Correlates of Attitudes Toward Cohabitation

Abstract

The present study examines how demographics, attitudes toward marriage, attitudes toward sexual activity, sexual behaviors, and dating experience are associated with three different attitudes toward cohabitation among never-married young adults. Results from a sample of 1,036 young adult college students suggest that the endorsement of cohabitation is strongly associated with permissive attitudes toward sex. Young adults who held positive attitudes toward marriage were also found to be unlikely to endorse cohabitation where the couple did not have marital plans. Results suggest that different background and individual factors predict whether young adults believe cohabitation is beneficial and if they endorse cohabitation based on the marital plans of the partners. Findings provide further evidence for how cohabitation fits within the larger union formation goals of young adults.

Keywords

cohabitation attitudes young adults sexual activity dating

The incidence of nonmarital cohabitation has increased among recent cohorts of young adults, with rates steadily growing over the past 50 years in the United States (Bumpass & Lu, 2000). Outcome research has consistently found that premarital cohabitation is associated with an increased risk of later marital dissolution (Axinn & Thornton, 1992; Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003; Heaton, 2002). Beyond an increased risk of divorce, cohabitation has also been found to be associated with negative relational outcomes such as lower relationship satisfaction, interpersonal commitment, and an increased frequency of conflict (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002; Dush et al., 2003; Hansen, Moum, & Shapiro, 2007; Kline et al., 2004; Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2006; Stafford, Kline, & Rankin, 2004; Stanley, Whitton, & Markman, 2004). Although debate continues regarding the mechanisms behind these associations (Brown, Sanchez, Nock, & Wright, 2006; Dush et al., 2003), the distinctive outcomes linked with cohabitation underscore the importance of understanding why young adults choose to cohabit and how cohabitation fits within changing trends of couple formation.

While scholars have examined the profiles of individuals likely to cohabit and the relationship characteristics and outcomes of couples who are cohabiting, less research has examined attitudes toward cohabitation (Manning, Longmore, & Giordano, 2007). With cohabitation rates and acceptance rapidly changing among recent cohorts, there is a relevant need to understand what behaviors and attributes are associated with tendencies and attitudes toward either engaging in or avoiding cohabiting unions. Psychological and family research has consistently shown that attitudes tend to precede behavior. Thus, an understanding of how individual traits and behaviors are associated with attitudes either in support or against cohabitation will provide important insights into the relational behaviors and decision making of individuals considering cohabitation.

Although many studies have looked at how demographics, dating behavior, and relational attitudes are independently associated with cohabitation, with this study we sought to explore how these variables collectively might be associated with attitudes toward cohabitation. Furthermore, research on attitudes toward cohabitation has largely focused on general attitudes toward cohabitation and not specific attitudes, such as the belief that cohabiting will increase the success of a relationship or whether or not cohabitation should be reserved for when a couple has plans to marry. In this study, we sought to take a more systematic look at what factors are associated with specific attitudes toward cohabitation and to expand the scope of measurement on cohabiting attitudes by examining three distinct types of attitudes—the general endorsement of cohabitation with marital plans, the general endorsement of cohabitation without marital plans, and the belief that cohabitation will increase the likelihood of relational success.

Background

Marriage is now typically delayed into the late 20s (Kreider, 2005), and young adult scholars have focused more attention on alternative couple formation patterns such as cohabitation (Smock, 2000). One of the enduring questions researchers have faced regarding cohabitation is how this emerging union form fits within the broader context of relationship and family formation in the United States. Smock (2000) suggested that cohabitation could be viewed as either a stage in the marriage formation process or as a substitution to marriage. A competing view suggests that young adults may view cohabitation not as a precursor to marriage but as an alternative to singlehood (Manning & Smock, 2005). This view argues that young adults choose to cohabit not as a developmental step toward marriage with an intimate partner but to create a freestanding relationship entity that has no promise of future commitment. Within this framework, cohabitation becomes viewed as a transition toward committed romantic involvement and not as an explicit relationship stage toward marriage. Both these views have received empirical support. Many individuals who enter cohabitation report that they see it is a precursor to marriage (Bumpass, Sweet, & Cherlin, 1991), whereas in a more recent study, Manning and Smock (2005) found through qualitative interviews that cohabiting couples often are deciding between remaining single or cohabiting, not between cohabiting and marrying. Newer research on recent cohorts of young adults has likewise found that less than a fourth of cohabiting unions eventually transition to marriage during young adulthood (Schoen, Landale, & Daniels, 2007), suggesting that cohabitation during this time period may be becoming less entwined with marital plans.

Viewing cohabitation as either connected or separated from marital plans may have profound effects on actual relational outcomes. For example, Kline et al. (2004) found that cohabitation prior to engagement was linked to lower relationship quality and skills and that couples who cohabited after engagement did not experience these negative outcomes. This “engagement effect” has since been replicated in other studies (Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2009b; Stanley, Rhoades, Amato, Markman, & Johnson, 2010). Rhoades, Stanley, and Markman (2009a) also found that cohabiters who moved in together to test the relationship without clear marital plans tended to experience a variety of negative outcomes and that those cohabiters who entered cohabiting unions to spend more time together tended to not experience the same level of negative outcomes compared with other types of cohabiting couples. Likewise, cohabiters with marriage plans often have similar relationship quality to married partners (Brown, 2004), effectively reducing the negative outcomes typically associated with cohabitation. This collection of results has indicated to many scholars that the marital plans of cohabiters are a critical component of the outcomes those couples will eventually experience.

These findings also suggest that individuals orient toward and use cohabitation in different ways. While some may view cohabitation as a needed step toward marriage, others view cohabitation as a normal step in a committed relationship, separated from any future marital plans. From this perspective, cohabitation may be used by individuals based on both their larger paradigms regarding relationship and marriage formation and their beliefs about specific relationship contexts. Attitudes are an important element of couple formation behavior, and past work has suggested that attitudes toward couple formation affect future relational transitions (Axinn & Thornton, 1992). Young adults have increasingly viewed cohabitation prior to marriage as an acceptable lifestyle (Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001), and some evidence suggests that positive attitudes toward cohabitation are related to an increased likelihood of eventually forming a cohabiting relationship (Williams, Kabamalan, & Ogena, 2007). Axinn and Thornton (1992) found that young adults who were less committed to marriage were more likely to transition into cohabitation than young adults with more favorable attitudes about marriage.

