Cohabitation Expectations Among Young Adults in the United States: Do They Match Behavior?
- 1.1k Downloads
Cohabitation continues to rise, but there is a lack of knowledge about expectations to cohabit and the linkage between expectations and subsequent cohabitation. We capitalize on a new opportunity to study cohabitation expectations by drawing on the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY79) main youth and two waves (2008 and 2010) of the NLSY young adult (YA) surveys (n = 1,105). We find considerable variation in cohabitation expectations: 39.9 % have no expectation of cohabiting in the future and 16.6 % report high odds of cohabiting in the next 2 years. Cohabitation expectations are associated with higher odds of entering a cohabiting relationship, but are not perfectly associated. Only 38 % of YAs with certain cohabitation expectations in 2008 entered a cohabiting union by 2010. Further investigation of the mismatch between expectations and behaviors indicates that a substantial minority (30 %) who entered a cohabiting union had previously reported no or low expectations, instances of what we term “unplanned cohabitation.” Our findings underscore the importance of considering not only just behavior but also individuals’ expectations for understanding union formation, and more broadly, family change.
KeywordsFamily Cohabitation Union formation Emerging adulthood Young adults Unplanned cohabitation
- Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bogle, R. H., & Wu, H. S. (2010). Thirty years of change in marriage and union formation attitudes, 1976–2008 (Family Profile-10-03). Bowling Green: National Center for Family and Marriage Research.Google Scholar
- Copen, C., Daniels, K., & Mosher, W. (2013). First premarital cohabitation in the United States: 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports, 64. Hyattsville, MD.Google Scholar
- Crissey, S. R. (2005). Race/ethnic differences in the marital expectations of adolescents: The role of romantic relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(3), 697–709.Google Scholar
- DeMaris, A. (2004). Regression with social data: Modeling continuous and limited response variables (vol. 417). Wiley.Google Scholar
- Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
- Kennedy, S., & Bumpass, L. (2011). Cohabitation and trends in the structure and stability of children’s family lives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Manning, W. D. (2013). Trends in cohabitation: Twenty years of change, 1987–2008 (Family Profile-13-12). Bowling Green: National Center for Family and Marriage Research.Google Scholar
- Manning, W. D., Trella, D., Lyons, H., & Du Toit, N. C. (2010). Marriageable women: A focus on participants in a community healthy marriage program. Family Relations, 59(1), 87–102.Google Scholar
- McLanahan, S. S., & Sandefur, G. D. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Oppenheimer, V. (2003). Cohabiting and marriage during young men’s career development process. Demography, 40(1), 127–149.Google Scholar
- Scott, M. E., Schelar, E., Manlove, J., & Cui, C. (2009). Young adult attitudes about relationships and marriage: Times may have changed, but expectations remain high. (Research Brief). Washington, DC: Child Trends.Google Scholar
- U.S. Bureau of the Census (2011) Estimated median age at first marriage, by sex: 1890 to the present. In Families and Living Arrangements: Marital Status. Retrieved August 31, 2012 from http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/marital.html.
- Whelpton, P. K., Campbell, A. A., & Patterson, J. E. (1966). Fertility and family planning in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar