Couples choosing to skip the marriage license on the way to a shared stack of utility bills scarcely ruffle anyone’s feathers these days. But if they can’t talk about those bills without arguing, then there’s a strong chance that feathers will be flying for good.
After studying findings on the common causes for divorce—finances, sex and housework— Jeff Dew, research associate in the Department of Sociology at U.Va., set out to forge corresponding explanations for the breakups of unmarried but cohabitating couples. He found that of five different types of disagreements among couples—finances, sex, housework, spending time together and the relationship with the couples’ parents—the only type that predicted whether a cohabiting couple would break up was money.
Cohabitation has become increasingly common since the 1960s, when the sexual and gender revolutions brought into questions many of the tenets of traditional relationships. According to Dew, cohabitation allowed people to generate a relationship free of the old gender stereotypes. “Whereas marriage had this historical baggage of the patriarchy, cohabitation could be this ideal, equal relationship between the sexes, who were not necessarily tied or committed to each other, but sharing their lives for the moment,” he says.
Dew mined data from the National Survey of Families and Households, which included 483 cohabitators who were interviewed once in the late 1980s and again in the early 1990s. During the first interview, couples reported on the nature, intensity and frequency of their arguments; by the second interview, many of these couples had split up.
Jeff Dew Photo by Dan Addison
Sharing their lives and bills for the moment was a less breezy proposition than many couples anticipated. The fault lines of arguments about money run deep. “When people criticize what we do with money, it can influence us very personally,” Dew says. That’s partly because we often have private principles about how we manage our own money—whether we dedicate it to status, security, opportunity or fun. “This approach might come from our family—I spend like my father, save like my mother—so when you criticize how I spend, you’re criticizing more than just me, you’re criticizing how I grew up.“
One reason money is such a volatile issue is that “cohabitating couples are often less financially stable than married couples, so it may be a more salient issue for them in their day-to-day goings-on,” Dew says.
In addition, the need for money is ever-present. “Bills come in monthly or weekly, so finances present a constant opportunity to fight.”
A third reason is more philosophical: the notion of fairness. Cohabitors have a high standard for financial equality, so it can be hard to figure out what’s fair. “If they decide to go 50/50 on the rent, it disadvantages the partner earning less,” Dew says. “But if they decide to go proportional, the one that earns more is disadvantaged.”
Fairness appears to determine whether a couple will stick together in both cohabitating relationships and marriages. In marriages, couples usually interpret fairness as equity—different types of work can have equivalent value. In cohabitating couples, fairness tends to mean equality—contributing the same amount and type of work and money.
The disunion between these notions is apparent in the most stable model of each kind of relationship. In cohabitating couples that stay together, the partners work equal numbers of hours at jobs outside the home. Marriages in which the wife doesn’t have a job outside the home tend to have a statistically better chance of lasting.
Comments
The e-mail link on the web-page isn't working (i.e., the link that ostensibly allows one to forward the article to others).
"Marriages in which the wife doesn’t have a job outside the home tend to have a statistically better chance of lasting." But please! Don't confuse correlation and causation: just because there is a correlation between the wife not having a job outside the home and the marriage lasting does not mean that the wife's lack of an outside job is the CAUSE of the marriage lasting. It could also be the case that the types of couples who have marriages in which the wife does not work outside the home also tend to be more socially conservative, and may have other reasons that prevent the couple from splitting up (e.g. societal, religious, or other pressures to remain together). Additionally, in marriages where the wife has no independent income may last because the wife feels like she would have a difficult time supporting herself and/or her children if she left the marriage, so stays for purely financial reasons. These may or may not be the reasons why a particular marriage lasts, but they are 2 of probably many alternative explanations for a correlation between marriages in which the wife does not work outside the home and marriages that last.
I have been a professional mediator for over 19 years specializing in divorce and marriage mediation and I also co-host an internet radio talk show "Communication360" with my wife, Lisa. Our July 27th show, "Are you Ready for Marriage?", will be addressing all these issues. Our guest is Dr. Jim Bierman, a marriage counselor and author of Of "Sound Mind to Marry" The show airs on www.webtalkradio.net
I'll add that a marriage is doomed when one spouse hoards financial information and makes financial decisions without their partner (i.e. opening up multiple credit cards and incurring debt without their spouse's knowledge, grossly mismanaging financial accounts, setting up and not disclosing login information for AP, checking accounts, etc.). Despite the romantic notion that he is "given his wife the life she wants" while they all the while drown in debt, he might as well have cheated on his wife with her mother! Beware: a marriage in which one spouse controls the money without open communication despite their spouse's requests and demands has zero chance for success.
