Trends in cohabitation outcomes
fangur$
TrendsinCohabitationUnit6.pdf
Trends in Cohabitation Outcomes: Compositional Changes and Engagement Among Never-Married Young Adults
Karen Benjamin Guzzo Bowling Green State University
Abstract
Cohabitation is now the modal first union for young adults, and most marriages are preceded by
cohabitation even as fewer cohabitations transition to marriage. These contrasting trends may be
due to compositional shifts among cohabiting unions, which are increasingly heterogeneous in
terms of cohabitation order, engagement, and the presence of children, as well as across
socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. The author constructs 5-year cohabitation cohorts
for 18- to 34-year-olds from the 2002 and 2006–2010 cycles of the National Survey of Family
Growth (n = 17,890 premarital cohabitations) to examine the outcomes of cohabitations over time.
Compared to earlier cohabitations, those formed after 1995 were more likely to dissolve, and those
formed after 2000 were less likely to transition to marriage even after accounting for the
compositional shifts among individuals in cohabiting unions. Higher instability and decreased
chances of marriage occurred among both engaged and non-engaged individuals, suggesting
society-wide changes in cohabitation over time.
Keywords
adolescence; cohabitation; demography; family structure; marriage; close relationships
The transition to adulthood now seem to includes at least one spell of cohabitation, given
that the majority of adults in their 30s have cohabited (Chandra, Martinez, Mosher, Abma,
& Jones, 2005; Manning, 2013). This reflects the fact that although young adults are
delaying marriage, they are still forming romantic unions (Raley, 2001). However, fewer
cohabitations are transitioning to marriage (Bumpass & Lu, 2000), and more individuals are
experiencing multiple cohabitations (Lichter, Turner, & Sassler, 2010), suggesting that
cohabitation is becoming de-linked from marriage. At the same time, though, most
marriages are preceded by cohabitation (Kennedy & Bumpass, 2008) even as fewer
cohabitations are begun with marital intentions (Vespa, 2014). Thus, among young adults,
marriage seems to be less of a part of the cohabitation process even as cohabitation has
become more strongly linked to the marriage process.
Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University, Williams Hall, Bowling Green, OH 43403 ([email protected]).
An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2011 annual conference of the National Council on Family Relations, Orlando, FL.
HHS Public Access Author manuscript J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
Published in final edited form as: J Marriage Fam. 2014 August ; 76(4): 826–842. doi:10.1111/jomf.12123.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
Cohabitation is now a normative and acceptable union for young adults, in part because of
delays in first marriage and the prolongation of young adulthood (Settersten & Ray, 2010).
The proportion of women age 19–24 who had ever cohabited, for instance, increased by
over 30% between the late 1980s and 2010 (Manning, 2013). Relationships early in
adulthood, however, are highly unstable, and more young adults are forming higher order
unions, as evidenced by the rise in serial cohabitation (Cohen & Manning, 2010; Lichter et
al., 2010). Commitment to marriage at the start of cohabitation, too, seems to be waning
among young adults (Vespa, 2014), with those entering their union with marriage plans
perhaps an increasingly select group with the strongest chances of marriage. Shifts in the
socioeconomic and demographic profiles of cohabitors, such as a growing proportion of
minority cohabitors or more cohabitors with children, may also contribute to changes in the
outcomes of cohabiting unions over time. Therefore, examining trends in cohabiting
outcomes during young adulthood requires increased attention to the potential role of
compositional differences.
In this research I explicitly examined, using the 2002 and 2006–2010 cycles of the National
Survey of Family Growth (NSFG; http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg.htm), whether the link
between cohabitation and marriage is changing among never-married young adults age 18–
34. If the link between cohabitation and marriage has changed, we would expect that with
each successive cohabitation cohort fewer cohabitations will transition to marriage as more
cohabitations dissolve. Alternatively, if differences across cohorts are minimal after
accounting for shifts in key relationship characteristics, such as initial marital intentions
(proxied by engagement status), cohabitation order, and the presence of children, as well as
socioeconomic and demographic shifts, this would suggest that compositional differences
among cohabitors are primarily responsible for the observed changes in the outcomes of
cohabiting unions, with a greater proportion of cohabitations over time composed of those
with an elevated risk for dissolution and lower risk for marriage. In this research I also tested
the possibility that having marital intentions at the start of cohabitation is becoming more
selective of individuals likely to marry, by exploring whether trends in cohabitation
outcomes differ by engagement status.
Background
Although the age at marriage has risen (Kawamura, 2009), young adults are still forming
coresidential unions at roughly the same ages, with their first union increasingly likely to be
cohabitation (Kennedy & Bumpass, 2008; Raley, 2001). By 2009–2010, 60% of women age
19–44 had ever cohabited, nearly double the proportion of 33% in 1987 (Manning, 2013).
As cohabitation has become more common, researchers have attempted to understand how it
fits into the relationship spectrum (Guzzo, 2006; Smock, 2000), variously characterizing
cohabitation as an alternative to being single, a stage in the marriage process (either as a
precursor to marriage or a trial marriage), and as an alternative to marriage. Characterization
attempts, however, are complicated by the heterogeneous nature of cohabitors, because
cohabitation is common across racial/ethnic groups, socioeconomic statuses, prior
parenthood and union experiences, and so on. In the late 1990s, cohabitation in the United
States largely seemed to function as an alternative to being single (Heuveline & Timberlake,
2004), despite the fact that most cohabitors expected to marry their partners (Brown, 2000).
Guzzo Page 2
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
However, the rapid pace of change in union and family behaviors suggests that “what we
know about intimate sexual unions can quickly become outdated” (Raley, 2000, p. 36),
warranting continued attention.
To understand whether, and how, cohabitation has changed, we must reconcile two trends.
On the one hand, most marriages are now preceded by cohabitation. Among first marriages
formed in 1980–1984, only 41% were preceded by cohabitation, a rate that rose to 56% for
marriages formed in 1990–1994 and to 66% for marriages formed in 2005–2009 (Manning,
2013), suggesting that cohabitation is now clearly institutionalized as part of the pathway to
marriage (Cherlin, 2009). On the other hand, fewer cohabitations are transitioning to
marriage (Bumpass & Lu, 2000), a pattern that implies a de-linking of marriage and
cohabitation. In 1995, 58% of first cohabitations had transitioned to marriage within 3 years
(Bramlett & Mosher, 2002), a rate that fell to 51% in 2002 (Goodwin, Mosher, & Chandra,
2010) and to 40% in 2006–2010 (Copen, Daniels, & Mosher, 2013). On the surface, these
trends appear to be conflicting; that is, how can marriage be more strongly linked to
cohabitation while cohabitation has become less strongly linked to marriage? On further
inspection, though, they can largely be explained by the fact that marriage has become more
selective and rare during the transition to adulthood, whereas cohabitation has not (Vespa &
Painter, 2011).
Cohabitation Outcomes
Although cohabitation seems to play a larger role in the marriage process (Kennedy &
Bumpass, 2008), marriage is not always viewed as the inevitable goal or outcome of
cohabitation (Manning & Smock, 2002), and this seems especially true among more recent
cohorts and younger adults (Manning, Longmore, & Giordano, 2007). This is likely related
to both attitudinal changes toward marriage (Cherlin, 2005) and broader economic changes
affecting the affordability of marriage and altering the economic prerequisites and incentives
for cohabitation and marriage (Lichter, Qian, & Mellott, 2006). Furthermore, the emergence
of higher order cohabitations in recent cohorts (Lichter et al., 2010) suggests that more
cohabitations are dissolving, for likely the same reasons. And although cohabiting unions
are lasting longer, evidence suggests that most union transitions (dissolution or marriage)
continue to occur within 2 years, with dissolution occurring a few months earlier, on
average, than marriage (Copen et al., 2013). As such, overall, we would expect that recently
formed cohabitations are more likely to dissolve and less likely to transition to marriage than
those formed in earlier time periods. Thus, I posed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1A: Over time, cohabitation has become more likely to dissolve and less
likely to transition to marriage.
