Cohabitation
Conclusion
Although cohabitation has existed throughout history, modern trends are especially important because they are part of a broader pattern of social transformation affecting the family. The institution of marriage remains the dominant form of family living, but the rapid increase in cohabitation suggests this could change. In the broad sweep of history, marriage has been dominant for a relatively short period. From this point of view, family institutions express the needs and values of society at a given time. As such, we must take care to perceive marriage in these terms. Marriage is not necessarily a permanent institution, nor is it the best form of family organization. The dominance of marriage over the past two centuries should not be taken as evidence that other forms of family living are immoral or illegitimate. If the decline in marriage rates and increase in cohabitation rates tell us one thing, it is that the family is a flexible institution. Given that the meaning of the family has shifted throughout history, it is simply inappropriate to rule out the possibility that nonmarital union will become the norm.
See also: DATING; FAMILY ROLES; INFIDELITY; MARRIAGE, DEFINITION OF; MATE SELECTION; NONMARITAL CHILDBEARING; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; SEXUALITY; SINGLES/NEVER MARRIED PERSONS; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS; WORK AND FAMILY
Bibliography
Axinn, W. G., and Thornton, A. (1992). "The Relationship Between Cohabitation and Divorce: Selectivity or Causal Influence?" Demography 29:357–374.
Axinn, W. G., and Thornton, A. (1993). "Mothers, Children, and Cohabitation: The Intergenerational Effects of Attitudes and Behaviour." American Sociological Review 58:233–246.
Balakrishnan, T. R.; Rao, K. V.; Lapierre-Adamcyk, E.; and Kròtki, K. J. (1987). "A Hazard Model Analysis of the Covariates of Marriage Dissolution in Canada." Demography 24:395–406.
Becker, G. (1981). A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bennett, N. G.; Blanc, A. K.; and Bloom, D. E. (1988). "Commitment and the Modern Union: Assessing the Link Between Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Stability." American Sociological Review 53:127–138.
Bumpass, L. L., and Lu, H-H. (2000). "Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children's Family Contexts in the United States." Population Studies 54:29–41.
Bumpass, L. L., and Sweet, J. A. (1989). "National Estimates of Cohabitation." Demography 26:615–625.
Bumpass, L. L.; Sweet, J. A.; and Cherlin, A. J. (1991). "The Role of Cohabitation in Declining Rates of Marriage." Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:913–927.
Cherlin, A. J. (1992). Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage. Revised and Enlarged Edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Davis, K. (1985). "The Future of Marriage." In Contemporary Marriage: Comparative Perspectives on a Changing Institution, ed. K. Davis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Fitch, C. A., and Ruggles, S. (2000). "Historical Trends in Marriage Formation: The United States 1850-1990." In The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation, ed. L. J. Waite. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Hoem, B., and Hoem, J. E. (1988). "The Swedish Family: Aspects of Contemporary Developments." Journal of Family Issues 9:397–424.
Holland, W. H. (1998). "Introduction." In Cohabitation: The Law in Canada, ed. W. H. Holland and B. E. Stalbecker-Pountney. Toronto: Carswell.
Kiernan, K. E. (2000). "European Perspectives on Union Formation." In The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation, ed. L. J. Waite. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Kiernan, K. E., and Estaugh, V. (1993). Cohabitation: Extra-marital Childbearing and Social Policy. London: Family Policy Studies Centre.
Leridon, H. (1990). "Cohabitation, Marriage, and Separation: An Analysis of Life Histories of French Cohorts from 1968 to 1985." Population Studies 44:127–144.
Manning, W. D., and Smock, P. J. (1995). "Why Marry? Race and the Transition to Marriage among Cohabitors." Demography 32:509–520.
Nordic Statistical Secretariat, ed. (1996). Yearbook of Nordic Statistics 1996. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
Oppenheimer, V. (1994). "Women's Rising Employment and the Future of the Family in Industrial Societies." Population and Development Review 20:293–342.
Raley, R. K. (2000). "Recent Trends and Differentials in Marriage and Cohabitation: The United States." In The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation, ed. L. J. Waite. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Rindfuss, R. R., and VandenHeuvel, A. (1990). "Cohabitation: A Precursor to Marriage or an Alternative to Being Single?" Population and Development Review 16:703–726.
Seff, M. (1995). "Cohabitation and the Law." In Families and Law, ed. L. J. McIntyre and M. B. Sussman. New York: The Hawthorn Press.
Seltzer, J. A. (2000). "Families Formed Outside of Marriage." Journal of Marriage and the Family 62:1247–1268.
Smock, P. J. (2000). "Cohabitation in the United States: An Appraisal of Research Themes, Findings, and Implications." Annual Review of Sociology 26:1–20.
Smock, P. J., and Manning, W. D. (1997). "Cohabiting Partners' Economic Circumstances and Marriage." Demography 34:331–341.
South, S. J., and Spitze, G. (1994). "Housework in Marital and Nonmarital Households." American Sociological Review 59:327–347.
Spanier, G. B. (1985). "Cohabitation in the 1980s: Recent Changes in the United States." In Contemporary Marriage: Comparative Perspectives on a Changing Institution, ed. K. Davis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1998). "Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1998 (Update)." Series P-20, Number 514. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wiersma, G. E. (1983). Cohabitation, An Alternative to Marriage? A Cross-National Study. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Wu, Z. (2000). Cohabitation: An Alternative Form of Family Living. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
ZHENG WU CHRISTOPH M. SCHIMMELE
Additional topics
Marriage and Family EncyclopediaFamily Theory & Types of FamiliesCohabitation - Trends And Patterns, Reasons For Cohabitation, Meanings Of Cohabitation, Consequences Of Cohabitation, Conclusion