COMS 254 Qualitative methods Literature Review

Running Head: PREMARITAL COHABITATION 1

How Premarital Cohabitated Couples Communicate and Manage Their Relationships

Mark Sinclair

University of San Francisco

Spring 2014

PREMARITAL COHABITATION 2

Investigating Premarital Cohabitation Phenomenon

Over the last five decades between the 1960s up until present day, family dynamics have

had considerable developments because of the new wave of premarital cohabitation. According

to the U.S Census Bureau in 2005, 4.5 million couples are cohabitating. Marriage, a recognized

alliance between men and women that has established authorities and responsibilities, has been

drastically altered because cohabitation has become a new phenomenon that changed the game

of love. For many unmarried, married, and remarried couples, premarital cohabitation can be the

beginning foundation for their relationships because of many different factors of

socioeconomics, childbearing and childrearing, cultural values, and attitudes.

Literature Review

A number of scholarly researchers have attempted to investigate the pros and cons of

premarital cohabitation (Booth & Johnson, 1988; Bumpass & Hsien-Hen, 2000; Cohan &

Kleinbaum, 2002; Kamp-Dush, Cohan, & Amato 2003; Knox, Zusman, Snell, & Cooper 1999;

Manning & Smock, 2004; Manning & Smock, 2005). The following paragraphs will review the

current literature on premarital cohabitation. Specifically, these studies have developed three

underlying themes: (1) socioeconomic status: lower income contributes to premarital

cohabitation, (2) premarital cohabitation leads to the cohabitation affect, and (3) childbearing and

childrearing influences cohabitation.

Socioeconomic Status: Lower Income Contributes to Premarital Cohabitation

Since cohabitation has become more social accepted, many researchers have come across

many different themes of why premarital cohabitating individuals are continuing to cohabitate.

Cohabitating relationships are considerably in for a higher risk of long term instability and


relationship problems because of socioeconomics class structures (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002;

Manning & Smock, 2004; Manning & Smock, 2005).

Cohan and Kleinbaum (2002) investigated marital decision-making and social behaviors.

The author’s research includes data on how couples communicate with each other and how it can

benefit or disintegrate one’s relationship when confronted with problems of socioeconomics or

premarital pregnancy. The results concluded relationship satisfaction can decline due to poor

communication skills. Unmarried cohabitating couples that did not take the time to focus on how

they communicated longevity and relationship satisfaction, would lead the couples to a higher

chance or breaking up or divorce. Spouses that did not cohabitate before getting married

illustrated positive decision making and supportive behaviors; whereas, individuals who

cohabited before marriage illustrated more negative decision making and unsupportive

behaviors.

Manning and Smock (2004) researched on the pros and the cons of premarital,

heterosexual cohabitation, and the results show that “The first challenge is that marriages are

extremely stressed by low income and income instability; sufficient income and its stability are

quite important protectors of marriage. As cited earlier, a recent study estimates that 60% of high

school dropouts will divorce compared to just one-third for college graduates (Raley & Bumpass

2003). As long as a couple has little money, a divorce may be just around the corner.”

Unfortunately Manning and Smock’s research illustrates that being on the lower side of the

economic scale can have implications that one’s unmarried, cohabitating relationship will have a

higher chance of getting a divorce when those partners are married. Not having a steady income

to pay bills can put a lot of stress on the relationship which pushes away the relationships

satisfaction.


Manning and Smock’s (2005) qualitative analysis concluded that cohabitation for many

individuals can be their only option for living conditions. Participants were not deciding on

whether he or she should get married prior to living together; however, participants were

reporting that their living conditions were changing and living with friends, relatives, or alone

were the only options. Since these unmarried, cohabiting individuals do not have a say or the

means to change their living dynamics, socioeconomics, and poor education status, these

individuals have a common pattern that demonstrates the difficulty that these individuals go

through.

Seltzer and Judith A (2005) found that individuals who have none or very little education

and economic means tend to cohabitate with others because it is easier to get by and the

commitment to liabilities is not overbearing. Also, economically disadvantaged cohabitors tend

to avoid getting marriage because the idea behind marriage is has concrete stereotypical goals for

the partners involved; for instance, one is the bread winner while the other is the nurturing

caregiver. Marriage is a difficult rites of passage to complete when one does not have the means

or economic wealth to provide a wedding; therefore, it seems to be easier for uneducated,

cohabiting couples to stay unmarried.

