This article was downloaded by:[University of Tennessee]

On: 8 February 2008

Access Details: [subscription number 776115377]
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personality Assessment

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653663
Assessment of Personality and Demographic Aspects of
Cohabitation and Marital Success
Michael D. Newcomb; P. M. Bentler

Online Publication Date: 01 February 1980

To cite this Article: Newcomb, Michael D. and Bentler, P. M. (1980) 'Assessment of
Personality and Demographic Aspects of Cohabitation and Marital Success', Journal
of Personality Assessment, 44:1, 11 - 24
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4401_2
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4401_2

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Personality Assessment, 1980, 44, 1
Downloaded By: [University of Tennessee] At: 00:32 8 February 2008

Assessment of Personality and Demographic Aspects of

Cohabitation and Marital Success
MICHAEL D. NEWCOMB and P. M. BENTLER
University of California, Los Angeles
Abstract: The outcomes of 68 marriages of four-year duration were compard on the basis of
whether the partners had or had not cohabited premaritally. Background characteristics and
personality data were assessed o n those couples when there were newly married, and they were
followed-up four years later to determine their current marital status, level of satisfaction, diffi-
culty with various problem areas and the number of children born to them. No reliable differences
o n marital satisfaction or divarce rates between premarital cohabitors and noncohabitors were
found. Cohabitors who divorced did so while reporting less marital distress than noncohabitors
who divorced. Premarital cohabitors had significantly fewer children than noncohabitors.
Degree of difficulty experienced on various problem areas differed between the groups. Certain
personality and background variables predicted marital success differently for the two groups.
Using the same selected set of six predictor variables, multiple regression equations were generated
for cohabitors and noncohabitors. The cohabitors equation (R2 = .56) predicted marital success
significantly more effectively than the noncohabitors equation (R2 = .28). When comparing the
tri-weight vectors for these two equations, none of the predictor variables had the same influence
in both groups. Theoretical implications of the findings were discussed.

Cohabitation has received increasing
attention from researchers during the
past ten years. The vast majority of
studies have attempted to describe the
differences between individuals and cou-
ples who cohabit from those who choose
not to cohabit(e.g., Macklin, 1972; New-
comb & Bentler, 1980; Yllo, 1978).Other
researchers have tried to examine the
role cohabitation plays in the courtship
and dating process (e.g., Lyness, 1978;
Ridley, Peterman & Avery, 1978).
Macklin (1974) sees cohabitation as an-
other stage in thecourtship sequence, oc-
curring between steady dating and mar-
riage: A phase of 'going very steady', as
she puts it. There is some support forthis
contention. Lewis, Spanici, Storm At-
kinson, and Lehecka (1977) found that
commitment levels were similar between
cohabiting couples and engaged nonco-
habiting couples. It has also been found
that almost one-half of a sample of mar-
ried couples had cohabited with their
current partner for some period of time
before marrying them (Newcomb &
Bentler, 1980).
Although not currently the behavior
of the majority (Clayton & Voss, 1977),
cohabitation is being practiced by a large
and increasing number of people (Ho-
bart, 1979). Since many marriages are
apparently preceded by cohabitation, it
seems reasonable to wonder what effect
this cohabital experience has on the qual-
ity and character of the subsequent mar-
riage. There has been some speculation
(e.g., Danziger, 1976; Peterman, 1975;
Ridley et al., 1978), but only few scien-
tific investigationslookingat theeffect of
cohabitation on marriage (Budd, 1976;
Olday, 1977; Clatworthy & Sheid, Note
1; Lyness, Note 2). Cohabitation before
marriage and 'trial' marriage cannot be
assumed to be synonymous in intent al-
though they may be functionally equiva-
lent. Contrary to the situation ten years
ago, the majority of today's cohabitors
do not enter their cohabital relationship
as a planned prelude to, or trial, marriage
(Hobart, 1979). Although it is clear that
many marriages are preceded by cohabi-
tation, most did not begincohabitingasa
testing ground for a possible marriage.
Many effects of cohabitation on mar-
riage have been proposed. Urie Bronfen-
brenner fears that cohabitation may un-
dermine the family structure and allows
the circumvention of the requisite com-
mitment and obligation necessary to
build a relationship that is viable, mean-
ingful and fulfilling (Schwartz, 1977).
 12 Two Aspects of Cohabitation and Marital Success
Harper (1975) claims that once a cohabi-
ting couple marries, many of the attrac-
Downloaded By: [University of Tennessee] At: 00:32 8 February 2008
tions of cohabitation are goneand there-
lationship may suffer as a consequence.
He asserts that these attractions include
rebellion against parental and societal
mores, ease of termination and theshirk-
ing of responsibility regarding parent-
hood. He feels cohabitation too often ac-
centuates temporariness in meaningful
relationships instead of fostering an en-
during union that can be relied upon.
There is conflicting evidence in regard to
if and what type of change a relationship
undergoes in a transition from premari-
tal cohabitation to marriage. Usinga ret-
rospective design, Berger (Note 3) found
that the self-reported quality of a rela-
tionship remained largely unchanged in
the shift from cohabitation to marriage.
Kenough (1975), on the other hand,
found that cohabitors who married re-
ported pressures to return to traditional
roles and an accompanying loss of iden-
tity.
Returning to the broader issue of co-
habitation's effect upon marriage, others
contend that cohabitation can serve an
important and possibly essential role in
the individual's maturation and the suc-
cess potential of a subsequent marriage.
Peterman (1975) and Peterman, Ridley,
& Anderson (1974) claim that cohabita-
tion offers an individual a uniqueexperi-
ence in intimate relations that is not pro-
vided through traditional educational
institutions and courtship practices in
this society. Cohabitation can allow a
person to develop a degree of 'hetero-
sexual competence' that is necessary for
the endurance and fulfillment of any
meaningful intimate relationship. So, to
the extent this can be accomplished dur-
ing premarital cohabitation, a subse-
quent marriage will benefit. Danziger
(1976) feels that the most important
function cohabitation can serve is as a
screening device to assure that two peo-
ple are compatible before they marry.
These varied points of view predict dif-
ferent success potentials for marriages
preceded, and not preceded, by cohabi-
tation. Empirically, it has been found
that, on a gross level, choosingtocohabit
before marriage had no apparent effect
on whether a couple stays married or
eventually divorces (Bentler & New-
comb, 1978). This says nothing about
any specific quality differences or ef-
fects of differing lengths ofcohabitation.
Ridley et al. (1978) stressed that it is the
quality and character of the relationship
formed while cohabiting, as well as the
maturity of the partners, that make the
experience a positive building block for
marriage.
Unlike speculations, which are abun-
dant, there is a paucity of research find-
ings that are addressed to what differ-
ences actually exist between marriages
that are preceded by cohabitation and
those that are not. A few, generally in-
conclusive studies have been done con-
trasting these groups. Lyness (Note 2)
looked at variables related to concepts
from open marriage and Olday (1977)
examined satisfaction, conflict, egalitar-
ianism and emotionalclosenessand both
found few significant differences be-
tween marriages that were and were not
preceded by cohabitation. Budd (1976)
also found few differences between her
sample of similar groups in regard to .
problems experienced, self-disclosure,
and commitment. She did find that
couples who did not cohabit premarital-
ly reported more difficulty with loss of
love than couples who had cohabited be-
fore marrying. Finally, Clatworthy and
Sheid (Note 1) reported that although
couples who had cohabited premaritally
considered it a positive influence on their
marriage, there was little evidence that
these couples had better or less tradi-
tional marriages or that they had chosen
more compatible partners than couples
who had not cohabited premaritally.
They did find that those who had co-
habited showed more tenacity in argu-
ments, more independence from their
partner, and more often disagreed on fi-
nances, household tasks, and use of lei-
sure time than those who had not co-
habited premaritally. Regarding the
marriage itself, those who hadcohabited
saw their marriage as a less vital Dart of
their lives, had sought marriage cciunsel-
ing more often and had temporarily bro-
 M. D. NEWCOMB and P. BENTLER 13

