ongoing updates from IFS.

© 2024 Institute for Family Studies

• Our Mission
• Books & Articles
• Get Married
• Success Sequence
• Public Education

Interested in learning more about the work of the Institute for Family Studies? Please feel free to contact us by using your preferred method detailed below.  

Mailing Address:

P.O. Box 1502 Charlottesville, VA 22902

(434) 260-1048

[email protected]

Media Inquiries

For media inquiries, contact Chris Bullivant ( [email protected] ).

We encourage members of the media interested in learning more about the people and projects behind the work of the Institute for Family Studies to get started by perusing our "Media Kit" materials.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Cohabitation, relationship stability, relationship adjustment, and children’s mental health over 10 years.

• 1 Department of Health Psychology, University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria
• 2 Department of Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy, and Assessment, Technical University of Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany

Understanding risk factors for relationship dissolution and poor relationship adjustment among couples has been an active area of research in relationship science. One risk factor, non-marital cohabitation, has shown to predict higher rates of relationship dissolution and relationship instability in some samples, but the associations among German parents with children over time are less clear. In this study, we examined the links between non-marital cohabitation and 10-year outcomes (relationship dissolution, relationship adjustment over time, and child internalizing and externalizing symptoms) in 220 German families with preschool-aged children at the initial assessment followed into adolescence. Families were assessed 7 times over the 10 years and retention at the 10-year follow-up was over 92%. After accounting for multiple testing, only mother’s report of better initial interparental communication predicted whether parents were likely to stay together over the course of the 10 years. Adolescents of parents who cohabited were at higher risk for externalizing symptoms 10 years later compared to children of married parents. In addition, although there were no differences between cohabiting couples and married couples at the initial assessment in relationship adjustment, cohabiting mothers who stayed with their partner over the 10 years showed significantly greater declines in relationship adjustment over the 10 years compared to married mothers. Findings indicate the need for further research that explores family structure and dynamics over time to inform refinement of prevention programs targeting relationships and children’s mental health.

Introduction

In recent years, cohabitation without marriage has become a more socially accepted family structure in many westernized countries ( Cunningham and Thornton, 2005 ; Sassler and Lichter, 2020 ). Approximately 50% of women reported cohabiting with a partner as a first union, with 40% of these transitioning to marriage within 3 years, 27% ending the relationship, and 32% remaining in a cohabiting relationship ( Copen et al., 2013 ). Likewise, there has been an increase in the number of families with children who are cohabiting in many countries over the last half century ( Bumpass and Lu, 2000 ; Kreider, 2005 ; Kennedy and Bumpass, 2008 ). Approximately half of children under 16 in the United States are estimated to live with a mother in a cohabiting relationship at some point during their childhood ( Kennedy and Bumpass, 2008 ).

Similar to the United States, Germany has also experienced increasing rates of cohabitation and non-marital births ( Perelli-Harris et al., 2018 ). According to the most recent statistics, the number of cohabiting couples in Germany has almost doubled to 843,000 since 1996 ( BMFSFJ, 2017 ). The non-marital birth rate has also risen significantly. In 2015, 35% of all new-born children were born to parents who were not married, compared to 10% in 1950 ( BMFSFJ, 2017 ). Of relevance, German social policies and taxation law continue to favor marriage over cohabitation and provides incentives for marital childbearing (e.g., financial advantages, tax splitting, spouse insurance, parental rights in the case of joint legal custody) ( Schnor, 2014 ; Perelli-Harris et al., 2018 ).

The choice to cohabitate rather than marry may reflect views about the institution of marriage and its importance, economic reasons, or other selection differences between those who choose to cohabitate or marry ( Kline et al., 2004 ; Stanley et al., 2004 , 2006 ). Past research with samples from the United States has found that cohabiting couples often differ from married couples. Couples who cohabit rather than marry have lower education ( McGinnis, 2003 ), are more equalitarian in gender roles ( Le Bourdais and Lapierre-Adamcyk, 2004 ), and come from more unstable family backgrounds ( Kamp Dush et al., 2003 ). In some countries, economic barriers to marriage may be more pronounced among couples with children who cohabit ( Lichter, 2012 ).

Findings regarding the differences between non-marital cohabitating and married couples in relation to child and relationship outcomes has been mixed ( Amato, 2015 ; Sassler and Lichter, 2020 ). Cohabitating relationships are less stable than married relationships in many countries (Italy, Great Britian, and Scandinavia: Thomson et al., 2019 ; Germany: Bastin et al., 2012 ; Sweden: Kennedy and Thomson, 2010 ; United States: Kennedy and Bumpass, 2008 ; Australia: Wilkins et al., 2010 ). In some studies, cohabitating couples are also at risk for lower commitment to the relationship ( Stanley et al., 2004 ) and more depressive symptoms ( Stafford et al., 2004 ; Kamp Dush, 2013 ). However, accounting for demographic and other contextual factors, differences may not hold and not all studies find significant differences ( Amato, 2015 ; Sassler and Lichter, 2020 ).

Given the mixed findings in the literature, it is important to better understand whether cohabitation also predicts relationship dissolution and dissatisfaction among couples with children and to examine whether this is linked with the mental health of children. There is limited long-term research on this topic with samples of German parents but results of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies in the United States support non-marital cohabitation among parents as a risk factor for some poor outcomes among children (e.g., Brown, 2004 ; Artis, 2007 ). In one Norwegian study of women followed over the transition to parenthood, women who cohabited reported less relationship satisfaction over the 18-month follow-up period compared to married women ( Mortensen et al., 2012 ). In a study of the United Kingdom Millennium Cohort, the risk for separation before the child’s fifth birthday was 26% for cohabiting parents compared to 9% for married parents ( Callan et al., 2006 ). Further, cohabitation (as well as single status) is associated with increased risk of poor birth health outcomes compared to children of married mothers ( Shah et al., 2011 ). Thus, non-marital cohabitation was linked to an increase in family instability and also to negative implications for children’s health outcomes ( Amato, 2001 ; Osborne and McLanahan, 2007 ; Kalil et al., 2011 ; Kim, 2011 ). Recent research also found that children born to or raised by cohabiting parents are more likely to exhibit internalizing and externalizing problems, show more aggressive behaviors, and experience more difficulties with social relationships than do children born to married parents ( Amato, 2001 ; Brown, 2004 ; Fomby and Osborne, 2010 ; Goldberg and Carlson, 2014 ).

One explanation for these findings may not be relationship status but rather due to the quality of the interparental relationship. Children are particularly at risk when parents’ relationships are conflictual and discordant ( Amato et al., 1995 ; Rhoades, 2008 ). Higher parental conflict is associated with higher behavioral problems and maladjustment among children ( Amato, 2001 ; Osborne and McLanahan, 2007 ; Kalil et al., 2011 ; Kim, 2011 ; Goldberg and Carlson, 2014 ; Davies et al., 2016 ). Further, longitudinal data suggest that interparental conflict is associated with decreases in positive parenting and children’s emotional security, which in turn predicts the development of externalizing and internalizing behavior problems in children ( Schacht et al., 2009 ).

Another explanation for cohabitation being linked with children’s health and parent’s relationship outcomes may be through societal mechanisms. In most European countries non-marital cohabitation has developed into a socially accepted alternative for individuals in close relationships. Compared to the United States, where non-marital cohabitation is often viewed as a stepping stone to marriage ( Sassler and Lichter, 2020 ), cohabitation has become a common form of partnership in Germany, especially for younger birth cohorts ( Nazio and Blossfeld, 2003 ). In fact, data from the German youngest birth cohorts suggested that about 40% of women in Eastern Germany and about 50% in Western Germany have adopted cohabitation before eventually entering into first marriage ( Nazio and Blossfeld, 2003 ). Further, studies found that German couples have even more positive views of living in a cohabitation relationship without marriage intentions than couples in Great Britain and Australia ( Treas et al., 2014 ; Perelli-Harris et al., 2019 ). This suggests that despite German family policy benefits to marriage, cohabitation may be more tolerated in the German society and less stigmatized ( Perelli-Harris et al., 2019 ). As social stigma or social norms against premarital cohabitation has worn off in Germany, one might expect the effect on child mental health and relationship outcomes through social stigma or social norms may be less applicable in comparison to other countries in which non-marital family structures are more stigmatized.

In the present study, we examine whether parents with preschool-aged children (ages 2.5–6 years old) who cohabit or are married are at differential risk for relationship dissolution over the span of 10 years using a prospective sample of German families. As most of the research has been conducted on United States samples rather than international samples, the focus on German parents fills a gap in the literature ( Jose et al., 2010 ). German parents are particularly interesting because, in Germany, there is relatively low levels of social disapproval against non-marital cohabitation compared to other countries ( Lappegård et al., 2014 ). There is also little research that has examined these associations past early childhood into adolescence ( Bulanda and Manning, 2008 ). It is unclear whether parental non-marital cohabitation will relate to adolescent mental health, but it possible that as adolescents start to form their own dating relationships associations with their parent’s relationship history may be significant.

In particular, we were interested in addressing three research questions. First, we were interested in determining whether initial relationship status (non-marital cohabitation vs. marriage) predicted whether couples separated over a 10 year follow-up period (R1) . Parents who cohabit or are married may differ on other variables (e.g., sociodemographic factors or initial relationship quality, initial relationship communication), which may account for any differences in dissolution rates observed. To consider this possibility, we were interested in testing whether differences in rates of relationship dissolution were retained after accounting for any other identifiable differences between cohabiting parents and married parents at the initial assessment.

Second, we were interested in whether cohabiting or married parents who remained together over the 10-year period differed in how satisfied they were over time (R2) . We hypothesized that cohabitation at the initial assessment would predict steeper declines in relationship adjustment over the 10 year period based on findings from other studies followed over shorter periods of time (e.g., Mortensen et al., 2012 ).

Our third research question was to test whether parental intimate relationship variables predicted the presence of significant externalizing and internalizing symptoms among the children, now adolescents, at the 10-year follow-up after controlling for initial symptoms during preschool ages (R3) . We examined whether initial relationship adjustment, initial relationship communication, initial relationship status, and relationship dissolution over time predicted adolescent externalizing and internalizing symptoms as reported by mothers on the widely used Child Behavioral Checklist ( Achenbach and Rescorla, 2000 ).

Materials and Methods

Participants and procedure.

Participants were recruited from preschools in Braunschweig, Germany (see Heinrichs et al., 2005 for more details on the recruitment process) to participate in a randomized controlled trial of a universal primary parenting prevention program (i.e., the Triple-P positive parenting program; Sanders, 1999 ). Briefly, 17 preschools were selected in order to yield a sample representative of a range of social-economic status using the social index of their catchment area via the objective Kita Social Index. Parents, fluent in German, were eligible to participate if they had a child 2 1/2–6 years old attending preschool. Preschools were used for recruitment of a representative sample since most children in Germany attend preschool (“Kindergarten”) due to their widespread availability and low cost. The population response rate was 31% ( N = 280) of those invited to participate ( Heinrichs et al., 2005 ), similar to other international prevention trials ( Sanders, 1999 ). Only parents who were cohabiting or married at pre-assessment were eligible for the current study ( N = 220).

Participants were assessed 7 times over the course of the 10-year study (baseline, approximately 6 months following the initial assessment, 4 additional times every 12 months after the pre-assessment, and 10 years later). Participant retention was excellent across the 10 years; 92.3% of families provided data over the 10 year time period ( n = 203 of the initial 220 cohabiting or married parents). Participants were given 50 Euros for participating in the first assessment. They were provided 20 Euros for all subsequent assessments. This study was approved by the university IRB board and informed consent was provided.

The mean age of the sample was 38.8 (6.0) years old for men and 35.6 (4.5) years old for women at baseline. The target child was 4.0 years old on average at baseline ( SD = 0.97). The majority of the sample reported having an income in the middle range (55%, 1,500–3,000 Euros per month after taxes); 37% reported income greater than 3,000 Euros per month; 5% of the sample reported income of less than 1,500 Euros per month and 3% did not report income information. Eighty-eight percent of men and 9% of women reported working full-time; 2% of men and 47% of women reported working part-time; and 44% of women and 9% of men were unemployed.

In Germany, there are three levels of secondary education (high, middle, and low). Over half of men and women (63 and 58%, respectively) had completed the high level (typically indicative of individuals who attend college); 22% of men and 34% of women completed the middle level (typically indicative of individuals who obtain some specialized training other than a bachelor’s degree) and 16% of men and 7% of women reported the low level (typically indicative of individuals who do not complete high school). Regarding post-secondary education, half of the men (53%) and 37% of women had completed some type of university degree; 12% of men and 27% of women had completed a specialized training or community college degree and 36% of men and women had completed an apprenticeship or had no post-secondary education. The number of children living in the household was 2.1 ( SD = 0.84) on average.

Relationship/Marital Status

Parents’ initial relationship status was measured at baseline assessment among both members of the couple with a categorical variable (married vs. cohabitating, with the higher value indicating cohabitation).

Relationship Stability (Staying Together)

Separation was assessed at the 10-year follow-up with categorical value the categories of “partnered” and “divorced or separated at any time” in the 10-year period; the higher value indicated staying with the same partner over the 10-year period.

Relationship Adjustment

The 7 item Abbreviated Dyadic Adjustment Scale (ADAS; Sharpley and Rogers, 1984 ; Köppe, 2001 ) was used to assess relationship satisfaction (e.g., “How often do you and your partner have a stimulating exchange of ideas.”) over the course of the 10 years (7 time points). Items are scored on a Likert scale from 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating more relationship satisfaction (mothers at baseline α = 0.81, fathers at baseline α = 0.82).

Couple Problem-Solving Communication

Couple communication over the 10 years was assessed with the 7 item communication scale ( Christensen and Sullaway, 1984 ; Kröger et al., 2000 ) rated on a 9 point scale ranging from 1 to 9. Participants were required to indicate the likelihood to which both partners contribute to a discussion and try to solve problems when an issue or problem arises (e.g., “both spouses express feelings to each other,”; “both spouses blame, accuse, or criticize each other”). Internal consistency with this measure was high across both genders (mothers at baseline α = 0.89, fathers at baseline α = 0.88). This measure assesses interparental communication, including conflictual communication and was assessed at baseline in the current paper.

Child Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms

The commonly used Child Behavior Checklist was used to assess mother-reported child internalizing and externalizing symptoms at the initial assessment and at the 10-year follow-up ( Achenbach and Rescorla, 2000 ). This widely used measure asks parents to report the presence and frequency of child behavioral problems (e.g., hits others) and emotional problems (e.g., rapid changes between sadness and excitement) using a three step format (0 = not true; 1 = somewhat or sometimes true; 2 = very true or often true). The internal consistencies are high in this sample (internalizing symptoms at baseline α = 0.87, externalizing symptoms at baseline α = 0.90). The age-appropriate German versions of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL 1 1/2–5 and CBCL 4–18) for children aged 1 1/2–5 years and 4–18 years were used at pre-assessment and the CBCL 4–18 was used at the 10-year follow-up. Since the two age-dependent versions cannot be directly compared, scores were converted to Z scores at the pre-assessment (in accordance with the recommendation from the author; T. Achenbach, personal communication, March 2008) and analyzed as a continuous variable due to the version differences. Ten year outcomes were the presence of internalizing symptoms and externalizing symptoms at or above the borderline to clinically significant cut-offs. Approximately 20% of children had externalizing problems and 23% had internalizing symptoms at the 10-year follow-up.

Analytical Strategy

For all analyses, models were run using full information maximum likelihood estimation with robust statistics in Mplus ( Muthén and Muthén, 2012 ). Prior to testing the first research question ( R1 ), we examined any baseline differences between cohabitors and married parents using t -tests or chi-square tests, where appropriate. Any significant differences were included as covariates in the models predicting whether couples stayed together at the 10-year follow-up. The covariate examined included whether they participated in the Triple P parenting program, whether they participated in the 10-year follow-up or dropped out, child age, parental age, child gender, number of siblings, child behavioral or emotional problems, parenting skills, couple communication, relationship adjustment, parental depressive symptoms, parental anxious symptoms, parental secondary education, post-secondary education, family income and stress levels. Two regression models were tested for mothers and fathers. The first model included initial relationship status and relationship communication at the pre-assessment, and controlled for any pre-assessment differences between cohabiting and married parents. The second model included relationship satisfaction instead of communication due to their shared variance (i.e., collinearity).

For the second research question ( R2 ), we sought to examine whether relationship status predicted relationship adjustment over time among parents who stayed together. We used latent growth curve analyses to examine the trajectories of relationship adjustment over the 10-year period. Models were run separately for men and women to examine the impact of relationship status on the relationship adjustment of each gender (rather than the couple) and due to the smaller sample size for fathers. Specifically, we examined whether the latent slope of relationship adjustment over the 10 years was predicted by relationship status at pre-assessment.

In the last set of analyses for research question three ( R3 ), we conducted regression analyses in a structural equation modeling framework with MPlus statistical software to test whether relationship status at the initial assessment, relationship stability over the course of the 10 years, and initial relationship adjustment predicted the presence of mother reported children’s internalizing and externalizing symptoms at the 10-year follow-up. A variety of the initial assessment variables were included in the model as controls including demographic variables, treatment condition, and mental health symptoms of children. None of the covariates besides baseline mental health symptoms of the children were significant, so only this variable was retained in the models. Analyses were run a second time included relationship communication at the initial assessment as a predictor rather than relationship adjustment at the initial assessment.

Relationship Status and Separation Over Time (R1)

Descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables are provided in Supplementary Material for fathers and mothers. Fifty percent of cohabiting parents and 17.1% of married couples at baseline separated over the 10 year period based on analyses with participants who reported data at the 10 year follow-up ( n = 203). Rates were similar when the full sample was analyzed regardless of dropout time point (52.2% of cohabitating parents vs. 15.7% of married parents, based on sample N = 220) or when only parents who provided data at least through the 4 year follow-up were analyzed (52.2% of cohabitating parents vs. 16.2% of married parents, based on sample n = 214).

To consider that pre-assessment differences between cohabiting and married parents may explain a difference in rates of separation, we compared cohabiting and married parents at pre-assessment on study variables with independent t -tests or chi-square tests. There were no significant differences at pre-assessment between cohabiting parents and married parents on whether they participated in the Triple P parenting program, whether they participated in the 10 year follow-up or dropped out, child age, child gender, number of siblings, child behavioral or emotional problems, parenting skills, couple communication, relationship adjustment, parental depressive symptoms, parental anxious symptoms, parental secondary education, mother’s post-secondary education, or mother’s reported stress levels ( p s > 0.05). There were, however, significant differences at pre-assessment based on a few sociodemographic variables such that cohabiting parents were younger (mothers t = 3.61, p = 0.000, fathers t = 3.04, p = 0.003) and reported less monthly family income than married parents ( t = 4.69, p = 0.000). In addition, cohabiting fathers reported more stress ( t = –2.49, p = 0.014) and less post-secondary education than married fathers (fathers χ 2 = 8.05, p = 0.018).

Results for RQ1 are shown in Table 1 . Models for mothers included the covariates age and family income. Due to the covariance between relationship adjustment and communication ( r = 0.71), models were estimated with each of these variables separately. Results in Table 1 show that relationship communication at pre-assessment significantly predicted relationship stability at 10 years after accounting for all significant pre-differences. For men, there were more covariates included in the model since more differences based on relationship status were observed at baseline. Income, not shown, was also tested and did not significantly predict relationship status in any of the models. This variable was removed since it reduced the sample size due to some missing data on income at baseline, which reduces sample size even when using procedures such as full information maximum likelihood to account for missingness. There were no significant predictors in the men’s models after accounting for multiple testing with a Bonferroni correction.

Table 1. Baseline predictors of relationship stability (staying together) over the 10 years.

Relationship Status and Relationship Adjustment Over Time in Long-Term Relationships (R2)

To further examine the course of relationship adjustment over time for cohabiting couples and married couples, the means and standard deviations of relationship adjustment over time for couples who stayed together and were married or cohabitating are presented in Table 2 ( n = 161) for each year time point. Using latent growth curve analyses, latent slope of relationship adjustment over the 10-year follow-up was predicted from relationship status (cohabiting or married at pre-assessment). When including covariates as described above and listed in Table 1 (e.g., age and income for women), the pattern of results did not change. The model was estimated with maximum likelihood estimation with robust statistics to account for non-normality in the data using Mplus 7.1 statistical software ( Muthén and Muthén, 2012 ). The growth curve slope for relationship adjustment was modeled based on time of the assessment (0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10). The linear model was a good fit to the data for mothers (χ 2 = 67.95, df = 33, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.95) and fathers (χ 2 = 43.44, df = 33, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98). Relationship status predicted a declining slope for relationship adjustment over the 10-year follow-up for mothers ( b = –0.35, SE = 0.17, Z = –2.10, p = 0.036), but not for fathers ( b = 0.12, SE = 0.14, Z = –0.89, p = 0.375). Thus, cohabiting mothers exhibited a 0.35 point greater decrease (or smaller increase) in relationship adjustment per year than did married mothers. To further explore these trends, we examined mean differences in relationship adjustment over time. There was no significant difference in mean relationship adjustment among cohabiting and married parents at earlier time points, but at the 10-year time point, cohabiting mothers who had remained with their partners, reported lower levels of relationship adjustment than married mothers who remained in their relationships ( p = 0.011).

Table 2. Relationship adjustment of those couples who stayed together over the 10 Years.

Baseline Relationship Variables, Relationship Stability and Children’s Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms at the 10-Year Follow-Up (R3)

Lastly, we examined whether relationship variables significantly predicted mothers’ report of children’s externalizing and internalizing symptoms at the 10-year follow-up. Mothers’ report was used for these analyses due to the higher retention among mothers compared to fathers. Results are shown in Table 3 . Cohabitation at pre-assessment significantly predicted more externalizing symptoms of children at the 10-year follow-up; externalizing symptoms of children at pre-assessment was also a significant predictor of 10-year outcome. For internalizing behaviors at 10-year follow-up, only pre-assessment internalizing behaviors significantly predicted 10-year report of internalizing behaviors.

Table 3. Predictors of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms at the 10-year follow-up.

Analyses were run a second time with relationship communication at the pre-assessment as an independent variable in the models (see Table 3 ) rather than relationship adjustment. Relationship communication at pre-assessment was not a significant predictor of children’s externalizing or internalizing symptoms at the 10-year follow-up ( p s > 0.05).

Several interesting and important findings emerged from the current study of families. Using a prospective sample followed over 10 years with over 92% retention at the 10-year follow-up among mothers, we examined the impacts of initial relationship variables on parental relationship outcomes and child mental health symptoms 10 years later. Results showed that cohabiting non-married parents were almost three times more likely than married parents to end their relationship over the course of the 10-year period (50 vs. 17%). However, after accounting for covariates and multiple testing, this difference in risk for dissolution was no longer statistically significant. The only significant predictor of relationship dissolution was interparental relationship communication at baseline reported by mothers. Although, among the cohabiting parents who stayed together over the 10 year period, cohabitation (compared to marriage) predicted significant declines in mother’s relationship adjustment over time.

Further, cohabitation also was associated with children’s externalizing symptoms. Children whose parents were cohabiting at the initial assessment were more likely to experience higher levels of externalizing symptoms 10 years later even after controlling for initial symptoms. We did not, however, find an association of cohabitation and children’s internalizing symptoms. These findings are consistent with existing research which have shown that parents’ relationship quality and children’s externalizing problems are reciprocally related, but not children’s internalizing problems ( Fomby and Cherlin, 2007 ; Osborne and McLanahan, 2007 ; Fomby and Estacion, 2011 ; Goldberg and Carlson, 2014 ). It is not surprising that cohabitation associations were observed only for children’s externalizing problems and may be related to measurement issues. Adolescents’ report of their own internalizing symptoms may be more reliable than their mothers’ report since they may not disclose their own emotional symptoms to their mother ( Goldberg and Carlson, 2014 ).

The emotional security theory ( Davies and Cummings, 1994 ) may advance an understanding of how non-marital cohabitation relates with children’s externalizing symptoms. In the emotional security theory, interparental conflict has been shown to play a key role in risk for children’s poor adjustment ( Cummings et al., 2006 ). Our findings indicate that parents’ initial relationship status is related to children’s externalizing symptoms, regardless of parents’ initial relationship adjustment, relationship communication, and relationship dissolution over time. Theoretically, cohabitation may increase feelings of emotional insecurity in the parental relationship regardless of parents’ initial relationship adjustment and relationship communication or it may be that destructive communication moderates or mediates the association with child maladjustment. Thus, it could be that the risk for externalizing symptoms based on early cohabitation status of parents may be accounted for interparental conflict more specifically. These possibilities could be explored in future studies.

Taken together, these findings partially support the importance of cohabitation for understanding the longitudinal parental relationship and child behavior outcomes. It is also interesting to note that other relationship variables, such as initial relationship adjustment and relationship communication, did not predict outcomes at 10 years for children. Thus, the results indicate that cohabitation may be a useful factor that identifies parents in need of relationship education programs, even when their initial relationship adjustment does not indicate a risk. Relationship education programs have been shown to be effective in many countries including Germany ( Hawkins et al., 2008 ; Hahlweg and Richter, 2010 ).

These results should not be interpreted to imply that cohabiting relationships confer no benefits. Compared to single individuals and dating relationships both cohabitation and marriage show benefits for mental health ( Osborne and McLanahan, 2007 ; Rhoades et al., 2009 ; Amato, 2015 ). In a representative United States sample, entering a cohabiting relationship or a marital relationship was followed by improvements in mental health (e.g., lower suicide risk and depressive symptoms) among individuals followed through their twenties. Nonetheless, there appears to be some features of cohabitation without marriage that place parents at higher risk for dissatisfaction over time. In our study, this was demonstrated among parents with children from preschool age to adolescence. A next step would be to examine these patterns among older adolescents entering new dating relationships to see whether findings can be replicated and expanded on with more rigorous assessments of family dynamics and structure over time.

Although this study identifies cohabitation as a significant predictor of relationship and child outcomes, it does not address the reason for the associations with cohabitation. One perspective is that those who cohabit are different from those who marry and this explains these differences in outcomes (called the social selection perspective, James and Beattie, 2012 ). A second perspective is that there is something intrinsic to the cohabitation experience over time that explains differences in outcomes. Previous studies have found support for the second perspective in such that initial differences do not account for cohabitation and its association with relationship stability and quality ( Kamp Dush et al., 2003 ; James and Beattie, 2012 ).

Previous research also indicates that the association between cohabitation and marital dissolution particularly affects those who cohabited before engagement but not after engagement or not at all until marriage ( Rhoades et al., 2009 ). Recent research also found that in the first year of marriages, couples who had cohabited before marriage had lower rates of marital dissolution compared to couples who did not cohabit before marriage. This finding on marital stability disappeared over time; meaning that premarital cohabitation may have short-term benefits for couples, but long-term costs for marital stability still remain ( Rosenfeld and Roesler, 2019 ). Further studies should take these findings into account, as well as assess serial relationships, when evaluating the association between cohabitation, children’s mental health and parents’ relationship outcomes.

Strengths and Limitations

There are several strengths of this study worthy of mention. In particular, the use of the prospective design across such a long time period of 10 years and the excellent retention across time adds to the confidence in the study results. Further, as far as we are aware, this is one of the only studies that has examined the effects of cohabitation among German parents followed over such a long time period. Other strengths include the use of statistical controls for other confounding effects and the examination of trajectories of relationship adjustment over time with latent growth curve modeling.

Moreover, as noted in the meta-analysis of cohabitation by Jose et al. (2010) , there has been a relative dearth of studies with international samples. In Germany, cohabitation and raising children is more culturally accepted than it is in the United States, and accordingly, there is less stigma associated with such arrangements and less pressure to marriage. Although subcultural differences exist within German families in which pressure to marry may vary and cohabitation may be more or less accepted, by conducting this study in a country in which overall tolerance of non-marital family structures is more accepted, the results support the theory that the cohabitation findings are not fully explained by societal pressure. In a large study of Norwegian mothers followed from pregnancy for 18 months, cohabitation was also a predictor of lower relationship adjustment and this remained constant over time ( Mortensen et al., 2012 ). Thus, in countries in which social disapproval of cohabitation is relatively low ( Lappegård et al., 2014 ), the link between marital status and relationship stability among parents still emerge (see also Rosenfeld and Roesler, 2019 ). Other studies have suggested that the effects of cohabitation in comparison to marriage may be larger in countries where cohabitation is uncommon, less socially accepted and where traditional gender roles are common ( Soons and Kalmijn, 2009 ; Lee and Ono, 2012 ). Of course, further studies would be needed to systematically test mechanisms through which cohabitation impacts parental relationship outcomes and children’s externalizing symptoms over time.

There are also several limitations. The sample size was adequate but not extremely large and there were less cohabiting couples than married couples. Findings will need to be replicated with a larger sample. In addition, the sample consisted of parents who participated in an RCT of a brief group parenting intervention 10 years earlier, which is an important consideration for generalizability of the study findings. Participation in the study program was controlled for in all analyses and was not a statistically significant predictor of any outcomes examined in the current sample. Further, although prospective, the study cannot confirm causal relationships between variables and we were not able to determine when separation or divorce occurred over the 10 years. An additional limitation due to parent’s participation the study program is that parent’s initial relationship status was assessed among children in a specific age range (2 1/2–6 years). Thus, it cannot be ascertained whether parents were cohabiting or married at their child’s birth.

One limitation related to the measurement of interparental conflict was solely assessed by parent’s communication behavior. Since interparental conflict can take many forms, future studies could be improved by including different measures that account for several aspects of interparental conflict. Studies that examine co-parenting practices in the context of relationship status changes such as separations are also needed as cooperative co-parenting has been shown to relate to less externalizing and internalizing symptoms in children post-divorce ( Lamela et al., 2015 ). Lastly, although efforts were made to recruit a sample representative of the region sampled, only a third of eligible parents contacted through preschools agreed to participate in this study. This participation rate is similar to rates found in the existing literature, but nonetheless, the current sample may differ from the population of parents in ways which are unknown.

Clinical Implications

Non-marital cohabitation is increasingly common and should be more integrated into couple- and parenting-focused programs. Evidence-based relationship education programs may be especially useful in helping individuals at risk clarify their relationship’s future, in particular regarding to marital intentions and commitment ( Rhoades et al., 2006 ). Further, an increasing number of studies indicate that relationship-focused programs for couples alone or combined with parenting programs are an effective way to strengthen marriage, parenting behavior, and improve children’s adjustment and behavioral development ( Schulz et al., 2006 ; Zemp et al., 2006 ). Couple- and parenting-focused programs aimed at cohabiting non-married couples with or without children could address important factors such as family instability and change, mother’s relationship adjustment, children’s emotional security related to parent’s relationship status, the meaning of cohabitation, commitment levels, and other risk factors such as those related to destructive conflict communication ( Kline et al., 2004 ; Rhoades et al., 2006 ; Stanley et al., 2006 ). Addressing such factors at an early stage might provide some buffer against any long-term negative effects on parental relationship outcomes and children’s behavioral problems and may foster emotional security in the family. Further studies are need that assess relationship changes dynamically among parenting samples and consider protective effects.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, upon request and in compliance with data management procedures for this project.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Technical University of Braunschweig IRB. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the caregivers.

Author Contributions

HF conceptualized the study, conducted the analyses, and wrote the first draft. JM contributed significant intellectual content, including some analyses and edits to revise the manuscript. WS and KH were involved in the original study on which this manuscript was based (Future Families Study) and contributed significantly to editing and revising the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

The manuscript was supported by grants from the German Research Foundation (FO 788/1-2 & HA 1400/14-1-3; 4-5).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.746306/full#supplementary-material

Achenbach, T. M., and Rescorla, L. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA Preschool Forms & Profiles: An Integrated System of Multi-informant Assessment. Burlington, VT: ASEBA.

Google Scholar

Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) Meta-Analysis. J. Fam. Psychol. 15, 355–370. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.355

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Amato, P. R. (2015). Marriage, cohabitation and mental health. Melbourne, VIC: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 96.

Amato, P. R., Loomis, L. S., and Booth, A. (1995). Parental divorce, marital conflict, and offspring well-being during early adulthood. Soc. Forces 73, 895–915.

Artis, J. E. (2007). Maternal cohabitation and child well-being among kindergarten children. J. Marriage Fam. 69, 222–236. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00355.x

Bastin, S., Kreyenfeld, M., and Schnor, C. (2012). “Diversität von Familien in Ost- und Westdeutschland,” in Familie(n) heute: Entwicklungen, Kontroversen, Prognosen , eds D. Krüger, H. Herma, and A. Schierbaum (Weinheim: Juventa), 126–145.

BMFSFJ (2017). Family Report 2017 : Benefits, Effects, Trends. Glinkastraße: German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs.

Brown, S. L. (2004). Family structure and child well-being: The significance of parental cohabitation. J. Marriage Fam. 66, 351–367. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00025.x

Bulanda, R. E., and Manning, W. D. (2008). Parental cohabitation experiences and adolescent behavioral outcomes. Populat. Res. Policy Rev. 27, 593–618.

Bumpass, L. L., and Lu, H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Populat. Stud. 54, 29–41. doi: 10.1080/713779060

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Callan, S., Benson, H., Coward, S., Davis, H., Gill, M., Grant, H., et al. (2006). Breakdown Britain: Fractured families. London: Social Policy Justice Group.

Christensen, A., and Sullaway, M. (1984). Communication Patterns Questionnaire. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.

Copen, C. E., Daniels, K., and Mosher, W. D. (2013). First premarital cohabitation in the United States: 2006 – 2010 National Survey of Family Growth. Natl. Health Statist. Rep. 64, 1–15.

Cummings, E. M., Schermerhorn, A. C., Davies, P. T., Goeke-Morey, M. C., and Cummings, J. S. (2006). Interparental discord and child adjustment: Prospective investigations of emotional security as an explanatory mechanism. Child Dev. 77, 132–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00861.x

Cunningham, M., and Thornton, A. (2005). The influences of parents’ and offsprings’ experience with cohabitation, marriage, and divorce on attitudes toward divorce in young adulthood. J. Divorce Remarriage 44, 119–144. doi: 10.1300/J087v44n01_07

Davies, P. T., and Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis.. Psychological Bulletin 116, 387–411. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.387

Davies, P. T., Martin, M. J., and Sturge-Apple, M. L. (2016). “Emotional security theory and developmental psychopathology,” in Developmental Psychopathology , eds P. T. Davies, M. J. Martin, and M. L. Sturge-Apple (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester), 199–264. doi: 10.1002/9781119125556.devpsy106

Fomby, P., and Cherlin, A. J. (2007). Family Instability and Child Well-Being. Am. Sociol. Rev. 72, 181–204. doi: 10.1177/000312240707200203

Fomby, P., and Estacion, A. J. (2011). Cohabitation and children’s externalizing behavior in low-income Latino families.. Journal of Marriage & Family , 1, 46–66. doi: 10.1177/000312240707200203

Fomby, P., and Osborne, C. (2010). The influence of union instability and union quality on children’s aggressive behavior. Soc. Sci. Res. 39, 912–924. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.02.006

Goldberg, J. S., and Carlson, M. J. (2014). Parents’ relationship quality and children’s behavior in stable married and cohabiting families. J. Marriage Fam. 76, 762–777. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12120

Hahlweg, K., and Richter, D. (2010). Prevention of marital instability and distress. Results of an 11-year longitudinal follow-up study. Behav. Res. Therapy 48, 377–383. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2009.12.010

Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., Baldwin, S. A., and Fawcett, E. B. (2008). Does marriage and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 76, 723–734. doi: 10.1037/a0012584

Heinrichs, N., Bertram, H., Kuschel, A., and Hahlweg, K. (2005). Parent recruitment and retention in a universal prevention program for child behavior and emotional problems: Barriers to research and program participation. Prevent. Sci. 6, 275–286. doi: 10.1007/s11121-005-0006-1

James, S. L., and Beattie, B. A. (2012). Reassessing the link between women’s premarital cohabitation and marital quality. Soc. Forces 91, 435–662. doi: 10.1093/sf/sos126

Jose, A., O’Leary, K. D., and Moyer, A. (2010). Does premarital cohabitation predict subsequent marital stability and marital quality? A meta-analysis. J. Marriage Fam. 72, 105–116. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00686.x

Kalil, A., Mogstad, M., Rege, M., and Votruba, M. (2011). Divorced father’s proximity and children’s long run outcomes: Evidence from Norwegian Register Data. Demography 48, 1005–1027. doi: 10.1007/s13524-011-0046-z

Kamp Dush, C. M. (2013). Marital and cohabitation dissolution and parental depressive symptoms in fragile families. J. Marriage Fam. 75, 91–109. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01020.x

Kamp Dush, C. M., Cohan, C. L., and Amato, P. R. (2003). The relationship between cohabitation and marital quality and stability: Change across cohorts? J. Marriage Fam. 65, 539–549. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00539.x

Kennedy, S., and Bumpass, L. (2008). Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Res. 19, 1663–1692. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.47

Kennedy, S., and Thomson, E. (2010). Children’s experiences of family disruption in Sweden: Differential by parent education over three decades. Demographic Res. 23, 479–508. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2010.23.17

Kim, H. S. (2011). Consequences of parental divorce for child development. Am. Sociol. Rev. 76, 487–511. doi: 10.1177/0003122411407748

Kline, G. H., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Olmos Gallo, P. A., Peters, M., Whitton, S. W., et al. (2004). Timing is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased risk for poor marital outcomes. J. Fam. Psychol. 18, 311–318. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.311

Köppe, E. C. (2001). Glückliche Eltern – Liebe Kinder? Auswirkungen von Partnerschaft und psychischer Symptomatik der Eltern auf das Verhalten ihrer Kinder. Braunschweig: TU Braunschweig.

Kreider, R. M. (2005). “Number, timing, and duration of marriage and divorces: 2001,” in Current Population Reports , (Washington, DC: US Census Bureau), 70–97.

Kröger, C., Hahlweg, K., Braukhaus, C., Fehm-Wolfsdorf, G., Groth, T., and Christensen, A. (2000). Fragebogen zur Erfassung partnerschaftlicher Kommunikationsmuster (FPK): Reliabilität und Validität [The German version of the Communication Patterns Questionnaire: Reliability and validity]. Diagnostica 46, 189–198. doi: 10.1026//0012-1924.46.4.189

Lamela, D., Figueiredo, B., Bastos, A., and Feinberg, M. (2015). Typologies of post-divorce coparenting and parental well-being, parenting quality and children’s psychological adjustment. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2015:5. doi: 10.1007/s10578-015-0604-5

Lappegård, T., Klüsener, S., and Vignoli, D. (2014). Social norms, economic conditions and spatial variation of childbearing within cohabitation across Europe. Rostock: Max Plank Institute for Demographic Research.

Le Bourdais, C., and Lapierre-Adamcyk, E. (2004). Changes in conjugal life in Canada: Is cohabitation progressively replacing marriage? J. Marriage Fam. 66, 929–942. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00063.x

Lee, K. S., and Ono, H. (2012). Marriage, cohabitation, and happiness: A cross-national analysis of 27 countries. J. Marriage Fam. 74, 953–972. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01001.x

Lichter, D. T. (2012). “Childbearing among cohabiting women: Race, pregnancy, and union transitions,” in Early Adulthood in a Family Context , eds A. Booth et al. (New York, NY: Springer), 209–219. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-1436-0_13

McGinnis, S. L. (2003). Cohabiting, dating, and perceived costs of marriage: A model of marriage entry. J. Marriage Fam. 65, 105–116. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00105.x

Mortensen, Ø, Torsheim, T., Melkevik, O., and Thuen, F. (2012). Adding baby to the equation. Married and cohabiting women’s relationship satisfaction in the transition to parenthood. Fam. Proc. 51, 122–139. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01384.x

Muthén, L. K., and Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus (Version 7.1) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Nazio, T., and Blossfeld, H. P. (2003). The diffusion of cohabitation among young women in West Germany, East Germany and Italy. Eur. J. Populat. 19, 47–82. doi: 10.1023/A:1022192608963

Osborne, C., and McLanahan, S. (2007). Partnership instability and child well-being. J. Marriage Fam. 69, 1065–1083. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00431.x

Perelli-Harris, B., Hoherz, S., Addo, F., Lappegård, T., Evans, A., Sassler, S., et al. (2018). Do Marriage and Cohabitation Provide Benefits to Health in Mid-Life? The Role of Childhood Selection Mechanisms and Partnership Characteristics Across Countries. Populat. Res. Policy Rev. 37, 703–728. doi: 10.1007/s11113-018-9467-3

Perelli-Harris, B., Hoherz, S., Lappegård, T., and Evans, A. (2019). Mind the “Happiness” Gap: The Relationship Between Cohabitation, Marriage, and Subjective Well-being in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and Norway. Demography 56, 1219–1246. doi: 10.1007/s13524-019-00792-4

Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., and Markman, H. J. (2006). Pre-engagement cohabitation and gender asymmetry in marital commitment. J. Fam. Psychol. 20, 553–560. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.553

Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., and Markman, H. J. (2009). The pre-engagement cohabitation effect: A replication and extension of previous findings. J. Fam. Psychol. 23:107. doi: 10.1037/a0014358

Rhoades, K. A. (2008). Children’s responses to interparental conflict: A meta-analysis of their associations with child adjustment. Child Dev. 79, 1942–1956. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01235.x

Rosenfeld, M. J., and Roesler, K. (2019). Cohabitation experience and cohabitation’s association with marital dissolution. J. Marriage Fam. 81, 42–58. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12530

Sanders, M. R. (1999). Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: Towards an empirically validated multilevel parenting and family support strategy for the prevention of behavior and emotional problems in children. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev. 2, 71–90. doi: 10.1023/A:1021843613840

Sassler, S., and Lichter, D. T. (2020). Cohabitation and Marriage: Complexity and Diversity in Union-Formation Patterns. J. Marriage Fam. 82, 35–61. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12617

Schacht, P. M., Cummings, E. M., and Davies, P. T. (2009). Fathering in family context and child adjustment: a longitudinal analysis. J. Family Psychol. 23, 790–797. doi: 10.1037/a0016741

Schnor, C. (2014). The effect of union status at first childbirth on union stability: Evidence from Eastern and Western Germany. European Journal of Population 30, 129–160. doi: 10.1007/s10680-013-9304-7

Schulz, M. S., Cowan, C. P., and Cowan, P. A. (2006). Promoting healthy beginnings: A randomized controlled trial of a preventive intervention to preserve marital quality during the transition to parenthood. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 74, 20–31. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.74.1.20

Shah, P. S., Zao, J., and Ali, S. (2011). Maternal marital status and birth outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Maternal Child Health J. 15, 1097–1109. doi: 10.1007/s10995-010-0654-z

Sharpley, C. F., and Rogers, H. J. (1984). Preliminary validation of the Abbreviated Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Some psychometric data regarding a screening test of marital adjustment. Educat. Psychol. Measure. 44, 1045–1049. doi: 10.1177/0013164484444029

Soons, J. P. M., and Kalmijn, M. (2009). Is marriage more than cohabitation? Well-being differences in 30 European countries. J. Marriage Fam. 71, 1141–1157. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00660.x

Stafford, L., Kline, S. L., and Rankin, C. T. (2004). Married individuals, cohabitors, and cohabitors who marry: A longitudinal study of relational and individual well-being. J. Soc. Pers. Relations. 21, 231–248. doi: 10.1177/0265407504041385

Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., and Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding Versus Deciding: Inertia and the Premarital Cohabitation Effect. Fam. Relat. 55, 499–509. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00418.x

Stanley, S. M., Whitton, S. W., and Markman, H. J. (2004). Maybe I do: Interpersonal commitment and premarital or nonmarital cohabitation. J. Fam. Iss. 25, 496–519. doi: 10.1177/0192513X03257797

Thomson, E., Winker-Dworak, M., and Beaujouan, E. (2019). Contribution of the rise in cohabiting parenthood to family instability: Cohort change in Italy, Great Britian, and Scandinavia. Demography 56, 2063–2082.

Treas, J., Lui, J., and Gubernskaya, Z. (2014). Attitudes on marriage and new relationships: Cross-national evidence on the deinstitutionalization of marriage. Demographic Res. 30, 1495–1526. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.54

Wilkins, R., Warren, D., and Hahn, M. (2010). Families, Incomes and Jobs, Volume 5: A Statistical Report on Waves 1 to 7 of the HILDA Survey. Melbourne, VIC: Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.

Zemp, M., Milek, A., Cummings, E.M., Cina, A., and Bodenmann, G. (2016). How couple- and parent-focused programs affect child behavioral problems: A randomized controlled trial.. Journal of Child and Family Studies 25, 3, 798.810. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0260-1

Keywords : marriage, cohabitation, child externalizing symptoms, relationship adjustment, adolescence

Citation: Foran HM, Mueller J, Schulz W and Hahlweg K (2022) Cohabitation, Relationship Stability, Relationship Adjustment, and Children’s Mental Health Over 10 Years. Front. Psychol. 12:746306. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.746306

Received: 23 July 2021; Accepted: 14 December 2021; Published: 02 February 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Foran, Mueller, Schulz and Hahlweg. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Heather M. Foran, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Articles on cohabitation

Displaying all articles.

La politique étrangère de la France après les législatives : le prix du chaos

Frédéric Charillon , Université Clermont Auvergne (UCA)

Demain, de nouveaux défis pour la satire politique française

Guillaume Grignard , Institut catholique de Lille (ICL)

Un chef de parti peut-il prétendre au poste de premier ministre sans être candidat aux élections législatives ?

Dorothée Reignier , Sciences Po Lille

Législatives : comment une cohabitation rebattrait les cartes entre le président et son premier ministre 

Alexandre Frambéry-Iacobone , Université de Bordeaux

Related Topics

• Assemblée nationale
• Constitution (France)
• élections législatives
• élections législatives 2024
• Emmanuel Macron
• gouvernement
• régime parlementaire
• Vᵉ République

Top contributors

Doctor Europeus en droit (mention histoire du droit – label européen) / chercheur post-doctoral, Université de Bordeaux

Professeur des Universités, directeur du master en relations franco-italiennes, Université Côte d'Azur, Chercheur associé à la Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique (FRS, Paris), professeur et membre du CISS de l'université LUISS de Rome, Université Côte d’Azur

Enseignant chercheur, membre du CERAPS, Université de Lille,, Sciences Po Lille

Chargé d'enseignement et de recherches, Institut catholique de Lille (ICL)

professeur de science politique, Université Clermont Auvergne (UCA)

• X (Twitter)
• Unfollow topic Follow topic

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Marriage and Cohabitation in the U.S.
• 2. Public views of marriage and cohabitation

Table of Contents

• 1. The landscape of marriage and cohabitation in the U.S.
• 3. Why people get married or move in with a partner
• 4. How married and cohabiting adults see their relationships
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

Most Americans find it acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together, even if they don’t plan to get married. A majority also says that married and cohabiting couples can raise children equally well. At the same time, the public still sees societal benefits in marriage, and many say marriage is important, though not necessarily essential, in order for a man or a woman to live a fulfilling life.

Views of marriage and cohabitation vary by age, with younger adults more likely to find cohabitation acceptable and to see it as having a positive impact on a couple’s chances for a successful marriage. Opinions also differ by race and ethnicity, religious affiliation and party.

About two-thirds of adults favor allowing unmarried couples to enter into legal agreements that would give them the same rights as married couples, a view that is particularly common among Democrats and those who lean Democratic. To the extent that the public sees advantages for those who are married versus cohabiting, they say married people generally have it easier when it comes to achieving certain goals.

Most Americans say cohabitation is acceptable even without marriage plans

The vast majority of Americans think it’s acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together. Most Americans (69%) say cohabitation is acceptable even if the couple doesn’t plan to get married, while another 16% say it’s acceptable, but only if the couple plans to marry; 14% say this is never acceptable.

Younger adults are more likely than their older counterparts to find it acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together. About eight-in-ten adults younger than age 30 (78%) say that cohabitation is acceptable even if the couple doesn’t plan to marry, compared with 71% of those ages 30 to 49, 65% of those 50 to 64, and 63% of those 65 and older.

Views on cohabitation differ widely by race and ethnicity. Overall, black adults (55%) are less likely than white (72%) and Hispanic (69%) adults to say that cohabitation is acceptable without marriage plans.

Opinions also vary significantly by religious affiliation. Among adults who are religiously unaffiliated, 90% say it’s acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together even if they don’t plan to get married. Roughly three-quarters of Catholics (74%) and white Protestants who do not self-identify as born-again or evangelical (76%) say the same. Smaller shares of black Protestants (47%) and white evangelical Protestants (35%) share this view.

There are partisan differences in these views as well. About eight-in-ten Democrats and those who lean Democratic (79%) say cohabitation is acceptable without marriage plans, compared with 58% of Republicans and Republican leaners.

Among Republicans, those ages 18 to 29 stand out in their opinions on this issue. About seven-in-ten Republicans younger than 30 (71%) say that cohabitation is acceptable even if the couple doesn’t plan to marry, compared with 58% of those ages 30 to 49, 57% of those 50 to 64, and 50% of those 65 and older. In contrast, Democrats’ views are more uniform across age groups.

Not surprisingly, views on this issue are linked to personal experiences. The overwhelming majority of adults who are currently living with a partner (89%) say cohabitation is acceptable without marriage plans. By comparison, about two-thirds of those who are married (64%) express this view; married adults who lived with their spouse before getting married are much more likely than those who didn’t live together to say this (77% vs. 46%).

Many see societal benefits in marriage

Although cohabitation is widely viewed as acceptable, the public still sees societal benefits in marriage. A slight majority of Americans (53%) say that society is better off if couples who want to stay together long-term eventually get married, while 46% say society is just as well off if they decide not to marry.

Again, views vary considerably by age, race and ethnicity, religious affiliation and party. Overall, adults ages 65 and older (64%) are more likely than those ages 50 to 64 (55%), 30 to 49 (48%) and 18 to 29 (45%) to say society is better off if couples who want to stay together long-term eventually get married. This pattern by age is evident among both Democrats and Republicans.

About six-in-ten black adults (61%) say society is better off if couples who plan to stay together get married in the long run; roughly half of white (52%) and Hispanic (50%) adults say the same.

White evangelicals are among the most likely to say society is better off if couples get married: 78% say this, compared with 69% of black Protestants, 57% of Catholics and 52% of white non-evangelical Protestants. By contrast, among adults who are religiously unaffiliated, just 31% express this view.

Most Republicans (69%) say that society is better off if couples who want to stay together in the long run get married at some point, while a majority of Democrats (59%) say society is just as well off if these couples don’t get married.

These views also vary by marital status and personal experiences with cohabitation. Married adults are far more likely than those who are cohabiting to say society is better off if couples get married (63% vs. 35%).

Majority says cohabiting and married couples can raise children equally well

While many Americans see societal benefits in marriage generally, when asked specifically about raising children, a majority (59%) says that couples who are living together but not married can raise children just as well as married couples. Four-in-ten say married couples do a better job of raising children than couples living together but not married.

Views diverge sharply by age here too. Two-thirds of adults younger than 50 say cohabiting couples can raise children just as well as married couples, compared with 55% of those ages 50 to 64 and 44% of those 65 and older.

Partisan divides are evident on this question as well. Most Democrats believe that cohabiting couples can raise children just as well as married couples can (73% say this). By contrast, a majority of Republicans take the opposite view: 58% say married couples do a better job.

Overall, black (64%) and Hispanic (67%) adults are more likely than white adults (57%) to say cohabiting couples can raise children just as well as those who are married.