Premarital Cohabitation Leads to the Cohabitation Affect

When one pictures the American dream, having the large family, living in a beautiful

house with a bordering white picket fence, and building a professional and successful career

comes to mind; however, it’s not that simple. People come from different backgrounds and have

different standards due to their family’s structure. Premarital cohabitation is common among

many different realities. Therefore researchers have asked the question does premarital


cohabitation have some sort of affect on these individuals (Booth & Johnson, 1988; Cohan &

Kleinbaum, 2002; Kamp-Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003).

Booth and Johnson (1988) researched premarital cohabitation and marital success, and

their conclusions were cohabitating individuals had consequences of poor commitment to

marriage because of substance abuse, problems handling income, not obeying the laws and

running into problems with authorities, and unemployment. Substance abuse, income troubles,

having difficulty obeying the law and being unemployed are lifelong difficulties. Not having the

economic support or even the chance to make an income does not help an individual succeed.

Therefore, how can one maintain a relationship when having a job or staying out of trouble is

something most people can accomplish. Since these cases were greatly affected by certain

variables, those individuals would still enter what is known as the cohabitation affect where

premarital cohabitation leads to longer marriage instability.

Cohan and Kleinbaum’s (2002) research supports pattern of the cohabitation affect. They

investigate marital decision-making and social behaviors. Data showed how couples

communicate with each other and how it can benefit or disintegrate one’s relationship when

confronted with problems of socioeconomics or premarital pregnancy. The results concluded

relationship satisfaction can decline due to poor communication skills. Spouses that did not

cohabitate before getting married illustrated positive decision making and supportive behaviors;

whereas, individuals who cohabited before marriage illustrated more negative decision making

and unsupportive behaviors.

Kamp-Dush, Cohan, and Amato (2003) looked into the relationship between premarital

cohabitation and marriage stability and quality. Their concluding results showed data supported

the cohabitation affect: (1) martial dissatisfaction, (2) having less time to interact with each


other, (3) arguments and disagreement occur more often, and (4) negative problem solving skills.

Not having time to spend, disagreeing and creating more conflict, and having poor problem

solving skills are three relationship characteristics that can set up one’s relationship for the worst.

Knox, Zusman, Snell, and Cooper (1999) conducted a study on college students and were

looking to find any interesting characteristics that led to cohabitation. The results illustrated that

junior and senior college students who were older, more mature, and had hedonistic sexual

values, and were open minded of dating interracially were more likely to cohabitate. This study

is important because the research illustrates that being older, more mature, and open to different

sexual values could allow that individual to more likely cohabitate.

Childbearing and Childrearing with Premarital Cohabitation

Mothers across the nation are childbearing, the process of having children, and

childrearing, the process of taking care of a child until they are old enough and able to take care

of themselves. Research has shown that unmarried women have increased their childbearing,

unmarried women whom become pregnant are more likely to marry the baby’s father, and

unmarried women with little or no education are more likely become pregnant (Bumpass &

Hsien-Hen, 2000; Seltzer & Judith, 2005). Not having an sexual education and basic education

could potentially allow one individual to cohabitate and have children. Cleary, this research

shows that not having an education is a key factor in cohabitation and unmarried childbearing

and childrearing.

Bumpass and Hsien-Hen (2000) reported that individuals living together who were

married or living as unmarried, cohabiting partners could be on a path of a downward spiral

because of high risk instability within their relationships. Children being born into and growing

up in a premarital cohabitated household can result in repeating the cycle of living on the lower


part of the socioeconomic scale and having a poor educational career. Bumpass and Hsien-Hen

found in 2000 stated that “The proportion of births to unmarried women born into cohabiting

families increased from 29 to 39 per cent in the period 1980-84 to 1990-94, accounting for

almost all of the increase in unmarried childbearing.” Cleary this can affect the relationships

within this family dynamic, and the children are greatly affected by the unstable family dynamics

which can lead to potential dangers for the children and the family.

According to Seltzer and Judith (2005), they researched on how families are formed

outside of marriage because of premarital cohabitation’s recent growth in the United States.