ken up more often than those couples tosubject motivation,and that thework-
who had not lived together before mar- ing sample is representative under the
rying. All of these studies were descrip- constraint of realistic field conditions.
Downloaded By: [University of Tennessee] At: 00:32 8 February 2008

tions of cross-sectional samples of intact

married couples. They did not lookatdi- Sample Description
vorced marriages that had or had not The sample of nonstudents ranged in
been preceded by cohabitation. In or- age from the late teens up to the sixties.
der to do this most efficiently a longitu- They were predominantly Caucasian
dinal design must be incorporated, and their mean educational and occupa-
which this present study has done. tional levels were 'some college'and low-
The purpose of this study is to evalu- middle class. Thirty-eight couples did
ate the longitudinal effect of cohabita- not cohabit and 39 couples did cohabit
tion upon marriage. T o d o this marriages before marrying. For those who did co-
that were preceded by cohabitation will habit, the average duration was eight
be compared with marriages that were months and ranged from less than one
not preceded by cohabitation in terms of month to a littlelessthan three years. For
various marital outcome indices - e.g., purposes of this study, all couples who
marital status, satisfaction, problem lived together prior to marriage, regard-
areas - that were assessed four years in- less of the duration, will be considered
to each marriage. Also an attempt will be cohabitors.
made to determine whether the presence
or absence of premarital cohabitation independent Variables
has any differential effect on how demo- All independent variables were as-
graphic and personality variables, as- sessed during the initial data collection
sessed at the beginning of a marriage, and thus represent variables that were
eventually influence the outcome of that measured at the beginning of all themar-
marriage four years later. riages. Two instruments were used to
assess background variables for all indi-
Method viduals and couples and personality trait
Sample Selection variables on each individual.
The sample of couples was obtained by Individual background information
a recruitment letter sent to a random se- was obtained in regard toage,education,
lection of marriage license applicants at occupation, religion, previous divorce,
the Los Angeles County Recorder's of- previous children and parents' divorce.
fice. One-hundred sixty-two couples On the couple, information wasobtained
completed the initial data collection regarding how long they had knowneach
phase and 68 of these couples returned other and how long they had lived to-
follow-up questionnaires four years lat- gether before marriage,ifinfact they had.
er. Fifty-three marriages had remained The Bentler Psychological Inventory
intact and 15 had divorced during this (BPI) was used to assess personality
period. From public records it wasdeter- traits. The BPI consists of 680 pairs of
mined that nine of the couples that bipolar statements and the respondent is
couldn't be recontacted at followup, had asked to choose the onestatement ineach
divorced also. In total, the marital status pair that most accurately reflects him/-
of 77 of the original sample of 162couples herself. Although 28 trait scales are ob-
was ascertained: 53 were still married tained, a selection of only 14 ofthese were
and 24 had divorced. Although attri- examined that seem to have some sub-
tion in sample size between initial con- stantive meaning in regard to cohabita-
tact and follow-up was fairly large, re- tion. Traits were selected on the basis of
sponses to 89% of the deliverable letters previous empirical findings (e.g., religi-
came in, indicating that a maximum of osity, liberalism, and masculinity), as
I 1$ of the couples self-selected out oft he well as theoretically important concepts
study. Because of this, it was felt that the of relationships (e.g., stability, extraver-
sample reduction was not systematicdue sion, and invulnerability). It is increas-
 14 Two Aspecrs of Cohabitation and Marital Success
ingly important, in cohabitation re-
search, to examine concepts and vari-
ables that can be integrated into a theory
Downloaded By: [University of Tennessee] At: 00:32 8 February 2008
for understanding the causes and conse-
quences of this phenomenon. It is for
these reasons that only 14 ofthe28 traits
were chosen to be analyzed in detail.
These 14 traitsare: ambition, art interest,
attractiveness, clothes-consciousness,
extraversion, intelligence, invulnerabil-
ity, law abidance, leadership, liberalism,
masculinity, religiosity, self-acceptance,
and stability. Trait descriptions and reli-
ability coefficients for the BPI can be
found in Bentler and Newcomb (1978,
p. 1055).
Dependent Variables
All dependent variables were assessed
at the follow-up period four years into
each marriage. There were three general
issues to be addressed in the follow-up
questionnaire: (a) the current marital
status of each couple: whether they had
remained married or had separated or di-
vorced, (b) the quality of all the mar-
riages, which was determined by includ-
ing the Locke and Wallace (1959) Mari-
tal Adjustment Scale scored by their cri-
teria, and (c) the types of problems that
caused the most difficulty in each mar-
riage. To do this, a list of 19 potential
problem areas were included and each
couple was asked to rate, on a 3-point
scale, the degree of difficulty each had
created in their marriage. A total prob-
lem score was calculated by summing the
ratings on all problem areas for each cou-
ple. Since the Marital Adjustment score
and lack of problems score were highly
correlated (fl66]= .78,p<.001), thestan-
dardized scores for each section were
averaged yielding a composite adjust-
ment score, using the method described
by Bentler and Newcomb (1978).
In order to incorporate the maximum
amount of information available into a
summary statistic, marital outcome was
included - married vs. divorce - into
the composite adjustment score. This
was done by averaging the three normal-
ized scores and arriving at a composite
marital success score for each couple.
Several dependent variables will be