Attitudes toward couple formation are also associated with other individual and relational behavior. For example, attitudes toward marriage and cohabitation have been linked to current individual behavior such as binge drinking and drug use (Carroll, Willoughby, Nelson, Barry, & Madsen, 2007; Carroll et al., 2009; Willoughby & Dworkin, 2009). If it is true that attitudes toward cohabitation influence a wide range of behaviors, the study of attitudes toward cohabitation may provide information regarding not only eventual transitions into cohabitation but also more generic individual and relational behavior. Important new research on attitudes toward cohabitation has found links between these attitudes and relational behavior (Cunningham & Thornton, 2005; Manning et al., 2007), but continued sophistication of this research is needed to provide a more accurate picture of what individual factors are associated with various attitudes toward cohabitation.

As stated previously, research suggests that individuals may view cohabitation as either connected with future marital plans or not, and this distinction may lead to differing outcomes based on relational decisions. Scholars who study relational attitudes have argued that beliefs about union formation need to be assessed from multiple dimensions (Carroll et al., 2007; Hall, 2006). Young adults may view cohabitation differently based on the circumstances (if there are marital plans or not) and may hold different opinions regarding the purpose of cohabitation. For this reason, and based on suggestions by previous scholars, in this study we choose to include three separate measures of attitudes toward cohabitation to explore if predictors varied based on the type of attitudes examined. We assess attitudes regarding if cohabitation has a beneficial effect on relationship success, the general endorsement of cohabitation if couples are planning on marrying, and the general endorsement of cohabitation if couples are not planning to marry. Thus, in the current study we recognize that attitudes regarding cohabitation are multifaceted by assessing several attitudes.

Although only limited research has thus far explored the correlates of beliefs and attitudes toward cohabitation in any form, previous findings have suggested potential links between demographical information, relational behavior and attitudes, and attitudes toward cohabitation. As a central aim of the current study was to assess correlates of attitudes toward cohabitation; we briefly summarize here research related to behaviors, traits, and values that have been linked to attitudes toward cohabitation in previous studies.

Contextual Predictors and Correlates of Attitudes Toward Cohabitation

Demographic characteristics

Many background and demographic factors have been shown to be associated with the decision to enter a cohabiting relationship. Like any type of relationship, individual, couple, family, and cultural contexts influence the outcomes and trajectory of any particular couple form such as cohabitation (Busby, Holman, & Taniguchi, 2001). Factors such as race, gender, religion, and parental marital status have all been found to be associated with young adults’ decision to cohabit (Axinn & Thornton, 1996; Booth, Rustenbach, & McHale, 2008; Manning et al., 2007; Thronton & Young-DeMarco, 2001) and are likely linked to individuals’ attitudes toward cohabitation. For example, Booth et al. (2008) found that within the ADD Health data set, non-White young adults and young adults who grew up with two biological parents were less likely to cohabit than other young adults. Adolescent age and gender has also been found to be associated with expectations to cohabit in previous research, with females and older individuals being more likely to expect to cohabit (Manning et al., 2007). Other relational attitudes, such as how a young adult conceptualizes marriage, are also linked to beliefs about cohabitation (Carroll et al., 2007). Although many of these background factors have been found to be associated with the transition to cohabitation, we know little about the specific associations these factors might have with endorsement or general beliefs about cohabitation. For example, income may profoundly influence beliefs about cohabitation as the process and meaning of cohabiting may be very different in more affluent premarital populations compared with individuals and couples from disadvantaged background (Sassler & Cunningham, 2008).

Dating behavior and sexual experience

Although there are likely many reasons individuals decide to cohabit, prior experiences with romantic relationships may have a particularly important association with how individuals move toward future relational transitions. Exposure to serious, committed relationships may encourage some people to focus more on long-term couple formation values and consider more serious couple formation patterns, such as cohabitation or marriage. For example, Crissey (2005) reported that adolescents who were in serious dating relationships were more likely to expect to marry by age 25, a result that has been replicated in other studies (Manning et al., 2007). Additionally, as young adults get experience in close, romantic relationships, they may be more likely to transition into more serious relationship types such as cohabitation (Raley, Crissey, & Muller, 2007). This previous work has indicated that relational and sexual experiences have a significant link to eventual relational transitions that may carry over to attitudes toward union types such as cohabitation.

Dating and sexual experience are likely linked to cohabitation attitudes in several ways. First, sexual activity is often a marker of serious, committed relationships (Crissey, 2005). As young adults engage in sexual activity during late adolescence, they may be more likely to consider more committed relationships earlier than their peers (Raley et al., 2007). Raley et al. (2007) found that sexual experience in both romantic and uncommitted relationships increased the likelihood of cohabitation, and college students who have cohabited tend to have more permissive sexual attitudes than their peers who have not cohabited (Knox, Zusman, Snell, & Cooper, 1999).

Some additional research has provided evidence that relational experiences affect how individuals conceptualize cohabitation. Manning et al. (2007) found that both dating and sexual behavior influenced expectations to cohabit among adolescents. Adolescents who had engaged in sexual intercourse and who had dated in the past were more likely to expect to cohabit in the future. Additionally, adolescents who had dated or engaged in sexual activity were more likely to expect to cohabit and then marry compared with young adults with little dating or sexual experience who were more likely to expect to enter directly into marriage (Manning et al., 2007). Previous research has also suggested that young adults with sexual experience are more likely to have positive attitudes toward cohabitation (Willoughby & Carroll, 2010). Research suggesting that dating patterns and sexual experience are associated with both actual cohabiting behavior, as well as expectations to cohabit and then marry, may hint that individuals, especially young adults, who engage in dating and sexual behavior may be more prone to conceptualize cohabitation as both a logical step in couple formation and as a necessary precursor to marriage.

Although the current body of literature linking cohabitation to sexual and dating behaviors is growing, research linking these variables has been hampered by typically addressing only a limited assortment of sexual and dating behaviors, despite these factors proving to be important and strong predictors of cohabiting variables. For example, previous research has largely relied on investigating the differences between young adults who have had sex and those who have not (or those who have or have not been in a serious relationship) and few studies have examined sexual behavior and attitudes within the same study. This ignores the complexities of sexual behavior, and in the present study we used multiple measures of sexual and dating behavior and sexual attitudes to create a more robust investigation into its associations with various attitudes toward cohabitation.

Present Study

Although previous research has suggested potential links between demographic factors, relational behaviors, and attitudes toward cohabitation, research connecting these various constructs is limited. Understanding how attitudes toward cohabitation are associated to other factors is an important next step in the study of how cohabitation fits within the changing family formation trends in the United States. Due to the fact that one of our primary interests was to assess correlates of attitudes toward cohabitation prior to marriage and numerous studies have suggested that individuals with more resources used cohabitation in ways that are very different from individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds (Lichter & Qian, 2008; Lichter, Turner, & Sassler, 2010; Sassler & Cunningham, 2008), in this study we focused on correlates of attitudes toward cohabitation among a middle-class population of premarital, never married young adults. The young adults sampled in this study were currently in the phase of the life course between launching from their family of origin and forming their own long-term relationships. This time period is the ideal setting to investigate how cohabitation may fit into relationship trajectories across the life course. Findings regarding associations between dating behaviors and attitudes and various attitudes toward cohabitation will likely also provide insight into how current cohorts of middle-class young adults are situating cohabitation within larger relational goals and behaviors and what factors may distinguish those young adults who generally endorse any type of cohabitation and those who only endorse cohabitation as a step toward marriage.

Based on previously research findings, we predicted that most demographic variables including race, age, religiosity, parent’s marital status, and gender would be associated with attitudes toward cohabitation. Given that previous experiences with cohabiting will likely influence attitudes toward cohabitation, we also assessed cohabiting history and included it as a predictor. Specifically, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 1: Race, gender, religiosity, cohabiting history, and parent’s marital status would be associated with all assessments of attitudes toward cohabitation.

Second, because attitudes regarding union formation tend to correlated (Carroll et al., 2007), we expected that attitudes toward cohabitation would be associated with attitudes toward marriage.

Hypothesis 2a: More positive attitudes toward marriage would be associated with less endorsement and acceptance of cohabitation.

We also expected that since permissive sexual attitudes have been linked in the past with a greater acceptance of cohabitation, we would find similar findings in the present study. Thus, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 2b: More permissive sexual attitudes would be associated with more endorsement and acceptance of cohabitation.

Attitudes toward cohabitation have been previously associated with actual dating and sexual behavior (Knox et al., 1999). Typically, higher rates of dating behavior and sexual activity are linked to more positive attitudes toward cohabitation. Thus, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 3: Dating and sexual behavior, including number of sexual partners, viewing of pornography, number of formal dates, and noncoital sexual behaviors, will be positively associated with the endorsement and acceptance of cohabitation.

Finally, because research has suggested that martial plans are a critical component of the outcomes associated with cohabitation and individuals who view cohabitation as acceptable with or without marital plans may represent two unique groups of young adults, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 4: Associations between demographics, sexual attitudes, and relational behavior would differ between endorsement of cohabitation with or without marital plans.

Method

Participants

The participants for this study were selected from an ongoing study of young adults and their parents titled (Project Research Emerging Adults Developmental Years [READY]). This project is a collaborative, multisite study that is being conducted by a consortium of developmental and family scholars. The sample used in the current study consisted of 1,036 heterosexual college students (741 women, 295 men) recruited from five college sites from across the country (a small, private liberal arts college; a medium sized, religious university on the East coast; two large, Midwestern public universities; and a large, public university on the West coast). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 26 years, with the mean age of the sample being 19.95 years (SD = 1.76). Eighty-one percent of the participants were European American, 4.2% were Black, 2.9% were of mixed race, and 2.3% were Hispanic. Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics for all key study variables. Sample demographics at each data collection site were representative of demographic distributions at each university location. Because college students in the sample tended to come from families of moderate to high income (average family income in sample was approximately $75,000 to $100,000 per year), we refer to those in the sample as “middle-class young adults.”

Table 1.

Means and Proportions for Sample on Demographic Variables by Cohabitation History

	Never Cohabited (n = 898), a	Previously Cohabited (n = 55), b	Currently Cohabiting (n = 72), c
Age	19.73^bc (1.60)	21.69^a (2.04)	21.42^a (1.95)
Gender
Male	29.1	25.5	19.4
Race*
White	81.2	67.3	82.1
Black	4.4	1.8	3.0
Hispanic	1.9	5.5	6.0
Asian	8.4	20.0	7.5
Mixed/other	3.0	1.8	1.5
Parent’s marital status
Married	81.1	74.5	69.2
Divorce	14.2	20.0	23.9
Widowed	2.7	1.8	3.0
Religiosity	11.55^bc (4.22)	8.35^a (3.71)	8.97^a (4.25)
Marriage is a goal	4.86 (1.19)	4.93 (1.20)	4.96 (1.20)
Marriage as a lifelong commitment	2.36 (1.24)	2.47 (1.25)	2.45 (1.47)
Ideal age of marriage	25.13^c (2.07)	25.24 (1.82)	24.45^a (2.59)
Sexual attitudes	3.53^bc (1.22)	4.21^a (.95)	3.98^a (1.07)
Pornography use	0.97 (1.29)	1.13 (1.53)	1.07 (1.21)
Number of sexual partners	2.43^bc (4.95)	7.98^ac (10.76)	4.58^ab (4.32)
Number of formal dates	1.68^b (1.11)	2.25^a (0.91)	1.99 (1.12)
Cohabiting attitudes
Cohabitation is beneficial	3.41^bc (1.34)	4.00^a (1.13)	4.12^a (.98)
Cohabitation with marital plans	3.66^bc (1.30)	4.31^a (1.20)	4.24^a (1.41)
Cohabitation without marital plans	3.54^bc (1.32)	4.09^a (1.27)	4.12^a (1.32)

Note: Data are means (standard deviations). Superscripts signify significant mean differences between cohabiting groups.

Chi-square analyses showed significant differences on race across cohabiting groups (p < .01).

Procedure

Participants completed the Project READY questionnaire via the Internet. The use of an online data collection protocol facilitated unified data collection across multiple university sites and allowed for the survey to be administered to young adults and their parents who were living in separate locations throughout the country. Participants were recruited through faculty’s announcement of the study in undergraduate and graduate courses. Interested students then accessed the study website with a location-specific recruitment code. Informed consent was obtained online, and only after consent was given could the participants begin the questionnaires. Each participant was asked to complete a survey of 448 items. Most participants were offered course extra credit for their own and their parents’ participation. In some cases, participants were offered small monetary compensation (i.e., $10-20 gift certificates) for their participation.

