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..

COMS 254 Qualitative methods Literature Review

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to COMS 254 Qualitative methods Literature Review

Similar to COMS 254 Qualitative methods Literature Review (17)

COMS 254 Qualitative methods Literature Review