Living Together Before Marriage

Divorce Research Study Says Cohabitation May Increase Divorce

Aug 15, 2009
Christina Gregoire

Moving in Together - x alimaryanne x

Living together before marriage is usually a bad idea. A divorce study says that cohabitation statistically increases chance of divorce.

According to a new research study, living together before marriage may increase the chance of divorce. Cohabitation is a positive factor for divorce, which sounds good, but actually means that couples who live together are more likely to split up after marriage.

Living Together Before Marriage - Statistics

This information is based upon a 5-year study by Scott Stanley, a psychologist at the University of Denver. Stanley has been interested in the subject of cohabitation for the past 15 years, after he read a 1995 report on the subject.

Thirty years ago, apartment owners seldom allowed unmarried couples to rent a place together, but times have changed, and today, living together before marriage is a common occurrence. Often, the reason is financial, but sometimes people just live together out of loneliness.

The Denver study found that out of 1,050 married people, 19 percent of those who "lived together" before marriage had talked to their spouse about divorce. In the control group who did not live together, only 10 percent had brought up divorce. This means that twice as many people who cohabitated had wanted a divorce enough to tell their partner. These numbers confirm the outcome of the earlier, 1995 study.

Dr. Stanley concludes that many people, who lived together, are less dedicated to making the marriage succeed than those who never had the same premarital address.

Reasons Not to Live Together

Various studies have shown something called "The Cohabitation Effect". This includes:

More negative communication in marriage
Lower levels of marital satisfaction
Higher marital instability
Lower levels of male commitment to spouse
Greater likelihood of divorce

Professor Stanley continues, “The problem is one of inertia.” Once a couple lives together, their finances are mingled together and it is more difficult for a couple to break up than if they had their own apartments. This causes a lot of people to marry because it is more convenient than putting a lot of effort into separating. Yes, getting a new place is a hassle.

Moving in with Boyfriend or Girlfriend

Couples who moved in together, after making the commitment of becoming engaged, scored just like those who waited until after the marriage ceremony. And, this makes sense because both groups took a deliberate and serious step towards permanence.

One Person Doesn't Want to Get Married

Sometimes, one partner sees cohabitation as a step toward marriage and long-term commitment, while the other does not. It would be interesting to see if the man or the woman were statistically more likely to push for the commitment, but there is no data available to answer this question.

Does Cohabitation Lead to Divorce?

The real question is whether or not cohabitation leads to divorce, or whether cohabitation is practiced by people who are less stable financially or emotionally than those who live apart. Well, the answer is very difficult to discover from a questionnaire. This type of analysis requires in-depth study of individual couples, which was not part of the Denver study.

Stanley reasons, it could very well be, that cohabitation doesn’t weaken relationships and that the relationships at risk may have involved pregnancy or people who were too weak to be in a relationship, in the first place.

Is Living Together a Good Idea?

Many people believe that living together before marriage can be a good thing because it allows couples to “practice” being married before taking the final step. This may be true in some instances, but for many, who live together only to save money, the results can be disastrous. Also, some couples, who move in together, find it is just plain easier to stay together, even when others can see that the relationship is heading downhill.

According to Dr. Stanley, no matter what popular media portrays, all published articles that he has read over the years, point to the same conclusion: Living together before marriage has no benefit for a long term relationship, and may add risk.

How Important is Religion?

It is possible that people, who wait until after marriage to live together, are more traditionally religious and have skewed the statistics. Stanley says that this would explain part of the resulting outcome but not enough to dismiss the findings.

The conclusion seems to be: Why take a chance? While it is convenient and financially logical for young couples to live together, the risks usually outweigh the benefits. Maybe granny was right.

Information from this article is not intended to be a substitute for advice from a lawyer, financial planner, therapist, or other professional. Please consult a lawyer or other professional for specific advice.Resources:

Music From the 90s: List of Pop, Hip Hop & Rock Dance Party Songs

How to Write a Dating Profile for Men

College Pell Grants for Divorced or Single Moms

Casual Beach Wedding Dresses

Bohemian Vintage Wedding Dresses - Low Cost Marriage Hippie Style

Resources:

McCarthy, Ellen. Force of Cohabit: Making or Breaking a Marriage? The Washington Post, washingtonpost.com, August 16, 2009.