Roughly six-in-ten white non-evangelical Protestants (57%) and black Protestants (59%) say cohabiting couples can raise children just as well as married couples, compared with 33% of white evangelicals. Hispanic Catholics are far more likely than white Catholics to say this (73% vs. 48%). About eight-in-ten religiously unaffiliated adults (78%) share this opinion.

Education is also associated with views on this issue. Adults with a bachelor’s degree or more education (54%) are less likely than those with some college or no college experience (61% each) to see cohabiting and married couples as equally capable when it comes to raising children.

About eight-in-ten adults who are currently living with a partner (82%) say cohabiting couples can raise children just as well as married couples. By comparison, 52% of married adults share this view, but married adults who lived with their spouse before getting married are far more likely than those who didn’t live together to say this (65% vs. 34%).

Most Americans say they favor allowing unmarried couples to have the same legal rights as married couples

Roughly two-thirds of adults (65%) favor allowing unmarried couples to enter into legal agreements that would give them the same rights as married couples when it comes to things like health insurance, inheritance or tax benefits (33% strongly favor this).

There are relatively few differences across key demographic groups on this question, but black adults express less support for giving unmarried couples the option to have the same legal rights as married couples: 58% say they favor this, compared with 66% of white and 68% of Hispanic adults.

Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to favor allowing these types of legal agreements for unmarried couples. Roughly three-quarters of Democrats (77%) favor this, including 45% who strongly favor it. By contrast, Republicans are about evenly split: 50% favor and 49% oppose this.

Views on allowing these legal agreements are closely related to whether and under what circumstances people consider cohabitation acceptable. Among those who say it’s acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together even if they don’t plan to get married, 77% favor allowing legal agreements to give unmarried couples the same rights as married couples. Much smaller shares of those who view cohabitation as never acceptable or acceptable only if the couple plans to marry say they favor allowing these legal agreements (20% and 42%, respectively).

Plurality of adults say couples who live together before marriage have a better chance of a successful marriage

When it comes to the impact that living together might have on the success of a couple’s marriage, public opinion is more positive than negative. Roughly half of Americans (48%) say that, compared with couples who don’t live together before marriage, couples who do live together first have a better chance of having a successful marriage; 13% say they have a worse chance and 38% say it doesn’t make much difference.

Views on this question are strongly linked to age: 63% of adults younger than 30 say couples who live together before marriage have a better chance at a successful marriage, compared with 52% of those ages 30 to 49, 42% of those ages 50 to 64 and 37% of those 65 and older.

For the most part, opinions on this don’t vary much by race and ethnicity or education, but there are some differences by gender. Men are more likely than women to say couples have a better chance of a successful marriage if they live together first (53% vs. 45%). Alternatively, larger shares of women (42%) than men (33%) say it doesn’t make a difference.

Views also vary by partisanship. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say couples who live together before marriage have a better chance of a successful marriage (57% vs. 40%), while Republicans are more likely to say they have a worse chance (21% vs. 7%).

Again, personal experiences are connected to thinking on this issue. Married adults who lived with their spouse before getting married are far more likely than those who didn’t to see living together first as increasing a couple’s chances for marital success (57% vs. 24%). Conversely, married adults who didn’t live with their spouse before getting married are among the most pessimistic about how premarital cohabitation might impact a marriage: 32% say this worsens a couple’s chance of having a successful marriage.

Majorities see committed relationships, marriage as important, but not essential, for living a fulfilling life

About seven-in-ten Americans say that, for a man or a woman to live a fulfilling life, being married is either essential or is important but not essential. This includes 16% who say this is essential for a man and 17% who say it’s essential for a woman; 54% say being married is important, but not essential, for men and women.

When asked more generally about being in a committed romantic relationship, larger shares see this as important in order to live a fulfilling life. Fully 85% say this is important for a man, including 26% who say it is essential; 87% say it is important for a woman, including 30% who say it is essential. 8

The survey also asked about how important it is for a man or a woman to have children, a job or career they enjoy and a lot of money in order to live a fulfilling life. Of the items included, having a job or career they enjoy tops the list – nearly all Americans say this is important for personal fulfillment for a man or a woman.

While a 57% majority says having a job or career they enjoy is essential for a man to live a fulfilling life, fewer than half (46%) say it is essential for a woman. For the other items, differences in how essential these things are seen for a man versus a woman are less pronounced.

When it comes to the importance of marriage, younger adults are more likely than their older counterparts to say that being married is not important for a man or a woman to live a fulfilling life. For example, 37% of adults younger than 30 say being married is not important for a man, compared with 30% of those ages 30 to 49, 27% of those 50 to 64 and 20% of those 65 and older.

In addition, there is a gender difference in views on how important being married is for a woman. Women are more likely than men to say being married is not important for a woman to live a fulfilling life (31% vs. 24%).

Married and cohabiting adults differ substantially in their opinions on this question. About four-in-ten adults who are living with a partner say being married is not important for a man or a woman to live a fulfilling life; 20% of married adults say the same.

In a separate survey conducted this year, 43% of Americans agreed that the institution of marriage is becoming obsolete, virtually unchanged from when Pew Research Center last asked this question in 2010. 9

Public sees some personal advantages in marriage over cohabitation

When asked whether married or cohabiting people have it easier when it comes to achieving certain goals, Americans generally don’t see much difference. To the extent that people see a difference, married people are seen as having the advantage. About four-in-ten Americans (39%) say a married person has it easier when it comes to being financially secure, and 31% say the same about having social status. Roughly a quarter say a married person has it easier when it comes to having a fulfilling sex life (26%) and being happy (23%). About one-in-ten or fewer say an unmarried person living with a partner has it easier than a married person in these areas.

On each of the four items included in the survey, married adults are more likely than those who are cohabiting to see advantages for a married person. For example, 30% of married adults say a married person has it easier when it comes to being happy; 4% say cohabiters have it easier in this regard. Conversely, among cohabiting adults, just 8% say a married person has the advantage, while 12% say a cohabiting person has it easier.

In addition, men are more likely than women to say a married person has it easier across each of these areas. Adults ages 65 and older tend to see more advantage for married people as well, compared with their younger counterparts.

Even among those who say society is just as well off if couples who want to stay together long-term decide not to marry, marriage is seen as having certain advantages, with 31% saying a married person has it easier when it comes to being financially secure and 25% saying they have an edge in terms of having social status; about one-in-ten say cohabiters have it easier in these areas (10% and 11%, respectively).

• Questions about “being in a committed romantic relationship” and “being married” were each asked of a random half of the sample. ↩
• For details, see the Methodology   section of the report. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Family & Relationships
• Marriage & Divorce
• Unmarried Adults

Same-Sex Marriage Around the World

Cultural issues and the 2024 election, support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in europe, americans overwhelmingly say access to ivf is a good thing, teens and video games today, most popular, report materials.

• 2019 Family Study
• American Trends Panel Wave 50

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Sunday, June 30, 2024 3:28 am (Paris)

• Les Décodeurs
• 2024 French elections

What's a cohabitation in French politics and what are the precedents?

In the history of the Fifth Republic, there have been three cohabitations, a term used in France when the president and prime minister come from opposing political camps. Emmanuel Macron's call for snap parliamentary elections could lead to a fourth.

By  Lili Pateman and Romain Geoffroy

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Messenger
• Share on Facebook
• Share by email
• Share on Linkedin

Following Emmanuel Macron's dissolution of the Assemblée Nationale on Sunday, June 9, early parliamentary elections are scheduled for June 30 and July 7. At the end of these elections, it is far from certain that the presidential camp and its allies will retain their majority. If an opposition party wins an absolute majority, the president will be forced to appoint a prime minister from the party that won the elections. In French politics, this is known as "cohabitation."

Throughout the Fifth Republic, France has experienced three cohabitations after parliamentary elections were won by the opposition. The first took place from 1986 to 1988 when Socialist President François Mitterrand had conservative Jacques Chirac as prime minister; the second during Mitterrand's second term with conservative Edouard Balladur as prime minister, from 1993 to 1995; and finally, a longer one between Chirac as president and Socialist Lionel Jospin as prime minister from 1997 to 2002.

Since 2000, the switch to a five-year presidential term and the modification of the electoral calendar, where legislative elections immediately follow the presidential election, have made cohabitation situations quite unlikely. As a result, the president has consistently won a majority in the Assemblée Nationale in the weeks following his election.

Some observers see the risk of political paralysis in cohabitations, but they are viewed positively by the general public. Above all, a potential cohabitation raises concerns about the distribution of powers between the president and the prime minister.

The president relegated to a more secondary role

According to the Constitution , the country's domestic policy is clearly entrusted to members of the government:

• "The prime minister directs the action of the government, ensures the execution of laws and is responsible for national defense."
• "The government determines and conducts the policy of the nation, it has at its disposal the administration and the armed force."

"In the event of a cohabitation, power clearly lies in the relationship between the prime minister and the Assemblée Nationale," said Dominique Rousseau, a professor at the Université Paris-I-Panthéon-Sorbonne.

In these power-sharing situations, the president has a more secondary role. His own powers are limited, and it is notably he who:

• appoints the prime minister of his choice (who must, however, have the confidence of the Assemblée);
• presides over the council of ministers (but loses influence with them), signs decrees and ordinances and has the power to appoint civil and military state officials;
• can dissolve the Assemblée Nationale (once a year);
• can arrogate executive powers to himself in the event of a "serious and immediate" threat to institutions, the nation's independence, territorial integrity or the fulfillment of international commitments.

The foreign affairs and defense issue

The president is said to have a "reserved domain" in the areas of national defense and foreign affairs. However, the Constitution is far from categorical on this issue. The government "has the administration and the armed forces at its disposal" and "the prime minister is responsible for national defense," according to articles 20 and 21.

On the other hand, the Constitution makes the president the "guarantor of national independence and the integrity of national territory" (article 5), "the head of the armed forces" and says that he "presides over the councils and higher committees of national defense" (article 15). He holds the nuclear codes and he alone decides on the use of this force. In matters of foreign policy, the Constitution provides that the president negotiates and ratifies international treaties (Article 52) and accredits ambassadors (Article 14).

"This is the ambiguity of our 1958 Constitution," said Rousseau. "It reflects the opposing influences of Michel Debré [first prime minister of the Fifth Republic], who wanted a strong prime minister based on the British parliamentary model, and Charles de Gaulle, who wanted to give more weight to the president." This ambiguity obliges the prime minister and the president to reach a certain understanding. This is why, during the three cohabitations, it was customary to choose defense and foreign affairs ministers who appealed to both men in power, in order to avoid friction. "In the past, there was consensus in these areas, but today there are real differences over the role of the European Union or the war in Ukraine, particularly between Emmanuel Macron and the Rassemblement National [far-right]. This seems much more unstable and is likely to pose problems in the event of cohabitations," said the constitutionalist.

Real power to cause trouble

• Powerful voice

While a cohabitation turns the president into a leader of the opposition, his office allows his voice to carry considerable weight with the French people. During the first cohabitation, Mitterrand held a press conferences in which he criticized the policies of Chirac's government. Less than a month after the start of the third cohabitation, in 1997, President Chirac took advantage of the usual July 14 television interview to criticize the first decisions of Jospin's government. He didn't hold back thereafter either.

• The power of nuisance

As the president is the only person empowered to sign decrees and ordinances in the Council of Ministers, the main executive organ of the government, he also has the power to act as a nuisance in the face of an opposition government.

- The decree in the Council of Ministers is a regulatory act (which lays down a law) signed by the president and does not need parliamentary approval.

- The ordinance is a normative text (which sets out a law) presented by the government to adopt measures without going through the usual legislative procedure (Assemblée Nationale and Sénat). Even though the president is the only person empowered to sign it, Parliament must first authorize the government to issue an ordinance and then ratify it.

In July 1986, Mitterrand refused to sign the ordinances on denationalization presented by Chirac's government, which had obtained parliamentary authorization to legislate by ordinance. These provided for the privatization of over 60 industrial groups, undoing the work done by the Socialists when they came to power. Faced with the president's refusal, Chirac had to transform the draft ordinances into a bill, which was quickly passed by the Assemblée Nationale through the use of Article 49.3 of the Constitution, allowing for a bill to be passed without a vote. Although Mitterrand did not have the power to block the bill, this maneuver enabled him to avoid abandoning his convictions, while repositioning himself on the left. He did so again in October 1986 by refusing to sign the ordinances on electoral boundaries, then the one on flexible working hours in December 1986 .

• The power to dissolve the Assemblée Nationale

Finally, the president retains the considerable power to dissolve the Assemblée Nationale. This possibility was unlikely during the first two cohabitations, which were limited to two years pending the presidential election. However, it became believable after the early legislative elections of 1997. After Chirac dissolved the Assemblée Nationale, he had to wait a year before being allowed to call for a new dissolution.

In 1998, he once again had this power, which he did not use, but which acted like the sword of Damocles hanging over Jospin's head. "It's a system of reciprocal neutralization," said political scientist Garrigou. "The president cannot put forth the program on which he was elected, while the prime minister has to govern while avoiding the missteps that would motivate the president to dissolve the Assemblée to win back the legislative elections." For this professor emeritus in political science at the Université Paris-Nanterre, "Lionel Jospin spent the last four years of his government living with the anxiety of dissolution, and did nothing but navigate with the polls." The long and negative experience lasting from 1997 to 2002 led the two leaders to reform the electoral system to minimize the chances of cohabitation.

Measures taken during cohabitation

It was evident from the outset of cohabitation that the 1958 Constitution emphasized the prime minister, who enjoyed the support of the Assemblée. "Despite the conflictual nature of cohabitation, the major fear of an impossibility to govern has not been borne out," wrote Alain Garrigou in his book La Politique en France ("Politics in France") in 2017.

According to the writer, 105 laws were passed during the first cohabitation period, without there ever being a definitive blockage. Chirac's government was able to unravel what the previous government had done: As early as 1986, it privatized companies nationalized in 1981, reversed the introduction of proportional representation in legislative elections decided by the Socialists a year earlier and reintroduced majority voting. In August 1986, the government canceled the concessions of two private TV channels, TV6 and La Cinq. "It also passed laws on the security and residence of foreigners: expulsion by prefectural decision, restriction of access to the 10-year residence permit," said Garrigou.

The second cohabitation, that of Mitterrand and Balladur, was not synonymous with paralysis either. The conservative prime minister was able to continue the previous cohabitationion's unfinished neoliberal program. A law privatizing 21 companies was enacted in July 1993. A pension reform applicable to private-sector employees was adopted: The contribution period required to obtain a full pension was gradually increased from 37.5 to 40 years, and the amount of the pension was calculated on the basis of 25 years' salary, compared with 10 previously.

According to the writer, 105 laws were passed during the first cohabitation period, without there ever being a number of left-wing measures. In December 1997, it presented its reform to reduce working hours. Chirac condemned it as an "authoritarian and general measure," but the 35-hour working week reform passed – through two laws, in 1998 and 2000, before being applicable to all companies from 2002. Among the main laws passed under this government , and to which Chirac was opposed, were also the law introducing universal health coverage in July 1999 and the creation of the civil solidarity pact in October 1999.

Lili Pateman and Romain Geoffroy

Translation of an original article published in French on lemonde.fr ; the publisher may only be liable for the French version.

Lecture du Monde en cours sur un autre appareil.

Vous pouvez lire Le Monde sur un seul appareil à la fois

Ce message s’affichera sur l’autre appareil.

Parce qu’une autre personne (ou vous) est en train de lire Le Monde avec ce compte sur un autre appareil.

Vous ne pouvez lire Le Monde que sur un seul appareil à la fois (ordinateur, téléphone ou tablette).

Comment ne plus voir ce message ?

En cliquant sur «  Continuer à lire ici  » et en vous assurant que vous êtes la seule personne à consulter Le Monde avec ce compte.

Que se passera-t-il si vous continuez à lire ici ?

Ce message s’affichera sur l’autre appareil. Ce dernier restera connecté avec ce compte.

Y a-t-il d’autres limites ?

Non. Vous pouvez vous connecter avec votre compte sur autant d’appareils que vous le souhaitez, mais en les utilisant à des moments différents.

Vous ignorez qui est l’autre personne ?

Nous vous conseillons de modifier votre mot de passe .

Lecture restreinte

Votre abonnement n’autorise pas la lecture de cet article

Pour plus d’informations, merci de contacter notre service commercial.

Subscribe to help support the work of our entire newsroom.

You have opted to refuse the use of cookies while browsing our website, including personalized advertising cookies.

The content of this website is the work of over 530 journalists who deliver high-quality, reliable and comprehensive news and innovative online services every day. This work is supported by additional revenue from advertising and subscriptions.

Already a subscriber ? Sign in

Hear About NCHS Research at the 2024 Academy Health Annual Research Meeting

NCHS has several presentations and poster sessions at the 2024 Academy Health Annual Research Meeting from June 29 to July 2 at the Baltimore Convention Center. Highlights include:

Sunday, June 30

8:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. (Halls A-B, Level 100)

• The session, The Experience of Physicians Who Use Telemedicine Technology: United States, 2021, will provide an overview of how telemedicine use affected office-based physicians’ ability to deliver quality care based on data from the National Electronic Health Records Survey .
• A poster presentation on data from the National Health Interview Survey describes the impact of prescription medication costs for adults with multiple chronic conditions.

