, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 357–374 | Cite as

The relationship between cohabitation and divorce: Selectivity or causal influence?

  • William G. Axinn
  • Arland Thornton
Household organization


Recent evidence linking premarital cohabitation to high rates of divorce poses a complex theoretical and empirical puzzle. We develop hypotheses predicting that premarital cohabitation is selective of those who are prone to divorce as well as hypotheses predicting that the experience of premarital cohabitation produces attitudes and values which increase the probability of divorce. Using multiwave panel data from a recent cohort of young men and women in the United States, we specify and test models of these predictions. The results are consistent with hypotheses suggesting that cohabitation is selective of men and women who are less committed to marriage and more approving of divorce. The results also are consistent with the conclusion that cohabiting experiences significantly increase young people’s acceptance of divorce.


Union Formation Divorce Rate Causal Influence Marital Stability Maternal Attitude 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Axinn, W. G. and A. Thornton. 1991. “The Intergenerational Reciprocal Relationships between Cohabitation Attitudes and Cohabitation and Marriage Behavior.” Unpublished marmscript, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  2. Axinn, W. G. and A. Thornton. 1992. “The Influence of Parental Resources on the Timing of the Transition to Marriage.” Social Science Research, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  3. Balakrishnan, T. R., K. V. Rao, E. Lapierre-Adamcyk, and K. J. Krotki. 1987. “A Hazard Model Analysis of the Covariates of Marriage Dissolution in Canada.” Demography 24:395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Akiva, M. and S. R. Lerman. 1987. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, N. G., A. K. Blanc, and D. E. Bloom. 1988. “Commitment and the Modern Union: Assessing the Link between Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Stability.” American Sociological Review 53:127–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Booth, A. and D. Johnson. 1988. “Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Success.” Journal of Family Issues 9:255–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bumpass, L. L. and J. A. Sweet. 1989. “National Estimates of Cohabitation.” Demography 26:615–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burch, T. K. and A. K. Madan. 1986. Union Formation and Dissolution: Results from the 1984 Family History Survey. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, No. 99–963.Google Scholar
  9. Cherlin, A. 1981. Marriage. Divorce. Remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cox, D. R. 1972. “Regression Models and Life Tables.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B34:187–202.Google Scholar
  11. Fergusson, D. M., L. J. Horwood, and F. T. Shannon. 1984. “A Proportional Hazards Model of Family Breakdown.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 46:539–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freedman, D., A. Thornton, and D. Camburn. 1980. “Maintaining Response Rates in Longitudinal Studies.” Sociological Methods and Research 9:87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freedman, D., A. Thornton, D. Camburn, D. Alwin, and L. Young-DeMarco. 1988. “The Life History Calendar: A Technique for Collecting Retrospective Data.” pp. 37–68 in Sociological Methodology 18, edited by C. C. Clogg. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Hogan, D. P. 1978. “The Effects of Demographic Factors, Family Background, and Early Job Achievement on Age at Marriage.” Demography 15:161–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hogan, D. P. and E. M. Kitagawa. 1985. “The Impact of Social Status, Family Structure, and Neighborhoodon the Fertility of Black Adolescents.” American Journal of Sociology 90:825–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kobrin, F. and L. J. Waite. 1984. “Effects of Childhood Family Structure on the Transition to Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 46:807–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Luce, R. 1959. Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Maddala, G. S. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Marini, M. M. 1978. “The Transition to Adulthood: Sex Differences in Educational Attainment and Age at Marriage.” American Sociological Review 43:483–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin, T. C. and L. L. Bumpass. 1989. “Recent Trends in Marital Disruption.” Demography 26:37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McFadden, D. 1975. “On Independence, Structure and Simultaneity in Transportation Demand Analysis.” Working Paper 7511, Urban Travel Demand Forecasting Project, Institute for Transportation and Traffic Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  22. McLanahan, S. and L. L. Bumpass. 1988. “Intergenerational Consequences of Family Disruption.” American Journal of Sociology 94:130–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moore, K. A., J. L. Peterson, and F. F. Furstenberg. 1986. “Parental Attitudes and the Occurrence of Early Sexual Activity.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 48:777–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Namboodiri, K. and C. M. Suchindran. 1987. Life Table Techniques and Their Applications. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pratt, W. 1965. “A Study of Marriage Involving Premarital Pregnancies.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Department of Sociology.Google Scholar
  26. Rodgers, W. L. and A. Thornton. 1985. “Changing Patterns of First Marriage in the United States.” Demography 22:265–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sweet, J. A. and L. L. Bumpass. 1987. American Families and Households. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  28. Teachman, J. D. 1983. “Analyzing Social Processes: Life Tables and Proportional Hazards Models.” Social Science Research 12:263–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomson, E. and U. Colella. 1991. “Cohabitation and Marital Stability: Quality or Commitment?” NSFH Working Paper 23, Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  30. Thornton, A. 1985a. “Changing Attitudes toward Separation and Divorce: Causes and Consequences.” American Journal of Sociology 90:856–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. —. 1985b. “Reciprocal Influences of Family and Religion in a Changing World.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 47:381–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. —. 1988. “Cohabitation and Marriage in the 1980s.” Demography 26:497–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. —. 1989. “Changing Attitudes toward Family Issues in the United States.” Journal ofMarriage and the Family 51:873–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. —. 1991. “Influence of the Marital History of Parents on the Marital and Cohabitational Experience of Children.” American Journal of Sociology 96:868–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thornton, A., W. G. Axinn, and D. H. Hill. 1992. “Reciprocal Effects of Religiosity, Cohabitation, and Marriage.” American Journal of Sociology, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  36. Thornton, A., D. Freedman, and D. Camburn. 1982. “Obtaining Respondent Cooperation in Family Panel Studies.” Sociological Methods and Research 11:33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thornton, A. and W. L. Rodgers. 1987. “The Influence of Individual and Historical Time on Marital Dissolution.” Demography 24:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Waite, L. J. and G. D. Spitze. 1981. “Young Women’s Transition to Marriage.” Demography 18:681–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • William G. Axinn
    • 1
  • Arland Thornton
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Population Research CenterThe University of ChicagoChicago
  2. 2.Institute For Social Research, Department of Sociology, and Population Studies CenterThe University of MichiganAnn Arbor

Personalised recommendations