Measures

Cohabitation attitudes

Three types of attitudes toward cohabitation were used in this study, belief that cohabitation is beneficial and general endorsement of cohabitation (with and without marital plans). Participants were asked for their agreement with several items related to their attitudes toward cohabitation. Each of the items used was measured on a 6-point scale (1 = very strongly disagree to 6 = very strongly agree). For the belief that cohabitation is beneficial, four items were averaged to create a score capturing the degree to which participants believed cohabitation could help their future relationship prospects. These items were the following: “It is a good idea for a couple to live together before getting married as a way of ‘trying out’ their relationship,” “Living together first is a good way of testing how workable a couple’s marriage would be,” “Living together before marriage will improve a couple’s chances of remaining happily married,” and “A couple will likely be happier in their marriage if they live together first.” This scale had good internal consistency (α = .91). General endorsement of cohabitation were measured by two items: “It is all right for a couple to live together without planning to get married” and “It is all right for an unmarried couple to live together as long as they have plans to marry.” These two items were moderately correlated (r = .433). Due to this moderate correlation and the explicit difference made on the two items regarding marital plans, these items were used in the analyses as separate predictors.

Demographic factors

Participants were asked about the current marital status of their parents. Responses included married, divorced, never married, and widowed. This variable was dummy coded with married as the reference category for all analyses. The cohabiting history of each participant was assessed by asking them two questions: “Are you currently living with a romantic partner?” and “Have you ever lived with a romantic partner?” Results from these two items were combined to produce three categories: never cohabited, previously cohabiting, and currently cohabiting. As seen in Table 1, relational behavior, attitudes toward cohabitation, and other study variables differed based on the cohabiting experience of those in the sample. For this reason, cohabiting history was included as a control in all analyses. Religiosity was measured by combining four items drawn from the Religious Life Inventory (Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993) addressing various aspects of religious practice and belief. These items included questions asking about daily praying, the importance of faith to personal identity, attendance at religious services, and overall importance of faith. Three items were assessed on a 4-point, forced choice scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). These items were the following: “My religious faith is extremely important to me,” “I pray daily,” and “My faith is an important part of who I am as a person.” The last item—“How often have you attended religious/spiritual services in the past 12 months?”—was measured on a 4-point scale with higher numbers indicating more attendance at religious or spiritual services. These items were averaged to create a religiosity score. Reliability statistics were in the acceptable ranges (α = .90).

Attitudes toward marriage

General attitudes toward marriage were assessed using two items. Participants selected how much they agreed or disagreed with the following statements on a 6-point, forced choice scale (1 = very strongly disagree to 6 = very strongly agree): “Marriage is a lifetime relationship and should never be ended except under extreme circumstances” and “Being married is a very important goal for me.” These two items measure both the general importance of the marriage and the importance of marriage as a personal goal for each participant. Participants’ ideal age of marriage was assessed with one item asking, “What is the ideal age in which someone should get married?”

Sexual attitudes and relational behaviors

Sexual attitudes were measured by summing three items (α = .84) assessing how strongly participants agreed with the following three items on a 6- point scale (1 = very strongly disagree to 6 = very strongly agree): “It is all right for a man and woman to have sexual relations before marriage,” “It is all right for two people to get together for sex and not necessarily expect anything further,” and “Viewing pornographic material (such as magazines, movies, and/or Internet sites) is an acceptable way to express one’s sexuality.” Higher scores indicated more permissive sexual attitudes.

To assess general sexual behaviors two items were used. Number of sexual partners was assessed by asking respondents, “With how many partners have you had sexual intercourse?” Involvement with sexual behaviors other than intercourse was assessed by one yes/no item asking, “Have you ever engaged in sexual activities other than intercourse (such as fondling or oral sex)?” Pornography use was measured by one item asking respondents how often they “View pornographic material (such as magazines, movies, and/or Internet sites)?” Responses ranged from 0 (never) to 5 (everyday or almost every day). Pornography use was included as it is an understudied element of sexual activity and had been found to be linked to attitudes toward cohabitation (see Carroll et al., 2008). Dating behavior was assessed by two items. Respondents were asked, “Have you ever had a boy/girlfriend (i.e., an exclusive relationship) since high school?” (yes = 1; no = 0) and “How many formal dates (i.e., one person asks and pays) have you had since high school?” The number of formal dates since high school was measured on a scale with values ranging from 0 (none) to 3 (more than six).

Data Analysis Plan

Regression models were used to explore how various demographic, attitudinal, and relational variables predict attitudes toward cohabitation. Hierarchical multiple regression models were used to predict the three dependent variables (belief that cohabitation is beneficial and two measures of general endorsement of cohabitation). Three sequential steps were used to assess how the inclusion of new blocks of predictor variables increased the overall prediction of the model. The baseline model included demographic variables including age, gender, race, parental marital status, cohabiting status, and religiosity. Cohabiting history was included in this model to control for the potential relationship between cohabiting experience and attitudes toward cohabitation and for the differences seen across variables in Table 1. This approach eliminates the methodological problem related to young adults who have previously cohabited having inflated attitudes toward cohabitation and biasing results. The second model included variables assessing attitudes toward marriage and sexual behavior. The third model introduced measures of sexual and relational behavior. Although both attitudes and behavior have been linked to cohabiting attitudes in previous studies, we choose here to enter attitude items before behavior items. Attitudes often precede behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Carroll et al., 2007), and entering variables in this order will allow for an investigation of whether behaviors mediate the relationship between marriage and sexual attitudes and attitudes toward cohabitation.

Preliminary analyses (not reported here) detected differences on several variables based on the location or site of data collection. Given that these findings indicated the possibility of a site effect in our sample, site location was also coded and included as a control in all regression models. Preliminary analyses also revealed no differences among participants in regard to missing data. Missing data were not a substantial issue for any of the variables used in the study. For all analyses, listwise deletion was used to handle missing data points.

Results

Table 1 summarizes descriptive statistics for participants in the sample who have never cohabited, those who have cohabited in the past, and those who are currently cohabiting. These statistics showed that middle-class young adults in the sample who had experience with cohabitation tended to be older, have more permissive sexual attitudes, have more sexual partners, be less religious, and are more approving of cohabitation in general. Differences were found between all groups on the number of recent sexual partners. Previously cohabiting young adults reported the highest average number of lifetime sexual partners (M = 7.98). Currently cohabiting individuals were found to have a younger ideal age of marriage than middle-class young adults with no cohabiting experience. It was also found that middle-class young adults with no cohabiting experience had been on fewer formal dates since high school than individuals who had previously cohabited. The racial breakdown of each cohabiting group also varied. Intercorrelations were tested among the continuous predictor variables used in all regression models. These correlations showed low to moderate (.000 to −.589) correlations among all variables, with all relationships in the expected directions. The strongest correlation was between religiosity and sexual attitudes.