3:30 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. (Rooms 324-326, Level 300)

• The Data Capacity to Achieve Health Equity: New Office of the Secretary Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (OS-PCORTF)-funded Data Products panel will highlight projects funded by OS-PCORTF, including work done by NCHS through data linkages. The session aims to disseminate new datasets and tools produced to enable effective and efficient research to advance health equity.

Monday, July 1

9:30 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. (Halls A-B, Level 100)

• A poster presentation on the findings from the National Health Interview Survey -Teen 2021-2022 on the Health Care Transition Planning Among Teenagers with and without a Developmental Disability, provides the first known estimates of Healthcare Transition (HCT) planning based on self-reported data from a population of nationally representative teenagers with and without a current developmental disability.

3:30 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. (Room 315, Level 300)

• The session, Maternal Health Data at the National Center for Health Statistics, will provide an overview of NCHS data systems ( National Vital Statistics System,  the National Survey of Family Growth , and the National Health Care Surveys ) that can be used to examine trends, patterns, and characteristics of important maternal health indicators.

Those attending the Academy Health Annual Research Meeting can also find researchers and representatives from the National Center for Health Statistics in the Exhibit Hall throughout the event.

• abortion surveillance (2)
• acute myocardial infarction (2)
• adolescents (9)
• Adoptions (2)
• Adult Day Service Centers (3)
• Alcohol (2)
• alternative medicine (1)
• Alzheimer's disease (6)
• ambulatory care (6)
• America's Children (3)
• angioplasty (1)
• antidepressants (7)
• Arthritis (2)
• Asian Americans (4)
• Asian Americans (1)
• birth certificate (12)
• births (121)
• Blood Pressure (4)
• body mass index (7)
• Cancer (41)
• cesarean (15)
• children (88)
• cholesterol (14)
• chronic disease (12)
• chronic kidney disease (5)
• cigarettes (7)
• circumcision (5)
• cohabitation (4)
• colonoscopy (5)
• concussion (2)
• contraception (14)
• Coronary atherosclerosis (1)
• COVID-19 (19)
• COVID-19 (4)
• Data Briefs (67)
• National Health Care Surveys (3)
• Deaths (203)
• Dental Care (11)
• dental caries (5)
• Depression (9)
• Depression (1)
• Developmental Disabilities (5)
• diabetes (30)
• diabetes (2)
• Diet & Nutrition (19)
• disability (4)
• disability (2)
• Division of Health Care Statistics (11)
• divorce rate (7)
• drowning (5)
• Drug Overdose Deaths (45)
• Drug use (illegal) (28)
• Drug Use (legal) (27)
• e-cigarettes (8)
• early release (3)
• education level (3)
• elderly (38)
• electronic medical records (18)
• emergency department (34)
• emergency department (2)
• emergency room (12)
• exercise (7)
• extreme obesity (4)
• Fact or Fiction (10)
• fast food (4)
• fathers (2)
• Fetal Mortality (1)
• firearm (6)
• fireworks (1)
• first birth (7)
• food allergies (3)
• Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2)
• Foster Care (1)
• fourth of july (1)
• headache (3)
• Health (20)
• health behaviors (5)
• Health Characteristics (10)
• Health E-Stats (6)
• health insurance (60)
• Health IT (2)
• Health Status (1)
• Diseases and Conditions (14)
• Family Life (3)
• Healthcare and Insurance (8)
• Injuries (3)
• Life Stages and Populations (11)
• Health United States (20)
• healthy people (5)
• Healthy People (1)
• hearing difficulty (4)
• heart attack (11)
• Heart disease (5)
• height and weight tables (4)
• hip replacement surgery (2)
• home birth (3)
• Homicide (1)
• hospitalization (15)
• Household Pulse Survey (1)
• Hypertension (3)
• hysterectomy (2)
• illness (2)
• infertility (2)
• Influenza (21)
• International Statistics Program (1)
• intimate partner violence (1)
• Jessie Davis (1)
• juvenile (3)
• kidney disease (4)
• knee replacment surgery (2)
• leading causes of death (1)
• life expectancy (1)
• mammogram (3)
• Marriage and Divorce (19)
• marriage rate (13)
• maternal mortality (6)
• medical bills (2)
• meditation (2)
• mental health (12)
• midwife (2)
• migrane (3)
• morbid obesity (4)
• mortality (32)
• motor vehicle traffic (6)
• multiple births (9)
• National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (24)
• National Center for Health Statistics (4)
• National Electronic Health Records Survey (5)
• National Health Interview Survey (6)
• National Home and Hospice Care Survey (2)
• National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (1)
• National Hospital Care Survey (6)
• National Hospital Discharge Survey (1)
• National Nursing Home Survey (3)
• National Study of Long-Term Care Providers (14)
• National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery (2)
• National Survey of Family Growth (37)
• National Vital Statistics System (4)
• Native Hawaiian (3)
• nutrition (2)
• obesity (29)
• opioid (18)
• Oral Health (2)
• out-of-wedlock births (5)
• overdose (4)
• pandemic flu (1)
• physical activity (6)
• podcasts (29)
• Prescription Drugs (2)
• Prescription Drugs (1)
• Preterm Births (3)
• protein (1)
• Q & A (2)
• quarantine (1)
• QuickStats (268)
• race/ethnicity (52)
• Release Schedule (1)
• Reproductive Health (15)
• residential care communities (10)
• sexual behavior (18)
• sexual orientation (1)
• shingles (1)
• sick leave (1)
• single mothers (7)
• smoking (1)
• snake bite (2)
• Stat of the Day (62)
• STATCASTS (4)
• Stats of the States (2)
• sudden infant death syndrome (2)
• summer injury (5)
• surgery (1)
• technology (2)
• Teen Births (24)
• teen sucide (3)
• teenagers (2)
• telemedicine (1)
• tuberculosis (3)
• Uncategorized (240)
• uninsured (16)
• Unintentional Injury (11)
• United States(HUS) (1)
• unmarried childbearing (8)
• upcoming publications (1)
• vaccinations (1)
• Veterans (3)
• Viral Hepatits (3)
• Vital Statistics Rapid Release (52)
• Vital Statistics System (1)
• wireless phone usage (10)
• wireless telephone (11)
• WISQARS (1)
• WONDER (18)

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

How political “cohabitation” works in France

Upcoming parliamentary elections could lead to a new period of political friction.

U NDER THE modern French republic, founded by Charles de Gaulle in 1958, elections to the country’s presidency and parliament take place at different votes. Since the constitution was updated in 2000 to shorten the presidential term from seven years to five, the parliamentary election has been held a couple of months after the presidential poll. From 2002 to 2022, at five successive legislative elections, this delivered a government of the same political stripe as the president. France’s upcoming parliamentary election on June 30th and July 7th, however, may well lead to another spell of what is known as “cohabitation”. This could be under Marine Le Pen’s hard-right National Rally ( RN ), or the newly formed hard-left New Popular Front. What is cohabitation, and how does it work?

France has undergone three periods of cohabitation since 1958, each time between the Socialists and the Gaullist right: François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac (1986-88), Mitterrand and Edouard Balladur (1993-95), and Chirac and Lionel Jospin (1997-2002). In theory the constitution is clear about the separation of roles. The government “determines and conducts” national policy. The president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and “guarantor of national independence”, and negotiates international affairs. These days, the president also attends summits of the European Council, which bring together heads of the 27 European Union countries .

In reality, however, matters are more blurred. Regular EU ministerial meetings determine union-wide policy, on matters from trade to immigration. France is represented at such meetings by the government, not the president, providing it with an opportunity to block or delay decisions not to its liking. A policy backed by the president—in the case of the incumbent, Emmanuel Macron, new joint EU defence-related borrowing , for instance—would therefore be vulnerable at the very least to obstruction at ministerial level. Moreover, a presidential foreign-policy decision with budgetary implications, such as an increase in military aid to Ukraine , would require securing the means to do so from the government.

On domestic affairs, the French constitution is fairly clear that the government is in charge, even though the president chairs the weekly cabinet meetings. When the centre-right Chirac was president, for example, he had little choice but to accept the introduction by his Socialist government of the 35-hour maximum working week, a measure he abhorred. The president’s domestic power resides chiefly in his power to delay legislation, by referring it to the Constitutional Council or sending it back to parliament for further examination, and, no sooner than a year after previously doing so, to dissolve the National Assembly again.

The president also has the power to name the prime minister. In the face of potential cohabitation, and in particular a hung parliament, the constitution lays out no criteria by which to do this. The president could nominate a technocrat or politician, and one in command of a parliamentary majority, or not. For the RN , Ms Le Pen says she would put forward her 28-year-old party head, Jordan Bardella (pictured). For the hard-left alliance, no single candidate has yet emerged. Whoever is asked to form a government is not then constitutionally obliged to secure parliamentary approval. Were a minority government then to try to force through legislation—or the budget—without a direct parliamentary vote under article 49.3 of the constitution, it would be vulnerable to the tabling of a no-confidence vote. Then, an absolute majority of all elected deputies would bring down the government. The same rules would apply to a no-confidence motion tabled independently by any deputy who secures the backing of a tenth of elected members. In other words, cohabitation always heralds a spell of executive friction. After July 7th it could lead to a period of instability of exactly the sort that de Gaulle wanted the fifth-republic constitution to prevent. ■

Explore more

More from the economist explains.

Who could plausibly replace Joe Biden?

The Democrats have a deep bench of talent

How could Democrats replace Joe Biden as their candidate for president?

And who could replace him on the ticket?

Why football might (just) be coming home, to Austria

The modern game was created in the coffee houses of Vienna

Why North Korea is sending its rubbish to the South

Trash balloons are a sign of growing tensions on the peninsula

What is the “duck curve”?

An avian graph shows the challenges facing burgeoning solar power

How America’s presidential debates are changing this year

Will the Trump-Biden showdowns be an institution’s last gasp, or a new start?

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Do Marriage and Cohabitation Provide Benefits to Health in Mid-Life? The Role of Childhood Selection Mechanisms and Partnership Characteristics Across Countries

Brienna perelli-harris.

1 University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

6 School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton, Bldg 58, Room 4013, Southampton, SO17 1BJ UK

Stefanie Hoherz

Fenaba addo.

2 University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI USA

Trude Lappegård

3 University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

4 Australian National University, Canberra, ACT Australia

Sharon Sassler

5 Cornell University, Ithaca, NY USA

Marta Styrc

Extensive research has found that marriage provides health benefits to individuals, particularly in the U.S. The rise of cohabitation, however, raises questions about whether simply being in an intimate co-residential partnership conveys the same health benefits as marriage. Here, we use OLS regression to compare differences between partnered and unpartnered, and cohabiting and married individuals with respect to self-rated health in mid-life, an understudied part of the lifecourse. We pay particular attention to selection mechanisms arising in childhood and characteristics of the partnership. We compare results in five countries with different social, economic, and policy contexts: the U.S. (NLSY), U.K. (UKHLS), Australia (HILDA), Germany (SOEP), and Norway (GGS). Results show that living with a partner is positively associated with self-rated health in mid-life in all countries, but that controlling for children, prior separation, and current socio-economic status eliminates differences in Germany and Norway. Significant differences between cohabitation and marriage are only evident in the U.S. and the U.K., but controlling for childhood background, union duration, and prior union dissolution eliminates partnership differentials. The findings suggest that cohabitation in the U.S. and U.K., both liberal welfare regimes, seems to be very different than in the other countries. The results challenge the assumption that only marriage is beneficial for health.

Introduction

Extensive research has found that marriage provides health benefits to individuals (e.g., Waite and Gallagher 2002 ; Wood et al. 2007 ; Hughes and Waite 2009 ; Umberson 1992 ; Williams et al. 2011 ; Robles et al. 2014 ; Grundy and Tomassini 2010 ). Health benefits may accrue due to the protective effects of marriage, which often boosts economic resources (Waite and Gallagher 2002 ), provides social and emotional support (Ross et al. 1990 ; Umberson et al. 2010 ), links individuals to social networks (Umberson and Montez 2010 ), and encourages greater social control (Umberson et al. 2010 ). The rise of cohabitation, however, and its similarity to marriage in form and function, raises questions about whether simply being in an intimate co-residential partnership conveys the same health benefits as marriage (Musick and Bumpass 2012 ; Wu and Hart 2002 ). Some research indicates that cohabitation is becoming similar to marriage, for example, as a way to start co-residential partnerships and a setting for having and raising children (Perelli-Harris et al. 2012 ). Cohabiting unions are increasing in duration and less likely to end in marriage (Beaujouan and Ní Bhrolcháin 2011 ; Heuveline and Timberlake 2004 ; Wiik and Dommermuth 2011 ). Indeed, cohabitation is a heterogeneous type of union that includes short-term dating-like relationships, couples who are on their way to marriage, and long-term partnerships indistinguishable from marriage (Hiekel et al. 2014 ; Perelli-Harris et al. 2014 ). As a result, cohabiting unions, especially if they are of longer duration and involve childrearing, may provide many of the same advantages to health that marriage does, despite the lack of legal recognition.

Nonetheless, prior studies have found that on average cohabitation and marriage differ along several dimensions. Many studies have found that cohabitation is a less stable family type, even for couples who have had children (Andersson et al. 2017 ; Musick and Michelmore 2016 ), which raises questions about whether cohabitation, and particularly cohabitation dissolution, may be detrimental to health and well-being (Tavares and Aassve 2013 ). Across countries, cohabitors are more likely to dissolve their unions (Galezewska 2016 ), have lower life satisfaction (Soons and Kalmijn 2009 ) and lower relationship quality (Wiik et al. 2012 ). Studies from individual countries, mostly from the U.S., indicate that cohabitors are more likely to be depressed (Brown 2000 ; Lamb et al. 2003 ), have slightly worse health (Musick and Bumpass 2012 ), and higher mortality (Liu and Reczek 2012 ). In general, cohabitation, especially childbearing within cohabitation, seems to be associated with a pattern of disadvantage (McLanahan 2004 ; Perelli-Harris et al. 2010 ) that continues across the lifecourse. One of the key issues, therefore, is to what extent poor health among cohabitors is due to the disadvantages that select individuals into cohabitation, rather than the effect of cohabitation itself.

Here, we focus on whether selection mechanisms in early life select individuals into different partnership types and subsequently produce differential health outcomes in mid-life. Mid-life is typically understudied in family demography, especially cross-nationally. We define mid-life as 40–49 for data reasons, but this age range is also important, because most individuals have entered into adulthood and made decisions about whether to marry, even if they postponed marriage. Most people, especially women, have completed their childbearing, but may be in the middle of childrearing. In mid-life, cumulative disadvantage also begins to take its toll, and health disparities become more pronounced (Pearlin et al. 2005 ). Thus, mid-life is an important life stage to investigate whether those cohabiting at these ages may have worse health than the married.

Prior research has consistently found that cohabitation is selective of disadvantage, and that cohabitors suffer poor outcomes (Kennedy and Bumpass 2008 ; Lichter et al. 2014 ; McLanahan and Percheski 2008 ). The majority of this research focuses on the U.S.; however, the U.S. may be an outlier (Cherlin 2010 ; Musick and Michelmore 2016 ), because patterns of partnership formation and dissolution appear to be diverging by education, while divergence in other countries is less pronounced (Perelli-Harris and Lyons-Amos 2016 ). One explanation for the strong association between family behaviors and disadvantage may be the welfare state context. Prior research has suggested that welfare states may be important for shaping fertility and family behavior. For example, means-tested benefit regimes may encourage a bi-modal distribution of fertility (Rendall et al. 2009 , 2010 ) or exacerbate poverty among single mothers (Brady and Burroway 2012 ). The U.S. reliance on means-tested benefits and limited welfare provision may result in a stronger association between cohabitation and disadvantage, subsequently resulting in poor health among cohabitors.

In this paper, we examine whether the health differentials between married and cohabiting individuals found in the U.S. hold in other countries, and to what extent controlling for selection can explain this association. The countries represent different welfare regimes (Esping-Andersen 1990 ): the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia are usually classified as liberal welfare states with targeted, means-tested benefits, although Australia tends to provide more generous welfare support; Norway is social-democratic with a universal social policy; and Germany is considered a conservative regime that favors the marital male breadwinner model. The countries also have different approaches to legally recognizing cohabitation: the UK and the US allow legal rights in some policy areas but not others (Barlow 2004 ; Bowman 2010 ); Australia and Norway provide cohabitors with many rights similar to married couples (Bowman 2010 ; Perelli-Harris and Sanchez Gassen 2012 ); and Germany tends to privilege marriage (Perelli-Harris and Sanchez Gassen 2012 ). In addition, the countries differ in the degree of selection into cohabitation; for example, the educational gradient associated with partnership formation and dissolution is not consistent across countries (Perelli-Harris and Lyons-Amos 2016 ). Using harmonized datasets to investigate how the association between partnership type and self-rated health differs across countries will tell us to what extent any benefits to marriage are universal or depend on country context. This study contributes to the literature by examining several underexplored questions: (1) Does being in a partnership convey benefits to health in all the studied countries? Is marriage, compared to cohabitation, associated with better health? (2) Do childhood background characteristics attenuate any positive association between partnership or marriage and health? (3) Does controlling for characteristics of the union reduce differences between cohabitation and marriage? Taken as a whole, the paper provides greater understanding of the meaning and consequences of cohabitation in mid-life across countries.

Benefits to Cohabitation and Marriage

Living in an intimate partnership, either marriage or cohabitation, may provide advantages that could directly influence health. By living together, couples can benefit from shared resources, sexual and emotional intimacy, companionship, and daily interaction (Waite 1995 ). Couples who live together often provide each other with care and monitor each other’s health behaviors, for example, reminding each other to go the doctor or maintain a healthy lifestyle (Musick and Bumpass 2012 ; Umberson et al. 2010 ). Through social ties, partners link each other to broader networks, which can instill a sense of kinship and responsibility (Umberson and Montez 2010 ). Although poor-quality relationships may result in strain and stress (Umberson et al. 2006 ), in general co-residential relationships provide positive psychosocial benefits by offering social support and providing symbolic meaning to one’s life (Umberson and Montez 2010 ). Hence, living in a partnership regardless of its type may be what is most important to health.

On the other hand, the official act of marriage may convey unique benefits to health that go beyond simply living with a partner. With a public vow and a legal contract, marriage usually signals a higher commitment between the partners—to family, friends, and strangers, but also to each other (Berrington et al. 2015 ; Cherlin 2004 ; Wiik et al. 2009 ). Married people may have a stronger sense of the long-term prospects of their relationship, since marriage is usually intended for life. Those outside the relationship may find it easier to understand the spouses’ commitment, and therefore provide greater social support (Marcussen 2005 ). Marriage’s “enforceable trust” (Cherlin 2004 ) may persuade couples to work harder on their relationships, especially during stressful periods. In addition, marriage may provide a sense of security and well-being. Focus group respondents throughout Europe and Australia mentioned dimensions of marital security that generally did not apply to cohabitation, for example, emotional reassurance, financial stability, security for their children, and the comfort of not being alone in old age (Perelli-Harris et al. 2014 ). This sense of security may be bolstered by the additional level of legal protection that marriage provides in some countries (Perelli-Harris and Sanchez Gassen 2012 ). Thus, the higher commitment of marriage may reduce life uncertainty and increase general well-being, which could then have positive effects on health (Liu and Umberson 2008 ).

Early Life Conditions

A positive association between marriage and health may not indicate a causal relationship, but instead be due to selection. In this paper, we focus on selection mechanisms that influence partnership choices before entrance into union, in particular parental socio-economic status and family structure in childhood. The experience of childhood adversity may lead to both low-quality adult relationships and future poor health through the accumulation of disadvantage and stress over the life course (Hayward and Gorman 2004 ; Umberson et al. 2014 ). In addition, childhood may be a sensitive period during which significant stress or adversity triggers psychological or physiological reactions leading to chronic disease and/or life-long poor health (Haas 2008 ; Umberson et al. 2014 ). Controlling for childhood conditions before entrance into adulthood may be sufficient for explaining differences in the association between partnership status and health.

In many countries, father’s low social class and childhood poverty are associated with poor adult health (Haas 2008 ; Kuh et al. 2004 ; Luo and Waite 2005 ). Childhood deprivation may also result in fewer resources and skills in adulthood, which may hamper individuals from finding a suitable marriage partner or achieving the perceived economic bar necessary for marriage (Berrington and Diamond 2000 ; Oppenheimer 2003 ; Smock 2000 ). Parental divorce may also be an important selection mechanism for cohabitation. Those who experienced parental divorce may be jaded with the institution of marriage or not want to risk the financial, social, and emotional costs of divorce (Liefbroer and Elzinga 2012 ; Perelli-Harris et al. 2017 ). Parental divorce may also have long-term negative effects on peoples’ well-being (Kuh et al. 2004 ), which may be one of the underlying reasons why cohabitors have worse health than married individuals.

Variation in Partnerships: Union Duration, Prior Union Dissolution, and Childbearing

Examining current partnership status alone may not be sufficient for understanding the strength of the couple’s relationship and its benefits to health. Cohabiting couples who live together for a long period may be very similar to married couples, since longer union duration often signals deeper relationship commitment, investments in the relationship such as pooling of resources (Lyngstad et al. 2011 ), and better relationship quality, which is associated with a range of physical health outcomes (Robles et al. 2014 ). Staying married and not experiencing union dissolution may also be of primary importance; prior research has found that the experience of divorce can be stressful with long-term ramifications for health (Hughes and Waite 2009 ). Finally, children can signal investment in a relationship (Berrington et al. 2015 ; Perelli-Harris et al. 2014 ) and positively influence future health, since parents may adopt healthier behaviors for the sake of their children (Hank 2010 ; Read et al. 2011 ). Thus, these characteristics of the partnership may be very important for explaining the association between partnership type and health in mid-life.

Differences Across Countries

Cultural, economic, and legal factors have produced differential rates of the decline in marriage and increase in cohabitation, and may result in different associations between marriage and well-being. Policy developments may have exacerbated the increase in cohabitation in some countries, although the increase in cohabitation may also have prompted changes in legislation. Some welfare states recognize cohabitation as an alternative to marriage, providing many of the same rights and responsibilities, for example, similar tax benefits, access to courts upon union dissolution, or parental rights to child custody (Perelli-Harris and Sanchez Gassen 2012 ). The welfare state may also influence partnership decisions. On the one hand, single mother benefits and tax penalties for low-income married couples may encourage women to stay unmarried in order to maintain their eligibility for benefits (Michelmore 2016 ). On the other hand, tax incentives that promote a breadwinner model may encourage people to marry. Thus, policies and laws may influence people’s decisions about marriage and cohabitation. Below, we discuss how cultural meanings of marriage, selection effects, and policies could produce a different association between marriage, cohabitation, and health in each context.

Marriage in the U.S. has a special status, especially compared to other countries where cohabitation is often perceived as equivalent to marriage (Cherlin 2010 ). Although cohabitation has increased rapidly over the past decades, the majority of those born in the 1970s had married by their 40s (Kennedy and Bumpass 2008 ). At all ages, cohabitation in the U.S. is highly selective of the poor and less educated (Kennedy and Bumpass 2008 ) and associated with poor relationship quality (Brown and Booth 1996 ), depression (Brown et al. 2006 ), and physical violence and abuse (Kenney and McLanahan 2006 ). A recent study that compares partnership types found that after accounting for unobserved heterogeneity, entrance into marriage results in slightly better health than entrance into cohabitation (Musick and Bumpass 2012 ). One explanation could be that married spouses have access to health care which is denied partners who are unmarried. For the most part, US law does not recognize cohabitation; no states have passed legislation relating to unmarried partners (Bowman 2010 ). Welfare state policies, however, tend to privilege low-income single mothers, and single-mother benefits may in fact discourage marriage (Lichter et al. 2004 ). All in all, the strong association between cohabitation and disadvantage in the U.S., combined with a context that legally and socially favors marriage, may result in a negative association between cohabitation and health. After controlling for background characteristics, however, we expect that the difference in self-rated health for cohabiting and married individuals will disappear.

The situation in the UK is similar to that of the US, although the emphasis on marriage as the utmost ideal is less strident. Since the 1970s, the prevalence and duration of cohabitation in the UK has been increasing rapidly. Around 84% of those married in 2004–07 had previously lived together before marrying, usually for around four years (Beaujouan and Ní Bhrolcháin 2011 ). Long-term cohabitation, however, is less common; only 10% of cohabiting couples were still together after 10 years; about half of the remainder married, and 40% separated (Beaujouan and Ní Bhrolcháin 2011 ). Thus, while cohabitation is socially acceptable and the majority of the population perceives few differences between cohabitation and marriage (Duncan and Phillips 2008 ), marriage is generally considered a more committed union and preferred by most (Berrington et al. 2015 ). The legal situation in England and Wales still reflects this preference for marriage; cohabiting couples are unable to access family courts upon union dissolution and have to pay inheritance tax when one partner dies (Perelli-Harris and Sanchez Gassen 2012 ). Given the negative educational gradient for having a birth within cohabitation (Perelli-Harris et al. 2010 ), the lack of legal protection is disproportionately likely to influence those who are less educated. Single-mother benefits in the UK, on the other hand, may not only discourage marriage, but also co-residential partnerships; qualitative research revealed that women on benefits were aware of how many nights their partner could stay over before losing their benefits (Berrington et al. 2015 ). Overall, we expect that as in the U.S., cohabitation in the UK will be associated with lower self-rated health, but controlling for childhood background characteristics will eliminate most differences between cohabitation and marriage.

In many ways, Australia has had the same Anglo-Saxon development of family behaviors as the U.S. and U.K., but recently some of the legislative and social developments may have produced differences. As in the U.K. and U.S., the majority of first co-residential unions start with cohabitation (Evans 2013 ), which is widely accepted (Evans and Gray 2005 ; Qu and Weston 2008 ). Nonetheless, qualitative research has continued to demonstrate the importance of marriage, especially as the pinnacle of live-in relationships (Carmichael and Whittaker 2007 ). Recently, studies have found a weak social selection into marriage; highly educated women are more likely to be married than women with lower levels of education (Evans 2015 ; Heard 2011 ). Throughout the 1980s and 90s, lawmakers changed policies to provide cohabiting couples the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. In 2009, the Family Law Act was amended to give couples living together for 2 years or having a child together the same access to the courts in relation to property and spousal maintenance on separation (Family Law Amendment (De facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008). Access to government welfare payments, on the other hand, is calculated based on household income, which may discourage some couples from moving in together. Thus, although there is weak selection into cohabitation and a slight social preference for marriage, the legal and social acceptability of cohabitation in Australia leads us to expect few differences in the mid-life health of cohabiting and married individuals.

Cohabitation in Norway developed more rapidly and extensively than in the English-speaking countries. Norway’s social-democratic welfare state, which focuses on gender equality and individual autonomy and regulates cohabitation, may have facilitated the increase (Lappegård and Noack 2015 ). Among men and women born around 1970, 90% of all co-residential unions started with cohabitation (Wiik and Dommermuth 2011 ), and almost a quarter of the total population (aged 18–55) are currently cohabiting (Noack et al. 2013 ). Nearly 90% of unions that eventually have children start with cohabitation (Perelli-Harris et al. 2012 ). Research has shown that childbearing within cohabitation had a negative educational gradient (Perelli-Harris et al. 2010 ), but now that more births occur within cohabitation than marriage, selection effects are diminishing. Over the past few decades, the legal system gradually provided cohabitors with similar rights to married couples, particularly those having children together, and more recently those that have been in long-term unions. The focus shifted to provide cohabitors with inheritance rights, but unlike married couples, cohabitors still need to have a will or cohabitation contract to inherit from each other (Perelli-Harris and Sanchez Gassen 2012 ). Nonetheless, although cohabitation is generally considered equal to marriage, socially and legally, many still prefer marriage, especially as a way of formalizing the commitment of parenthood or expressing the ultimate romantic gesture towards each other (Lappegård and Noack 2015 ). Thus, we expect that cohabiting and married individuals will be similar, especially with respect to self-rated health, but marriage in Norway is unlikely to disappear anytime soon (Lappegård and Noack 2015 ).

Finally, in Germany, as in the other countries, cohabitation has also recently increased. Unlike the other countries in this study, however, social policies and taxation law continue to favor marriage over cohabitation; the advantages of tax splitting and sharing the health insurance of the main earner are limited to married couples only (Perelli-Harris and Sanchez Gassen 2012 ). Moreover, Germany was one of the last countries in Europe to introduce joint parental responsibility for non-marital children. Despite shared institutional and political conditions since reunification in 1990 and the alignment of other family behaviors, such as fertility and divorce, the eastern and western parts of the country still differ considerably with respect to prevalence and meaning of cohabitation (Hiekel et al. 2015 ; Klärner 2015 ). Differences are especially apparent for childbearing in cohabitation: of those born in the 1971–73 cohort, by 2009, 31 percent of western German mothers had their first birth out of wedlock while this was the case for 61 percent of eastern German mothers (Kreyenfeld et al. 2011 ). In both parts of the country, a higher educational level increases the likelihood of being married when the first child is born (Perelli-Harris et al. 2010 ). People who live together in cohabitation or marriage are also similar for some health behaviors, but differ from those who do not live with their partner or singles. For instance, those living with a partner have a reduced probability of exercising (Rapp and Schneider 2013 ). Overall, we expect that cohabitation in Germany will be associated with lower self-rated health due to social and legal preferences for marriage. However, because of eastern Germany’s impact, we expect the differences in married and cohabiting individuals’ health to be relatively small and to disappear when controlling for background characteristics.

Data and Methods

Our datasets are the only surveys we know of to answer our research questions in these contexts. Four surveys are longitudinal and one is cross-sectional linked to population registers in which all individuals are listed. All have sufficient sample sizes in mid-life, information about childhood conditions, and prior partnership and fertility histories, allowing us to control for union duration and childbearing. We spent considerable time harmonizing the variables and models, although some variables (such as region) remain context specific, and others are not available in all countries (such as race and ethnicity in the U.S., UK, and Australia, which is unavailable in Germany and Norway).

In the U.S., we use the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79), which follows a representative sample of 12,686 individuals born between 1957 and 1964. The NLSY is the only American survey to have comparable information on early life conditions, health, and partnership histories. In 1979, the survey participants were 14–22 years old. They were interviewed annually through 1994 and biennially since. The health and current partnership data come from surveys conducted in 1998–2006, when the respondents were aged approximately 40–49 and 8416 individuals were still participating in the survey. Unfortunately, this was the only age at which NLSY participants were asked about their health. In order to increase comparability across surveys, we use this age range to define mid-life.

In the UK, we use the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS), which is a nationally representative household-based longitudinal survey. The survey started in 2009 with approximately 51,000 individuals and is conducted annually. Our sample comes from the fourth wave conducted in 2012/2013 with a total of 47,157 individuals surveyed, but only 11,439 of those were between 40 and 49 years old. In Australia, we use the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA), a nationally representative household-based longitudinal survey. The survey started in 2001 and annually interviewed all adults over 15 years old in the selected households. The sample expanded with a general top-up in 2012, and in 2013 (our analysis year) 13,536 individuals were interviewed. After excluding those who were not between 40 and 49 years old, as well as 239 cases who did not answer the question on self-rated health, our sample comprises 2862 individuals. In Germany, we use the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), which is a representative longitudinal study of private households, with all members of the household interviewed annually (from the age of 15). SOEP began in 1984 with 12,290 individuals. Apart from the inclusion of participants from the former East-German state after German reunification, it has had several refreshment samples over its 30-year duration in order to assure national representation. Our sample comes from the 2013 wave that surveyed 24,113 individuals, of which 6977 were between 40 and 49 years old. Finally, in Norway, we use the Generations and Gender Survey (GGS), which is a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of respondents aged 18–79 in 2007 that includes information from the administrative register of 15,114 individuals. After excluding seven cases for not answering the question on self-rated health, 2105 individuals aged between 40 and 49 were included in our sample.

The first rows of Table  1 show the entire sample by whether respondents were in a partnership. The second set of rows is restricted to those in a partnership, which was 65% of the sample in the U.S. ( N  = 5450), 77% in the U.K. ( N  = 8809), 70% in Australia ( N  = 1990), 86% in Norway ( N  = 1535), and 79% in Germany ( N  = 5527).

Table 1

Percent and number of those partnered or unpartnered, and married or cohabiting, mean self-rated health, and confidence intervals, men and women aged 40–49

Source Own calculations with NLSY79, UKHLS, HILDA, GGS, and SOEP

Dependent Variable

Our dependent variable is self-rated health. Self-rated health is associated with current and future physical and mental health conditions; it is recognized as a reliable and valid indicator of general health (Hardy et al. 2014 ). In all surveys, health is measured with a single question (“In general, would you say your health is”) on a five-level scale with responses: 1=  poor , 2=  fair , 3=  good , 4=  very good , 5=  excellent . The responses for all countries were originally in reverse order but were recoded so that higher values denote better health. Because self-rated health has context-specific meanings (Hardy et al. 2014 ), we do not directly compare measures across countries, but keep all analyses specific to each country.

Independent Variables

We primarily chose our independent variables for conceptual reasons and based on prior research, as discussed above (see Table  2 for the distribution of variables according to partnership type). However, to facilitate comparability, we also selected variables that were in all or most of the surveys. In order to account for missing data on independent variables, we followed standardized procedures for multiple imputation using the mi impute command in Stata 13.0. The process predicts values on missing data using an iterative method that bases predictions on random draws from the posterior distributions of parameters observed in the sample (Allison 2001 ).

Table 2

Descriptive overview of differences between cohabiting and married individuals aged 40–49 for the US, UK, Australia, Germany, and Norway

a Ethnicity and race are not included in the Norwegian and German surveys. In Australia, this refers to non-indigenous and indigenous

Partnership Type

We present two main comparisons: (1) whether respondents currently live with or without a partner; (2) for those living with a partner, whether they reported being in a cohabiting or marital union.

Gender and Age

We include basic control variables for gender and age of respondent, since both have been found to influence self-rated health (Cavallo et al. 2015 ; Dahlin and Härkönen 2013 ).