used in our analyses. Where appropriate
marital status, the compositeadjustment
score, the composite marital success
score, or each problem on the problem
rating list will be used, area by area, as
dependent variables.
In addition to these relationship qual-
ity indicators, at follow-up how many
children had been born to each couple
during their four years of marriage.
Resulrs
Divorce Rates
Twenty-six percent (I0 couples) of the
noncohabitors and 36% (14 couples) of
the cohabitors had divorced within the
first four years of their marriage. This
difference in proportions was not signifi-
cant (x2,,,= .82, ns). No significant dif-
ferences were obtained regarding di-
vorce rates between cohabitors and non-
cohabitors nor among cohabitors them-
selves. This may be due to the small sam-
ple size, which must be taken into ac-
count in all of the analyses, or no actual
differences between the groups. Even
though none of thedifferences in propor-
tions are reliable, it is interesting to note
divorce rates for various lengths of co-
habitation before marriage. Among co-
habitors, the rates of divorce were great-
est if thecouple hadlived togetherforless
than 3 months (50%) or longer than l l
months (42%) before marrying. Thelow-
est divorce rates were obtained for cou-
ples living together between 3 and 10
months (21%) prior to marriage. When
this latter group - those who cohabited
from 3 to 10 months - are compared
with the rest ofthecohabitors onpropor-
tion of divorces, the results, though again
not significant, do indicate a possible
trend (xz,,, = 1.99, p < .2). Apparently,
there may be an optimal length oftime to
cohabit before marrying that increases
the success potential of that subsequent
marriage.
Keeping in mind the lack of reliability
in these percentages, the 10% higher di-
vorce rate for couples who had cohab-
ited, compared to those who did not co-
habit, does not show the whole picture.
Couples who had cohabited for 3 to 10
 M. D. NEWCOMB and P. BENTLER
months prior to marriage had a divorce
rate of 2 1%, which is lower than the 26%
Downloaded By: [University of Tennessee] At: 00:32 8 February 2008
divorce rate for the noncohabitors.
Whereas, overall, noncohabitors as
compared to cohabitors had a slightly
higher success rate, in terms of fewer di-
vorces, a more detailed analysis suggests
that some cohabitors actually have a
higher success rate than noncohabitors.
Marital Adjustment
We next looked at whether the degree
of marital adjustment differed between
cohabitors and noncohabitors, using the
composite adjustment score - a combi-
nation of the Locke-Wallace scale and
the lack of problems score- to represent
marital adjustment. A two-way analysis
of variance showed that there was vir-
tually no overall difference between co-
habitors and noncohabitors(F=.07, ns).
This lack of a reliable difference on mari-
tal adjustment between cohabitors and
noncohabitors mirrors the results re-
garding divorce rates.
The main effect of outcome -married
vs. divorced -revealed a large, albeit ex-
pected, significant difference ( F = 73.0 1,
p < .001). Of greater interest,however, is
the significant interaction effect of co-
habitation with outcome ( F = 6.66,
p < .05). Cohabitors who remained mar-
ried had a lower level of marital adjust-
ment than noncohabitors who remained
married. Conversely, cohabitors who di-
vorced had a higher level of marital ad-
justment than divorced noncohabitors.
The difference between the twostill-mar-
ried groups was not significant(r,,,,= 37,
ns), but the difference between thedivorced
groups was found to be significant (r,,,, =
-2.56, p .c .05, two-tailed). It seems ap-
parent, then, that cohabitors divorced
with a significantly higher level of mari-
tal adjustment, or fewer problems in
their marriage, than couples who did not
cohabit before marrying and divorced.
Birth of Children
Twenty-five of the 68 couples (37%)
had at least onechild born to themduring
their first four years of marriage. Fifty-
three percent of those couples who did
not cohabit had children, whileonly 21%
of those who cohabited had children.
This difference in proportions was sig-
nificant (x*,,,=7 . 6 5 , c.01).
~ It seemsap-
parent that those who are inclined or at-
tracted to cohabitationarealso less inter-
ested in producing children, once mar-
ried.
Among the cohabitors there was a dis-
tinct difference between those who had
lived together a short period and those
who had lived together a longer while be-
fore marrying. Thirty-five percent of
those couples who had cohabited for 10
months or less had children, while less
than 6% of those who had cohabited for
I 1 months or longer had children. This
difference was also found to be signifi-
cant (x*(,,= 4.50, p < .05).
Problem Ratings
In order to determine more specifical-
ly the quality of these marriages we ana-
lyzed our problem rating checklist, area
by area. Differences in problem ratings
were looked at in three ways: (a) it was
first determined whether there were any
mean differences between cohabitors
and noncohabitors in regard to each
problem area, (b) then the interaction of
cohabitation and marital outcome by
each problem area was looked at, and (c)
within group differences among cohabi-
tors wasexamined, regarding how length
of cohabitation affected the various
problem areas.
The total problem score did not signif-
icantly differentiate those whocohabited
,
from those who did not (t = .84, ns).
Mean differences were compared on
each problem area between those who
did and did not cohabit, by using two-
tailed t tests. These t values are shown in
column I of Table 1. Fourareasgavesig-
nificantly greater difficulty for the co-
habitors compared to the noncohabi-
tors. These four problems were adultery,
drunkenness, drug abuse, and indepen-
dence. Only one area, bickering, was sig-
nificantly more of a problem forthe non-
cohabitors than the cohabitors.
Column 2 of Table 1 shows the Fval-
ues for the interaction of cohabitation
and marital outcome. Six of these inter-
actions were significant. Four of these
six significant interactions: nonsupport,
 16 Two Aspects of Cohabitation and Marital Success
Table 1
Problem Areas
Downloaded By: [University of Tennessee] At: 00:32 8 February 2008

