The main concept of the article stating that premarital cohabitation has a negative impact on the future of relationships is relatively new to me. Stanley et al. (2006) note that the couples who cohabit before the marriage experience more problems than those who do not. This information could be useful; however, the methods used in the research that supports the evidence are not entirely clear. For instance, Stanley et al. (2006) claim that “even into the early years of marriage men who cohabited with their wives prior to marriage reported substantially lower dedication than men who did not” (p. 504). The authors do not specify whether the compared couples have spent a similar amount of time in a marriage or actually living together by the time research was conducted. If only the time in marriage was considered, the research proves the negative influence of cohabitation on relationships in general, rather than that of premarital cohabitation.
The so-called “sliding” into cohabitation is cited as one of the primary reasons that account for issues in relationships. Stanley et al. (2006) note that couples often move in together without planning their future, which can result in an increased constraint that will have a negative impact on their future decisions. Indeed, I believe both parties must define the purposes of moving together and future goals before the transition to cohabitation. Stanley et al. (2006) add a valuable observation that partners can have different views on the meaning of cohabitation, which obviously can lead to distress in the future. It signifies the importance of ensuring that both partners have similar expectations of the outcomes when they move in together. Stanley et al. (2006) also point out that “sliding” can have other harmful long-term consequences such as lower commitment. However, the authors admit that commitments can be used as a constraint factor to prevent violent relationships from ending. Thus, while “sliding” into cohabitation can prove to be harmful to a relationship, commitment is not always a better choice, and each case has to be evaluated independently.
Inertia is another key factor that leads to bad decisions in relationships. Stanley et al. (2006) state that partners that share a place are more likely to experience it because of the added weight of psychological and financial constraints. Inertia caused by cohabitation can result in an unhappy relationship lasting longer and eventually even in an unwanted marriage. Stanley et al. (2006) note that “cohabitation makes it harder to terminate a riskier union, thus constraining the search for a better partner fit” (p. 504). It is one of the most common issues that affect relationships worldwide and leads to divorces.
Studying the driving forces of marriages can help to evaluate couples’ future perspectives. Stanley et al. (2006) distinguish two main types of marriages as relationship-driven and event-driven. Event-driven marriages are related to the concept of inertia and are usually less healthy than relationship-driven marriages. Stanley et al. (2006) note that in couples where the pregnancy was the driving force behind the marriage, partners had to deal with more stress and conflicts compared to the couples where the pregnancy was planned. It can also lead to the conclusion that the uncertain future of event-driven marriages can affect not only the couples but their children as well. Overall, while I cannot agree with all the statements in the article, I believe that it conveys an important message of conscious choices in relationships.
Reference
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499-509.