Premarital Cohabitation

I.) Fundamental Issues and Historical Applications A. Toward a Greater Understanding of the Cohabitation Effect: Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Communication. 1. Issue number 6. What is the most appropriate level of analysis for psychology? Position A: Molecular. Despite significant theories giving a relationship to premarital cohabitation and the likelihood of divorce, we have yet to definitively answer the underlying question of why the relationship exists. This study focuses not on the theories themselves, but on a function of marital life. Marital communication is a large part of marital development. If the breakdown of communication is significantly lower for couples that premaritally cohabitated this could correlate a retarded level in marital development. 2. The authors in this study hold a perspective of structuralism. By singling out the marital issue of communication we can attempt to develop a relationship between communication and marital dysfunction as a whole. By looking at the component parts of a dysfunctional marriage we can conclude that low levels of communication will result in a higher level of marital dysfunction. By establishing this correlation we can then compare and develop conclusions between the levels of communication success in couples who engaged in premarital cohabitation as opposed to couples who did not. B. Come Live With me. 1. Issue number 8. What is the best psychological conception of organisms? Position B: Reactivity. It is popularly stated that premarital cohabitation weakens the “fundamental social institution” of marriage, however cohabitation is inconsistent and most studies use misleading data from an earlier genre where premarital cohabitation was outside of society’s normal expectation. By associating beliefs together and generalizing social norms premarital cohabitation has been linked with divorce when in fact divorce may have been inevitable regardless of prior

References: Cohan, C.L., & Kleinbaum, S. (2002). Toward a Greater Understanding of the Cohabitation Effect: Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Communication. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64 (1), 13, 180-192. Come live with me. (1999). Economist, 350 (8105), 31-31, 1/4p. Dinesh, Bhugra. (2003). Literature update: a critical review. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 18 (2), 245-251. Finley, Mitch. (1993).Cohabitation: a perplexing pastoral problem. America, 169 (3), 16. Retrieved October 8, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database. Halford, K.W., & O’Donnell,C., & Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K.L. (2006). Do Couples at High Risk of Relationship Problems Attend Pre-marriage Education?. Journal of Family Psychology, 20 (1), 160-163. Retrieved September 24, 2007, from PsycARTICLES database. Kamp 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 (3), 539-549,11. Manning, W.D., & Smock, P.J. (2005). Measuring and Modeling Cohabitation: New Perspectives From Qualitative Data. Journal of Marriage & Family, 67 (4), 14, 989-1002. Phillips, J.A., & Sweeney, M.M. (2005). Premarital cohabitation and marital disruption among white, black, and Mexican American women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67 (2), 19, 296-314. Rhoades, G.K., & Stanley, S.M., & Markman, H.J. (2006). Pre-engagement Cohabitation and Gender Asymmetry in Marital Commitment. Journal of Family Psychology, 20 (4), 553-560. Teachmand, J.D., & Polonko, K.A. (1990). Cohabitation and Marital Stability in the United States. Social Forces, 69 (1), 207-220, 14. Tolson, J. (2000). No Wedding? No Ring? No Problem. U.S. News & World Report. 128 (10), 48. Vaus, D.D., & Qu, L., & Weston, R. (2003). Premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital stability. Family Matters, (65), 34-39. [4] The subjects sampled were wealthier and better educated than a representative sample when compared to the national statistics (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001). [5] Measured with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976). [7] MAT is able to discriminate between distressed and no distressed couples (Crane, Allgood, Larson, & Griffin, 1990). [12] “code based theory builder (Weitzman, 1999). [14] MAT is able to discriminate between distressed and no distressed couples (Crane, Allgood, Larson, & Griffin, 1990).