- - --

M Difference Between Interaction of Correlation with

Problem Noncohab~tat~on Outcome Length of
and Cohabitat~on and Cohab~tat~on Cohab~tatlon
df = 66 df = 1.64 df = 32
Attention to another -1.78 1.5 .23
Mutual affection -.95 .8 -.03
Adultery -2.32' 4.2* .25
Sex relations -1.07 .2 -.I9
Veneral disease 0.0 -
Desire for child -.80 .2 .02
Finances -.63 1.4 -.07
Nonsupport 0.0 6.9** -.I0
Drunkenness -2.49* 2.3 -.I4
Drug abuse -1.97* 7.5** .22
Gambling .82 3.4 .I9
Sent to jail -1.44 .8 .05
Friends 73 9.1** -. 16
Selfishness -.77 3.5 .05
In-laws 1.02 .2 -.04
Ill health .59 1 -.30
Bickering 2.02* 7.4** .23
Independence -3.25** 3.3 .12
Career conflicts 1.60 6.7* -.28
Other .17 .7 -.08
Note: 0 = no oroblem: I = moderate problem: 2 = severe problem.

friends, bickering, and career conflicts,
were caused by a small difference be-
tween the still-married groups and a
large difference between the two di-
vorced groups, with thedivorcedcohabi-
tors reporting substantially lower dt-
grees of difficulty than the divorced non-
cohabitors. The remaining two signifi-
cant interactions, on adultery and drug
abuse, had a similar form as the others
except that the divorced cohabitors re-
ported greaterdifficulty, rather than less,
on these problems, compared to the di-
vorced noncohabitors. As in the other in-
teractions, there was essentially no dif-
ference between the ratings given by co-
habitors and noncohabitors that had re-
mained married.
Among cohabitors, correlations were
used to determine the effect length of co-
habitation had on ratings of the various
problem areas. These correlations are
given in column 3 of Table 1. While none
of these correlations were found to be sig-
nificant, they are reported heresince they
address a very criticalquestion regarding
cohabitation: specifically, does length of
cohabitation have a beneficial or detri-
mental effect on problems commonly
faced in marriage? Looking at correla-
tions greater than. IS, it can be seen that
the longer one cohabits the less difficulty
will be faced during marriage regarding
sexual relations, friends, ill health, and
career conflicts. On the other hand, the
Ion er one cohabits the greater was the
di!f ~cultyreported in regard toattention
being paid to another, adultery, drug
abuse, gambling, and bickering.
Simple Predictive Correlations
The longitudinal predictability of
marital quality and outcome was exam-
ined for each background and personal-
ity trait variable by sex and by cohabital
experience. The composite marital suc-
cess score was used as the indicator of
marital quality and outcome since it in-
corporates the Locke-Wallace scale, the
 M. D. NEWCOMB and P. BENTLER

Table 2
Simple Predictive Correlations
Downloaded By: [University of Tennessee] At: 00:32 8 February 2008

Males Females
Noncohabitors Cohabitors :Between r Noncohabitors Cohabitors z Between r
df = 34 df = 34 N = 68 df = 34 df = 34 N = 68

Background
Age -.07
Education -.25
Occupation .07
Pre-divorce -.33*
Pre-children -.22
Parent Divorced -.34*
Personality Traits
Ambition -.37*
Art Interest .I0
Attractiveness .04
Clothes-con. -.38*
Extraversion -.56***
Intelligence .06
Invulnerability -.28
Law Abidance -.03
Leadership -.39*
Liberalism .27
Masculinity -.07
Religiosity -.09
Self-acceptance -. 14
Stability .15 .02 .52 .34* .13 .88