Stanley, Scott, and Rhoades, Galena. "Sliding vs Deciding: Understanding a Mystery". National Council on Family Relations, June 2009. Prepinc.com.

Tina in the South of France, photo Raymond Gregoire

Christina Gregoire - Christina Gregoire writes about divorce, fashion, and baby boomers. Her forte is explaining complex ideas in simple language.

Comments

Dec 25, 2009 12:57 PM

Guest :

well balanced

Jan 1, 2010 10:08 PM

Guest :

I think that sometimes people are idealistic and are more in love with the idea of being in love than what love (long lasting commitment) really means. They think living together will be an extension of their union without thinking that living together will only highlight the other persons inperfections. Somehow, seeing the imperfections before making the lifelong commitment, makes people dought the quality of partner they have been lving with.

Feb 16, 2010 5:52 AM

Guest :

I think the study is a bid broad and not very accurate. I noticed they "gloss" over the findings that might refute the idea that cohabitating before marriage might not actually be detrimental (the people in the study who chose not to might be more religious and devoted to the rules of their church/synagogue, etc...or that cohabitation might come about for many people due to reasons like pregnancy, financial instability, or loneliness )
There are too many factors that the study didn't really explore. Generally, marrying, living together, or dating for reasons of financial security, religious beliefs or simply "I'm afraid to be alone" are all very poor reasons, no matter how you go about them. It's easy to say that the divorce rate is due to cohabitation, rather than the fact that divorce has become less of a taboo over the last 50 years or so, regardless of trends of cohabitation.
The conclusion of "why take a chance?" is a silly notion, and certainly not a mantra to base one's life decisions on.

Mar 26, 2010 9:58 AM

Guest :

truth is I am researching the effect of cohabiting on marriage and I have a girlfriend that I have been trying to get to move in with me and now i think that maybe we should wait because I truely love her and do not want another relationship to end because of action that are foolish and have the least bit chance of prematurely ending the greatest relationship that I have experienced. I do want to marry her I have been married before.So has she. No more mistakes even little one if I can help it. Peace and love to all Bernie Rosales

Apr 26, 2010 3:03 AM

Guest :

Here's the thing,, people. When you wait until marriage to move in together, and you have a fight, you are faced with working that issue out (unless it's huge enough to divorce). When you're living with that person before marriage, it's easy to opt out of that relationship. There's no premium on permanence. And if you're at the point in your relationship where you're moving in together, you should be at the point in your relationship where you unconditionally love that person and you're willing to relax on those little obnoxious things they do. If you're at that point, you should be married anyway. There's a process to relationships. It's not a coincidence that divorce rates are skyrocketing at the same time we're trying to change the traditional relationship roles. We want instant gratification without the hard work, and that doesn't last. If you want something that lasts, wait until marriage. If you need a trial marriage, then you don't love the person you're with enough to make a marriage work, and you shouldn't even bother continuing that relationship. If you do love that person unconditionally, you should be willing to have a real marriage and face the issues and work them out instead of insisting on a trial one *just in case*. The whole point of love is that it is unconditional.

May 27, 2010 1:28 PM

Guest :

Correlation does not equal causation.

It is impossible to know if cohabitaiton before marriage leads to higher divorce rates using the design suggested by Dr. Stanley. In fact, he is not even conducting an experiment because HE IS NOT MANIPULATING ANY VARIABLES.

There are so many 3rd variables that can explain this relationship, but the most obvious would be that more religious couples typically don't cohabitate before marriage and don't divorce as much due to religious norms. A much better dependent variable for Dr. Stanley would have been marital satisfaction, which would be an unbiased outcome measure for religious and non religious groups.

Of course this is still correlational and tells us nothing about causation. It is impossible to know if the cohabitators in couple A would've been happier had they not without a time machine, but a more responsible statistical analysis would've been to develop a model using regression to predict couple A's marital satisfaction based on a large sample size of cohabitating and non cohabitating couples.

This analysis really tells us nothing about if cohabitating or lack thereof is the cause of a steady marriage.