Seltzer and Judith (2005) states a phenomenon among “Single women who become pregnant are

increasingly likely to move in with rather than marry the father of their child. In the past, many

of these pregnancies were "premarital" pregnancies that resulted in marital births; a single

woman who became pregnant married the father of their child” (p. 1251). This is important data

showing that women will cohabitate when pregnancy occurs.

Also, Seltzer and Judith (2005) research found data that shows unmarried, single women

have a higher change of premarital childbirth because of having little or no educational career

compared to women who had some sort of college educational background. The birth date for

unmarried women is different depending on the ethnicity, and the birth rate is on the rise. Seltzer

and Judith also found developing changes in women that have had at least one premarital birth

that shows unmarried women continue have more non marital births outside of marriage after.

Gaps, Critiques and Conclusion

Every research study has gaps and limitations; therefore, for my research I want to fill

those gaps. For instance, Cohan and Kleinbaum (2002) conducted a study that granted their

participants $50 dollars for participating and all the individuals were from the same state which


creates a bias. My research will be in San Francisco where there is a more dense and diverse

population. Knox, Zusman, Snell, and Cooper (1999) only used questionnaires to collect their

data. I plan on using in depth questioning to get the real answers out of my participants. Knox,

Zusman, Snell, and Cooper could of dug deeper into why student cohabitate in order to

understand how they experience cohabitation. Since Manning and Smock (2004, 2005) research

was conducted all in one state and all there participants were targeted in order for the researchers

to find their data, which is another example of the research having a biased. I plan on

interviewing students, co-workers, and anyone who answers from my craigslist adds. And since I

am a passionate, out-going, self-motivated, communication studies undergraduate from the

University of San Francisco that is in an unmarried, cohabitating relationship, my dissertation’s

purpose is to synthesize major findings on the topic premarital cohabitation because my research

focus on how premarital cohabitated couples communicate and manage their relationships; in

order to, learn everything about cohabitation and the possible positive and negative

consequences.

Methods

This research promotes a qualitative method’s approach as an apparatus that will further

explore for insight on how cohabitated, dating partners communicate and manage their

relationships. According to Creswell (1994), “qualitative inquiry represents a legitimate mode of

social and human science exploration, without apology or comparisons to quantitative research”

(p. 7). Qualitative research allows the researcher to ask open ended questions that give the

participants a chance to voice their opinion with no limitations; therefore, the qualitative

approach is the most beneficial method for my research compared to the quantitative approach.

Specifically in my research, I applied the phenomenological approach because it grants the


researcher the ability to comprehend and appreciate a phenomenon and shared experiences of a

specific group, organization, or association of individuals. The beauty of phenomenology is that

the researcher does not just look an individual’s experience, but instead we look at multiple

individual’s experiences which allows the researcher to digger deeper by listening and interpret

multiple realties rather than listening to only one.

Participants

The participants were stationed in the West Coast. These six contributors were rounded

up through personal connections which grants my research with purposeful sampling. All the

participants I interview are friends, family, and acquaintances that are currently in a premarital,

cohabitating relationships. Participants consisted of different ages between twenty-two and

twenty-seven years old. The participants represented plenty of diverse ethnic backgrounds along

with; Caucasian, Asian, African American, and South American. Currently, all the participants

were working towards their graduate degrees in different fields of academia or obtained their

associates degree.

Procedures

For my research, I decided to administer one-on-one, informant interviews with all my

participants at either the individual’s home, or they were invited to have the interview take place

in my home. Most of the interviews lasted between twenty-five to forty minutes long. The

development within the research has created seventy-one pages of transcriptions and a total of

two hours and fifty-eight minutes and three seconds of recordings. I created and used my

interview guide as an apparatus to maneuver the dialogue in a professional course to discuss how

cohabitated, dating partners communicate and manage their relationships. An informed consent

form was given to the participants in order to preserve confidentiality. Since the subject matter


may be sensitive to the participants, one pseudonym will be utilized as a tool to assure

confidentiality.