problem score and marital status. This
was correlated with all independent vari-
ables for male and female cohabitors and
noncohabitors. These four sets of corre-
lations are given in columns l,2,4, and 5
of Table 2. Two-tailed significance tests
were consistently'used. Using the Fisher
r to Z conversion, the Zdifferences were
obtained between correlations on male
noncohabitors and cohabitors, and fe-
male noncohabitors and cohabitors.
These are given in columns 3 and 6,
respectively, of Table 2. These Z differ-
ences essentially represent measures of
interaction between cohabital experi-
ence and the composite marital success
score in reference to each independent
variable. In other words, a significant
Z value indicates a reliable difference in
predictability on that variable for nonco-
habitors compared to cohabitors.
In regard to background variables for
the males (top portion of Table 2) there
were two significant correlations for the
noncohabitors and four for the cohabi-
tors. The presence of a previous divorce
and parental divorce, for males, both
negatively influenced the success of a
marriage that was not preceded by co-
habitation. For those males who did co-
habit premaritally, the older they were,
the higher the educational level they had
achieved and the more often they had a
previous divorce and previous children,
predicted a positive outcome for their
marriage. There were four significant
differences in predictability for males, on
background variables, on age, educa-
tion, previous divorce, and previous chil-
dren. In each case, the effect of the vari-
able had an opposite influence for each
group. All were negatively related to
marital success for the noncohabitors
and positively related for the cohabitors.
 18 Two Aspects of Cohabitation and Marital Success
For previous divorce, both simple corre-
lations were significant but in opposite
directions.
Downloaded By: [University of Tennessee] At: 00:32 8 February 2008
One background variable for the non-
cohabited females significantly predict-
ed marital success, while there were four
such correlations for thefemales whodid
cohabit before marrying. Presence of a
previous divorce had a negative influ-
ence on the success oft he marriage for fe-
males without cohabital experience. For
females who did cohabit, being older,
having a previous divorce, having pre-
vious children and not having a parental
divorce were indicative of marital suc-
cess. There were three significant differ-
ences between correlations, for females
who did and did not cohabit before mar-
rying, on age, previous divorce, and par-
ental divorce. Again, as with the males,
there was a sign difference in each case,
with both correlations on previous di-
vorce being significant. The influence of
age and previous divorce had identical
effects for males and females.
Turning next to the predictive influ-
ence of personality traits (the bottom
portion of Table 2) there were four sig-
nificant correlations for males who did
not cohabit and two significant correla-
tions for males who did cohabit before
marrying. Those marriages that were not
preceded by cohabitation were positively
benefited by the males having less ambi-
tion, being less clothes-conscious, more
introverted and having fewer leadership
qualities. For males who did cohabit,
their subsequent marriage was moresuc-
cessful if they were more clothes-con-
scious and less liberal. There were four
significant differences and one marginal
difference between predictive correla-
tions for the two groups of males. Corre-
lations predicting marital success dif-
fered significantly on clothes-conscious-
ness, extraversion, leadership, and liber-
alism, and marginally onambition. Each
of these substantialdifferencescan beac-
counted for in one of two ways. Either
one group had a very high correlation
and the other group had virtually no re-
lationship to the criterion variable with
that particular predictor, as in thecaseof
ambition, extraversion and leadership,
or else both groups had substantial cor-
relations but in opposite directions as
with clothes-consciousness and liber-
alism.
For the females, there were three sig-
nificant correlations on personality
traits for those who did not cohabit and
two significant correlations for those
who did cohabit before marrying. For
those who did cohabit, marital success
was significantly predicted by less ambi-
tion, less art interest and more stability
for the females. Women who did cohabit
had more successful marriages if they
were more clothes-conscious and more
law abidant. There were threesignificant
differences between trait correlations,
for females, on ambition, clothes-con-
sciousness, and law abidance. Again, as
in all othersignificant Zdifferences, there
were opposite signs on the correlations
between the groups. although, in several
of these, one of the correlations was so
low that the significant Z difference was
caused by a particular variable having a
large influence in one group and virtually
none in the other.
Multiple Regression
Prediction Equations
Our final set of analyses examines the
longitudinal predictability of marital
success for cohabitors and noncohabi-
tors, separately. The composite marital
success score was used as the dependent
variable in these regression equations.
Rather than simply using a stepwise pro-
cedure to select predictor variables from
all background and trait variables, which
has the effect of over-capitalizing on
chance in such a small sample, a subset of
variables using a strict decision rule was
chosen. By examining the simple predic-
tive correlations in Table 2, those vari-
ables were selected that had the same di-
rection of influence for both sexes within
cohabitors or within noncohabitors,and
also had at least one significant correla-
tion. For example, ambition was chosen
since it had a negative influence for both
male and female noncohabitors, a posi-
tive influence for both male and female
cohabitors, and had at least one-twoin
fact - significant correlations. In this
 M. D. NEWCOMB and P. BENTLER
Table 3
Marital Outcome Predictive Equations
-- --
Downloaded By: [University of Tennessee] At: 00:32 8 February 2008
Variable
Beta
Age .438**
Education .260*
Previous Divorce ,108
Ambition -.060
Clothes-consciousness .221*
Law Abidance ,168
Source SS
Optimal Tri-Weights .5290
Differential Weights ,0289
Ordinary Regression S579
Error ,4421
manner nine variables were selected: age,
education, previous divorce, ambition,
clothes-consciousness, law abidance,
leadership, liberalism, and stability.
During all of the following analyses three
of these nine variables: leadership, liber-
alism, and stability, accounted for only a
miniscule portion of the variance in ei-
ther group and thus were eliminated
from the analyses. Rather than con-
structing separate equations for males
and females, all subjects were combined
by group, cohabitors and noncohabi-
tors, regardless of sex. In this way we had
68 individuals who had cohabited and 68
individuals who had not cohabited pre-
maritally.
Table 3 gives the Beta-weights and
ANOVA breakdowns for the multiple re-
gression equations generated for cohabi-
tors and noncohabitors. A novel regres-
sion approach developed by Bentler and
Woodward (1978), was used to select an
optimal vector of +I, 0, and -I weights.
Rather than the finetuned Beta-weights,
only three possible elements are allowed
as regression weights: 0 - no influence
for that variable, I -a positive influence
for that variable and -1 - a negative in-
fluence for that variable. The optimal tri-
weight vector is given under the columns
headed "sign." The given weights maxi-
mize the multiple correlation of a com-
posite formed by eliminating or sign-
Cohabitors Noncohabitors
Sien Beta Sien
1 .I69 0
I -.240* -1
1 -.403** -I
0 -.301* -I
1 -.203 -1
1 -.I33 0
df MS F SS df MS F
1 ,5290 72.99*** ,2447 1 .2447 20.99**
5 ,0058 .80 ,0331 5 .0066 .57
6 .0930 12.83*** .2778 6 .0463 3.97**
61 ,0072 ,7112 61 .0117
weighting standardized variables. As is
obvious in the partitioning of variance in
both ANOVA tables, the tri-weight vec-
tors account for essentially all of the pre-
dictive variance of the ordinary regres-
sion. The differential weighting repre-
sents only incidental noise.
Although both equations providea sig-
nificant level of predictability, it is pos-
sible that one does so more effectively
than the other. Usingaformulathatcom-
pares regression lines (slopes and inter-
cepts) between two groups that use the
same set of predictor variables, a large
significant difference was found (F,,,,,,,
= 10.72, p G .001). The Beta-weight
solution forthecohabitorsaccounted for
about 56% of the variance, while the
Beta-weight solution for the noncohabi-
tors accounted for only about 28% of the
variance. It is clear from this that marital
outcome can be more effectively pre-
dicted for those who had cohabited be-
fore marriage, compared to those who
did not cohabit before marrying. When
these six variables were used to predict
marital success for the entire sample of
136 individuals, regardless of cohabital
experience, only 12% of thevariance was
accounted for. Attempting to predict
marital success while ignoring the pres-
ence or absence of premarital cohabita-
tion, apparently washes out the power of
these variables and severely limits the
 20 Two Aspects of Cohabitation and Marital Success
amount of prediction possible.
In order to understand how thepredic-
Downloaded By: [University of Tennessee] At: 00:32 8 February 2008
tive influence of these variables was neu-
tralized when thegroups werecombined,
we compared the Beta-weights between
the cohabitor and noncohabitor equa-
tions. It can be seen that four of the six
variables have opposite directions of in-
fluence. For the cohabitors, education,
previous divorce, clothes-consciousness,
and law abidance each have a positiveef-
fect on marital success, whilefor the non-
cohabitors each has a negative effect. An
even more striking contrast can be seen
when comparing the tri-weight vectors.
None of the variables has a similar in-
fluence in both groups. Age and law abi-
dance have a positive effect for cohabi-
tors and virtually no predictive influence
for noncohabitors. Education, ambi-
tion, and clothes-consciousness all have
a positive influence for the cohabitors
and a negative influence for the nonco-
habitors. Ambition, on the other hand,
has virtually no predictive power for the
cohabitors, but has a negative influence
for the noncohabitors. It seems remark-
ably clear from these analyses that the
prediction of marital success is strikingly
different depending on whether or not
the couples cohabited premaritally.
Discussion
Our results indicate that there are no
significant differences in divorce rates or
degree of marital satisfaction between
couples who did and did not cohabit be-
fore marriage. Although there was a
trend for those who had cohabited to
have higher divorce rates and lowermar-
ital satisfaction than those who did not
cohabit, these two differencesdid notap-
proach being reliable. Clatworthy and
Sheid (Note 1) found that couples who
had cohabited before marriage more
often sought marriage counseling and
more often had temporary separations
than couples who had not cohabited pre-
maritally. These findings are not incon-
sistent with the trends observed here.
Our more detailed analyses did reveal
some interesting possibilities. Among
cohabitors, it was found that those who
had lived together for less than three
months or longer than 10 months had
very high divorce rates, while those who
had cohabited from three to 10 months
prior to marriage had relatively low di-
vorce rates. Apparently three to 10
months is an optimal length to cohabit
premaritally, in order to minimize the
possibility of divorce. It must be kept in
mind that these differences in propor-
tions only reflect trends that are not sta-,
tistically reliable and thus must beevalu-
ated cautiously and definitely have fu-.
ture cross-validation.
The entire issue of why a couple will
decide to marry after cohabiting is large-
ly unexamined in the literatureand needs
more attention in future research. One:
speculation is that cohabitors will marry
when they decide to have children. This
was not borne out in our data. In fact, sig-
nificantly more couples who did not co-
habit bore children during their first four
years of marriage, compared to those
who did cohabit. This is consistent with
the findings of Bower and Christopher-
son (1977) which indicated that cohabi-
tors planned to have significantly fewer
children in their lifetime, than individ-
uals who did not cohabit. It is apparent
that most cohabitors do not decide to
marry in order to provide a basis for hav-
ing children.
In regard to marital adjustment, the
significant interaction obtained between
cohabital experience and marital out-
come is very interesting. We found that
for couples who remained married after
four years, there was no significant dif-
ference in marital adjustment between
cohabitors and noncohabitors. This was
not the case for couples who divorced
during that period of time. Couples who
cohabited premaritally divorced while
experiencing less difficulty, compared to
couples who divorced and had not lived
together before marriage. Cole and Vin-
cent (Note 4) found that living together
unmarried couples reported significant-
ly fewer barriers to terminating their re:-
lationship than married couples. Appar-
ently, the act of marrying does not aug-
ment the number of perceived barriers
to separation for previous cohabitors to
any great degree. The number and
 M. D. NEWCOMB and P. BENTLER 21