May 28, 2010 1:35 AM

Christina Gregoire :

Yes, I understand that correlation is not the same as causation. However, I also believe that couples who live together (often for financial reasons) may end up married due to inertia (easier to stay put than to come up with first and last month's rent) or may end up married because of unexpected pregnancy. I agree with your analysis of religious people and how that skews the results. On the other hand, what is gained by living together rather than getting married? I grew up in the 60s and I understand your reasoning, don't misunderstand. However, just because the study might be "flawed" scientifically does not make the conclusion wrong. I think you are against marriage because of community property and other financial problems that (usually) guys face. Well, a prenup would cover that. So, what is the problem with marriage?

Jun 29, 2010 9:16 AM

Guest :

Clearly, one might not accept everything he/she reads as scientific truth; however, this article is filled with sound judgement and good sense. Like the old adage,"Why buy the cow when you can get the milk free?," living together is a discounted way to achieve very temporary happiness. My guy and I had this discussion last night. In my heart he loves me; in my head, I know he likes me but would love to practice living with me to marry someone else later in life. The reality is this: If you want to play house, get a Barbie and Ken - don't forget to buy the white dream house to go with it. If you want to invest time, love, energy and committment into something promising (someone who is far more than a toy), get married. Proponents against this idea would argue that marriage is not a guaranteer for happiness or longetivity. While that is true, it requires more effort and is harder to walk away from financially, legally, and emotionally than throwing away the old Ken, Barbie and dreamhouse toys- which are all disposable easily.

Aug 20, 2010 4:02 PM

Guest :

I think there are more issues with the comments being made here than with the article itself!

My partner and I have been together for three years, and cohabited for the past one. We took that choice because we love one another and have a great, committed relationship. I do not agree with what certain persons here seem to be suggesting, that there is no 'point' in simply living with eachother without actually getting married. My partner and I are 22 years old - while we are in a longterm and committed relationship, we also acknowledge that we are very young in the grand scheme of things and are still enjoying nurturing and developing our relationship (which incidentally is something you have to do in a marriage also - a wedding does not automatically mean that the relationship is 'there', done and dusted with no more work necessary). More significantly, given our age we also are not in any financial state to support even the most modest of weddings which our two families could come together and celebrate at (and I'm sure they would not be particularly happy at such a young marriage - yet another factor to consider). Lastly, given our age we are going through many changes right now - I am currently finishing my postgraduate degree, my partner is about to embark on a teaching career - THAT is our life, and we work through these changes and others together. It's why we are still together after three years. Adding the prospect of a wedding to that would be daunting, and I think that's ok to acknowedge.
Our cohabitation is NOT a 'trial marriage' - it is the next phase of practical committment in our lives, and to suggest otherwise or that it is less legitimate as a loving, effective relationship because it is not supported by legally married status is offensive. My partner and I are in the same position as non-cohabiting couples before they are married - except we wished to to make a home together.
As for the study - I agree with comments that more focus should actually be directed towards the factors BEHIND cohabitation - are those that cohabit more flaky in personality? Are they less financially independent? Are they from broken homes where they crave a united home?
Lastly, I don't agree that cohabiting couples 'slip' into marriage because it's easier than breaking up, or at least I think substantial research should be conducted in order to support statements like that.
P.s. What about the 80% cohabiting couples that don't divorce? The problem with this article is that it's too "Cohabiting WILL lead to divorce".
R.D.
Liverpool, UK.

Aug 20, 2010 4:13 PM

Guest :

Also, there is some major cultural bias here. Christine - you say in one of your comments that cohabiting couples may end up marrying due to unexpected pregnancy - what about all those couples in the world who are not cohabiting but have sexual relations with their parners all the same?? Because in the UK most people do not practice 'no sex before marriage', so unexpected pregnancy is just as possible in both cohabiting and non-cohabiting relationships. This type of view of things is one of the reasons that, unfortunately, this article fails. Rather than being advice on those who are considering cohabitation, it is suggesting too many unreasonable assumptions and tarring all examples of cohabitation with the same brush - it ain't great and it will lead to divorce. Completely misleading.

R.D.
Liverpool, UK.

Aug 20, 2010 5:11 PM

Christina Gregoire :

Hi Liverpool,

I agree with almost all of what you said. And, I certainly cannot argue against your well-reasoned points.