Region of residence controls for important contextual factors known to influence cohabitation and health. We chose the most relevant measure of region for each country. In Germany, the East–West divide is particularly important for family formation and health. In eastern Germany, nearly two-thirds of children were born in cohabitation, while in western Germany, only one-third were born in cohabitation (Perelli-Harris et al. 2012 ). The two regions also have large disparities in health, and even in the relationship between childbearing and self-rated health (Hank 2010 ). Large regional health differentials also exist across the UK (Newton et al. 2015 ), and thus we control for four major regions: (1) Scotland, Ireland, North England; (2) Midlands and Wales; (3) South West England; (4) South East England. In Norway, regions also matter for health (Norwegian Directorate of Health 2012 ), and we control for four regions: (1) Oslo area; (2) East area; (3) South and West; (4) Mid and North. In the U.S., we distinguish between (1) Northeast; (2) North Central; (3) South; and (4) West. In Australia, however, we include a control for differences between rural and urban areas because prior studies have found this to be the most meaningful distinction in the country (ABS 2011 ; Monnat and Beeler Pickett 2011 ).

Nativity Status, Majority/Minority Race or Ethnicity

In all countries, we include indicators for whether the respondent and the respondent’s parents were born in the country. However, including harmonized variables for race and ethnicity is more difficult, due to the context-specific relevance of these factors. In the U.S., race has consistently been found to be important for partnership status, health, and the relationship between the two (Umberson et al. 2014 ). Scholars have also found health differentials by race and ethnicity in the UK (Evandrou et al. 2016 ; ONS 2013 ), and Australia (ABS 2010 ). Thus, in the U.S., UK, and Australia, we include a dummy variable for white/non-white. 1 However, in Norway and Germany, information on race and ethnicity is not collected in any survey or register, due to political sensitivities and a very low proportion of non-white individuals.

Childhood Selection Mechanisms

As discussed above, we are particularly interested in the childhood selection mechanisms that select individuals into partnerships or produce poor health outcomes. We focus on two types of mechanisms: family structure in childhood and the socio-economic status of parents. Family structure in childhood includes a dummy variable for whether the respondent lived with both parents at age 14 (U.S.), 15 (Norway), or up to age 16 (U.K., Australia, and Germany), and a categorical variable for mother’s age at respondent’s birth (younger than 20, 20–24, 25–29, and over 30). 2 Socio-economic status of parents includes both mother’s and father’s education (recoded from context-specific variables into low, medium, and high), mother worked when respondent was 14 or 15, and father’s occupation (low, medium, high, and not employed).

Family Formation Experience

We include key family formation variables that reflect the strength of the union and may make cohabiting partnerships more similar to marital partnerships. Union duration is derived from partnership histories. In the NLSY79, the partnership histories were collected prospectively at each wave. In UKHLS, partnership histories were collected retrospectively in wave one in 2009/2010 and updated prospectively. In HILDA, the partnership histories were collected retrospectively at first wave in 2001 and updated in the following waves. In the Norwegian GGS, all information about partnerships was retrieved retrospectively in 2007. In the SOEP, marriage histories and, since 2007, partnership histories were collected retrospectively when respondents entered the survey and updated in subsequent waves. Current union duration and its quadratic were included to allow for non-linear duration dependence, and because it resulted in better model fit than a linear specification. Having experienced a separation was entered as a binary indicator; and number of children distinguished between having no children, one child, two children, and three or more children, which can capture the non-linearity (e.g., J or U-shaped) of the effect of having children on health (Read et al. 2011 ).

Socio-economic Status of Respondent

Because of the strong association between socio-economic status and health, we include respondent’s current level of highest education (low, medium, high) and employment status (employed/unemployed/out of the labor market) as controls in the final models.

Analytical Approach

We estimate the association between current union status and mid-life health using OLS regression methods, which are standard in studies of self-rated health (e.g., Borgonovi and Pokropek 2016 ; Heggebø and Elstad 2017 , n.d.; Williams et al. 2011 ). We found nearly identical results using ordered logit models (available on request), but present OLS estimates because they provide the easiest comparison across countries, and categorical or logit models would require arbitrary cut-off points.

To answer the set of research questions outlined in the introduction, we apply a step-wise approach that sequentially adds variables into the OLS regression. We show two sets of models: (1) partnered versus unpartnered (Table  3 ), and (2) married versus cohabiting (Table  4 ). Although we could include all three partnership states in the same model (i.e., single, cohabiting, married), we analyze them separately, because we are particularly interested in including union duration as a control in the comparison between cohabitation and marriage. The first model on each table includes partnership status and respondent’s age, gender, respondents’ nativity status, their parents’ nativity status, and whether the respondent was in the majority racial or ethnic group. The second model controls for selection mechanisms from childhood—i.e., parental separation and SES—which can influence future partnership decisions and health. Childhood characteristics are exogenous, because they refer to the time before respondents entered a partnership. In the next models, we add controls to capture the respondent’s experience of family formation throughout adulthood: duration of the current union (not relevant for partnered versus unpartnered analysis), number of children, and experience of union separation. These characteristics are not strictly exogenous and may reflect the pathways through which partnership status and type influences self-rated health. Finally, we include educational attainment and employment status assessed during the same wave as the dependent variable to control for current factors that may influence self-rated health.

Table 3

OLS coefficients of self-rated health for partnered versus unpartnered individuals aged 40–49 in the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Germany, and Norway

Source : Own calculations with NLSY, UKHLS, HILDA, SOEP, GGP

Note: Unpartnered is the reference category

* p  < 0.05, ** p  < 0.01, *** p  < 0.001

a Ethnicity is a politically sensitive topic and usually not included in surveys in Norway or Germany

Table 4

OLS coefficients of self-rated health for married versus cohabiting individuals aged 40–49 in the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Germany, and Norway

Source: Own calculations with NLSY, UKHLS, HILDA, SOEP, GGP

Note: Cohabiting is the reference category

* p  < 0.05, * p  < 0.01, *** p  < 0.001

Table  1 compares the mean self-rated health of men and women by current partnership type in mid-life across all five countries. The descriptive results are weighted to be representative at the population level. The first part of the table compares those currently living with a partner (both married and cohabiting) with those not living with a partner. The percent of those living without a partner ranges from 14% in Norway to 35% in the U.S. In all countries, the mean of the self-rated health of partnered individuals is significantly higher than that of unpartnered individuals. The second part of the table directly compares cohabiting and married individuals. The percent in cohabitation among those living with a partner ranges from about 11% in the U.S. to about 18% in the U.K. The confidence intervals indicate that in the U.K. and the U.S. mean self-rated health scores are higher for married individuals compared to cohabiting individuals. However, from these results, we can already see that mean self-rated health does not differ significantly by partnership type in Australia, Norway, and Germany.

Partnered Versus Unpartnered

We begin by examining whether any type of co-residential partnership, either cohabiting or marital, is associated with better reports of self-rated health. Table  3 summarizes the results of the Ordinary Least-Squares models for self-rated health in mid-life showing the coefficients for being partnered versus unpartnered at the time of the survey. Row 1 shows the baseline model with controls for age, gender, geographical residence, respondent and parents’ nativity, and majority/minority race or ethnicity. We present pooled models that include both men and women, because interactions by gender and partnership status were not significant in any of the five countries. We immediately see that partnership is significantly associated with self-rated health in all countries ( p  < 0.001 level in all countries except Norway, where p  < 0.05). Although we cannot directly compare effect sizes across countries because assessments of health are country specific, the baseline effect sizes between partnered and unpartnered are relatively similar in all models. Including controls in the models gradually reduces differences between the partnered and unpartnered until no differences remain for German and Norwegian individuals. Controlling for number of children was particularly important for reducing differentials in Norway, possibly because of the underlying health differentials between those with and without children. In Germany, controlling for current education and employment status reduced differences between single and partnered individuals, reflecting the strong effect of socio-economic status on health. Thus, in Germany and Norway, living with a partner does not have a positive effect on health in mid-life, after accounting for controls.

In the English-speaking countries, however, differences between the partnered and unpartnered remained significant at the 0.001 level, despite a large set of control variables. The size of the coefficients was remarkably similar in the three countries. Given the number of background controls in the models, these findings suggest that being in a partnership may indeed provide positive benefits to health in these countries. Nonetheless, we have not been able to control for a large set of important selection mechanisms from childhood. Thus, we cannot conclude that partnership has a causal effect on self-rated health.

Cohabiting Versus Married

Table  4 summarizes the results of the Ordinary Least-Squares models for self-rated health, showing the coefficients for being married relative to cohabiting. Again, an interaction term between gender and partnership type was not significant. We immediately see strong differences (significant at the 0.001 level) by partnership type in the U.S. and U.K., countries with similar means-tested benefit systems. These results differ from the other countries, where self-rated health did not vary significantly by partnership type. 3 In the U.S., married people had significantly higher self-rated health than cohabitors even with basic controls, but the association diminished as additional controls were introduced into the model. As expected, controlling for parental separation and socio-economic status of the respondents’ parents reduced the magnitude of the coefficient substantially. However, it was the duration of the union that eliminated differences between cohabitation and marriage, suggesting that the similarity between the two partnership types increases as the duration becomes more similar.

In the U.K., baseline models with basic demographic controls indicate that married individuals have better health than cohabiting individuals (significant at the 0.001 level). Controlling for childhood background characteristics such as parental separation and SES again reduced differences between cohabitation and marriage. Controlling for union duration and number of children reduced differences further, but adding in the experience of union dissolution eliminated significant differences between cohabitation and marriage. These results suggest that in the U.K., the primary difference in self-rated health between cohabiting and married individuals was due to having experienced separation, which is in line with studies finding that divorce often has long-term effects on health (Hughes and Waite 2009 ; Liu and Umberson 2008 ). Interaction terms between partnership type and ever separated were not significant, indicating that the effect of partnership status did not differ by having experienced a prior union. However, a model restricted to only those who had previously experienced separation confirms our results by showing no difference between currently cohabiting and married individuals in any country (available on request). These results suggest that the benefits to marriage are primarily due to long-term marital relationships, but partnership type in second unions does not matter. Hence, in both the U.S. and the U.K., partnership history is very important for explaining differences between cohabitation and marriage, but these differences emerge through having experienced prior separation, not whether a second union is legitimated through marriage.

A large number of studies find that marriage is beneficial for health (Grundy and Tomassini 2010 ; Liu and Umberson 2008 ; Umberson et al. 2010 ), but the increase in cohabiting partnerships raises the possibility that it is not marriage per se that matters, but instead simply living with a partner. Here, we find that the positive association between living in any type of partnership and health in mid-life does seem to be universal across our studied countries. These associations do not seem to differ by gender; partnerships seem to be important for both men and women’s health. Nonetheless, after accounting for a host of family background, demographic, and socio-economic characteristics, the differences in health between those living with and without a partner are reduced considerably. More specifically, in Norway, controlling for selection mechanisms and past partnership and childbearing experiences eliminates significant differences completely, while in Germany, the effect goes away after controlling for employment status and educational level. These results indicate that the positive association between living with a partner and health is confounded by other characteristics in individuals’ lives. In the English-speaking countries, differences between the partnered and unpartnered were still evident after including controls, but we suspect that including factors such as health in childhood, relationships with other family members and friends, and current health behaviors, would reduce differentials completely. Unfortunately, these indicators are not available in our surveys. Because we were unable to account for these potential confounding variables, we are reluctant to say partnerships have a causal relationship with health. In any case, it is important to recognize the heterogeneity of people living on their own, and that much of the association between partnership status and health is due to selection.

With respect to marriage and cohabitation, we again find no differences between men and women, and we only find health differentials in the U.S. and U.K., which have very similar welfare state systems, cultural background, and history of early non-marital childbearing. In these countries, some research has found that cohabitors are more likely to have poor health (Musick and Bumpass 2012 ); however, most studies only differentiate between the married and unmarried (e.g., Grundy and Tomassini 2010 ), and thus may underestimate the positive influence of cohabitation. Our study indicates that although baseline models show significant differences between cohabitation and marriage, controlling for selection mechanisms from childhood, as well as childbearing and partnership experiences, eliminates significant differences. These results lead us to formulate two main conclusions.

First, in the U.S. and U.K., cohabitation appears to be a symptom of poverty and difficult conditions in childhood, not a cause of poor health. Prior studies have found that cohabitation in these countries is associated with a pattern of disadvantage that is not as strong in other countries (Perelli-Harris and Lyons-Amos 2016 ). The strong association between cohabitation and disadvantage may be producing health differentials in America and Britain, which do not appear in other countries. The welfare state system may also be exacerbating the situation, as it appears to do for single mothers (Brady and Burroway 2012 ). In liberal welfare regimes, state provision of benefits is modest, means-tested, and often stigmatized. These policies may directly or indirectly discourage marriage or even stable cohabiting relationships (Berrington et al. 2015 ). Limited welfare provision coupled with low income may make it more difficult for individuals to achieve the economic stability preferred for marriage (Edin and Kefalas 2005 ; Reed 2006 ). Thus, poor health and cohabitation seem to be part of the package of behaviors associated with increasing inequality (Cherlin et al. 2016 ). One aspect to keep in mind, however, is that even though these two liberal welfare state regimes are similar in many ways, the health care systems in the two countries differ dramatically: all UK residents are guaranteed access to free health care through the National Healthcare System, but low-income U.S. citizens have more limited access to healthcare. Due to the similarity in the results in the two countries, we think it is unlikely that access to health care itself is producing the health differentials, but instead the lesser generosity of the welfare regimes combined with increasing inequality.

Second, even though we found that selection mechanisms were important for reducing health differentials, the characteristics of the partnership were even more important for eliminating differentials. In the U.S., union duration eliminated significant differences between cohabitation and marriage, indicating that those in long-term cohabiting unions were just as healthy as those in long-term marital unions. In the U.K., prior separation explained why cohabitation was more detrimental to health. Separated or divorced individuals are more likely to cohabit in second-order or higher-order partnerships and they are more likely to have poor health, either due to the long-term effects of separation (Hughes and Waite 2009 ) or selection, again possibly due to disadvantage or poor health. Prior studies have shown that those who have experienced multiple partnership transitions tend to be disadvantaged (Lichter et al. 2010 ; Perelli-Harris and Lyons-Amos 2016 ). Taken together, these findings suggest that cohabitation itself is not necessarily detrimental to health. Cohabiting couples in long-term, committed, first unions appear to be just as healthy as married couples.

In contrast to the U.S. and U.K., individuals in Australia, Norway, and Germany have similar levels of self-rated health regardless of whether they are cohabiting or married in mid-life. This result was expected in Norway, a country with a long history of cohabitation, a focus on gender equal policies, and a movement towards legally equalizing cohabitation and marriage (Perelli-Harris and Sanchez Gassen 2012 ). However, the results for Germany were not expected, given the German state’s privileging of the marital breadwinner model. Nonetheless, our findings corroborate recent research showing similarities in health-related behavior between cohabiting and married people in Germany, although some of the studies show positive health outcomes, for example, declines in smoking (Klein et al. 2013 ), and others negative, for example, reduced physical exercise and increased body mass index (Klein et al. 2013 ; Rapp and Schneider 2013 ). We also expected that Australia would be more similar to its English-speaking counterparts, given a similar cultural preference for marriage and a positive educational gradient of marriage (Heard 2011 ). Self-rated health, however, did not differ between cohabiting and married individuals, suggesting that other social and policy effects may be in play. The legal recognition of de facto relationships may reflect a general social acceptance of cohabitation and a reduced selection into marriage that could influence health outcomes in mid-life.

Our study is not without limitations. The study used the best available data in each country to answer the research questions; however, by attempting to harmonize across studies, we are limited to a parsimonious model which may not account for all country-specific characteristics associated with union formation and health. We acknowledge that although cohabitation has increased considerably in these countries, the percent cohabiting at ages 40–49 is still relatively small. Our age range in mid-life was limited to the years in which self-rated health was included in the U.S. survey. Health differentials may be relatively minor for this age range, and further health differentials may emerge as health deteriorates at older ages. Nonetheless, mid-life is often understudied in the health and cohabitation literature, and thus it is important to observe to what extent partnership matters for health at this life stage.

In conclusion, this study challenges some of the fundamental assumptions that partnerships, and marriage in particular, lead to better health. While the basic association between partnership and health was significant in all studied countries, the strength of the association was reduced or eliminated by controlling for childhood selection mechanisms, prior partnerships and childbearing, and current education and employment status. Although the association was still significant after including controls in the English-speaking countries, we suspect that further controls would eliminate the association altogether. Thus, the benefits to partnership seem to be limited once other factors more salient for health are taken into account. Our findings also challenge the notion that only legally sanctioned marriage can produce health benefits. The positive correlation between marriage and health was only evident in the U.S. and U.K., and again, selection and partnership characteristics explained the association. Cohabitation in these English-speaking countries is strongly selective of disadvantage, while it is far less so in the other countries. In general, our findings are important for conceptualizing cohabitation; cohabitation is a very heterogeneous type of partnership, and studies that do not control for the variation in union duration and prior experience with union dissolution may be missing important confounders. Finally, our results suggest that policies, norms, and economic conditions can shape the meaning of cohabitation and the lived experience of cohabitors. Further research is needed to provide a deeper understanding of which specific welfare policies and conditions in the U.S. and U.K. are producing these inequalities.

1 Non-Indigenous versus Indigenous in Australia.

2 This variable is not available in HILDA.

3 We conducted the same analysis for West Germans only and found no statistically significant differences between cohabiting and married individuals. Unfortunately, our sample size is not large enough to conduct analyses for East Germany separately.