Predicting the Belief That Cohabitation Is Beneficial

Results for the model predicting the belief that cohabitation is beneficial are summarized in Table 2. Using only demographic factors to predict belief that cohabitation was beneficial produced significant model fit, R² = .249, F(11, 987) = 31.02, p < .001. Gender was significantly associated with cohabiting attitudes. Males reported more belief that cohabitation is beneficial. Belief that cohabitation is beneficial was also negatively associated with age (β = −.127, t = −4.26, p < .001) and religiosity (β = −.440, t = −15.36, p < .001). Parental marital status was not associated with the belief that cohabitation is beneficial. Black participants were less likely to believe cohabitation was beneficial compared with White participants (β = −.081, t = 2.82, p < .01). Cohabiting history was also a significant predictor of the belief that cohabiting would be beneficial. Middle-class young adults who had cohabited previously (β = .058, t = 1.99, p < .05) and those who were currently cohabiting (β = .101, t = 3.50, p < .001) were more likely to believe cohabitation is beneficial.

Table 2.

Standardized Beta Coefficients for Regression Models Predicting Belief That Cohabitation Is Beneficial

Variable	Model 1, β	Model 2, β	Model 3, β
Constant	6.95	3.71	3.91
Data source	.040	.019	.022
Age	−.127**	−.171**	−.169**
Gender^a	−.093**	−.038	−.118**
Race^b
Black	−.081**	−.051*	−.053*
Other	−.038	.005	.001
Parent’s marital status^c
Divorced/separated	.016	.013	.011
Never married	.014	.019	.020
Widowed	−.022	−.012	−.013
Cohabiting history
Currently	.101**	.111**	.115**
Previously	.058*	.052*	.049
Religiosity	−.440**	−.181**	−.185**
Marriage lifelong commitment	—	.004	.003
Marriage is a goal	—	.027	.026
Ideal age of marriage	—	.066*	.064*
Sexual attitudes	—	.444**	.480**
Engagement in noncoital sexual behavior	—	—	−.012
Pornography use	—	—	−.133**
Number of sexual partners	—	—	.023
Number of formal dates	—	—	.013
Exclusive relationship	—	—	−.018
Adjusted R	.249	.383	.389
R² change		.135**	.009**

Reference category = male.

Reference category = White.

Reference category = married parents.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Model 2 introduced marital and sexual attitude variables. This significantly increased the prediction of the model, R² change = .135, F(4, 983) = 54.50, p < .001. This change was driven by two factors. Sexual attitudes had a strong association with the belief that cohabitation is beneficial (β = .444, t = 13.63, p < .001). Middle-class young adults with permissive sexual attitudes were more likely to agree cohabitation is beneficial. Ideal age of marriage was the only marital attitude variable to be significantly associated with the outcome variable. Having a later ideal age of marriage was associated with a stronger belief that cohabitation is beneficial. Gender was no longer significant in this model. Due to the strong effect of sexual attitudes in this model, a moderation effect was tested between sexual attitudes and gender (not reported). Post hoc analyses testing for an interaction effect between these variables were not significant, suggesting that sexual attitudes mediate the relationship between gender and belief cohabitation is beneficial. Males (M = 3.92) had significantly more permissive sexual attitudes than females (M = 3.48), suggesting that the gender effect seen in the first model was driven by the fact that males have more permissive sexual attitudes than females.

The final model added dating and sexual behavior predictors and modestly increased the prediction of the model, R² change = .009, F(5, 978) = 3.05, p = .01. The only significant predictor in this block was pornography use (β = −.133, t = −3.72, p < .001). More pornography use was associated with less belief that cohabiting is beneficial.

Predicting General Endorsement of Cohabitation With Marital Plans

Table 3 summarizes results for the prediction of general endorsement of cohabitation with marital plans. The initial model was significant, R² = .140, F(11, 989) = 15.75, p < .001. Religiosity was again a strong predictor of attitudes toward cohabitation (β = −.342, t = −11.17, p < .001). Middle-class young adults with higher levels of religiosity were less likely to endorse cohabitation with marital plans. Black young adults were also less likely to endorse cohabitation with marital plans (β = −.077, t = −2.50, p = .01) than White young adults. Cohabiting history also predicted endorsement of cohabitation with marital plans. Middle-class young adults who were currently cohabiting were more likely to endorse cohabiting with marital plans than young adults who had never cohabited.

Table 3.

Standardized Beta Coefficients for Regression Models Predicting General Attitudes Toward Cohabitation With Marital Plans

Variable	Model 1, β	Model 2, β	Model 3, β
Constant	5.31	2.92	2.90
Source	.005	−.010	−.005
Age	−.028	−.060*	−.058
Gender^a	−.010	.037	−.018
Race^b
Black	−.077*	−.049	−.049
Other	.033	.075*	.065*
Parent’s marital status^c
Divorced/separated	−.014	−.009	−.009
Never married	−.004	.003	.007
Widowed	−.010	.000	−.003
Cohabiting history
Currently	.071*	.071*	.071*
Previously	.053	.042	.046
Religiosity	−.342**	−.121**	−.123**
Marriage lifelong commitment	—	.048	.048
Marriage is a goal	—	.031	.030
Ideal age of marriage	—	.001	.004
Sexual attitudes	—	.419**	.461**
Engagement in noncoital sexual behavior	—	—	−.032
Pornography use	—	—	−.091*
Number of sexual partners	—	—	−.031
Number of formal dates	—	—	−.002
Exclusive relationship	—	—	.042
Adjusted R	.140	.249	.252
R² change		.112**	.006

Reference category = male.

Reference category = White.

Reference category = married parents.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Model 2 produced a significant increase in prediction, R² change = .112, F(4, 985) = 37.20, p < .001. Middle-class young adults with more permissive sexual attitudes were more likely to endorse cohabitation with marital plans (β = .419, t = 11.78, p < .001). All three measures of marital attitudes were not significantly associated with endorsement of cohabitation with marital plans. Model 3 did not produced a significant increase in prediction of cohabiting endorsement with marital plans, R² change = .006, F(5, 980) = 1.69, p = .135.

Predicting General Endorsement of Cohabitation Without Marital Plans

Results for models predicting general endorsement of cohabitation without marital plans are presented in Table 4. Model 1 produced a significant fit, R² = .328, F(11, 990) = 45.44, p < .001). Religiosity remained strongly associated with endorsement of cohabitation (β = −.553, t = −20.42, p < .001). Black young adults were again less likely than White young adults to endorse cohabitation.