I would NOT say that NO ONE should EVER live together. You seem quite mature for your age (or any age). My argument would be that most people are not as "together" and articulate and well...as mature as you. So, my advice would be to tell people (in general) to err on the side of caution.

It's easier to disentangle your life when you have your own place and things don't work out in the relationship. It's easier to remain objective when you don't live together. And, coming from the viewpoint of women, the female retains more power when she has her own apartment. She has more choices and more options.

If some random woman or teenage girl came up to me on the street and asked if she should move in with her boyfriend, I would say, "No." I am not telling her that she must remain a virgin until her wedding day. I am not telling her that she can never stay overnight at her boyfriend's house. I am not saying that she cannot keep her toothbrush and some clothes and her set of dishes at her BF's place. However, I KNOW that she is NOT limiting her options when she HAS HER OWN PLACE to fall back on...even if it is just a rented closet with a bed... It's still her own place.

Psychologically, it makes a difference to a woman when she has her own place.

Females (usually) give up their power when they move in with a guy. And, I have direct knowledge from my own life and my second marriage.

I'm not a bible thumper and I would not tell you that you MUST follow my advice. This is just what I've seen in my MANY, MANY years of life. I think that most couples are better off if they have their own apartments (or closets with beds, or rooms in their parents' homes) until they are engaged or married.

Really, I've bucked trends and rebelled all my life, but there is a part of me that sees the wisdom of the old-fashioned rules on this issue. Not all situations are the same. However, in general, I think that women are better off keeping their own apartments when they are in a relationship.

The potential problem: Some women end up being emotionally committed when living with a guy...but often the guy will be uncommitted to the relationship, yet happy with the benefits. Where does this leave the girl? And, sometimes this female has children with her when she moves in. How are they going to be affected?

I am not in favor of having children before marriage or legal partnership. Yes, movie stars and heiresses may think it's trendy, but for the average woman...it's not a great idea. Raising children alone is not easy. (And, I've considered the argument that marriage doesn't guarantee that the relationship will work. Also, I am not advocating abortion.)

And, whether or not kids are involved, I think that women give up their power when they move in without the ring. So, my advice to most people MUST be: Wait until you are married or until you have an engagement ring and a wedding date set.

Aug 20, 2010 5:31 PM

Christina Gregoire :

ps I am not arguing against living together, rather I am arguing that more couples should be romantic about it, get married (even if it means a celebration in the back yard with $50 of KFC, one's extended family, and a $20 ring), and have children. I think that people (in general) would be happier if they had more children and less cohabitation and less consumerism and less self-centeredness. I believe that children are a great joy. (And, I am not telling 17 year-old girls to run off with some unemployed jerk just to have kids. So, finish college first.)

I also think that people who talk about limited population growth are full of it. What the hell do they know? I think that the average Western society is robbing people of happiness by telling them to work more and have no/less children. Kids can be fun. If you can afford it (by cutting back on Coach purses or big screen TVs) consider having some children. Please. It's so sad to never see any children anymore.

Some ivory tower jerk has robbed our society of happiness.

Oct 3, 2010 6:29 PM

Guest :

A study from that same journal that looked at cohabitation and actual separation and divorce rates, and their data leads to different very conclusions.
Having collected data from over 6200 couples, Hewitt & DeVaus (2009) found that for people married after 1998 cohabitation actually decreases the risk for separation and divorce.
Given that Stanlet et al. (the Denver study) looked the relationship between cohabitation and attitudes towards current relationship (the people hadn't actually divorced or separated, their measure is really a meaure of current marital satisfaction), and Hewitt & DeVaus looked at the relation between cohabitation and actual separation and divorce, I think that the latter findings provide a more valid depiction of real-world behavior.

Oct 3, 2010 6:34 PM

Guest :

Oct 24, 2010 1:35 PM

Guest :

So much thinking and questioning about about one of the most precious gifts that we ever received that of the institution of marriage. Many points raised were valied but statics hold true to one, and that is that of what happens emotionally to individuals that place themselves in relationships where commitment is second to sexual and financial gratification. Most of the prior comments seem to focus on both of these aspects of cohabitting prior to marriage. So much has been mentioned about the so called benefits by many, however the lack of concern about the serious ramifications emotionally to those who choose this course of action for themselves and potentially their children that it is disturbing. Marriage is already to many a disposable institution and I think that is the reason so many are opting to live together however that brings in itself a set of serious problems that many choose to walk away from without regard for the other person. If someone chooses to walk away from a marriage the damage is terrible to be sure but at least the leap of committment was made and the chance was taken at real love and not the fake for the fun of it kind. And no I am not divorced nor have I ever been hurt by a lover that I lived with. I am in a committed 23 year marriage and hope that the day will come when my 20 year old son and 16 year old daughter get married BEFORE LIVING TOGETHER and say thanks mom and dad for a great example of what love and committment is.

