Article Review “Reassessing the link between premarital cohabitation and marital instability”
Theresa Phillips
LIFC 302-BO1 Liberty University
Reinhold, Steffen. (2010). “Reassessing the link between premarital cohabitation and marital
instability (3), 719–733.Journal of Demography , 47
Article Summary
This article is based on information gathered from empirical analysis, professional/public
opinion, and rational debate, Reinhold (2017) The author talks about cohabitation is a common
experience in the United States. In 2002, more than one-half of all women aged 19–44 had ever
cohabited Premarital cohabitation has been found to be positively correlated with the likelihood
of marital dissolution in the United States. Industrial countries have witnessed rising cohabitation
rates, while their first-marriage and remarriage rates have declined (Bumpass and Lu 2000;
Bumpass, Sweet, and Cherlin 1991; Bumpass and Sweet 1989).
The point of views was “presented for the plausible benefits of reassessing the link
between premarital cohabitation and marital instability engaging in premarital preventive efforts
on a broad scale” (Stanley, 2001, p. 272). To reassess this link, I estimate proportional hazard
models of marital dissolution for first marriages by using pooled data from the 1988, 1995, and
2002 surveys of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). These results suggest that the
positive relationship between premarital cohabitation and marital instability has weakened for
more recent birth and marriage cohorts. Using multiple marital outcomes for a person to account
for one source of unobserved heterogeneity, panel models suggest that cohabitation is not
selective of individuals with higher risk of marital dissolution and may be a stabilizing factor for
higher-order marriages. Becker GS (2013) Further research with more recent data is needed to
assess whether these results are statistical artifacts caused by data weaknesses in the NSFG
Methods
The following are the resources that were used: Journal databases ,Risch, S., Riley, A. &
Michael G. (2016). Problematic issues in the early years of marriage: content for premarital
education. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 31, 1-27.
Results
As cohabitation has become more common, there might be less self-selection on
unobservable factors in the group of premarital cohabitors. However, then the apparent positive
relationship between premarital cohabitation and marital instability may weaken or may become
negative, as suggested by the recent experience in Denmark (Svarer 2004) or Australia (De Vaus,
Qu, and Weston 2003), where premarital cohabitation does not predict higher rates of marital
dissolution.
Discussion
In this article, I reassessed the question of the influence of premarital cohabitation on
marital instability. A theoretical search model of marriage and cohabitation suggests that
cohabitation should help couples learn about their match quality, decreasing their dissolution
rates. On the other hand, there may be self-selection in the sense that the average match quality
of couples who transform their cohabitation into a marriage is lower than for couples who marry
without prior cohabitation. Self-selection of high-risk individuals could explain the established
empirical evidence for the United States and other industrialized countries that shows that
marriages preceded by cohabitation are less stable. This study investigates the effect of these
trends on the relationship between cohabitation and marital instability. Earlier empirical
studies found that marriages preceded by premarital cohabitation are less stable in the United
States (Booth and Johnson 1988; DeMaris and Rao 1992; Teachman and Polonko 1990) and
Western Europe (Bennett, Klimas Blanc, and Bloom 1988). The idea that couples learn about the
match-specic quality during cohabitation goes back at least to Becker, Landes, and Michael
(1977). Because cohabitors have a more precise estimate of their match quality, they should
experience fewer bad surprises during marriage. Based on this theoretical argument, one would
expect former cohabitors to have more stable marriages. However, earlier empirical evidence
points in the opposite direction.
Self-selection is now an accepted explanation for these counter intuitive results (Lillard,
Brien, and Waite 1995; Schoen 1992). Brien, Lillard, and Stern (2006) formalized this deal
according to their search model of marriage and cohabitation, couples learn about the quality of
their relationship during cohabitation, and some of them decide not to go through with their
marriage.
Coaching Connection
Marital stability is related to but distinct from marital adjustment, marital quality, marital
satisfaction, and marital success. Coaching pre marital couples to cohabitation in prayer for more
understanding of one another. This will helps build a solid, biblical foundation for marriage.
Taking time in the Scripture looking at how biblical ideas apply to marriage. An important part
of premarital coaching is getting the couple to have serious conversations about their upcoming
marriage plans. Marriages are filled with common problems that most couples experience, and
each couple has certain strengths and weaknesses that require a certain approach. I will stand
upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me, and
what I shall answer when I am reproved. And the Lord answered me, and said, Write the vision,
and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. For the vision is yet for an
appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it
will surely come, it will not tarry. Write down the vision and making it plain, the couple can read
it and run with the vision. Habakkuk 2: 1-2
Reference
Risch, S., Riley, A. & Michael G. (2006). Problematic issues in the early years of
marriage: content for premarital education. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 31, 1-
27.
Becker GS. A Theory of Marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy. 2013;81:813–46.
Booth A, Johnson D. Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Success. Journal of Family
Issues. 1988;9:255–322
