« Andreessen on The Psychology of Human Misjudgment | Main | Outsourcing, taken to extremes »
It's OK to live together before marriage
The latest word is here, namely that the previously established relationship between cohabitation and marriage failure seems to have gone away. I hope I have made a few of you happy today.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 28, 2008 at 11:26 AM in Data Source | Permalink
Comments
I'll wager that cohabitation is still correlated with marriage failure for the lower income brackets. (I haven't read it all, but the study doesn't contain the word "income," so I'm pretty sure they haven't looked at this.)
Posted by: David Wright at Mar 28, 2008 11:37:26 AM
"the previously established relationship between cohabitation and marriage failure seems to have gone away"
In that case, I'm moving out.
Posted by: Jake at Mar 28, 2008 11:45:09 AM
I wonder if I can get that retainer back...
Posted by: josh at Mar 28, 2008 11:52:02 AM
Of course, here in Florida, it's still illegal.
Posted by: Anthony at Mar 28, 2008 12:02:34 PM
Yes, this is personally satisfying to me.
Posted by: Sunset Shazz at Mar 28, 2008 12:44:54 PM
I'll wager that cohabitation is still correlated with marriage failure for the lower income brackets.
Breathing is correlated with marriage failure for lower income brackets, if my high school classmates are any evidence.
Posted by: Mike at Mar 28, 2008 1:06:42 PM
It's confirmation for me. I shacked up with my old lady for a couple years before getting married, and after nearly 8 years I still haven't thrown her out. ;)
Posted by: MikeDC at Mar 28, 2008 1:06:48 PM
Uh..... Read the abstract. One major reason is the 'decline of the benefits of marriage.' So yeah, the closer marriage is to living together, the less affect living together will have on marriage. That doesn't exactly fill me with relief about the decline of marriage.
Posted by: A Berman at Mar 28, 2008 1:22:31 PM
I'd have to say this is a brilliant statement. At one time, I was married and never lived with the person. After 2 years we divorced...it was over after a few months...(it didn't help that I was gay, either, lol)
I have been living with my current partner for almost 2 years and things are 100% better than they were with the other person.
These days, there is no "learning to love" someome.
Posted by: Crys at Mar 28, 2008 1:44:13 PM
If this idea was in any other context there wouldn't be much debate. A crude example provides a decent analogy.
Who buys a car without driving it first? Don't we expect someone to have higher rates of satisfaction with her purchase after she at least tested it out (as compared with those who didn't test it out first). Sure, you may hate your car in the long run, but it's unlikely that the test drive contributed to that (OR YOU WOULDN'T HAVE BOUGHT IT!).
Sure, for a number of reasons, marriage isn't quite the same as buying a car. But, the premise is simple: more information should help you make a better decision.
Posted by: Scott W at Mar 28, 2008 2:54:26 PM
I believe this study is flawed. If you incorporate into the equation that the benefits of succesive marriages for failed cohabitors is less than the first marriage (not an unrealistic assumption), and considering that there will be a whole population of failed cohabitors marrying, then the overall benefit for society as a whole not only disappears but decreases through time.
Posted by: alegoje at Mar 28, 2008 3:00:16 PM
"...seems to have gone away."
Is that how we describe predictive failures now?
Posted by: Stephen Downes at Mar 28, 2008 4:06:08 PM
Before: Some people cohabit, they have more marriage failure.
Now: "Everybody" cohabits, marriages following cohabitation are no more likely to fail.
But: Benefits of marriage have declined...i.e. marriage is a failing institution.
Maybe there is still a correlation?
Posted by: 8 at Mar 28, 2008 4:09:37 PM
My understanding of the statistic was that living together was a proxy for other factors which make marriages fail. If you only get married because that's what you're "supposed" to do after living together for a year, the marriage likely won't work.
Posted by: Matt at Mar 28, 2008 4:49:55 PM
8,
But the likelihood of marriage success is trending up. Marriages are successful at a higher rate now than in decades.
Posted by: Cliff at Mar 28, 2008 6:32:30 PM
Social approval of cohabitation has deprived millions of children of their fathers. One might factor this consideration into any statement about how OK cohabitation is.