Compositional Shifts in Cohabitation
Cohabitation has grown in prevalence and now occurs for individuals just beginning the
transition to adulthood as well as those who have largely completed the transition (and,
indeed, cohabitation increasingly occurs throughout the life course, even among middle-age
and older adults (Brown, Lee, & Bulanda, 2006). As Schoen, Landale, and Daniels (2007)
noted, there are a variety of paths to, and in, young adulthood, and unions formed during this
Guzzo Page 3
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
period are often quite unstable. Men and women in their late teens and early 20s are rarely
considering marriage, yet they often cohabit for economic reasons or convenience (Raley,
Crissey, & Muller, 2007). Individuals in their mid- to late 20s and early 30s might be
considering marriage and want to test their relationship before marriage (Johnson et al.,
2002), whereas others may decide to cohabit upon getting engaged (Oppenheimer, 2003). It
is not surprising, then, that there is a fairly straightforward association between age and
cohabitation outcomes, with younger cohabitors more likely to experience dissolution and
less likely to transition to marriage than their older counterparts (Guzzo, 2009). There are
few racial/ethnic differences in the proportion of individuals who have ever cohabited, but
there are large educational differences (Manning, 2013). Both socioeconomic status and
race/ethnicity are associated with stability and outcomes, with members of racial/ethnic
minority groups and individuals with less education at a higher risk of dissolution and
Whites and better educated individuals more likely to marry (Rose-Greenland & Smock,
2013). To the extent that cohabitations increasingly comprise younger adults, individuals
with less education, or racial/ethnic minorities—those with a higher risk of dissolution and a
lower risk of marriage—these compositional shifts may be partially responsible for changes
over time in outcomes.
Beyond socioeconomic and demographic differences in regard to who is cohabiting, though,
are what appear to be key differences in the characteristics of the unions themselves. Rates
of serial cohabitation, whereby individuals experience more than one cohabitation,
increased nearly 40% over the late 1990s and early 2000s (Lichter et al., 2010). Relative to
those with only one cohabitation, far fewer serial cohabitors reported themselves as engaged
at the start of any of their cohabitations, they were less likely to have ever married, and they
began cohabiting at fairly young ages (Cohen & Manning, 2010). The limited work on serial
cohabitors suggests that, overall, those with more than one cohabitation are more
disadvantaged than single-instance cohabitors (Cohen & Manning, 2010; Lichter et al.,
2010). Cohabitations today are increasingly the setting of childbearing and rearing, too
(Kennedy & Fitch, 2012; Lichter, 2012). Much of the rise in nonmarital fertility, for
instance, is due to high levels of childbearing within cohabiting unions (Lichter, 2012).
Many cohabitations also include children from prior relationships and are thus stepfamilies,
accompanied by the elevated risk of instability seen among stepfamilies in general
(Sweeney, 2010). Part of the decline in stability and transitions to marriage are also likely
due to shifts in how cohabitors view their union’s future in terms of marriage. Although
there is a strong positive association between being engaged at the start of cohabitation and
subsequent marriage (Guzzo, 2009), there is evidence that these initial marital intentions are
declining over time, in particular among individuals who have cohabited in the past (Vespa,
2014). Overall, this suggests substantial variation in the composition of individuals in
cohabiting unions over time. As such, changes in cohabitation outcomes over time could be
due to compositional differences among cohabitors, such as a growing proportion of
cohabitations among those who are otherwise at high risk for dissolution and/or low risk for
marriage (i.e., those in higher order unions or cohabiting stepfamilies). This led me to
another prediction:
Hypothesis 1B: Changes in outcomes over time among cohabiting unions are
attenuated when accounting for compositional shifts in socioeconomic and
Guzzo Page 4
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
demographic characteristics among cohabiting individuals as well as shifts in
cohabitation order, the presence of children, and marital intentions.
Changes in Intentions to Marry and Cohabitation Outcomes
If cohabitors have become decreasingly likely to begin their union with plans to marry, it is
possible that the signaling function of engagement has changed. To the extent that
cohabitation has become more socially acceptable, beginning a cohabitation with an
engagement may have become an increasingly selective mechanism over time, occurring
only among the most committed individuals and couples. Therefore, it may be that only
individuals without initial marriage plans are exhibiting increased instability and declining
chances of marriage over time, leading me to Hypothesis 2:
Hypothesis 2: Changes in the outcomes of cohabitations over time are more
pronounced among individuals who are not engaged.
This study contributes to the existing knowledge about trends in cohabitation because I
explicitly considered whether the apparent increase in instability and the decoupling of
cohabitation and marriage are driven primarily by compositional shifts along two
dimensions: (a) socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of individuals in cohabiting
unions and (b) union-specific factors (marital intentions, cohabitation order, and the
presence of children). Furthermore, by disaggregating unions by engagement, I examined
whether shifts in outcomes are occurring even among individuals who are, ostensibly, the
most committed to marriage. If compositional shifts among those in unions explain the
changes in cohabitation outcomes, this implies that unions themselves have not become
unstable and de-linked from marriage and thus there is no movement away from stable
unions. Conversely, if cohabitations are actually becoming less stable and less likely to
transition to marriage—even among people who explicitly planned to marry their cohabiting
partner—this suggests aggregate social changes are destabilizing one of the most common
unions Americans experience.
Method
In my analyses I pooled the 2002 and 2006–2010 cycles of the NSFG, a nationally
representative cross-sectional household-based survey of men and women ages 15–44. The
data are cross-sectional but contain a detailed retrospective relationship history of
coresidential unions, and the NSFG surveys are designed to ensure comparability across
cycles to provide time trend information. The sample includes 22,980 first and higher order
cohabiting unions formed 1980 or later to 16,081 individuals age 15 or older at the start of
cohabitation with valid information on start and end dates of unions; there were too few
observed cohabitations prior to 1980 to include in the analyses. The analyses were restricted
to those with valid engagement information (excluding 79 individuals); engagement status at
the start of cohabitation was based on the following question, asked for each cohabitation:
“At the time you began living together, were you and [partner] engaged to be married or did
you have definite plans to get married?” Six cases were missing information on one of the
control variables (nativity), bringing the potential sample size to 20,687 cohabitations
among 15,336 individuals.
Guzzo Page 5
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
When weights are used to account for the complex sampling design, the NSFG samples are
representative of the U.S. population at the time of the survey. It is important to note,
though, that as we look back further in time, the sample is increasingly less representative of
the national population at that time; that is, the 40- to 44-year-olds sampled in 2002 are
representative of all 40- to 44-year-olds living in households in the United States in 2002 but
may not be representative of 20- to 24-year-olds in 1982 if the population has changed
substantially over the past few decades. Furthermore, the observed age range increases over
time; in 2002, the NSFG observed men and women ages 15–44 from the 2002 cycle, but if
one goes back to 1985, for example, one sees that individuals from this cycle of the data
were observed only up to age 27. Similarly, individuals interviewed in 2008 were observed
only through age 21 in 1985. Cohabitations formed several years prior to the date of the
survey disproportionately comprise unions formed at the youngest ages and are thus
accompanied by the well-established negative association between early age at union
formation and subsequent stability (Guzzo, 2009; Tzeng & Mare, 1995), whereas
cohabitations formed in the years immediately before the survey, when a broader age range
was observed, are more representative. Because of the age selectivity in the sample, the
analysis was further limited to the age groups for which there were a sufficient time series of
observations and large sample sizes—individuals ages 18–34, disaggregated into four age
groups: (a) 18–19 (n = 3,976), (b) 20–24 (n = 8,245 cohabitations), (c) 25–29 (n = 3,985
cohabitations), and (d) 30–34 (n = 1,684 cohabitations). These age restrictions produced a
sample of 17,890 cohabitations to 13,107 individuals, comprising 86.1% of all observed
premarital cohabitations formed after 1980 among individuals age 15–44 at the time of
survey. To analyze change over time, I created six cohabitation cohorts: (a) 1980–1984, (b)
1985–1989, (c) 1990–1994, (d) 1995–1999, (e) 2000–2004, and (f) 2005 and later.