strength of perceived barriers are appar- ture of 'marital bliss.'

ently more a function of the individuals Various problems showed differential
Downloaded By: [University of Tennessee] At: 00:32 8 February 2008

and relationship formed, that is some- 'deadliness'to the relationship - causes

how reflected in the choice to cohabit, for divorce - between cohabitors and
rather than the fact of being married. In noncohabitors. There was virtually no
other words, couples with cohabital ex- difference on problem ratings between
perience, regardless of whether they cohabitors and noncohabitors who re-
choose to marry, see fewer barriers to mained married. On the other hand, co-
ending their relationship, compared to habited couples who divorced did so
married couples who did not cohabit. while reporting significantly lessdifficul-
Couples who have cohabited may have ty with nonsupport, friends, bickering
less motivation toward correcting prob- and career conflicts, than couples who
lems and might more readily prefer di- did not cohabit and divorced. Adultery
vorce than couples who had not co- and drug abuse caused more difficulty
habited, when both are reporting similar for cohabitors that divorced compared
levels of distress. On the other hand, co- to noncohabitors that divorced.
habitors may divorce moreamicably and These results can be interpreted in at
with less animosity than noncohabitors. least two ways. The significant interac-
Newcomb and Bentler (1980) presented tion on adultery and drug abuse, where
data suggesting that women who co- divorced cohabitorsreported greaterdif-
habited and then married may have more ficulty with these areas than divorced
psychological tools for survival in this noncohabitors, might localize the mean
society than noncohabiting women who difference effect found for these prob-
marry. This may partially account for the lems. In other words, the significant
current findings and possibly indicate mean differences found between cohabi-
that couples who cohabit before mar- tors and noncohabitors on adultery and
riage may be less devastated and allow drug abuse might be wholly accounted
less interpersonal deterioration to occur for by the large simple main effect be-
when divorcing, compared to those who tween the two divorced groups. The sig-
did not cohabit and eventually divorce. nificant interaction on bickering can be
In regard to problem areas, it was understood in an analgous way.
found that cohabitors experienced sig- If reportingdifficulty with theseareas.
nificantly more difficulty in their mar- by divorced couples, can be assumed to
riage with adultery, alcohol, drugs, and be possible causes for their divorce, then
independence, than couples who had not cohabitors are particularly vulnerable to
cohabited. Cohabitors reported less dif- divorce, relative to noncohabitors, for
ficulty with bickering than noncohabi- reasons ofadulteryanddrugabuse. Non-
tors. Cohabitors have been shown to be cohabitors, relative to cohabitors, are
less law abidant and more liberal, as well apparently more prone to divorce while
as reporting a wider diversity of sexual experiencing difficulty with nonsupport,
experience than noncohabitors (Henze friends, career conflicts, and bickering.
& Hudson, 1974; Newcomb & Bentler, This-does not mean that these are the
1980). Apparently, this makes marriage only reasons why couples divorce. but
preceded by cohabitation more prone to rather they point out the differential vul-
problems often associated with other nerabilities that lead to divorce for co-
patterns of deviant life-styles -e.g., use habitors who married relative to nonco-
of drugs and alcohol, more permissive habitors who married. These different
sexual relationships, and an abhorrence vulnerabilities to problem areas may be
of dependency - than marriages not due to one group either having a greater
preceded by cohabitation. Married co- relative quantity of difficulty or else hav-
habitors, on the other hand,areseeming- ing a greater sensitivity to a particular
ly less susceptible than noncohabitors, to problem, than the other group. Our data
the day-to-day bickering and nagging cannot differentiate these two possi-
often caricatured in the traditional pic- bilities.
 22 Two Aspects of Cohabitation and Marital Success
To determine whether length of co-
habitation had any effect on problems
Downloaded By: [University of Tennessee] At: 00:32 8 February 2008
experienced four years into their mar-
riage, we correlated duration of cohabi-
tation with each problem rating. Al-
though none of these correlations were
significant, tharends observed are infor-
mative. The longer a couple cohabited
premaritally the less difficulty they re-
ported in theirmarriagewithsex,friends,
health, and careerconflicts,and the more
difficulty with attention to another,
adultery, drug abuse, and bickering. The
exacerbated problems seem to relate to a
non-mutual satisfaction between a mu-
tual sharing, while theameliorated prob-
lems are ones of individual satisfaction.
This may be due to the independent and
possibly self-centered attitudes of cohab-
itors. Yet, thesecorrelations wereneither
significant nor large, and thus we must
conclude that the length of cohabitation
may increase or correct specific prob-
lems to a small extent, but not toany dra-
matic degree. In other words, cohabita-
tion cannot be damned nor blessed for
preventing the problems in marriage.
The power to predict marital success
was evaluated by correlating each vari-
able with our dependent measure of mar-
ital success in four groups. Rather than
attempting to interpret each significant
predictive correlation, which may have
the result of grasping at straws where
there is no adequate theoretical hay-
stack, we will examine a few results that
seem to have particular interest and im-
portance.
Previous research has consistently
shown that age is a significant predictor
of marital success (e.g., Luckey, 1966;
U.S. Bureau ofthecensus, 1973). We ob-
tained a similar result but only for indi-
viduals who cohabited premaritally. Age
at marriage was virtually unrelated to
marital success for people who had not
lived together before marrying. If pre-
marital cohabitors marry young there is
less chance for them to havea successful
marriage than if they had cohabited and
married at an older age. There are two
critical factors to understand wheninter-
preting this phenomenon: The implica-
tions of age and cohabital experience. It
seems fair to assume that youngerpeople
have a relatively lower level of maturity
regarding their needs and interpersonal
functioning than older people. Ifcohabi-
tation can be considered to be at least
functionally equivalent to a trial mar-
riage, one of the most importantfeatures
it has to provide is knowledge and infor-
mation pertaining to the interpersonal
compatibility of the couple. Older co-
habitors apparently have the maturity
and interpersonal competence to utilize
the information obtained fromcohabita-
tion in order to assure the selection of a
compatible marriage partner, that might
lead to a more successful marriage.
Younger cohabitors are apparently
much less successful in utilizing the infor-
mation from cohabitation effectively.
The lack of a relationship between age
and marital success for noncohabitors
points out the power of the information
cohabitation can provide. Noncohabi-
tors did not have this additional infor-
mation about the intimate, day-to-day
interactions with their potential mate.
Lacking this critical information, their
age or level of maturity could not use or
misuse data that was not available.
The presence ofa previousdivorce had
different effects upon marital success for
cohabitors and noncohabitors. For both
male and female cohabitors, being pre-
viously divorced was beneficial to the
outcome of their current marriage. Per-
haps the personal and interpersonal
knowledge gained from a previous un-
successful marriage - regarding per-
sonal needs, wants, and vulnerabili-
ties - allowed the cohabital experience
to be a real testing ground for a possible
marriage. In other words, the informa-
tion provided through cohabiting was
more effectively utilized, in the sense of