I think that most often cohabiting couples do so because one or both of the partners would not ever commit to a marriage to the other. It may be satisfying and breezy for awhile but as months and years pass by it becomes a waste of time as the couple's lives are really on hold until the "right one" comes along. Cohabitation is marriage without the commitment, so why do it. I have been in committed cohabitation relationships and I won't make that mistake again. Even though I am a divorce lawyer, twice divorced myself, I will choose to have a full marital relationship over the inherently temporary and limited cohabitation. Maybe I am a hopeless romantic but I believe that the wisdom of experience shows that the best relationships may be found in traditional guise rather than in experimental forms.
I think I would like to differ from the comments so far presented. I have been married for about 55 years. In my considered opinion, lack of finance, romance, or any other worldly things as stated in the presented comments is not the cause for breaking the thread of marriage. Surely those present rough situations and challanging times but one could tide over those. But, surely when the respect for each other is lost, and is never to be regained then the marraige is samashing its head on rough cut rocks, and the consequences follow the severity of the cuts and bruises. But, I do not claim to be a a marriage Guru. Thanks.
With due respect to the author of this study,I take exception to the cavalier fashion with which he addresses marriage. Trends and fashions rise on the waves of oceans like flotsam and jetsam to be cast off on the shore in destruction. Rock solid institutions of society like marriage and religions and values still tower as majestic cliffs. Though I made America my home-and I love it and it's peoples- I have the duty to say that the West and the East has forgotten to discern what is permanent,enduring,everlasting,timeless and what is temporary,transient and ephemeral; what is sensual and what is merely sexy; what is gold and what is tinsel. Statistics can come up with all kinds of conclusions even in matters that cannot be assigned numbers. People of the East and the West have to go inwards, be more introspective, and take a hard, long "look" in their hearts and minds and to human history and decide why things have come to such a sad pass. As for me, life has rocked my marriage of twenty-seven years but,God is Great,not uprooted the foundations-as yet.
My wife and I have been married 20 years, 14 with her working outside of the home and 6 without. If you offered her a job outside the home again she would not take it. Try: merrimanmarketing@ltdteam.com. Reason? Stress. Without her working our marriage, child, home,... everything is less stressful. We are all happier. I think Karen in not giving women enough credit, my wife always earned more income than I, and could easily support herself if she wanted or needed to. Not being the bread winner does not weaken you in good relationship. I also believe Bitter X wife is absolutly right, hiding information from a spouse is relationship cancer.
For what it's worth, I agree with the commenter above that "cohabitation is marriage without commitment." I have observed that the commitment factor of being in a marriage--knowing that you and your spouse have both made a promise to each other (and to God, if you are religious) to stick it out even during the hard times--can help you overcome a lot of the difficulties that might otherwise end a relationship. In particular, having children (which often requires the mother to work more in the home and less outside of it) forces a couple to face up to and resolve their challenges instead of seeking to "escape" from the relationship when things get tough.
Thank you, Jeff Dew, for studying us, the cohabitors! As a happy partner in a 16-year+ relationship, I agree that equality (or equity, or fairness) is a major factor in the stability of any relationship. Related to that, I agree with Raghupati S. Sinha that respect is essential. I'm surprised that money issues create such a strain on cohabitors. I'd imagine that community property situations in marriages would cause more tension than determining what is shared and what is kept separate, as cohabitors do. As for marriage, it is a legal bond--not a personal or romantic one. So many people marry only to divorce; what does that say about commitment in marriage? I don't knock marriage; whatever works for people is fine with me. I only believe that my situation should be respected, as well.
Amelia - Thank you very much for alerting us to the problem with our "Email" link. The link is functioning now. Please let us know if you have any other problems by emailing uvamag-web@virginia.edu. Thanks!
"Cohabitation is marriage without commitment, so why do it?' from Roger Feagans' comment. I have to disagree with this definition of cohabitation. There are a lot of committed relationships outside of the traditional definition of marriage. My girlfriend and I are one simple example of this. We have chosen to not get married, and while we are not against marriage, we see no reason to be married. We are completely committed to each other as any married couple, but don't need a public announcement or license to know our level of love and respect for each other. In fact, sometimes I wonder if our commitment is stronger as financially and legally it would be easier for us to separate than a legally married couple, so we never take our relationship for granted. Other examples of cohabitation with commitment can be found throughout the world (see Northern Europe or even our neighbors to the north in Canada for tons of examples) as well as in non same sex relationships. A contract does not create a commitment, it only enforces one as much as it can. Commitment comes from inside. I appreciate the research to help us understand in general that money issues can lead to problems. Kinda knew this one as it's the same with married couples, but agree that being less conservative, my view of roles and equity may be different from traditional ones. Definitely want to be careful with causation and correlation as Karen '97 points out. This was a very poor way to finish an article as it can be interpreted that women should not work out of the home. With all the discrimination that women faced and that all of us continue to fight against (even today in almost all industries women get paid less than men for the same job), we don't need poorly interpreted data by sociologist to move us in the wrong direction.
Leave a Comment