Dec 2, 2010 9:22 AM

Naomi Rockler-Gladen :

I can only speak to my own situation. My husband and I have been married for almost 10 years. We lived together for almost a year and a half before we were engaged, and then got married six months later.

This was absolutely the right decision for us. We loved each other, but weren't at all sure that we were compatible as a permanent couple. We come from very different backgrounds. In many ways, he's not at all the person I imagined myself marrying, and I think he would say the same for me. And in my case, he was the first long term serious relationship I'd ever been in, so I had a lot to learn.

It gradually became clear to us that we were compatable as permanant partners and that we were very happy together, so we got married. But what if we'd discovered that we were wrong for each other? In our case, I think we were valuing the institution of marriage more by NOT committing to it until we knew we were ready-- and especially before we became parents.

I do understand that the issue that some people (men, typically) may be taking advantage of the social acceptability of living together to get the benefits of marriage without the commitment. But that's a communication problem. Obviously people shouldn't move in together unless that's what they both want. If one partnet really wants to wait until marriage to move in together and is settling for cohabitation, that's a big problem with the relationship.

(Oh, and BTW, the phrase "get the milk for free without buying the cow" is REALLY offensive. I am not neither a cow nor a commodity, and my "milk" is something I freely choose to share.)

Jan 1, 2011 11:01 AM

Guest :

I am one of those strong religious types. I was married before, I had just turned 20. We had decided to wait until marriage for well, everything, or try to at least. There were a lot of red flags about our relationship before we got married, but we still decided to not live together and just get married, because of the pressure of religious beliefs (which we both felt strongly about). Early on, we realized it wasn't working out. We still wanted to work on it because it was the right thing to do. We continued to clash for 6 years, then separated. If we had lived together before, I think we would've quickly recognized that it wasn't working out and wouldn't have made each other miserable for 6 years. We would've been able to move on much quicker, but instead we now have to go through the emotional and financial tearing of our home. I have since met a wonderful man. We have discussed our options and if we should wait or live together before marrying. Considering both of our past situations (he's from a similar background/relationship as mine) we decided to move in together, with the very clear intentions of getting married. We love each other very much, but sometimes, people just realize how much they don't fit together only after living together.

Jan 6, 2011 3:19 PM

Guest :

You do not really know a person untill you live with them. Me and my partner first lived together in a shared house with two other people. And it worked really well. I knew that I could spend the rest of my life with this person because we were both similar and he didn't do anything around the house that annoyed me. (I am hard to live with as a lot of things bug me) I would get so angry at the way our other housemates lived and took care of the house. After living together with these two others for about 8months we decided to rent a place of our own and it was great. Even better than before because it was just the two of us. We got married 4months later. Living together made me see that I could live with this man for the rest of my life. If it had not worked we could have gone our separate ways as we were only renting and it was furnished. Now buying a house and living together is a different matter. I don't think you should do that, if for some reason you find you can't live with the person then you have a problem because you both own the house together. And I can see how people might think it is easier just to get married as you are already invested in something.

Jan 13, 2011 11:56 PM

Christina Gregoire :

Naomi,
I'm basically just explaining a study. For some people, it might be fine to live together. Well, as I am a 58y/o Baby Boomer, I have "cohabitated" and for me it was no help. For me it caused problems. And, for others it was the right thing to do. A lot depends on the couple and the reasons that they are living together.

It's a controversial subject...that's for sure. I certainly don't think that there is an in-depth longevity study that is truly conclusive. And, for you it worked out.