producing a more successful marriage, if
the individuals had been previously di-
vorced. Cohabitors who did not have a
previous marriage and divorce had a rel-
atively worse marriage. They a p rently
P"
were not able to benefit asmuch rorn the
cohabital experience when deciding to
marry. This parallels our results on age
and may be due to older people more
often having a previous divorce, com-
 M. D. NEWCOMB and P. BENTLER
pared to younger people. The exact op-
posite effect for previous divorce was
Downloaded By: [University of Tennessee] At: 00:32 8 February 2008
found for noncohabitors. Forthisgroup,
having a former marriage was detrimen-
tal to their current marriage. This is con-
sistent with previous research that indi-
cated that once you have divorced you
are more likely to have other divorces in
your future.
The research literature on cohabita-
tion has indicated several variables that
differentiate cohabitors from nonco-
habitors. These variables' effects on the
quality of a subsequent marriage have
not been previously examined. Cohabi-
tors have been found to be less clothes-
conscious, less law abidant, and more
liberal than noncohabitants (Newcomb
& Bentler, 1980). On the other hand, our
simple predictive correlations indicate
that cohabitors have a more successful
marriage when they are relatively more
clothes-conscious, more law abidant,
and less liberal. The opposite is true for
noncohabitors. It seemsclearthatat least
in terms of these three variables, what
distinguishes cohabitors from nonco-
habitors are the very qualities that pre-
dict an unsuccessful marriage. Appar-
ently more traditionalism, at least for
these variables, for cohabitors and less
traditionalism for noncohabitors, allow
for a better adapted marriage. This
should not be over-generalized since
other indicators of traditionalism that
discriminated cohabitors from nonco-
habitors (e.g., androgyny and religious
commitment) have no predictive in-
fluence on marital outcome for either
group.
Using six selected variables, multiple
regression equations predicting marital
success were generated for cohabitors
and noncohabitors. Both significantly
predicted marital success. When com-
paring these two equations, two features
are particularly noteworthy. First, the
equation generated for cohabitors pre-
dicted marital success significantly more
effectively than the equation for nonco-
habitors. And second, when the tri-
weight vectors are compared for the two
equations not a single variable has the
same influence in bothgroups. Although
the presence or absence of cohabitation
has no direct influence on theoverallout-
come of a marriage, there are apparently
very different and sometimes opposite
forces operating to promote marital suc-
cess for cohabitors compared to nonco-
habitors.
It seems clear from the data that the
impact of premarital cohabitation on a
subsequent marriage is not a simple nor
direct relationship, but rather is multi-
faceted. There are two, not mutuallyex-
clusive ways, oflookingat thedifferences
obtained. One way is to assume that the
actual experience of cohabitation has
somehow produced the variations we
have noticed in the marital outcome in-
dices. The other way is to assume that
cohabitation attracts a certain type of
person, who would havea particular type
of marriage regardless of whether he or
she had cohabited or not. Most likely
both of these viewpoints are partially
correct and our discussions have specu-
lated with both possibilities. In spite of
these interpretation difficulties, we can
conclude that cohabitation is apparently
not the cause nor cure-all for the current-
ly high divorce rates in this country. Like
most things in this life it is a mixed bless-
ing, helping some aspects and hindering
others in the marital relationship.
Reference Notes
I . Clatworthy,N. M.,&Shield, L. A comparisonof
married couples: Premarital cohabitants with
non-premarital cohabitants. Unpublished
manuscript, Ohio State University, 1977.
Lyness, J. F. Open marriageamong former co-
habitants: We havemet theenemy: Is it us?Un-
published manuscript, Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity, 1976.
Berger, M. E. Trialmarriagefollowup. Unpub-
lished manuscript, 1974.
Cole, C. M., & Vincent, J. P. Cognitiveandbe-
havioral patrerns in cohabitive and marital
d19ads.Unpublished manuscript, University of
Texas Medical Branch, 1977.
References
Bentler. P. M.. & Newcomb. M. D. Lonnitudinal
study of marital success and failure. ~&rnalof
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978,465,
1053-1070.
Bentler. P. M., & Woodward, J. A . Regression on
linear composites: statistical theory andapplica-
tion. Multivariate Behavioral Research Mono-
graph. 1979. No. 79-1
 24 Two Aspects of Cohabitation and Marital Success
Berger, M. E. Trial marriage: Harnessing the trend
constructively. The Family Coordinator, 1971,
20, 38-43.
Downloaded By: [University of Tennessee] At: 00:32 8 February 2008
Bower, D. W., & Christopherson, V. A. University
student cohabitation: A regional comparison of
selected attitudes and behavior. Journalof Mar-
riage and the Family, 1977,39,447-453.
Budd, L. S. Problems, disclosure andcommitmenr
of cohabiting andmarriedcouples. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota,
1976.
Clayton, R. R., &Voss, H. L. Shackingup: Cohab-
itation in the 1970s. Journalof Marriageandthe
Familv. 1977,39,277-289.
Danziger, C. Unmarried heterosexual cohabita-
tion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rut-
gers University, 1976.
Harper, D. M. Does living together before mar-
riage make for a better marriage? Medical As-
pects of Human Sexuality, 1975,9,34-39.
Henze, L. F., & Hudson, J.W.Personaland family
characteristics of noncohabitingand cohabiting
college students. Journal of Marriage and the
Fami1.v. 1974,36. 722-726.
Hobart, C. W. Changes in courtshipand cohabita-
tion in Canada, 1968-1977. In M. Cook & G.
Wilson(Eds.), Loveandatrraction. Oxford, En-
gland: Pergamon Press, 1979.
Kenough, D. Without knotting the tie. The
Arizona Republic. July 27, 1975. 8-15.
Lewis, R. A.. Spanier. G. B., Storm Atkinson. V. L..
& Lehecka, C. F. Commitment in married and
unmarried cohabitation. Sociological Focus.
1977.10. 367-374.
Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. Short marital ad-
justment and prediction tests: Their reliability
and validity. Marriageand Familr Living. 1959,
21, 251-25s.
Luckey, E. B. Number of years married as related
to personality perceptions and marital satisfac-
tion. Journalof Marriage and the fa mil^^. 1966.
28. 44-48.
Lyness, J. F. Happily ever after? Following-up
living-together couples. Alternative Lifestj.les,
1978, 1.1, 55-70.
Macklin, E. D. Heterosexual cohabition among
unmarried college students. The Famill.Coordi-
nator, 1972,21,463-472.
Macklin. E. D. Students who live together: Trial
marriage or going very steady. P . ~ j - c h o l To-
o~~
dal. November. 1974.53-59.
Newcomb. M. D.. & Bentler. P. M. Acomparison
of couples who did and did not cohabit before
marrying. Alternative L.~fes!~.les,1980. 3, I, in
press.
Olday, D. E. Sotnr cwwequencesjor heterose.rua1
cohabitation for marriage. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation. Washington State University.
1977.
Peterman, D. J . Does living together before mar-
riage make for a better marriage? Medical As-
pects of Human Se.rualin*.1975, 9. 39-41.
Peterman, D. J.. Ridley, C. A..& Anderson. S. M .
A comparison of cohabiting and noncohabiting
college students. Journal of Marriaxe and the
Familr. 1974.36, 344-354.
Ridley, C. A,. Peterman, D. J., & Avery, A. W. Co-
habitation: Does it make for a better marriage?
The Famill Coordinator. 1978. 27.2, 129-137.
Schwartz. T. Living together. Neu:~week,August
1. 1977,46-50.
U.S. Bureau of thecensus, 1970 Censusofpopula-
tion. Age ar,first marriage. (Final Rep. PC(2)-
4D). Washington. D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1973.
Yllo, K. A. Nonmarital cohabitation: Beyond the
collegecampus. Alternative Lifest1.1es.1978. I , I ,
37-54.
Michael D. Newcomb
Department of Psychology
University of California
405 Hilgard Avenue
Los Angeles. CA 90024
Received: January 19, 1979
Revised: April 23. 1979