The independent variables were grouped into two categories: (a) socioeconomic and
demographic characteristics and (b) union and fertility characteristics. The socioeconomic
and demographic measures included age (18–19, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34), gender, race/
ethnicity/nativity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, foreign-born Hispanic, native-
born Hispanic, other), respondent’s mother’s education (less than high school or missing,
high school degree, some college, college degree or higher), whether the respondent’s
mother had a birth prior to age 18, a time-varying indicator of whether the respondent had a
high school degree, and family structure at age 14 (both biological parents, stepfamily,
other). Union and fertility characteristics included engagement status, cohabitation order,
whether the respondent had any children born prior to cohabitation (dichotomously
measured because few respondents had more than one child prior to cohabitation), and a
time-varying measure of whether a child was born during cohabitation.
Analytical Approach
I first briefly describe the socioeconomic, demographic, and union-specific characteristics of
the analytical sample of individuals in cohabiting unions by cohabitation cohort. I then show
graphs from multiple-decrement life tables, which explored whether dissolution and
marriage risks have changed over time and vary by engagement status; these graphs show
the hazard curves within 36 months of starting cohabiting, because most cohabitations are
no longer intact after this point (Goodwin et al., 2010). Because neither descriptive statistics
Guzzo Page 6
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
nor life tables can simultaneously account for socioeconomic, demographic, and union
factors, I used multivariate analyses to more thoroughly examine trends over time in
cohabitation using event history models accounting for exposure and duration to examine
outcomes. The data are converted into person-months, with exposure beginning the month
that the cohabitation began and ending when the union dissolved, transitioned to marriage,
or at the time of interview. The dependent variable included three categories indicating the
union (a) was still intact, (b) had dissolved, or (c) had transitioned to marriage, and the
analyses used multinomial logistic regression. The models included a control for union
duration, specified as a time-varying piecewise nonlinear spline (< 6 months, 7–12 months,
13–24 months [omitted], 25–48 months, and 49 or more months), as the association between
union transition and duration is nonlinear.
These analyses followed a two-pronged approach. First, I ran four nested models, with
Model 1 including only controls for cohabitation cohort (and duration), Model 2 adding
socioeconomic and demographic characteristics to Model 1, and Model 3 adding union and
family characteristics to Model 1, with Model 4 as the full model. These nested models
tested Hypotheses 1A and 1B, examining whether compositional differences explained any
changes in outcomes over time. Second, to test Hypothesis 2, I ran models stratified by
engagement to explore whether changes in outcomes were driven by respondents without
marital intentions.
Results
Descriptive Cohabitation Characteristics
In Table 1 are displayed the socioeconomic, demographic, and union characteristics of the
analytical sample of cohabiting unions across cohorts; readers should recall that the sample
in general is not representative of all cohabiting unions during the specified time period. In
the earliest cohorts, younger individuals were overrepresented because of the age structure
of the NSFG; thus, the earliest cohorts were less representative of the overall population of
cohabiting unions than later cohorts. As a result, it is not surprising that the proportion of
cohabitations that were first cohabitations declined across cohorts. Similarly, the widening
age range across cohorts likely contributed to the increasing proportion across cohorts of
respondents with children at the start of the union, although the proportion who reported
having children born during cohabitation stayed fairly stable, at about one-fifth of
cohabitations. In the analytical sample there was no clear downward trend in the proportion
of cohabitations that were begun with an engagement, hovering between 40% to 45% across
cohorts. There were also differences across the cohorts in the distribution of cohabitors by
race/ethnicity/nativity, education, and family structure during adolescence.
In Figures 1 through 4 I present hazard curves for the first 36 months of cohabitation by
engagement status, looking at the risk of dissolution and the risk of marriage over time. As
would be expected, dissolution risks were higher, and marriage risks lower, for engaged
respondents compared to those who were not engaged at the start of cohabitation. This is
neither surprising nor new. What is interesting, though, are the differences across
cohabitation cohorts. Looking first at dissolution risks among the engaged, the first few
cohorts—cohabitations formed in the 1980s and the early 1990s—were tightly clustered and
Guzzo Page 7
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
largely exhibited the same general increase over time in the risk of dissolution. By the late
1990s, dissolution risks were noticeably higher at longer durations than the earlier cohorts.
But the cohabitations formed after 2000 really stand out: Unions formed between 2000 and
2004 faced much higher dissolution risks at every duration compared to the earlier cohorts
of cohabitations, and the cohabitations formed after 2005 were even more at risk of
dissolution. The elevated risk of dissolution for more recent cohorts were also present for the
non-engaged, although the level of risk was higher at every duration than for the engaged,
and unions formed in the late 1990s were not noticeably different than those in the 1980s
and early 1990s. The trends across cohorts were even more stark when one considers that
the youngest age groups were overrepresented in the early cohorts. As such, the observed
dissolution risks for the earlier cohorts were almost certainly overestimated, given that
younger individuals are more likely to experience union dissolution (Guzzo, 2009; Tzeng &
Mare, 1995). If the earliest cohorts had a more representative age distribution, the
dissolution risks would likely have been lower, making the changes across cohorts more
dramatic.
In regard to marriage, the risks across cohorts were more tightly clustered and exhibited less
variation over time compared to dissolution risks, and at every duration the risk of marriage
was lower among the non-engaged respondents. Still, there were some appreciable
differences across cohorts. Each successively more recent cohabitation cohort was less
likely to transition to marriage through the early 1990s for engaged cohabitors, with minimal
differences between cohabitations formed in the early and late 1990s. As with dissolution,
more recent cohabitations stand out. There appeared to be a sharp decline in the risk of
marriage between cohabitations formed prior to 2000 and those formed after 2000. By the
end of the 36 months of duration shown here, there was a difference of roughly 10
percentage points in the proportion married among cohabitations formed prior to 2000 and
those formed after 2000. For those who were not engaged at the start of cohabitation, risks
were slightly less clustered together, but the same overall trends were present. The declining
risk of marriage started with the 1995–1999 cohort but was still stronger for the 2000–2004
and 2005 and later cohabitation cohorts. Also, as before, because of the overrepresentation
of younger adults in the earliest cohorts, who are less likely to marry than older cohabitors
(Guzzo, 2009), the decline in marriage risks across cohorts was likely understated. Thus,
there is support for Hypothesis 1A, that cohabitation outcomes have changed over time, with
the increase in dissolution seemingly larger than the decrease in marriage.
Overall, then, although the hazard curves demonstrate increasing dissolution and decreasing
marriage among cohabiting unions over time, the descriptive characteristics shown in Table
1 reveal that the analytical sample varied substantially across a range of socioeconomic and
demographic characteristics as well as union and fertility indicators across cohorts. Thus, I
turned to multivariate analyses to examine changes over time more thoroughly.