If a couple that I didn't know came up to me and asked if they should live together before marriage, I would say, "No," because there are as many down-sides (if not more) than there are up-sides (benefits). In general, I believe that there are more disadvantages than advantages. And, it's not that I am a prude. I am extremely open-minded...about everything...EXCEPT one trend that I don't understand. Some young couples are so phobic about marriage that they have a child first to test the relationship to see if they should get married. I have heard people say that. It must be somewhat normal in my part of the US.

To me, if there are no children involved, you can do whatever works for you. If you have children or you are pregnant and living with a man....tell me why getting married would be wrong? That is where I don't get it.

IMO marriage is all about protecting children. It's about love and happy stuff...but when push comes to shove, I believe that if you are going to have children, you should get married if that is an option. If you have children from a previous relationship, I don't think you should drag your kids into too many live-in relationships. The kids will be unsure who is going to try to stick around.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion,.

Jan 14, 2011 12:07 AM

Christina Gregoire :

Naomi, PS forgot to say that I'm glad it worked out for you.

Feb 23, 2011 7:48 PM

Guest :

Complete drivel. "This means that twice as many people who cohabitated had wanted a divorce enough to tell their partner." It doesn't mean that at all. Correlation is not causation. Let's suppose the count is true. Could it be those couples that lived together were simply more open and willing to terminate a failed marriage while the others that stayed married anyway? Who exactly is better off? It's interesting how other studies on this subject indicate the opposite. The National Center for Health Statistics study is one. One must also take into account ages when they marry and how long the marriage lasted to truly measure something like this.

Apr 17, 2011 3:55 PM

Christina Gregoire :

Oh, I agree with you on some of your points. This was not an in-depth longitudinal study. However, I really don't understand why couples in their 20s and 30s are so anti-marriage. Sure, there is a likelihood that their parents divorced and they don't want that...but, what's the difference between breaking up (after cohabitating) and divorcing (in a situation where there is a prenup)?

I mean, c'mon, it's time to grow up. Real, mature people marry. Immature people cohabitate (except for some instances where it makes sense to live together)... I have cohabitated with two of my husbands (shocking...yes, when I was 20, then when I was 27). I'm not sure that there was any benefit at all.

You can find out a lot about a person without changing your mailing address. The only benefit is reduced living expenses.

May 14, 2011 12:38 PM

Guest :

@ Liverpool,

The twice as many people who TALK of getting a divorce (and may or may not actually get one) develops from cohabitation. On another note, there is another statistic that is not mentioned here that has recently come out and that is that in 2/3 of divorces that actually occur, the partners were living together before marriage. That is a huge statistic. Also, there is nothing more beautiful than two people abstaining from sexual intimacy until marriage. Study upon study has proven that the two will share a deeper love connection, obviously keep from dreaded sexual diseases, and get more pleasure from sex than those who live together, or engage in fulfilling sexual desires before marriage.

Oct 6, 2011 7:41 AM

Guest :

This information was very informative, but I lived with my now husband before marriage and just living together was something we both wanted more than, so we got married and our commitment to one another is as strong as ever

Jan 27, 2012 5:24 PM

Guest :

I think that living together marriage it is good idea.

Feb 7, 2012 11:18 PM

Guest :

Good stuff. I've been stressing about these studies because my girlfriend and I have "lived" together for the last two years of our relationship. I would like to think we're ok because part of the moving in had to do with it being necessary because a thousand+ mile relationship just wouldn't work. I think we have been committed the whole time. Not to mention, I bought a ring loooong ago, and since I travel so much with my job (which am soon quitting), we only see eachother maybe 10% of the time. I've heard these studies so I am wigged out a bit, but I do think the conservative values skew the numbers a bit as well. Makes sense, if you live together because at the time it financially makes sense, you could be in for trouble.
I like how this article was well-summarized. Others I read, were full of filler with no clear point.
Now...I'm a bit more pious (clearly not that religious though) than my girlfriend, who is an uber liberal. Should I be worried about that!? I got excited when the article got to the religion aspect, but never fully covered that.

26 Comments

Living Together Before Marriage

Divorce Research Study Says Cohabitation May Increase Divorce

Living Together Before Marriage - Statistics

Reasons Not to Live Together

Popular topics

Moving in with Boyfriend or Girlfriend

One Person Doesn't Want to Get Married

Does Cohabitation Lead to Divorce?

Is Living Together a Good Idea?

How Important is Religion?

Comments

Popular topics