Best predictor of divorce? Age when couples cohabit, study says.

A new study suggests the age when couples start cohabiting – whether married or unmarried – correlates with divorce rates, adding new nuance to studies about cohabitation and marriage.

J Pat Carter/AP
A couple accented their wedding clothing with purple during the Valentine's Day Group Wedding Ceremony in West Palm Beach, Fla., Friday. Feb. 14, 2014.

For years, social scientists have tried to explain why living together before marriage seemed to increase the likelihood of a couple divorcing. Now, new research released by the nonpartisan Council on Contemporary Families gives an answer:  

It doesn’t. And it probably never has.

This is despite two decades of warnings from academics and social commentators who pointed to studies that claimed a correlation between “shacking up” and splitting up – warnings that increased as the number of couples living together before marriage skyrocketed.

As it turns out, those studies that linked premarital cohabitation and divorce were measuring the wrong variable, says Arielle Kuperburg, a professor at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, who produced much of the research released Monday. The biggest predictor of divorce, she says, is actually the age at which a couple begins living together, whether before the wedding vows or after. 

“Up until now, we’ve had this mysterious finding that cohabitation causes divorce,” she says. “Nobody’s been able to explain it. And now we have – it was that people were measuring it the wrong way.”

Couples who begin living together without being married tend to be younger than those who move in after the wedding ceremony – that’s why cohabitation seemed to predict divorce, Professor Kuperburg explains. But once researchers control for that age variable, it turns out that premarital cohabitation by itself has little impact on a relationship’s longevity. Those who began living together, unmarried or married, before the age of 23 were the most likely to later split.

“Part of it is maturity, part of it is picking the right partner, part of it is that you’re really not set up in the world yet,” she says. “And age has to do with economics.”

Indeed, other research released by the nonpartisan academic group Monday suggests that the longer couples wait to start living together, the better their chances for long-term relationship success.  

This makes sense to historian Stephanie Coontz, director of research and public education at the Council on Contemporary Families.

“Marriages require much more maturity than they once did,” she says. In the 1950s, husband and wives stepped into well-defined gender rolls. “Nowadays, people come to marriage with independent aspirations and much greater ideas of equality. Maturity is so important, and negotiating skills are so much more important.”

Over the past 50 years, the number of couples who live together before marriage has increased some 900 percent. 

There has also been some softening of the perceived link between these living arrangements and divorce: In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control released a report saying that couples who moved in together while engaged had no greater risk for divorce than those who moved in after they were married; other researchers said the difference between premarital cohabitating couples and married couples seemed to be lowering, at least for those who moved in together in the 1990s.

But the hand-wringing continued. 

“People, even well read people, end up having a lot of misinformation about what makes divorce more or less likely,” says Virginia Rutter, professor of sociology at Framingham State University in Massachusetts. “The big message [of the new reports] for me is thank goodness there is now really good, clear, unambiguous research that can help us get rid of the ‘cohabitation is the issue’ approach. It goes from the easy answer – that life’s problems are about character – to the more challenging answer, that life’s problems are about context – [about] what are the resources that you are empowered to pull together to create a good life.” 

Indeed, Sharon Sassler, a professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., argues in a different academic paper made public Monday that the length of time a couple has been romantically involved before moving in together is also crucial to whether they end up divorcing. That, she says, has connections to a host of educational and financial factors.

Those with higher education levels tend to take longer to move in with their partners, she found. Half of college-educated women moved in with their partners after at least a year; one-third were romantically involved for two years before joining house. Data from the most recent National Survey of Family Growth show that more than half of women with only a high school degree in a cohabitating relationship moved in with their partner in less than six months.

Professor Sassler found in her research that many couples with lower incomes and less education decided to move in together because of financial pressures.  She argues that it is the type of premarital cohabitation that predicts divorce, not necessarily cohabitation in itself.

This jibes with another one of Kuperburg’s findings: that there are two general types of cohabitation, one that the couples view as the first step toward marriage, engagement ring or not, and one that is done without the same commitment, or out of perceived convenience. 

“People who think they are going to get married act the same as people who are married,” she says. “People who are not sure, they act very differently. They have different work habits, health habits. But living together to ‘test drive’ the marriage? According to my research, that shouldn’t hurt marriage at all.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.