Predicting Outcomes Across Cohorts
The nested models for cohabitations among never-married men and women age 18–34 are
presented in Table 2. These models tested Hypotheses 1A and 1B, which are competing
hypotheses, and show the relative risk ratios (RRRs) in a series of nested models designed to
Guzzo Page 8
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
demonstrate the extent to which compositional differences among those in unions contribute
to changes in union stability and outcomes over time. Model 1 was a baseline model,
including only cohort (1990–1994 as the reference category) and duration controls. Model 2
added socioeconomic and demographic factors to the baseline model, and Model 3 added
union and fertility characteristics to the baseline model, with Model 4 containing the full set
of covariates. The baseline model in Model 1 supported Hypothesis 1A: Cohabitations
formed in later years were more likely to dissolve and less likely to transition to marriage
than remain intact relative to cohabitations formed in 1990–1994, and the magnitude of the
RRRs increased across cohorts, suggesting that cohabitations have become increasingly
unstable and less connected to marriage over time. Relative to cohabitations formed between
1990 and 1994, cohabitations formed from 1995–1999, 2000–2004, and 2005 and later were
13%, 49%, and 87%, respectively, more likely to dissolve than remain intact. The lower risk
of marriage over remaining intact occurred only for the last two cohabitation cohorts (2000–
2004 and 2005 and later), which were about 18% and 31% less likely to marry than remain
intact, respectively. Although Hypothesis 1A was largely supported, there was some
evidence that the earliest cohort of cohabitations were also unstable; cohabitations formed in
1980–1984 were about 20% more likely to dissolve than remain intact compared to
cohabitations formed a decade later. Duration largely worked as would be expected;
cohabitations of 6 or fewer months were less likely to dissolve or transition to marriage than
those 13–24 months in duration, with no differences between 7–12 months and 13–24
months. Cohabitations greater than 2 years in duration were less likely to either dissolve or
marry, and the longer a cohabiting union lasted, the more likely it was to remain intact as a
cohabiting union.
Model 2 added in socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. As shown in Table 1,
compared to cohabitations formed in earlier time periods in the analytical sample, more
recent cohabitation cohorts included more individuals in their late 20s and early 30s, more
non-White individuals, and more individuals who grew up in non-intact families but had
more educated mothers. This model tested whether these compositional differences account
for shifts in dissolution and marriage risks over time (Hypothesis 1B), and the short answer
is that they do not. Although socioeconomic and demographic characteristics were
associated with cohabitation outcomes, they did not explain the association with
cohabitation cohort and outcomes; in fact, a positive association with marriage and early
cohorts emerged. Changes in the risk of dissolution relative to remaining intact were largely
the same, with cohabitations formed from 1995 onward increasingly likely to dissolve.
Cohabitations formed in the early 1980s were no longer more likely to dissolve than those
formed in the early 1990s, largely because of the presence of the control for age, given the
overrepresentation of the very young in the early cohorts. In the presence of socioeconomic
and demographic controls, cohabiting unions formed in 1980–1984 were 27% more likely,
and unions formed in 1985–1989 were 13% more likely, to transition to marriage than
remain intact relative to cohabitations formed in 1990–1994. Cohabitations formed in the
late 1990s were not significantly different in the risk of marriage relative to those formed in
the early 1990s, but those formed after 2000 were decreasingly likely to end in marriage,
with a similar magnitude as seen in Model 1.
Guzzo Page 9
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
Although the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics did not account for the
association between cohort and outcomes, they were significantly associated with outcomes
in their own right. Younger cohabitors were more likely to experience dissolution and less
likely to marry than those age 25–29, although those in their early 30s did not significantly
differ from those in their late 20s. Women were slightly less likely to marry than remain
cohabiting relative to men (RRR = 0.93). There were few racial/ethnic differences in
dissolution risks, although foreign-born Hispanics were less likely to experience dissolution
than Whites (RRR = 0.41). However, compared to Whites, all groups were less likely to
transition to marriage than remain cohabiting; Blacks and Hispanics were about 40% less
likely to marry than Whites, whereas those in the “other” category were about 25% less
likely. Individuals whose mother had at least some college were more likely to dissolve their
cohabiting unions relative to those with a high school degree, and those who lived in an
“other” family type (primarily those in single-parent families) were about 20% less likely to
marry over remaining in an intact cohabitation compared to their peers who lived with both
biological parents at age 14. As with cohabitation cohort, the effects of duration changed
only slightly with the inclusion of socioeconomic and demographic controls.
In Model 3, changes in the characteristics of cohabiting unions in terms of engagement,
cohabitation order, and fertility were investigated as potential factors which may explain
cohort differences in dissolution and marriage (Hypothesis 1B). Again, however, accounting
for compositional shifts among the characteristics of the union did not attenuate the
association between the time period in which a cohabitation was formed and its risk of
dissolution or marriage, even though these factors were significantly and directly associated
with cohabiting outcomes. Cohabitations formed after 1995 were still increasingly likely to
dissolve relative to those formed between 1990–1994, and unions formed after 2000
remained decreasingly likely to transition to marriage. Unions formed in 1980–1984 were
both more likely to dissolve and more likely to marry than those formed in 1990–1994, but
the differences were only marginally significant.
The characteristics of the cohabiting union, however, were significant, as expected. First
cohabitations differed from second cohabitations, being both more likely to dissolve (RRR =
1.38) and less likely to end in marriage (RRR = 0.86). Third cohabitations were about 40%
more likely to dissolve than second cohabitations but did not differ in the risk of marriage
(in fact, first and third cohabitations did not differ from each other, results not shown).
Engagement was particularly important, as expected: Respondents who report being
engaged or having marriage plans at the start of cohabitation were less likely to dissolve
(RRR = 0.59) and substantially more likely to marry (RRR = 2.34) than their non-engaged
counterparts. Cohabitors who had children prior to the union did not have higher risks of
dissolution than those who were childless, but they were about 40% less likely to transition
to marriage. Having a child during cohabitation reduced both dissolution and marriage risks.
The association between duration and outcomes changed slightly with the inclusion of
characteristics of the cohabiting union. Cohabitations between 2 and 4 years’ duration
became only marginally less likely to dissolve than those between 1 and 2 years’ duration.
Cohabitations of 6 months or less became even less likely to transition to marriage (moving
from about 15% less likely to 25% less likely from Model 1 to Model 3), and cohabitations
of 7–12 months became significantly less likely to transition to marriage as well (RRR =
Guzzo Page 10
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
0.85). Cohabitations of longer durations were still less likely to marry as well, but the
magnitude of longer durations diminished in effect.
The last two columns of Table 2 present the full model, adding in both socioeconomic and
demographic characteristics as well as characteristics of the cohabiting union. In the
presence of all the covariates, cohabitation cohort remained a significant predictor of
dissolution and marriage. Compared to unions formed in the early 1990s, cohabitations
formed after 1995 were increasingly likely to dissolve. Cohabitations formed after 2000
were decreasingly likely to marry; conversely, a cohabiting union formed in the early 1980s
was more likely to end in marriage than one formed in the early 1990s. Including various
controls, though often significant in their own right, did little to change the magnitude of the
cohort relative risk ratio. As such, Hypothesis 1A was supported, and Hypothesis 1B was
rejected. The association between cohabitation outcomes and socioeconomic, demographic,
and union characteristics changed little from Models 2 and 3 to Model 4. In the presence of
controls for cohabitation characteristics, Blacks were more likely to experience dissolution
than whites (RRR = 1.17), and women were no longer less likely to marry than men. In the
presence of socioeconomic and demographic covariates there were no differences across
cohabitation order in the risk of marriage, although first and third cohabitations remained
more likely to dissolve than second cohabitations. The association between engagement and
marriage strengthened slightly, and the negative association between children born prior to
or during cohabitation and marriage risk diminished somewhat. The association between
duration and outcomes did not change.