Table 4.

Standardized Beta Coefficients for Regression Models Predicting General Attitudes Toward Cohabitation Without Marital Plans

Variable	Model 1, β	Model 2, β	Model 3, β
Constant	5.25	2.34	2.33
Source	.013	−.007	−.005
Age	.022	−.036	−.026
Gender^a	.041	.033	−.025
Race^b
Black	−.085**	−.064**	−.065**
Other	−.041	−.002	−.008
Parent’s marital status^c
Divorced/separated	.017	.008	.007
Never married	.024	.018	.019
Widowed	.010	.017	.016
Cohabiting history
Currently	.021	.039	.042
Previously	−.007	−.006	−.001
Religiosity	−.553**	−.219**	−.222**
Marriage lifelong commitment	—	−.067**	−.065**
Marriage is a goal	—	−.094**	−.093**
Ideal age of marriage	—	.052*	.051*
Sexual attitudes	—	.521**	.555**
Engagement in noncoital sexual behavior	—	—	−.005
Pornography use	—	—	−.096**
Number of sexual partners	—	—	−.028
Number of formal dates	—	—	.005
Exclusive relationship	—	—	−.007
Adjusted R	.328	.526	.529
R² change		.198**	.005*

Reference category = male.

Reference category = White.

Reference category = married parents.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Model 2 significantly increased the prediction of the outcome variable, R² change = .198, F(4, 986) = 104.42, p < .001). Sexual attitudes were associated with endorsement of cohabitation without marital plans (β = .521, t = 18.40, p < .001). Middle-class young adults with more permissive sexual attitudes were more likely to endorse cohabitation without marital plans. All three measures of marital attitudes were also significantly associated with the outcome variable. Middle-class young adults who had a younger ideal age of marriage, indicated that marriage was an important personal goal, and who believed marriage was a lifelong commitment were less likely to endorse cohabitation without marital plans. Model 3 also significantly increased the prediction of the model, R² change = .005, F(5, 981) = 2.20, p = .05. Once again, middle-class young adults who indicated higher levels of pornography use were less likely to endorse cohabitation without marital plans.

Discussion

Based on the results obtained, Hypothesis 1 was partially confirmed, with many demographic variables and cohabiting history being significantly associated with attitudes toward cohabitation. With the expectation of parental marital status, which was not associated with any of the outcomes, most demographic predictors had at least some association with attitudes toward cohabitation. For example, religiosity was found to be a strong and consistent predictor of cohabitation attitudes in all models. Less religious middle-class young adults generally had more positive attitudes toward cohabitation across all three attitudes. Findings regarding race were particularly interesting as Black middle-class young adults were generally less endorsing of cohabitation than White middle-class young adults. Black participants were also represented in low numbers among those who were currently or who had previously cohabited. These findings are the reverse of other studies that have found that race was either not associated with attitudes toward cohabitation (Manning et al., 2007) or that Blacks were more likely to engage in cohabitating relationships (Kennedy & Bumpass, 2008). This may be due to the middle-class nature of our sample. Although disadvantaged Black young adults may be more likely to view cohabitation as a normative union type, Black young adults from more affluent families may have very different relationship expectations. In analyzing the Fragile Families and Child Well-being sample, which is predominately Black, Gibson-Davis, Edin, and McLanahan (2005) noted a substantial retreat from marriage and a move toward unmarried union formations such as cohabitation. Results from the present study appear to suggest that middle-class Black young adults are not as endorsing of cohabitation and this trend may be less prominent in more affluent Black populations.

Hypothesis 2a was partially confirmed based on study results. Middle-class young adult’s endorsement of the general importance of marriage and agreement that marriage was a personal goal were both associated with less endorsement of cohabitation without marital plans but was not associated with the other two cohabiting attitudes. Likewise, a later ideal age of marriage was associated with more endorsement of cohabitation without marital plans. These results held even when controlling for other factors, such as religiosity. The negative association found between marital attitudes and endorsement of cohabitation without marital plans may suggest that endorsement of this type of cohabitation is indicative of young adults without clear marital trajectories. Young adults who value marriage and desire to marry early may view cohabitation as an acceptable step toward a committed marital relationship but may be less inclined to endorse cohabitation outside of a committed relationship trajectory, to view cohabitation as an alternative to singlehood, or to practice serial cohabitation.

Hypothesis 2b was confirmed, as sexual attitudes had a strong association with all three measures of attitudes toward cohabitation. This association between permissive sexual attitudes and attitudes about cohabitation was extremely consistent across all attitudinal outcomes. This replicates prior findings linking cohabiting behavior to permissive sexual attitudes (Knox et al., 1999). Recently, scholars have suggested that some young adults may use cohabitation not as a union form based on relational goals or trajectories but for increasing the ease of sexual access (Raley et al., 2007). The strong link found here between permissive sexual attitudes and attitudes toward cohabitation supports such a perspective.

In contrast, we found little support for Hypothesis 3 as actual sexual behavior, with the exception of pornography use, was not predictive of attitudes toward cohabitation. Taken together with findings regarding sexual attitudes, this may suggest that the link between sexual attitudes and attitudes about cohabitation may be because of more underlying personality traits that are related to both types of attitudes. Although cohabitation is becoming more prominent and common, it may still carry some social stigma among certain segments of the young adult population. Young adults with personality characteristics that make them more prone to permissive sexual attitudes may also hold more liberal attitudes toward relationships and be more open to alternative union forms such as cohabitation. Personality variables not explored in the present study, such as impulsivity, could be a potential link between these various relational attitudes and should be investigated in future studies.

The general lack of association between relationship behaviors and attitudes about cohabitation may also suggest that endorsement of cohabitation is more tied to background factors (such as religiosity and race) and other relational attitudes and not necessarily connected to the behavior adolescents and young adults are actually engaging in. It is also possible that sexual behavior influences longitudinal change and not cross-sectional differences. Cunningham and Thornton (2005) found that having sexual partners was linked to attitude change across a 31-year study but not significantly associated with actual attitudes when participants were 31 years old. Studies that use a higher degree of specificity in their measurement of sexual attitudes and behavior and also have the ability to track longitudinal change are needed to further explain the relationship between relational behavior and attitudes toward cohabitation.