Data Analysis

After interviewing the six premarital cohabitated couples, the data was investigates

through open coding. According to Creswell (1994), the technique of coding involves

accumulating significant statements from the participants, placing those codes into small

categories while searching for information from diverse databases, and selecting themes to a

specific code. The analysis consisted of three overarching themes that describe the phenomena

premarital cohabitated couples experience in their everyday lifes’: 1) Forms of Communication

2) Active Listening and 3) Expectations. The Forms of Communication theme includes three

sub-themes: a) nonverbal communication, b) telecommunication, and c) compromising

communication.

Analysis

Throughout the interview process, each participant brought up different forms of

communication. The use of nonverbal communication, telecommunication, and communication

practices such as compromising were the major findings of the different forms of communication

that emerged from the data. Since premarital cohabitation is a shared experience, researchers

should take note of this qualitative evidence because it is important to understand these findings

and it can illustrate how unmarried couples who cohabitate communicative and manage their

relationships.


Channels of Communication

Nonverbal Communication.

The participants were asked when you are with your partner and other persons of interest;

do you utilize any nonverbal communication? One participant described how his partner likes to

“drop hints” at him. Sometimes he notices, and other times he is oblivious to the situation. The

participant illustrates a scenario; “we make eye contact and stuff, you know, across the room or

what not.” Eye contact is one of the most influential factors of one’s social behavior, and for this

particular participant, they are communicating to each other without saying a word. Similarly,

another participant describes her nonverbal communication with her significant other as if they

were “like cats. We like slow blink.” For this participant, her experience illuminates the idea

that one can make a connection and communicate with their partner through eye contact.

One participant characterizes how she looks at her partner; “I try to give him a look

[laughter] like if I think he’s like, I don’t know just doing something that I think is a bad idea. Or

he said something I am like oh you shouldn’t say something like that in front of my family.”

Clearly, this participant’s experience with nonverbal communication shows how she can manage

what her partner says in this particular situation instead of having a confrontation in front of her

family. Another participant describes how her significant other’s nonverbal communication, “his

eyes get really big when he doesn’t like something, or if he doesn’t want to be somewhere.” The

use of eye contact helps this couple communicate with each other how each other feel in a

particular setting without saying a word. Another participant describes her experience, “one

second to long eye contact when something like funny or if they make a comment.” Each

participant had their own shared experience with eye contact, a form of nonverbal

communication, in a group setting.


The importance behind these findings illustrates the idea that nonverbal communication

is constantly occurring throughout these participant’s lives. No matter what the situation is,

couples are communicating and managing their lives which can better the situation or scenario

they are in. Communication between these couples accomplishes their understanding of the

world around them and helps those individuals communicate without saying a word and manage

their relationship.

Telecommunication.

According to the Pew Research Internet Project (2012), ninety percent of Americans own

a cell phone. I can make the assumption that Americans are utilizing communicative practices

through their cell phones every day and all day long. Therefore in my research, I would introduce

a statement of a floating and emergent idea; I have heard that unmarried, cohabitating couples do

not text or call as much; any thoughts on this statement? One participant stated, “I definitely

think that’s true.” This thought adds to the idea that cohabitating couples are not

telecommunicating as much as before once they are living together under one roof. Another

participant illustrates, “there [is] no texting or anything because I [am] always with him.” This

participant does not feel the need to call or text her partner because they are not physically

separated. This participant also stated that “shit that can get misconstrued like so I rather it be

face to face.” Talking on the phone or over a text message can be difficult because

telecommunication leaves out other factors that play a key role in communication when two

people are communicating face to face; physical, physiological, or psychological noises. These

noises can be interpreted and comprehended when both individuals are physically together.

According to Wood (2007), nonverbal communication is symbolic and could be a wink of the


eye, a smile, or a frown. Missing a symbolic feature of communication could be confusing

especially when communicating through technological devices.

Similarly another interviewee describes his thoughts: “I think less. I think well she texts

me more, and I text her less. I kind of know she’s home and she is safe. And I trust her so I

worry about everything that is in front of me. I prefer to talk to her face to face.” Because this

participant understands his partner’s whereabouts and safety, he tends to focus on what is in front

of him since he is certain he will see her later. One participant shares her experience, “I would

text him or something or give him a call, and now I hardly like texting [my boyfriend] because I

rather just see [him] face to face. I can touch him [laughter] and kiss him that’s the best part

actually seeing him.” This participant rather be in person, face to face while communicating with

her partner because of the physical presence of her partner.