The above results confirm that cohabiting unions were increasingly unstable and
disconnected from marriage over time. However, given some evidence that cohabitations
were decreasingly likely to start with plans to marry (Vespa, 2014) combined with the
findings here indicating that engagement was the biggest predictor of marriage, I tested
whether the observed cohort differences masked differences across initial marriage plans
(Hypothesis 2); that is, increasing instability and decreasing marital transitions over time
may be concentrated among individuals without marriage plans, to the extent that marriage
plans are increasingly selective of those who are committed to marriage. These analyses are
shown in Table 3, in which Model 4 from Table 2 was re-run but with the results stratified
by engagement status. Only the RRRs for cohort are included in this table, but the full
models are available on request. These results did not support Hypothesis 2, that the
observed changes in cohabiting outcomes over time are concentrated among those without
marriage plans. Both engaged and non-engaged respondents had a higher risk of dissolution
and a lower risk of marriage for cohabitations formed after 2000 relative to those formed in
1990–1994. Engaged cohabitations formed after 2005 had a particularly high risk of
instability (RRR = 2.27), but Chow tests (not shown) that compared the coefficients across
models did not reveal any statistically significant differences between the engaged and non-
engaged in the cohort RRRs.
Discussion
Cohabitation has become quite common in the United States in recent decades, given that
most people will cohabit outside of marriage at some point in their lives. The majority of
Guzzo Page 11
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
today’s marriages are preceded by cohabitation even as fewer cohabitations are transitioning
to marriage (Kennedy & Bumpass, 2008) and marriage rates are declining (CDC/NCHS
National Vital Statistics System, 2012). In this research I examined whether compositional
shifts in the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of individuals in cohabiting
unions, along with shifts in the characteristics of unions themselves (in terms of cohabitation
order, engagement, and the presence of children), are partly responsible for observed
changes in the outcomes of cohabitation over time. In general, I found support for the notion
that cohabitation is indeed changing over time, as suggested in Hypothesis 1A. Since the late
1990s, the risk of dissolution has increased, with the most pronounced changes occurring for
cohabitations formed most recently. The chances of marriage, too, have declined over time,
with the earliest unions—those formed in the 1980s—more likely to transition to marriage
and those formed since 2000 less likely to transition to marriage. Thus, the shifts in the
outcomes of cohabiting unions have been strongest for the most recent cohorts of cohabitors,
with less variation across cohabitations formed during the 1980s and early 1990s. In fact, the
truncated age structure of the analytical sample means those most at risk of dissolution and
least likely to marry are overrepresented in the earliest cohorts, which implies that the
observed differences across cohorts are underestimated and thus the increased dissolution
risks and decreased marriage risks over time are even greater. The elevated risk of
dissolution seems to plays particularly big role in changes in cohabiting outcomes over the
past few decades, whereas the changes in the risk of marriage have been smaller (but still
significant). Although compositional shifts have indeed occurred, neither shifts in the
socioeconomic and demographic profile of respondents in cohabiting unions nor shifts in the
characteristics of unions account for the increased instability and declining risks of marriage
in later cohorts, as suggested in Hypothesis 1B.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that increasing dissolution and decreasing marriage reflect
declines in commitment at the start of cohabiting unions. Contrary to Hypothesis 2, the
association between engagement and the outcomes of cohabiting unions does not seem to
differ over time. As such, to the extent that engagement at the start of cohabitation is
becoming more rare (Vespa, 2014), it is not becoming more selective of individuals whose
unions will be more stable and more likely to transition to marriage, contrary to
expectations. Engagement itself, though, remains strongly related to stability and marriage,
as seen in other work (Guzzo, 2009).
Together, these findings add further evidence to the de-linking of cohabitation and marriage.
Marriage is becoming, across the board, a more selective institution, in terms of who marries
(and who marries directly), who benefits, and who stays married, among other factors (Lee
& Payne, 2010; Kennedy & Ruggles,2014). Marriage rates are at an all-time low (Cruz,
2013). At the same time, cohabitation is on the rise and shows no signs of abating (Manning,
2013), and although many cohabitors enter their unions with plans to marry, a substantial
proportion enter without explicit plans or expectations regarding marriage, often driven by
financial and logistical concerns (Sassler, 2004; Smock, Manning, & Porter, 2005). Thus,
even as marriage is becoming more selective, cohabitation is becoming less so. The
declining selectivity of cohabitation, driven perhaps by a “lowering of the bar” to cohabit as
cohabitation becomes increasingly acceptable (Popenoe, 2005; Thornton & Young-
DeMarco, 2001), likely contributes to the rising instability of cohabiting unions. As I
Guzzo Page 12
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
suggested at the start of this article, then, the present results confirm the notion that marriage
has become less a part of the cohabitation process over time.
Limitations
There are a number of limitations to keep in mind. First, in this research, individuals in
cohabiting unions, not individuals or cohabiting unions themselves, were used as the unit of
analysis. Therefore, it cannot inform us about changes in individual union formation
behavior over time and did not analyze trends in the likelihood of entering different types of
unions. Second, the NSFG samples individuals, not cohabitations, so the cohabitations are
not necessarily representative of all cohabitations but instead of the cohabiting unions of
individuals ages 15–44 in 2002 and in 2006–2010. To limit the extent to which this affected
the analysis, I restricted the sample by age, but this likely still affected generalizability to
some degree. In particular, the earliest cohorts were disproportionately composed of younger
adults, who in general exhibit higher union instability and lower chances of marriage
(Guzzo, 2009; Tzeng & Mare, 1995). Third, some research suggests that short-term
cohabitations are more likely to be underreported for cohabitations that occurred in periods
more distal to the survey than for more recent unions (Hayford & Morgan, 2008).
Qualitative evidence also shows that the exact start and end dates of cohabitation are often
quite fluid (Manning & Smock, 2005), as is the accuracy of retrospective reports (Teitler,
Reichman, & Koball, 2006). To the extent that retrospective recall issues might favor more
well-defined and stable unions, then the results could overstate differences in cohabitation
outcomes over time. However, if this were true, we would also expect that there would be
more non-engaged cohabitations in recent cohorts, and there is no evidence that is occurring.
Fourth, the measure of engagement was not ideal; the phrases “engaged to be married” and
“definite plans to marry” are somewhat vague, and it is possible that engagement is subject
to recall bias—that respondents whose relationship was intact were more likely to report
their cohabitation as beginning with engagement or definite plans to marry as opposed to
those who were engaged being more likely to have an intact relationship.
Conclusion
The compositional shifts of individuals in cohabiting unions over time reflect the growing
diversity of the American population and the shifting role of cohabitation in the family
landscape, clearly demonstrating that today’s cohabitations are not the same as those in the
past. A growing proportion of cohabitors are likely those for whom dissolution risks are
higher and marriage chances are lower: younger adults, those with children from a past
union, those in higher order unions, and so on. As such, it would seem that part of the
increase in cohabiting instability and decrease in transitions to marriage is compositional. In
this study, however, I found little evidence that compositional shifts among individuals in
cohabiting unions are primarily responsible for changes in outcomes, because cohort
differences were found even after accounting for compositional shifts and even among
respondents who reported that when they started living together they planned to marry their
cohabiting partner. This suggests that other factors have contributed to increased instability
and a weakening of the link between cohabitation and marriage.
Guzzo Page 13
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
Given that the analytical sample contained never-married young adults and that the
differences were most pronounced for cohabitations formed since 2000, the results here may
reflect the well-documented difficulties today’s young men and women are experiencing in
the transition to adulthood (Settersten & Ray, 2010). Although the social and economic
prerequisites for marriage have increased (Cherlin, 2005), Americans remain pro-marriage,
and the majority of never-married men and women indicate they want to marry in the future
(Manning et al., 2007; Pew Research Center, 2010; Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001).