Finally, results from this study suggest that associations between predictor variables and attitudes toward cohabitation varied based on the type of attitude being predicted. In general, we found ample support for Hypothesis 4 that predictors of attitudes toward cohabitation would vary across the three assessments of attitudes, in particular, the endorsement of cohabitation with or without marital plans. For example, attitudes toward the institution of marriage and having marriage as a personal goal varied in their associations depending on the type of cohabitation attitudes being predicted. Specially, marital attitudes tended to be associated with attitudes toward cohabitation without marital plans but not with attitudes toward cohabitation with marital plans. These findings may suggest that cohabitation is viewed and used differently by young adults who have a clearer trajectory toward marriage and those who may view cohabitation outside of a commitment toward marriage. As mentioned earlier, middle-class young adults who value marriage may be particularly resistant to viewing cohabitation as a union formation outside a clear trajectory toward marriage. Given that cohabitation without marital plans has been linked to many of the negative outcomes typically associated with cohabitation (Brown, 2004), positive marital attitudes may be seen as a protective factor for many young adults in avoiding cohabitation in forms that are particularly risky. Further research on if and how marital attitudes intersect with attitudes about cohabitation and later union transitions are needed to explore these associations.

Cohabiting history also had a differing association with cohabiting attitudes depending on the outcome predicted. Having any type of cohabiting experience was associated with a stronger belief that cohabitation had benefits although the association was much weaker for those who had previously cohabited. It appears likely that young adults currently in cohabiting relationships are more likely to view their present relationship status as beneficial to their future relationship prospects. That this effect weakens considerably for previously cohabiting young adults suggests that this effect may be because of the belief among currently cohabiting young adults that they will eventually marry their current partner and the strong link between current cohabiting status and belief that cohabitation is beneficial may be closely tied to expected relational trajectories. Conversely, only being in a current cohabiting relationship was associated with more endorsement of cohabiting with marital plans and cohabiting history was not associated at all with endorsement of cohabitation without marital plans. This may suggest that previous and current cohabiting behavior may be associated with the outcomes one hopes to achieve via cohabiting and not necessarily with the acceptability of cohabitation as a union type.

The differing relationships between predictors and outcomes variables found in this study suggest that future research should be more explicit about the different ways in which cohabitation might be viewed by young adults. The simple distinction of approving of cohabitation based on if partners had or did not have marital plans drastically altered the associations found with marital attitudes and other variables. This suggests that the wording of assessments regarding attitudes toward cohabitation may be particularly important for scholars in this area to consider. It also suggests that, like marital attitudes, attitudes toward cohabitation are multifaceted and each individual young adult holds beliefs about the acceptability of cohabitation in a variety of contexts and the potential benefit of cohabitation that are differentially associated with other contextual demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral variables. Although the findings from this study provide an additional step in understanding the complexity of how relational attitudes and behavior intersect, future studies should continue to explore the relationships found here, including exploring how demographics, attitudes, and behavior interact, moderate, and mediate each other in dynamic ways across time.

Limitations

The results of this study should be generalized with caution due to several inherent limitations with the study design and sample. First, this sample used only college students, which may exclude unique couple formation patterns for non–college bound young adults. Although the multisite design of the present study allows for a fairly representative sample of college students who are currently experimenting with long-term relationships, the college sample likely lends itself to young adults with more resources and a higher socioeconomic background. Research has suggested that cohabitation may be a very different process and viewed very differently for couples based on their family’s economic background. For example, young adults who are educated or aspire to higher standards of living are particularly prone to view cohabitation as a step toward marriage (Sassler & Cunningham, 2008), compared with individuals from a lower socioeconomic background who are more likely to view cohabitation as an acceptable alternative to marriage (Lichter, Qian, & Mellott 2006; Thornton, Axinn, & Teachman, 1995). Lichter et al. (2006, 2010) have also found that disadvantaged populations are more likely to engage in serial cohabitation or to have multiple cohabiting partners prior to marriage. In populations where larger economic and social barriers exist to transition to marriage (Edin & Reed, 2005), cohabitation may be more likely to be used outside of clear marital trajectories. Scholars have also noted that college-bound young adults are increasingly different than young adults from more disadvantaged backgrounds in terms of their relational aspirations (McLanahan, 2004), and results from this study likely would not translate to low-income populations.

Another limitation of this sample is its cross-sectional nature. Although care was taken to consider cohabitation history, longitudinal data would be needed to further tease out how dating and sexual behavior and attitudes interact with couple formation patterns. Longitudinal data analysis that could access richer relational histories, including the number of cohabiting unions entered into, would be needed before these questions could be fully addressed.

A related limitation is the possible overlap between sexual behavior, dating behavior, and cohabitation behavior. It is likely that most individuals who have cohabited engaged in sexual behavior with their cohabiting partner. This may make teasing out where true effects lie between these variables difficult. The data used here did not include detailed relationship history on each cohabiting relationship, making it impossible to assess this possible bias. Although we were able to assess if each individual was currently or had previously cohabited, we did not have information on the number of previously cohabiting unions. Due to this measurement limitation, it was also impossible to separate individuals who had previously cohabited but were currently cohabiting from those who were only currently cohabiting (with no previous history). It is possible that individuals with a history of multiple or serial cohabitation (Lichter & Qian, 2008) may have unique associations between sexual behaviors, relationship behaviors, and attitudes, which should be explored in future research.

Although many educated young adults may view cohabitation as a precursor to marriage, the relative instability of cohabitation (Heuveline & Timberlake, 2004) may expose young adults to marital risk factors that may undermine their long-term relational goals. Research has shown that when couples transition to cohabitation and if cohabitation is linked with marital plans can have an impact on future marital conflict, satisfaction, and communication (Kline et al., 2004) and couples that cohabit prior to marriage may be more inclined toward conflict and commitment styles that may hamper their ability to form lasting marital unions (Stanley et al., 2004). The results of this study provide strong evidence that marital attitudes and sexual attitudes are associated with various attitudes toward cohabitation. This suggests young adults’ paradigms and beliefs regarding relational behavior on a general level are comprised of an interconnected web of specific attitudes toward union types, such as marriage and cohabitation, and are also influence by background and demographic factors. It also suggests that for at least some young adults, cohabitation is being evaluated within the larger context of their long-term union formation goals. Future work should continue to investigate the correlates and outcomes associated with attitudes toward cohabitation to increase our understanding of this increasingly common relational type.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Axinn

W. G.

Thornton

(1992). The relationship between cohabitation and divorce: Selectivity or causal influence? Demography, 29, 357-374.

Axinn

W. G.

Thornton

(1996). The influence of parents’ martial dissolutions on children’s toward family formation. Demography, 33(1), 66-81.