Even though ninety percent of Americans have a cell phone to communicate with

whomever they chose too, unmarried, cohabitating couples are putting down their cell phones,

and they are having more conversations face to face. This reoccurring finding suggests that these

couples are communicating and managing their relationships in person, face to face without

distractions. I believe through these findings in fact suggesting premarital, cohabiting couples are

spending more time looking each other in the eye and communicating in person about their

thoughts, feelings, and beliefs.

Compromising Communication

When unmarried or married couples are in the motion and process of cohabitating for the

first time, the two individuals are basically merging both of their independent lives into their own

dependent lives. For instance, newly cohabitating couples have a list of things to merge together

such as: finances (who pays what? Do we spilt everything?), autonomy, or basic things like


furniture and pets. Everything that one’s live consists of has a new fork in the road. With that

said, many couples experience different routines, ideologies, and beliefs. One partner might want

to take their usual thirty minute shower every morning while the other does not have time or

agree with this routine. Couples face each other’s autonomy every day and will for the rest of

their relationship. Autonomy is a part of the human nature. Therefore, many premarital

cohabitating couples experiences at least one partner that is always compromising with their

significant other.

As I asked one participant, if at all, has your lifestyle had changed? She stated, “I

wouldn’t say that my lifestyle has changed too much. It’s just that, you know, I guess it. I guess

it has more compromises. So instead of me going out to the gym by myself, I will go with him.”

Since she has enjoyed working out, she compromises by adjusting her own schedule so they can

attempt to go together. When I asked another interviewee about how they communicate about

disagreements, he described his feelings: “We know how the other person feels already. So like

we do not have to ask their opinion or argue about it. It’s like. She does more compromising then

I do.” This participant understands his partner does more compromising because both of them

acknowledge where they stand on certain issues. Since both partners understand their beliefs,

they can manage their disagreement and move on more quickly.

When I asked another participant if she could elaborate on about her struggle, she

described her partner and the situation: “I’ve just adjusted my morning for him to have his thirty

minute shower. So I am always the one whose like compromising in the situation, but it worked

out like it’s a better situation now.” Compromising seemed to be the solution for her situation.

As I repeatedly asked this question with each participant, another interviewee described how she

communicated about her own living expectations. She illustrated what it was like merging both


their lives together in such a small space: “So instead of throwing all the stuff in the corner, we

had like shelves and organization. We spilt things more evenly.” Because they shared a small

room in a house with other roommates, she was losing her own personal space because her

boyfriend had just moved into her room. However in order to solve their issue, she had to

compromise her space, and both partners learned to communicate about how they could organize

and spilt the space more evenly.

Since premarital cohabitating couples are merging their lives together under one roof,

compromising becomes a new ability to practice whenever a conflict or disagreement arises.

Clearly, each participant has a different scenario and story behind how they communicated and

compromised; however, these personal experiences are describing how each individual dealt

with the situation in order to move on. The importance behind this reoccurring theme illustrates

that when unmarried, cohabiting couples join together as one they have to learn to communicate

and compromise in order to maintain and manage their relationship. Accomplishing these new

practices will help both individuals still maintain their autonomy while thinking about their

significant other.

Active Listening

To some extent no matter what the situation may be, there is always room for

improvement. Nothing has ultimately reached perfection. Unmarried cohabitating couples

experience ups and downs throughout their relationship because they are experiencing new

things with these individuals. As couples communicate with each other, there is always room for

improvement because couples strive to be satisfied with their current relationship. For these five

participants active listening became an overarching theme of how they could improve their

communication. According to Wood’s definition of active listening (2007), “To listen


effectively, we must be willing to focus our minds, to organize and interpret others’ ideas and

feelings, to express our interest on both the content level and the relationship level of meaning,

and to retain what a speaker says” (p. 161). All the interviewees were asked, how do you think

you could improve your communication, if at all?

One participant described her experience of how she could improve her communication

when her significant other got into a dispute over something: “take a couple of breathes, and try

to really listen to what he has to say. And not interrupt and maybe just be quiet for a couple

minutes, and let him finish what he is saying.” This interviewee understands that she needs to

relax and acknowledge what her partner is saying. She is illustrating that she wants to take part in

active listening which is when one wants to understand the significance behind a statement.