These results—that cohabiting unions, even those begun with engagement, are more likely
to dissolve and less likely to transition to marriage over time even after accounting for
compositional shifts—is all the more troubling because it suggests that young adults are
having trouble realizing their desires and intentions to form more permanent and stable
unions, particularly marriages. For today’s young adults, achieving career and economic
stability may be a real barrier to union stability and marriage (Smock et al., 2005).
Attitudinal changes toward union formation and stability cannot be ruled out either. Today’s
young adults may simply view cohabitation differently than earlier cohorts. Cohabitations
may be increasingly viewed as a matter of convenience and comfort—that is, as a way to be
with one’s partner and simultaneously minimize economic and logistic costs (Sassler, 2004)
—rather than as part of a relationship progression toward marriage. Pressures to marry one’s
partner, too, may be declining, if the bar for marriage (emotionally, physically, and/or
economically) is getting higher, such that people are increasingly likely to think it is better
to end a cohabiting union (and an engagement) prior to marriage than to risk marrying and
subsequently divorcing. Thus, it seems that cohabitation in the United States, at least among
never-married young adults, remains best characterized as an alternative to being single.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that the increased instability of cohabiting unions is likely
responsible, in part, for the fairly stable divorce rate seen since the 1980s (Kennedy &
Ruggles, 2014). One could argue that the dissolution of a cohabiting union is, in many ways,
an averted divorce, to the extent that in earlier time periods the same couple would have
married directly but experienced the same relationship problems that led to marital
dissolution. If this is the case, then rising instability and the de-linking of cohabitation and
marriage is not necessarily problematic. Conversely, if many of today’s cohabitations are
just a variation of formal marriage—involving children, financial commitments, and so on—
then rising rates of instability do indeed suggest some sort of large-scale issue affecting
today’s unions, making more conventional measures of union formation and stability less
meaningful (Kennedy & Ruggles, 2014).
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by the Center for Family and Demographic Research at Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Grant R24HD050959-09).
References
Bramlett, MD.; Mosher, WD. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 23. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2002. Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
Guzzo Page 14
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
Brown SL. Union transitions among cohabitors: The significance of relationship assessments and expectations. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2000; 62:833–846.
Brown SL, Lee GR, Bulanda JR. Cohabitation among older adults: A national portrait. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2006; 61:S71–S79.
Bumpass L, Lu HH. Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Population Studies. 2000; 54:29–41.
CDC/NCHS National Vital Statistics System. National marriage and divorce rates and trends. 2012. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm
Chandra, A.; Martinez, GM.; Mosher, WD.; Abma, JC.; Jones, J. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 23. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2005. Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_025.pdf
Cherlin AJ. American marriage in the early twenty-first century. The Future of Children. 2005; 15:33– 55. [PubMed: 16158729]
Cherlin, AJ. The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. New York: Knopf; 2009.
Cohen J, Manning W. The relationship context of premarital serial cohabitation. Social Science Research. 2010; 39:766–776.
Copen, CE.; Daniels, K.; Mosher, WD. National Health Statistics Reports. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2013. First premarital cohabitation in the United States: 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth.
Cruz, J. Marriage: More than a century of change. Center for Family & Marriage Research, Bowling Green State University; Bowling Green, OH: 2013. Family Profile FP-13-13
Hayford SR, Morgan SP. The quality of retrospective data on cohabitation. Demography. 2008; 45:129–141. [PubMed: 18390295]
Heuveline P, Timberlake JM. The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004; 66:1214–1230. [PubMed: 24563549]
Goodwin, PY.; Mosher, WD.; Chandra, A. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 23. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2010. Marriage and cohabitation in the United States: A statistical portrait based on Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_028.pdf
Guzzo KB. The relationship between life course events and union formation. Social Science Research. 2006; 35:384–408.
Guzzo KB. Marital intentions and the stability of first cohabitations. Journal of Family Issues. 2009; 30:179–205.
Johnson, CA.; Stanley, SM.; Glenn, ND.; Amato, PR.; Nock, SL.; Markman, HJ.; Dion, MR. Marriage in Oklahoma: 2001 baseline statewide survey on marriage and divorce. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Department of Human Services; 2002.
Kawamura, S. Median age at first marriage in the US, 2008. Center for Marriage & Family Research, Bowling Green State University; Bowling Green, OH: 2009. Family Profile FP-09-03
Kennedy S, Bumpass L. Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research. 2008; 19:1663–1692. [PubMed: 19119426]
Kennedy S, Fitch CA. Measuring cohabitation and family structure in the United States: Assessing the impact of new data from the Current Population Survey. Demography. 2012; 49:1479–1498. [PubMed: 22826006]
Kennedy S, Ruggles S. Breaking up is hard to count: The rise of divorce in the United States, 1980– 2010. Demography. 2014; 51:587–598. [PubMed: 24399141]
Lee GL, Payne KK. Changing marriage patterns since 1970: What’s going on, and why? Journal of Comparative Family Studies. 2010; 41:537–555.
Lichter, DT. Childbearing among cohabiting women: Race, pregnancy, and union transitions. In: Booth, A.; Brown, SL.; Landale, NS.; Manning, WD.; McHale, SM., editors. Early adulthood in a family context. New York: Springer; 2012. p. 209-219.
Guzzo Page 15
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
Lichter DT, Qian Z, Mellott LM. Marriage or dissolution? Union transitions among poor cohabiting women. Demography. 2006; 43:223–240. [PubMed: 16889126]
Lichter DT, Turner RN, Sassler S. National estimates of the rise in serial cohabitation. Social Science Research. 2010; 39:754–765.
Manning, WD. Trends in cohabitation: Over twenty years of change, 1987–2010. Center for Family & Marriage Research, Bowling Green State University; Bowling Green, OH: 2013. Family Profile FP-13-12
Manning WD, Longmore MA, Giordano PC. The changing institution of marriage: Adolescents’ expectations to cohabit and to marry. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2007; 69:559–575.
Manning WD, Smock PJ. First comes cohabitation and then comes marriage? A research note. Journal of Family Issues. 2002; 23:1065–1087.
Manning WD, Smock PJ. Measuring and modeling cohabitation: New perspectives from qualitative data. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005; 67:989–1002.
Oppenheimer VK. Cohabiting and marriage during young men’s career development process. Demography. 2003; 40:127–149. [PubMed: 12647517]
Pew Research Center. The decline of marriage and the rise of new families. Washington, DC: Author; 2010.
Popenoe, D. The state of unions 2005: The social health of marriage in America. Piscataway, NJ: National Marriage Project; 2005.
Raley, RK. Recent trends and differentials in marriage and cohabitation: The United States. In: Waite, LJ., editor. The ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation. New York: Aldine de Gruyter; 2000. p. 19-39.
Raley RK. Increasing fertility in cohabiting unions: Evidence for the Second Demographic Transition in the United States? Demography. 2001; 38:59–66. [PubMed: 11227845]
Raley RK, Crissey S, Muller C. Of sex and romance: Late adolescent relationships and young adult union formation. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2007; 69:1210–1226. [PubMed: 20221420]
Rose-Greenland, F.; Smock, PJ. Living together unmarried: What do we know about cohabiting families?. In: Peterson, GW.; Bush, KR., editors. Handbook of marriage and family. 3. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 255-273.
Sassler S. The process of entering into cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004; 66:491–505.
Schoen R, Landale NS, Daniels K. Family transitions in young adulthood. Demography. 2007; 44:807–820. [PubMed: 18232212]
Settersten RA Jr, Ray B. What’s going on with young people today? The long and twisting path to adulthood. The Future of Children. 2010; 20:19–41. [PubMed: 20364620]
Smock PJ. Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology. 2000; 26:1–20.