Posted by: Kenneth A. Regas at Mar 29, 2008 1:54:10 AM
We've had exactly the same experience in Ireland. Research I was involved in last year with 700 couples in their first seven years of marriage showed that the majority had co-habited before marrying. Indeed, the proportion previously co-habiting rose sharply among those recently married.
Though a lot of it has to do with changing social values in a nominally Catholic country the main explanation is: house prices. Couples co-habit to share the cost of a house or apartment before incurring the cost of a wedding. More proof that incentives matter?
Posted by: Gerard O'Neill at Mar 29, 2008 5:49:34 AM
Not cohabiting was the best thing we ever did. It gave us (chaste) time to focus on our communication and conflict resolution skills, and to prove to each other that we loved each other, and not each other's bodies. This pays off in spades daily. It also helps that we went "all in" to the marriage: without divorce being an option on the table, when something isn't right, we HAVE to sit down and work it out, or see a counselor, and we both pre-agreed to that, and hold each other to it.
I would much rather be married to a woman who is committed to working things out and making things better than one who was a 5% better match to the person I was when I was 22. What with all the ways we change over our lives, the whole "shopping around for the best" mentality is ridiculous, and guarantees at least one divorce. There will ALWAYS be someone prettier, smarter or funnier out there. Deal with it! Marriage is an exercise in applied love and commitment (and challenge and joy), not a mutual entertainment contract.
Posted by: DB at Mar 29, 2008 7:29:36 AM
Well there goes my excuse for putting off marriage.
Posted by: How Insane Is John McCain? at Mar 29, 2008 2:46:54 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with Kenneth (though he didn't need to post three times). The couple ain't the only two parties in the marriage transaction, look at the kids. The Cato Institute and plenty of others have made a very, very convincing case that the rise in illegitimacy leads to a rise in crime and/or poverty, and the problem is self-perpetuating at long as the welfare state (and other disincentives for marriage) exist.
BTW, does this study look at the cohabiting couples who break up before ever getting a chance to marry? It seems to me that looking at the cohabiting couples who select marriage for themselves will be more likely to yield lasting marriages than considering *all* cohabiting couples and seeing how successful that entire group is at staying together. It reminds me of those studies that "prove" rises in the minimum wage benefit businesses because they only look at businesses that survive the increase.
Posted by: Jacob Oost at Mar 29, 2008 2:50:14 PM
you don't have to cohabitate to have children... another act is responsible for that. i'd wager that many legitimate children come from non-cohabitating couples.
Posted by: je at Mar 29, 2008 5:19:39 PM
I am surprised that such a correlation ever existed. Certainly in the UK the trend has been for marriage and divorce rates to fall.
Posted by: Marcin Tustin at Mar 30, 2008 12:47:22 PM
Do you really trust a paper that references a study by "Bumpass and Sweet"?
Posted by: Anonymous at Mar 31, 2008 1:15:35 AM
Perhaps marriage simply doesn't serve the same role that it once did. Of course, their is marriage as in the religious sacrament, but as far as a civil agreement, society is changing, and so should the idea of marriage. It'll be interesting to see how it all turns out.
Posted by: Don't Believe Everything You Think at Mar 31, 2008 4:47:43 PM
I am commenting on this because Im one of the few old fashioned girls left that dont believe in living together before marriage. Marriage was once something so sacred that many people do not even take seriously anymore. I do not agree with living with someone before you get married to them, but I am not going to be one to judge if that is your choosing. If you're living with someone then what is the point in getting married? That's one of the things you have to look forward to after becoming husband and wife! Now a days thought people dont even think twice before they flippantly move in with someone. I know that people say, "Well that's when you really get to know someone." This is true, but once you get married you ought to be so in love and willing to work so hard that you're willing to over look or work through any issues that arise after moving with in with someone. And if you're not willing to work through the hard things, such as peculiar living habits, then are you really ready to get married to begin with??
Posted by: Suzanne at Apr 2, 2008 11:55:04 PM