Similarly, another participant described how she could improve her active listening; “I won’t like

listen to him that’s one of my big problems, and I really need to be better about like listening to

him when, you know, like listening to his side.” This participant acknowledges her struggle with

listening when her partner is speaking.

One participant also illuminated his difficulty with listening: “by doing active listening

and stuff, I just like I mean I listen too, but only retain stuff that I just like subconsciously.” This

participant understands that he needs to really listen to the significance behind what his partner is

saying. Similarly, one participant discusses how she needs to “talk less and listen more” because

she understand that when “we communicate, I am more argumentative than he is, like I am ready

for an argument.” This participant understands she has more of an argumentative and has a

dominating behavior when discussing issues with her partner. Finally, another participant clearly

states, “I think there is always room for communication. We could improve on listening for

sure.” Engaging in active listening has been illustrated by these participants as a difficult ability.


Active listening to one’s partner seems like an easy thing to do; however when one is in

love, one argues their beliefs, ideas, or ideologies because they care about their significant other.

And whatever it is they are arguing seems to be something so important that the other person

must understand. We do it out of love. Couples and conflict go hand in hand no matter where

they are in life; therefore, the idea of active listening is so important for all couples to

understand. I believe these individuals understand and acknowledge that active listening is

essentially one of the most important communicative improvements that they could mend.

Giving their romantic partner a chance to not be interrupted and listened too would help these

couples communicate and manage their relationship more efficiently. Accomplishing the idea of

being an active listener can only help improve one’s communication and relationship

management.

Expectations and Marital Success

Since these participants are unmarried, cohabitating couples that interact with each other

on a daily basis, all participants expressed their experiences about their relationship expectations

as they are living in this phenomenon. Romantic and relationship expectations are the main

ingredients in successfully maintaining one’s premarital cohabitating relationship. For everything

interview, I introduced a devil’s advocate statement that was extremely unpopular and

unfavorable: “I have heard and read some research that premarital cohabitation leads to high

divorce rate and can have an overall bad experience for couples who cohabitate.” I followed up

by asking them how they felt about this particular statement in order to dig deeper in their shared

experience with the premarital cohabitation phenomenon.

One participant expressed their thoughts:

I think. If anything it would make it better because I understand okay, my boyfriend is

messy or you can get used to these things about him before you just jump into marriage,


and then you’re like blindsided by the fact that you guys don’t know how to pick up his

laundry or things like that.

Understanding one’s romantic partner is a huge ingredient for relationship maintenance. Not

knowing what to expect and jumping into a romantic relationship with no knowledge of how

they live, can be quite scary and unpredictable. Another participant similarly stated:

I kind of feel like that statement is bullshit! But before you get married to someone you

need to like live with them because you need to know their ins and outs, and they’re

living style. Like the nice thing about us about already living together is I know what to

expect like when we do get married like I am like oh yeah [my boyfriend] throws his coat

on the ground like it’s okay.

Having an understanding of what is expected helps this participant comprehend and

acknowledge her partner more. She is able to easily manage her relationship much better because

she knows what to expect. For instance if her partner leaves his goat on the ground and she

knows her partner does this all the time, she can determine if leaving the coat on the ground is a

pet peeve of hers and that she can live with or without it. Little pet peeves can make or break a

relationship. Knowing these expectations before getting married can help an individual make life

changing decisions.

Alike other interviewees, this participant illustrated her view about this unfavorable

statement:

“Oh God! I think that is wrong. I mean you can’t marry someone and then move in with

them and find out all the shit you don’t like about them like that I think would lead to

divorce way more if you lived together for two years ahead of time and know you know

yeah he farts.”

If a romantic partner has some unromantic flaws, merging two independent lives under one roof

can be difficult. Especially when both partners are newlyweds and both romantic partners are

cohabitating for the first time together. One participant portrayed her ideas:

I would feel like you don’t notice those nitpicky things until you actually move in and

you’re like wow I hate it like one thing he always does is he leaves the tooth paste cap off


so like when he bushes his teeth he doesn’t screw the cap back on. I know it is such a

little thing. I’m trying to get over it but it really bothers me. He always leaves it off. I’m

like look who left this off again like now it is a joke but it really bothers me.