Smock PJ, Manning WD, Porter M. “Everything’s there except money”: How money shapes decisions to marry among cohabitors. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005; 67:680–696.
Sweeney M. Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72:667–684.
Teitler JO, Reichman NE, Koball H. Contemporaneous versus retrospective reports of cohabitation in the Fragile Families survey. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2006; 68:469–477.
Thornton A, Young-DeMarco L. Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2001; 63:1009–1037.
Tzeng JM, Mare RD. Labor market and socioeconomic effects on marital stability. Social Science Research. 1995; 24:329–351.
Vespa J. Historical trends in the marital intentions of one-time and serial cohabitors. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2014; 76:207–217.
Vespa J, Painter MA II. Cohabitation history, marriage, and wealth accumulation. Demography. 2011; 48:983–1004. [PubMed: 21691930]
Guzzo Page 16
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
Figure 1. Dissolution Within 36 Months, Engaged.
Guzzo Page 17
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
Figure 2. Marriage Within 36 Months, Engaged.
Guzzo Page 18
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
Figure 3. Dissolution Within 36 Months, Not Engaged.
Guzzo Page 19
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
Figure 4. Marriage Within 36 Months, Not Engaged.
Guzzo Page 20
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
Guzzo Page 21
T ab
le 1
W ei
gh te
d Pe
rc en
ta ge
s fo
r th
e D
es cr
ip tiv
e C
ha ra
ct er
is tic
s of
C oh
ab ita
tio ns
F or
m ed
1 98
0– 20
10 A
m on
g N
ev er
-M ar
ri ed
I nd
iv id
ua ls
A ge
s 18
–3 4
(N =
17 ,8
90 C
oh ab
ita tio
ns a
nd 1
3, 10
7 In
di vi
du al
s)
C ha
ra ct
er is
ti cs
19 80
–1 98
4 (n
=
83 1)
19 85
–1 98
9 (n
=
2, 03
4) 19
90 –1
99 4
(n =
3,
47 3)
19 95
–1 99
9 (n
=
4, 57
6) 20
00 –2
00 4
(n =
4,
29 5)
20 05
o r
la te
r (n
=
2, 68
1) T
ot al
( N
= 1
7, 89
0)
So ci
oe co
no m
ic a
nd d
em og
ra ph
ic
A
ge g
ro up
18 –1
9 37
.1 25
.3 18
.4 18
.6 18
.0 18
.9 20
.7
20 –2
4 58
.2 52
.0 47
.9 40
.2 44
.8 42
.2 45
.9
25 –2
9 4.
7 21
.1 24
.4 26
.2 22
.5 28
.4 23
.0
30 –3
4 0.
0 1.
6 9.
4 15
.1 14
.7 10
.5 10
.4
Fe
m al
e 48
.9 52
.1 53
.5 51
.8 51
.4 48
.1 51
.5
R
ac e/
et hn
ic ity
/n at
iv ity
N on
-H is
pa ni
c W
hi te
71 .1
70 .5
69 .9
64 .3
63 .7
61 .6
66 .4
N on
-H is
pa ni
c B
la ck
11 .3
13 .5
12 .7
14 .0
14 .1
15 .5
13 .6
N at
iv e-
bo rn
H is
pa ni
c 4.
4 4.
9 5.
9 7.
8 8.
2 10
.2 7.
1
Fo re
ig n-
bo rn
H is
pa ni
c 6.
1 6.
2 6.
7 7.
3 8.
2 6.
9 7.
1
O th
er 7.
2 4.
9 4.
7 6.
7 5.
9 5.
7 5.
8
H
ig h
sc ho
ol g
ra d
at s
ta rt
72 .1
73 .4
74 .8
73 .7
73 .5
72 .1
73 .6
M
ot he
r’ s
ed uc
at io
n
L es
s th
an h
ig h
sc ho
ol /m
is si
ng 26
.4 26
.8 22
.9 21
.9 20
.6 18
.5 22
.5
H ig
h sc
ho ol
44 .8
43 .8
42 .2
38 .0
35 .4
34 .1
39 .2
So m
e co
lle ge
15 .7
15 .8
19 .0
21 .9
24 .9
27 .3
21 .2
C ol
le ge
o r
m or
e 13
.2 13
.6 15
.9 18
.2 19
.1 20
.1 17
.1
M
ot he
r ha
d te
en b
ir th
16 .6
16 .7
16 .7
16 .5
15 .0
15 .1
16 .1
Fa
m ily
s tr
uc tu
re a
t a ge
1 4
B ot
h bi
ol og
ic al
p ar
en ts
71 .2
68 .5
57 .2
63 .3
61 .3
56 .0
64 .2
St ep
fa m
ily 9.
8 10
.4 11
.6 12
.5 12
.6 13
.2 11
.9
O th
er 19
.0 21
.2 21
.3 24
.2 26
.1 30
.8 23
.4
U ni
on /f
am ily
c ha
ra ct
er is
tic s
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
Guzzo Page 22
C ha
ra ct
er is
ti cs
19 80
–1 98
4 (n
=
83 1)
19 85
–1 98
9 (n
=
2, 03
4) 19
90 –1
99 4
(n =
3,
47 3)
19 95
–1 99
9 (n
=
4, 57
6) 20
00 –2
00 4
(n =
4,
29 5)
20 05
o r
la te
r (n
=
2, 68
1) T
ot al
( N
= 1
7, 89
0)
C
oh ab
ita tio
n or
de r
1s t c
oh ab
ita tio
n 88
.0 80
.0 74
.0 69
.0 70
.0 66
.5 72
.9
2n d
co ha
bi ta
tio n
10 .3
16 .5
21 .4
23 .5
24 .1
28 .5
21 .8
3r d
or h
ig he
r co
ha bi
ta tio
n 1.
7 3.
5 4.
6 7.
5 5.
8 5.
0 5.
3
E
ng ag
ed 40
.2 45
.5 40
.9 42
.5 39
.8 40
.3 41
.6
A
ny c
hi ld
re n
bo rn
p ri
or to
c oh
ab ita
tio n
2. 9
6. 6
7. 8
12 .1
15 .3
19 .1
11 .2
H
ad c
hi ld
w hi
le c
oh ab
iti ng
17 .1
19 .2
20 .4
21 .6
19 .1
14 .2
19 .4
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
Guzzo Page 23
T ab
le 2
R el
at iv
e R
is k
R at
io s
Fr om
M ul
tin om
ia l L
og is
tic R
eg re
ss io
n of
C oh
ab ita
tio n
O ut
co m
es A
m on
g N
ev er
-M ar
ri ed
A du
lts A
ge s
18 –3
4
P re
di ct
or M
od el
1 M
od el
2 M
od el
3 M
od el
4
D is
so lv
ed v
s. in
ta ct
M ar
ri ed
v s.
in ta
ct D
is so
lv ed
v s.
in ta
ct M
ar ri
ed v
s. in
ta ct
D is
so lv
ed v
s. in
ta ct
M ar
ri ed
v s.
in ta
ct D
is so
lv ed
v s.
in ta
ct M
ar ri
ed v
s. in
ta ct
C oh
or t (
re f.
: 1 99
0– 19
94 )
19
80 –1
98 4
1. 23
* 1.
12 1.
12 1.
27 **
1. 19
† 1.
20 †
1. 10
1. 28
**
19
85 –1
98 9
1. 07
1. 07
1. 04
1. 13
* 1.
08 1.
08 1.
05 1.
08
19
95 –1
99 9
1. 13
* 0.
98 1.
14 *
0. 99
1. 16
* 0.
99 1.