Batson

C. D.

Schoenrade

Ventis

W. L.

(1993). Religion and the individual. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Booth

Rustenbach

McHale

(2008). Early family transitions and depressive symptom changes from adolescence to early adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 3-14.

Brown

S. L.

(2004). Moving from cohabitation to marriage: Effects on relationship quality. Social Science Research, 33, 1-19.

Brown

S. L.

Sanchez

L. A.

Nock

S. L.

Wright

J. D.

(2006). Links between premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital quality, stability, and divorce: A comparison of covenant versus standard marriages. Social Science Research, 35, 454-470.

Bumpass

L. L.

(2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Populations Studies, 54(1), 29-41.

Bumpass

L. L.

Sweet

J. A.

Cherlin

(1991). The role of cohabitation in declining rates of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 913-927.

10.

Busby

D. M.

Holman

T. B.

Taniguchi

(2001). RELATE: Relationship evaluation of the individual, family, cultural, and couple contexts. Family Relations, 50, 308-316.

11.

Carroll

J. S.

Badger

Willoughby

B. J.

Nelson

L. J.

Madsen

S. D.

Barry

C. M.

(2009). Marriage readiness and the transition to adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24, 349-375.

12.

Carroll

J. S.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Nelson

L. J.

Olson

C. D.

Barry

C. M.

Madsen

S. D.

(2008). Generation XXX: Pornography acceptance and use among emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 6-30.

13.

Carroll

J. S.

Willoughby

Nelson

L. J.

Barry

C. M.

Madsen

(2007). So close, yet so far away: The impact of varying marital horizons on emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescence Research, 22, 219-247.

14.

Cohan

C. L.

Kleinbaum

(2002). Toward a greater understanding of the cohabitation effect: Premarital cohabitation and marital communication. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 180-192.

15.

Crissey

S. R.

(2005). Race/ethnic differences in the marital expectations of adolescents: the role of romantic relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 697-709.

16.

Cunningham

Thornton

(2005). The influence of union transitions on white adults’ attitudes toward cohabitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 710-720.

17.

Dush

C. M.

Cohan

C. L.

Amato

P. R.

(2003). The relationship between cohabitation and marital quality and stability: Change across cohorts? Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 539-549.

18.

Edin

Reed

J. M.

(2005). Why don’t they just get married? Barriers to marriage among the disadvantaged. The Future of Children, 15, 117-137.

19.

Gibson-Davis

C. M.

Edin

McLanahan

(2005). High hopes but even higher expectations: The retreat from marriage among low-income couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1301-1312.

20.

Hall

S. S.

(2006). Marital meaning: Exploring young adults’ belief systems about marriage. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1437-1458.

21.

Hansen

Moum

Shapiro

(2007). Relational and individual well-being among cohabitors and individuals in midlife: Recent trends from Norway. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 910-933.

22.

Heaton

T. B.

(2002). Factors contributing to the increasing marital stability in the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 392-409.

23.

Heuveline

Timberlake

J. M.

(2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1214-1230.

24.

Kennedy

Bumpass

(2008). Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research, 19, 1663-1692.

25.

Kline

G. H.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

Olmos-Gallo

P. A.

St. Peters

Whtton

S. W.

Prado

L. M.

(2004). Timing is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased risk for poor marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 311-318.

26.

Knox

Zusman

M. E.

Snell

Cooper

(1999). Characteristics of college students who cohabit. College Student Journal, 33, 510-513.

27.

Kreider

R. M.

(2005). Number, timing, and duration of marriages and divorces: 2001 (Current Population Reports, P70-97). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

28.

Lichter

D. T.

Qian

(2008). Serial cohabitation and the marital life course. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 861-878.

29.

Lichter

D. T.

Qian

Mellott

L. M.

(2006). Marriage or dissolution? Union transitions among poor cohabiting women. Demography, 43, 223-240.

30.

Lichter

D. T.

Turner

R. N.

Sassler

(2010). National estimates of the rise in serial cohabitation. Social Science Research, 29, 754-765.

31.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

Giordano

P. C.

(2007). The changing institution of marriage: Adolescents’ expectations to cohabit and to marry. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 559-575.

32.

Manning

W. D.

Smock

P. J.

(2005). Measuring and modeling cohabitation: New perspectives from qualitative data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 989-1002.

33.

McLanahan

(2004). Diverging destinies: How children are faring under the second demographic transition. Demography, 41, 607-627.

34.

Raley

R. K.

Crissey

Muller

(2007). Of sex and romance: Late adolescent relationships and young adult union formation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1210-1226.

35.

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2006). Pre-engagement cohabitation and gender asymmetry in marital commitment. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 553-560.

36.

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2009a). Couples’ reasons for cohabitation: Associations with individual well-being and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 233-258.

37.

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2009b). The pre-engagement cohabitation effect: A replication and extension of previous findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 107-111.

38.

Sassler

Cunningham

(2008). How cohabitors view childbearing. Sociological Perspectives, 51(1), 3-28.

39.

Schoen

Landale

N. S.

Daniels

(2007). Family transitions in young adulthood. Demography, 44, 807-820.

40.

Smock

P. J.

(2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1-20.

41.

Stafford

Kline

S. L.

Rankin

C. T.

(2004). Married individuals, cohabiters, and cohabiters who marry: A longitudinal study of relational and individual well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 231-248.

42.

Stanley

S. M.

Rhoades

G. K.

Amato

P. R.

Markman

H. J.

Johnson

C. A.

(2010). The timing of cohabitation and engagement: Impact on first and second marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 906-918.

43.

Stanley

S. M.

Whitton

S. W.

Markman

H. J.

(2004). Maybe I do: Interpersonal commitment and premarital or nonmarital cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 496-519.

44.

Thornton

Axinn

W. G.

Teachman

J. D.

(1995). The influence of school enrollment and accumulations on cohabitation and marriage in early adulthood. American Sociological Review, 60, 762-774.

45.

Thornton

Young-DeMarco

(2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes towards family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1009-1037.

46.

Williams

Kabamalan

Ogena

(2007). Cohabitation in the Philippines: Attitudes and behaviors among young women and men. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1244-1256.

47.

Willoughby

B. J.

Carroll

J. S.

(2010). Sexual experience and couple formation attitudes among emerging adults. Journal of Adult Development, 17, 1-11.

48.

Willoughby

B. J.

Dworkin

J. D.

(2009). The relationships between emerging adults’ expressed desire to marry and frequency of participation in risk behaviors. Youth & Society, 40, 426-450.