Nitpicky behaviors can vary for each individual. For this particular interviewee, understanding

her expectations beforehand can give her an idea of what her partner will be like when they are

married. This helps individuals understand how to manage conflict with their partners. Lastly

this participant illuminates on this idea of understanding how powerful expectation can be:

When we get married and actually live together in a house and all that stuff, We have

already done everything. We have already adjusted to each other. If I waited to move in

with my boyfriend and then found out that he takes thirty minute showers like we would

of gotten divorced right away. We wouldn’t of lasted promise you.

Since this interviewee understands her partner takes such a long shower, she has learned to adapt

to the situation because she knows “he’s not going to change.”

Clearly, the evidence presented in this study is relevant to the premarital cohabitating

phenomenon because relationship expectations are help a partner understand their significant

other’s behaviors and how they live their lives. Understanding one’s expectations before jumping

to marriage really helps these particular individuals manage their relationships. All these

participants advocated the importance behind this belief because these romantic partners have

accomplished this nitpicky frustration which puts them one step closer to marriage.

Discussion

This research investigation sought to comprehend and interpret the shared phenomenon

know as premarital cohabitation. I asked the research question: How premarital cohabitated

couples communicate and manage their relationships. In response to this question, I discovered

that there are different forms of communication that unmarried cohabitating couples utilize, such

as nonverbal communication, telecommunication, and compromising communication. I also

uncovered two more important findings, such as improving one’s communication through active


listening and how expectations can help prepare these individuals for the final stages of their

relationship; marriage. I found many implications in these participant’s data.

Implications

The rich, in depth data consists of many implications. First, I learned that the use of

nonverbal communication is powerful between unmarried cohabiting couples. The use of eye

contact was the main finding that overarched and connected each participant to this phenomenon.

All participants were communicating in group settings with their partner in order to

communicate without words. The importance behind nonverbal communication is that couples

have a connection and are constantly connecting with each other through body language and eye

contact. All couples unmarried and cohabitating couples should remember to understand and

pick those signals because their partner is communicating something special to their significant

partner without even saying a word, which can demonstrate the romantic chemistry between the

two partners.

Secondly, telecommunication was an important finding. Instead of being glued to one’s

phones typing away messages to their romantic partner, these individuals were texting and

calling a lot less because they preferred face to face interactions with their significant other.

From my understanding unmarried cohabitating couples only text or call each other in order to

create small talk (what’s for dinner, love you, or can’t wait to see you). The conversation is short

and sweet. The data shows that communication through texting and calling is not at important as

face to face conversations. Cohabitating couples should maintain the same level of

telecommunication with their partner, and note that it is more important to have face to face

conversations. I believe cohabitating couples strive to communicate together in person, face to

face because there is more of a connection to be made. Cohabitating couples should maintain this


relationship with telecommunication because communicating in person has more benefits for

both romantic partners.

Thirdly, all relationships have conflict. All partner will have conflict because every

human being has autonomy. In order to resolve that conflict or dispute, couples or at least one

partner has to learn how to comprise with each other. The importance behind the ability to

compromise is that every time both partners have to make a minimal or major decision in their

lives, one or both partners need to understand the idea compromising. We can’t always get what

we want because some people cannot change. Whatever is being disputed over might be written

in one’s hardware and cannot change, which leaves one individual to compromise or both

individuals see eye to eye and learn and accept the new terms that they must live by.

Compromising becomes a new skill for unmarried cohabitating couple, and those romantic

partners’ ability to compromise is vital to their relational satisfaction and longevity.

Fourthly, all participants acknowledged that their communication abilities were not

perfect. This is a reasonable statement because each interviewee illustrated how they could

improve their own active listening when their partner was communicating to them. Effectively

engaging in active listening determines how one partner understands and comprehends whatever

their partner is saying. The significance behind this ability is very vital to one’s relationship.

These participants advocated that they should be listening more in order to really understand the

significance behind what their partner is communicating. Once these individuals completely

understand and practice their ideas on active listening, their communication will improve,

become a lot smoother, and could have the potential to diminish future conflict. Active listening

is very important skill for unmarried cohabiting couples to practice.


