Sandeep wrote one of our most popular posts on this topic. There was a survey that showed some correlation between pre-marital cohabitation and divorce. Sandeep said its probably just a selection effect.
First, suppose one partner is reluctant to get married and has doubts about the relationship. More information would be helpful to decide whether to stay together or break up. If the couple cohabit, that will give them valuable information. On the other hand, couples who are more confident about their relationship are more likely to get married straight away. Hence, more stable couples are less likely to live together before marriage than less stable couples. Living together per se is not the problem. The real problem is that a deeper source of instability is correlated with cohabitation.
Second – and this theory is implicit in the research – more religious couples are less likely to get divorced and less likely to live together before marriage. Again, selection explains the data and not cohabiting per se.
Now the Internet is back again with a new theory: “sliding in.”
She was talking about what researchers call “sliding, not deciding.” Moving from dating to sleeping over to sleeping over a lot to cohabitation can be a gradual slope, one not marked by rings or ceremonies or sometimes even a conversation. Couples bypass talking about why they want to live together and what it will mean.
As in, no-sliding-in before marriage. Because if you do, you might actually get locked in:
Sliding into cohabitation wouldn’t be a problem if sliding out were as easy. But it isn’t. Too often, young adults enter into what they imagine will be low-cost, low-risk living situations only to find themselves unable to get out months, even years, later. It’s like signing up for a credit card with 0 percent interest. At the end of 12 months when the interest goes up to 23 percent you feel stuck because your balance is too high to pay off. In fact, cohabitation can be exactly like that. In behavioral economics, it’s called consumer lock-in.
Does this make any sense? Isn’t a couple who goes straight to the sliding in before getting married ultimately just as locked in as a couple who completely abstains from sliding in until they are locked in by the bonds of wedlock?
Cheap Talk 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 16, 2012 at 2:38 pm
twicker
“Sliding in” seems to make a lot of sense, at least to me.
I’ll address the lock-in first:
*Up to the point of marriage,* the lock-in is far, far less for people who aren’t living together – thus, they’re more likely to be able to “escape” before the marriage occurs. Thus, the cohabitation sample retains some percentage of people who are less content, and the non-cohabit sample loses those people.
Thus, it’s all about what happens before exchanging vows: the population of couples who cohabit will go into the vows with a larger percentage of people who are already questioning their decision compared to the cohabiters. Even assuming that the discontented married couples in each group have equal likelihood of divorce (i.e., neither group perceives the vows as stronger), the non-cohabiting population will have a lower percentage of discontented couples to begin with.
Note that I’m assuming that the pre-marriage content/discontent populations are the same across cohabit/non-cohabit groups. I’m pretty sure that’s a good assumption, but it’s more than open to challenge. I might actually theorize that the more-religious would have a *lower* percentage of discontented couples prior to the marriage vows, given that both members of the couples are probably more likely to have similar views on spirituality, ethics, etc., and stronger support networks overall (they share religious backgrounds and are much more likely to be part of a worship group, whatever the religion). That similarity will further strengthen the bonds.
Note also that the cohabitation per se does not predict the divorce; the easier escape hatch does. I always recommend that people maintain separate apartments for quite some time before cohabiting – precisely because of the need to not feel locked in, which will, in turn, allow people to better address issues (they always have somewhere to go if the conversation turns bad, so it’s never as high stakes as it might be).
Am very, very open to challenge on all the above. 🙂
April 16, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Lones Smith
Under Sandeep’s selection argument (which I once made), an offer of cohabitation should be treated like an offer to trade based on information. One should never cohabit with anyone who agrees to cohabit with you. The new theory argues that sliding might not avoid this selection effect. It seems that the way to avoid all this is to have one set of parents kick out the ingrate child, or one of the parties to lose their job, and have to move in. No more choice, no role for Groucho Marx to rear his face.
April 16, 2012 at 8:26 pm
Kenan
Plausible theory. The difference between sliding in and marriage is that people who slide in face zero entry fees (no weddings) and act myopically, i.e. they discount (underestimate) the break-up costs. People who get married on the other hand face entry fees (wedding costs) and might be more aware of exit fees (break up costs) so they are more picky.
April 26, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Linda
I think the entry costs of marriage might be significant – the wedding is not just a financial cost, but also can be an announcement to a broader community (family, neighbours…); sliding in doesn’t have that public effect.
January 26, 2014 at 9:59 pm
NicholasG
Apply for to get contemptible Florida Online Divorce! It is really contemptible divorce. It also a legal document preparation service works with clients all over Florida.