• ABS. (2010). The Health and Welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (No. 4704.0). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/lookup/4704.0Chapter100Oct+2010#Adult .
• ABS. (2011). Health Outside Major Cities (Australian Social Trends No. 4102.0). Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features30Mar+2011 .
• Allison, P. D. (2001). Missing data (Vol. 136). Sage publications.
• Andersson G, Thomson E, Duntava A. Life-table representations of family dynamics in the 21st century. Demographic Research. 2017; 37 (35):1081–1230. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2017.37.35. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barlow A. Regulation of cohabitation, changing family policies and social attitudes: A discussion of Britain within Europe. Law & Policy. 2004; 26 (1):57–86. doi: 10.1111/j.0265-8240.2004.00163.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beaujouan E, Ní Bhrolcháin M. Cohabitation and marriage in Britain since the 1970s. Population Trends. 2011; 145 :31–55. doi: 10.1057/pt.2011.16. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berrington A, Diamond I. Marriage or cohabitation: A competing risks analysis of first-partnership formation among the 1958 British birth cohort. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 2000; 163 (2):127–151. doi: 10.1111/1467-985X.00162. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berrington A, Perelli-Harris B, Trevena P. Commitment and the changing sequence of cohabitation, childbearing, and marriage: Insights from qualitative research in the UK. Demographic Research. 2015; S17 (12):327–362. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2015.33.12. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borgonovi F, Pokropek A. Education and self-reported health: Evidence from 23 countries on the role of years of schooling, cognitive skills and social capital. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11 (2):e0149716. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149716. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowman CG. Unmarried couples, law, and public policy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady D, Burroway R. Targeting, universalism, and single-mother poverty: A multilevel analysis across 18 affluent democracies. Demography. 2012; 49 (2):719–746. doi: 10.1007/s13524-012-0094-z. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown SL. the effect of union type on psychological well-being: Depression among cohabitors versus marrieds. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2000; 41 (3):241–255. doi: 10.2307/2676319. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown SL, Booth A. Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship quality. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1996; 58 (3):668–678. doi: 10.2307/353727. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown SL, Lee GR, Bulanda JR. Cohabitation among older adults: A national portrait. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B. 2006; 61 (2):S71–S79. doi: 10.1093/geronb/61.2.S71. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carmichael GA, Whittaker A. Living together in Australia: Qualitative insights into a complex phenomenon. Journal of Family Studies. 2007; 13 (2):202–223. doi: 10.5172/jfs.327.13.2.202. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Case A, Fertig A, Paxson C. The lasting impact of childhood health and circumstance. Journal of Health Economics. 2005; 24 (2):365–389. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2004.09.008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cavallo F, Dalmasso P, Ottová-Jordan V, Brooks F, Mazur J, Välimaa R, et al. Trends in self-rated health in European and North-American adolescents from 2002 to 2010 in 32 countries. European Journal of Public Health. 2015; 25 :13–15. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckv011. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cherlin AJ. The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004; 66 (4):848–861. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00058.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cherlin AJ. The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. 1. New York: Vintage; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cherlin AJ, Ribar DC, Yasutake S. Nonmarital first births, marriage, and income inequality. American Sociological Review. 2016; 81 (4):749–770. doi: 10.1177/0003122416653112. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dahlin J, Härkönen J. Cross-national differences in the gender gap in subjective health in Europe: Does country-level gender equality matter? Social Science and Medicine. 2013; 98 :24–28. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.08.028. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan, S., & Phillips, M. (2008). New families? Tradition and change in modern relationships. In British Social Attitudes: The 24th Report (pp. 1–28). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Retrieved from http://sk.sagepub.com/books/british-social-attitudes-24th/n1.xml .
• Edin K, Kefalas MJ. Promises i can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. 1. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Esping-Andersen G. The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Evandrou M, Falkingham J, Feng Z, Vlachantoni A. Ethnic inequalities in limiting health and self-reported health in later life revisited. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2016; 70 (7):653–662. doi: 10.1136/jech-2015-206074. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans Ann. Negotiating the Life Course. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2012. Generational Change in Leaving the Parental Home; pp. 53–67. [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans Ann. Family Formation in 21st Century Australia. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014. Entering a Union in the Twenty-First Century: Cohabitation and ‘Living Apart Together’ pp. 13–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans A, Gray E. What makes an Australian family? (Australian social attitudes: The first report) Sydney: UNSW Press; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Galezewska, P. (2016). Repartnering after divorce and separation in Europe and the United States. (PhD Thesis). Department of Social Statistics and Demography, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
• Grundy, E., & Tomassini, C. (2010). Marital history, health and mortality among older men and women in England and Wales. BMC Public Health , 10 (554). Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcpublichealth/about . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Haas S. Trajectories of functional health: The “long arm” of childhood health and socioeconomic factors. Social Science and Medicine. 2008; 66 (4):849–861. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.004. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hank K. Childbearing history, later-life health, and mortality in Germany. Population Studies. 2010; 64 (3):275–291. doi: 10.1080/00324728.2010.506243. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hardy MA, Acciai F, Reyes AM. How health conditions translate into self-ratings: A comparative study of older adults across Europe. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2014; 55 (3):320–341. doi: 10.1177/0022146514541446. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayward MD, Gorman BK. The long arm of childhood: The influence of early-life social conditions on men’s mortality. Demography. 2004; 41 (1):87–107. doi: 10.1353/dem.2004.0005. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heard G. Socioeconomic marriage differentials in Australia and New Zealand. Population and Development Review. 2011; 37 (1):125–160. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00392.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heggebø K, Elstad JI. Is it easier to be unemployed when the experience is more widely shared? Effects of unemployment on self-rated health in 25 European countries with diverging macroeconomic conditions. European Sociological Review. 2017 doi: 10.1093/esr/jcx080. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heuveline P, Timberlake JM. The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2004; 66 (5):1214–1230. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00088.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hiekel N, Liefbroer AC, Poortman A-R. Understanding diversity in the meaning of cohabitation across Europe. European Journal of Population. 2014; 30 (4):391–410. doi: 10.1007/s10680-014-9321-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hiekel N, Liefbroer AC, Poortman A-R. Marriage and separation risks among German cohabiters: Differences between types of cohabiter. Population Studies. 2015; 69 (2):237–251. doi: 10.1080/00324728.2015.1037334. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hughes ME, Waite LJ. Marital biography and health at mid-life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2009; 50 (3):344–358. doi: 10.1177/002214650905000307. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kennedy S, Bumpass LL. Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research. 2008; 19 (47):1663–1692. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.47. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenney CT, McLanahan SS. Why are cohabiting relationships more violent than marriages? Demography. 2006; 43 (1):127–140. doi: 10.1353/dem.2006.0007. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klärner A. The low importance of marriage in eastern Germany—Social norms and the role of peoples’ perceptions of the past. Demographic Research. 2015; S17 (9):239–272. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2015.33.9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klein T, Rapp I, Schneider B. Der Einfluss der partnerschaftlichen Lebensform auf Rauchverhalten und Körpergewicht. Comparative Population Studies - Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft. 2013; 38 (3):649–672. doi: 10.4232/10.CPoS-2013-13de. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kreyenfeld, M., Konietzka, D., & Walke, R. (2011). Dynamik Und Determinanten Nichtehelicher Mutterschaft in Ost- Und Westdeutschland. In Partnerschaft, Fertilität und Intergenerationale Beziehungen: Ergebnisse Der Ersten Welle Des Beziehungs - Und Familienpanels. Schriften Zum Beziehungs - Und Familienentwicklungspanel (J.Brüderl. and L. Castiglioni, pp. 155–174). Würzburg: Ergon Verlag.
• Kuh D, Power D, Blane B, Bartley M. Socioeconomic pathways between childhood and adult health. In: Kuh D, Ben-Schlomo Y, Ezra S, editors. A life course approach to chronic disease epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamb KA, Lee GR, DeMaris A. Union formation and depression: Selection and relationship effects. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2003; 65 (4):953–962. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00953.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lappegård, T., & Noack, T. (2015, February 3). The link between parenthood and partnership in contemporary Norway—Findings from focus group research. Retrieved August 14, 2017, from http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol32/9/default.htm .
• Lichter DT, Batson CD, Brown JB. Welfare reform and marriage promotion: The marital expectations and desires of single and cohabiting mothers. Social Service Review. 2004; 78 (1):2–25. doi: 10.1086/380652. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lichter DT, Sassler S, Turner RN. Cohabitation, post-conception unions, and the rise in nonmarital fertility. Social Science Research. 2014; 47 :134–147. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.04.002. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lichter DT, Turner RN, Sassler S. National estimates of the rise in serial cohabitation. Social Science Research. 2010; 39 (5):754–765. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.11.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liefbroer AC, Elzinga CH. Intergenerational transmission of behavioural patterns: How similar are parents’ and children’s demographic trajectories? Advances in Life Course Research. 2012; 17 (1):1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.alcr.2012.01.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu H, Reczek C. Cohabitation and U.S. adult mortality: An examination by gender and race. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012; 74 (4):794–811. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00983.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu H, Umberson DJ. The times they are a changin’: Marital status and health differentials from 1972 to 2003. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2008; 49 (3):239–253. doi: 10.1177/002214650804900301. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luo Y, Waite LJ. The impact of childhood and adult SES on physical, mental, and cognitive well-being in later life. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2005; 60 (2):S93–S101. doi: 10.1093/geronb/60.2.S93. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyngstad TH, Noack T, Tufte PA. Pooling of economic resources: A comparison of Norwegian married and cohabiting couples. European Sociological Review. 2011; 27 (5):624–635. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcq028. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marcussen K. Explaining differences in mental health between married and cohabiting individuals. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2005; 68 (3):239–257. doi: 10.2307/4148772. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McLanahan S. Diverging destinies: How children are faring under the second demographic transition. Demography. 2004; 41 (4):607–627. doi: 10.1353/dem.2004.0033. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McLanahan S, Percheski C. Family structure and the reproduction of inequalities. Annual Review of Sociology. 2008; 34 (1):257–276. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134549. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michelmore K. The earned income tax credit and union formation: The impact of expected spouse earnings. Review of Economics of the Household. 2016 doi: 10.1007/s11150-016-9348-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Monnat SM, Beeler Pickett C. Rural/urban differences in self-rated health: Examining the roles of county size and metropolitan adjacency. Health & Place. 2011; 17 (1):311–319. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.11.008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Musick K, Bumpass L. Reexamining the case for marriage: Union formation and changes in well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012; 74 (1):1–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00873.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Musick, K., & Michelmore, K. (2016). Cross-national comparisons of union stability in cohabiting and married families with children. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America , Washington DC. Retrieved from http://www.cpc.cornell.edu/html/research/WP_musick_michelmore_demog_102116.pdf . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Newton JN, Briggs ADM, Murray CJL, Dicker D, Foreman KJ, Wang H, et al. Changes in health in England, with analysis by English regions and areas of deprivation, 1990–2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet. 2015; 386 (10010):2257–2274. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00195-6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noack Turid, Bernhardt Eva, Wiik Kenneth Aarskaug. Contemporary Issues in Family Studies. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. Cohabitation or Marriage? Contemporary Living Arrangements in the West; pp. 16–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Norwegian Directorate of Health. (2012). Norway and Health. An Introduction. (No. IS-1730E). Oslo: Norwegian Directorate of Health. Retrieved from https://helsedirektoratet.no/Lists/Publikasjoner/Attachments/302/Norway-and-health-an-introduction-IS-1730E.pdf .
• ONS. (2013). General Health in England and Wales: 2011 and comparison with 2001. Office of National Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/articles/generalhealthinenglandandwales/2013-01-30 .
• Oppenheimer VK. Cohabiting and marriage during young men’s career-development process. Demography. 2003; 40 (1):127–149. doi: 10.2307/3180815. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pearlin LI, Schieman S, Fazio EM, Meersman SC. Stress, health, and the life course: some conceptual perspectives. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2005; 46 (2):205–219. doi: 10.2307/4150398. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perelli-Harris B, Berrington A, Sánchez Gassen N, Galezewska P, Holland JA. The rise in divorce and cohabitation: Is there a link? Population and Development Review. 2017; 43 (2):303–329. doi: 10.1111/padr.12063. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perelli-Harris B, Kreyenfeld M, Kubisch K. Harmonized histories: Manual for the preparation of comparative fertility and union histories. Rostock, Germany: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perelli-Harris B, Kreyenfeld M, Sigle-Rushton W, Keizer R, Lappegård T, Jasilioniene A, et al. Changes in union status during the transition to parenthood in eleven European countries, 1970s to early 2000s. Population Studies. 2012; 66 (2):167–182. doi: 10.1080/00324728.2012.673004. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perelli-Harris B, Lyons-Amos M. Partnership patterns in the United States and across Europe: the role of education and country context. Social Forces. 2016; 95 (1):251–282. doi: 10.1093/sf/sow054. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perelli-Harris B, Mynarska M, Berrington A, Berghammer C, Evans A, Isupova O, et al. Towards a new understanding of cohabitation: Insights from focus group research across Europe and Australia. Demographic Research, S. 2014; 17 (34):1043–1078. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2014.31.34. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perelli-Harris B, Sanchez Gassen NS. How similar are cohabitation and marriage? Legal approaches to cohabitation across Western Europe. Population and Development Review. 2012; 38 (3):435–467. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00511.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qu, L., & Weston, R. (2008). Snapshots of family relationships . Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved from https://aifs.gov.au/publications/snapshots-family-relationships .
• Rapp I, Schneider B. The impacts of marriage, cohabitation and dating relationships on weekly self-reported physical activity in Germany: A 19-year longitudinal study. Social Science and Medicine. 2013; 98 :197–203. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.024. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Read S, Grundy E, Wolf DA. Fertility history, health, and health changes in later life: A panel study of British women and men born 1923-49. Population Studies. 2011; 65 (2):201–215. doi: 10.1080/00324728.2011.572654. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reed JM. Not crossing the “extra line”: How cohabitors with children view their unions. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2006; 68 (5):1117–1131. doi: 10.2307/4122849. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rendall M, Aracil E, Bagavos C, Couet C, Derose A, Digiulio P, et al. Increasingly heterogeneous ages at first birth by education in Southern European and Anglo-American family-policy regimes: A seven-country comparison by birth cohort. Population Studies. 2010; 64 (3):209–227. doi: 10.1080/00324728.2010.512392. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rendall MS, Ekert-Jaffé O, Joshi H, Lynch K, Mougin R. Universal versus economically polarized change in age at first birth: A French: British comparison. Population and Development Review. 2009; 35 (1):89–115. doi: 10.2307/25487643. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robles TF, Slatcher RB, Trombello JM, McGinn MM. Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin. 2014; 140 (1):140–187. doi: 10.1037/a0031859. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross CE, Mirowsky J, Goldsteen K. The impact of the family on health: The decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1990; 52 (4):1059–1078. doi: 10.2307/353319. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smock PJ. Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology. 2000; 26 :1–20. doi: 10.2307/223434. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Soons JPM, Kalmijn M. Is marriage more than cohabitation? Well-being differences in 30 European countries. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2009; 71 (5):1141–1157. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00660.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tavares LP, Aassve A. Psychological distress of marital and cohabitation breakups. Social Science Research. 2013; 42 (6):1599–1611. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.07.008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D. Gender, marital status and the social control of health behavior. Social Science and Medicine. 1992; 34 (8):907–917. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90259-S. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D, Crosnoe R, Reczek C. Social relationships and health behavior across the life course. Annual Review of Sociology. 2010; 36 (1):139–157. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120011. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D, Montez JK. Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2010; 51 (Suppl):S54–S66. doi: 10.1177/0022146510383501. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D, Williams K, Powers D, Liu H, Needham B. You make me sick: marital quality and health over the life course. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2006; 47 (1):1–16. doi: 10.1177/002214650604700101. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D, Williams K, Thomas PA, Liu H, Thomeer MB. Race, gender, and chains of disadvantage: childhood adversity, social relationships, and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2014; 55 (1):20–38. doi: 10.1177/0022146514521426. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waite LJ. Does marriage matter? Demography. 1995; 32 (4):483–507. doi: 10.2307/2061670. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waite L, Gallagher M. The case for marriage: Why married people are happier. Crown/Archetype: Healthier and Better Off Financially; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiik KA. “You”d better wait!’—Socio-economic background and timing of first marriage versus first cohabitation. European Sociological Review. 2009; 25 (2):139–153. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcn045. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiik KA, Bernhardt E, Noack T. A study of commitment and relationship quality in Sweden and Norway. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2009; 71 (3):465–477. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00613.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiik, K. A., & Dommermuth, L. (2011). Type, number, and incidence: Recent patterns and differentials in relationship careers in Norway (Working paper). Statistics Norway. Retrieved from https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/180361 .
• Wiik KA, Keizer R, Lappegård T. Relationship quality in marital and cohabiting unions across Europe. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012; 74 (3):389–398. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00967.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams K, Sassler S, Frech A, Addo F, Cooksey E. Nonmarital childbearing, union history, and women’s health at midlife. American Sociological Review. 2011; 76 (3):465–486. doi: 10.1177/0003122411409705. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolfinger NH. Understanding the divorce cycle: The children of divorce in their own marriages. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood RG, Goesling B, Avellar S. The effects of marriage on health: A synthesis of recent research evidence. Washington, DC: Mathematical Policy Research; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu Z, Hart R. The effects of marital and nonmarital union transition on health. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2002; 64 (2):420–432. doi: 10.2307/3600115. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]