Finally, the most important finding in this research concludes with relational expectations

and how each participant acknowledged and understood their romantic partner’s ins and outs.

Acknowledging and comprehending the expectations of one’s relationship would help each

participant for the future of his or her relationship. When I discussed the current research on

premarital cohabitation, all but one participant advocated that the research was false and

outdated. Five participants couldn’t believe unmarried and noncohabitating couples were

throwing themselves into marriage under the same roof, and those individuals were more likely

to have a successful marriage and an overall better marital satisfaction. The idea just

dumbfounded them. Their statements truly describe how the research maybe outdated and false.

The importance behind expectations truly illustrates how unmarried cohabitating couples can

understand their partner. When one partner understands that their significant partner has certain

routines that make things complicated or one partner doesn’t clean up after themselves, these

expectations can illustrate and portray the relationship’s future. If unmarried cohabitating

couples want to finally seal the deal with their hands in marriage, understanding and knowing

what to expect in their relationship is going to be a vital role in making the big decision about

committing to marriage.

Limitations

While investigating my research question, several limitations took place and transpired.

With the time I was given to conduct and research my topic, I was only able to interview six

individuals. Therefore if time was not an issue, my sample size would be a lot larger which

would give my research plenty of more in depth data. And even though more and more couples

are experiencing premarital cohabitation within the age group I researched, I would of interview

individuals with more of a diverse age group to have more well-rounded data of this shared


experience. Another limitation to my research is my personal affiliation to the topic and the

subjects who were interviewed. Myself and my romantic partner live together here in San

Francisco. We have been unmarried and cohabitating for three and half years. Therefore as I

investigated this research question, I was using my own background, experience, and values to

make assumptions with the data. Within this investigation, I strived to control, hold back, and

limit my own personal opinions, biases, and preconceived impressions in exchange for rich and

unbiased data.

Future Directions

With these limitations in mind, any researchers that plan to investigate premarital

cohabitation should expand their sample size, age group, and different types of relationships

because all my research in my own data and the literature review consisted of heterosexual

relationships. The U.S. Census Bureau has yet to accept or even considered investigating lesbian,

gays, and transgender relationships. Plus there are social identities that individuals do not even

identify as and those persons are lost in the mix. Therefore, future directions should consider

these limitations to further the research.


References

Booth, A. A., & Johnson, D. D. (1988). Premarital cohabitation and marital success. Journal of

Family Issues, 9(2). doi: 10.1177/019251388009002007

Bumpass, L., & Hsien-Hen, L. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children's

family contexts in the united states. Population Studies, 54(1), 29-41. doi:

10.1080/713779060

Cohan, C. L., & Kleinbaum, S. (2002). Toward a greater understanding of the cohabitation

effect: premarital cohabitation and marital communication. Journal of Marriage &

Family, 64(1), 180-192. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00180.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing

among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

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 &

Family, 65(3), 539-549.

Knox, D., Zusman, M. E., Snell, S., & Cooper, C. (1999). Characteristics of college students who

cohabit. College Student Journal, 33(4), 510-512. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00539.

Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2004). Living together unmarried in the united states:

demographic perspectives and implications for family policy. Law & Policy, 26(1), 87-

117. doi:10.1111/j.0265-8240.2004.00164.

Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2005). Measuring and modeling cohabitation: new

perspectives from qualitative data. Journal of Marriage & Family, 67(4), 989-1002.

doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00189.x


Mobile Technology Fact Sheet. (n.d.). Pew Research Centers Internet American Life Project

RSS. Retrieved May 6, 2014, from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-

technology-fact-sheet/

Neighmond, Patti. (n.d.). Report: Most Couples Living Together Marry. NPR. Retrieved. May

13, 2014. From http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124248325>.

Seltzer, J. (2005). Families formed outside of marriage. Journal of Marriage & Family,

67(4), 1247-1268. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01247

Wood, J. T., & Wood, J. T. (2007). The World Beyond Words. Interpersonal communication:

everyday encounters (7th ed., ). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub..

Date post:	17-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mark-sinclair
View:	220 times
Download:	4 times

COMS 254 Qualitative methods Literature Review

Documents