15 *
0. 99
20
00 –2
00 4
1. 49
** *
0. 82
** *
1. 48
** *
0. 84
** *
1. 53
** *
0. 83
** *
1. 50
** *
0. 84
**
20
05 o
r la
te r
1. 87
** *
0. 69
** *
1. 85
** *
0. 70
** *
1. 94
** *
0. 70
** *
1. 89
** *
0. 69
**
So ci
oe co
no m
ic a
nd
de m
og ra
ph ic
c ha
ra ct
er is
tic s
A
ge g
ro up
( re
f. : 2
5– 29
)
18 –1
9 1.
55 **
* 0.
64 **
* 1.
52 **
* 0.
64 **
*
20 –2
4 1.
36 **
* 0.
80 **
* 1.
35 **
* 0.
80 **
*
30 –3
4 0.
96 0.
91 0.
95 0.
97
Fe
m al
e 0.
99 0.
93 *
0. 98
0. 95
R
ac e/
et hn
ic ity
/n at
iv ity
(r
ef .:
no n-
H is
pa ni
c W
hi te
N on
-H is
pa ni
c B
la ck
1. 08
0. 56
** *
1. 17
** 0.
51 **
*
N at
iv e-
bo rn
H is
pa ni
c 0.
92 0.
62 **
* 0.
98 0.
60 **
*
Fo re
ig n-
bo rn
H is
pa ni
c 0.
41 **
* 0.
58 **
* 0.
45 **
* 0.
53 **
*
O th
er 0.
88 0.
77 *
0. 91
0. 75
** *
H
ig h
sc ho
ol g
ra du
at e
1. 01
1. 40
** *
0. 99
1. 35
** *
M
ot he
r’ s
ed uc
at io
n (r
ef .:
hi gh
s ch
oo l)
L es
s th
an h
ig h
sc ho
ol /
m is
si ng
0. 93
1. 03
0. 93
1. 00
So m
e co
lle ge
1. 18
** *
1. 07
1. 16
** 1.
06
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
Guzzo Page 24
P re
di ct
or M
od el
1 M
od el
2 M
od el
3 M
od el
4
D is
so lv
ed v
s. in
ta ct
M ar
ri ed
v s.
in ta
ct D
is so
lv ed
v s.
in ta
ct M
ar ri
ed v
s. in
ta ct
D is
so lv
ed v
s. in
ta ct
M ar
ri ed
v s.
in ta
ct D
is so
lv ed
v s.
in ta
ct M
ar ri
ed v
s. in
ta ct
C ol
le ge
o r
m or
e 1.
23 **
* 1.
03 1.
18 **
1. 09
M
ot he
r ha
d te
en b
ir th
1. 01
0. 95
0. 99
0. 99
Fa
m ily
s tr
uc tu
re a
t a ge
14
( re
f. : b
ot h
bi ol
og ic
al
pa re
nt s)
St ep
fa m
ily 1.
01 0.
91 1.
01 0.
92
O th
er 1.
03 0.
79 **
* 1.
02 0.
85 **
*
U ni
on /f
am ily
c ha
ra ct
er is
tic s
C
oh ab
ita tio
n or
de r
1s t c
oh ab
ita tio
n 1.
38 **
* 0.
86 **
* 1.
27 **
* 0.
94
2n d
co ha
bi ta
tio n
— —
— —
3r d
or h
ig he
r co
ha bi
ta tio
n 1.
41 **
* 0.
99 1.
49 **
* 0.
96
E
ng ag
ed 0.
59 **
* 2.
34 **
* 0.
61 **
* 2.
47 **
*
A
ny c
hi ld
re n
bo rn
p ri
or
to c
oh ab
ita tio
n 1.
00 0.
61 **
* 1.
09 0.
74 **
*
H
ad c
hi ld
w hi
le
co ha
bi tin
g 0.
72 **
* 0.
57 **
* 0.
79 **
* 0.
79 **
*
D
ur at
io n
(r ef
.: 13
–2 4
m on
th s)
6 m
on th
s or
le ss
0. 82
** 0.
84 *
0. 81
** *
0. 81
** *
0. 80
* 0.
74 **
* 0.
81 **
* 0.
73 **
*
7– 12
m on
th s
0. 96
0. 92
0. 96
0. 89
† 0.
95 0.
85 **
0. 95
0. 84
**
25 –4
8 m
on th
s 0.
87 *
0. 78
** 0.
89 *
0. 82
** *
0. 91
† 0.
86 **
0. 91
† 0.
87 *
49 o
r m
or e
m on
th s
0. 65
** *
0. 43
** *
0. 73
** *
0. 51
** *
0. 74
** *
0. 54
** *
0. 78
** *
0. 57
** *
C on
st an
t 0.
01 **
* 0.
02 **
* 0.
01 **
* 0.
03 **
* 0.
01 **
* 0.
02 **
* 0.
09 **
* 0.
02 **
*
N ot
e: P
er so
n- m
on th
s =
5 41
,0 62
; n um
be r
of c
oh ab
ita tio
ns =
1 7,
89 0.
r ef
. = r
ef er
en ce
c at
eg or
y.
† p ≤
.1 0.
* p ≤
.0 5.
** p
≤ .0
1.
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
Guzzo Page 25 **
* p ≤
.0 01
.
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
Guzzo Page 26
T ab
le 3
R el
at iv
e R
is k
R at
io s
Fr om
M ul
tin om
ia l L
og is
tic R
eg re
ss io
n of
C oh
ab ita
tio n
O ut
co m
es A
m on
g N
ev er
-M ar
ri ed
A du
lts A
ge s
18 –3
4, D
is ag
gr eg
at ed
b y
E ng
ag em
en t S
ta tu
s
P re
di ct
or
E ng
ag ed
a N
ot e
ng ag
ed b
D is
so lv
ed v
s. in
ta ct
M ar
ri ed
v s.
in ta
ct D
is so
lv ed
v s.
in ta
ct M
ar ri
ed v
s. in
ta ct
C oh
or t (
re f.
: 1 99
0– 19
94 )
19
80 –1
98 4
0. 82
1. 36
** *
1. 17
1. 21
19
85 –1
98 9
0. 88
1. 14
† 1.
10 1.
07
19
95 –1
99 9
1. 16
1. 04
1. 15
† 0.
95
20
00 –2
00 4
1. 43
* 0.
89 †
1. 52
** *
0. 76
** *
20
05 o
r la
te r
2. 27
** *
0. 70
** *
1. 76
** *
0. 69
**
C on
st an
t 0.
01 **
* 0.
04 **
* 0.
01 **
* 0.
03 **
*
N ot
e: M
od el
s co
nt ro
l f or
a ge
, g en
de r,
r ac
e/ et
hn ic
ity /n
at iv
ity , h
ig h
sc ho
ol e
du ca
tio n,
m ot
he r’
s ed
uc at
io n,
m ot
he r
ha d
a te
en b
ir th
, f am
ily s
tr uc
tu re
a t a
ge 1
4, c
oh ab
ita tio
n or
de r,
c hi
ld re
n bo
rn p
ri or
to
co ha
bi ta
tio n,
c hi
ld re
n bo
rn d
ur in
g co
ha bi
ta tio
n, a
nd d
ur at
io n.
r ef
. = r
ef er
en ce
c at
eg or
y.
a P er
so n-
m on
th s
= 1
98 ,9
63 , n
um be
r of
c oh
ab ita
tio ns
= 7
,2 15
.
b P er
so n-
m on
th s
= 3
42 ,0
99 , n
um be
r of
c oh
ab ita
tio ns
= 1
0, 67
5.
† p ≤
.1 0.
* p ≤
.0 5.
** p
≤ .0
1.
** * p
≤ .0
01 .
J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 14.
