Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kayla Benitez
Abstract
Education achievement and cohabitation status were examined to determine impact on length of
marriage. Couples who cohabitated, prior to marriage, had shorter interval of marriages than
non-cohabitating couples. Couples with high school education had shorter interval of marriages
than college graduates. Couples with high school degrees who cohabitated, prior to marriage, had
shorter interval of marriages than high school graduates non-cohabitating couples. Couples with
college degrees who cohabitated, prior to marriage, had shorter interval of marriages than college
graduates non-cohabitating couples. College graduates who did not cohabitate had the longest
length of marriages. Together, these findings suggest that couples with higher education who do
.
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 3
What variables impact length of marriage? As Lavner and Bradbury (2012) state Some
couples who are very happy throughout the first several years of marriage will also go on to
divorce Why is this so? To evaluate these questions an experimental design for research could
be drawn up. The researchs intent is to draw a conclusion about length of marriage, measured in
number of months the marriage lasted. This experimental design includes independent and
dependent variables and utilizes these to observe causal relationships. In this experiment, there
will be a follow-up on people who got divorced, in the form of a survey. This is administered to
qualifying people in the experiments set time interval. The participants will be distributed into
groups according to independent variables: cohabitation and education levels. Cohabitation will
be participants who cohabitated prior to marriage with those who did not cohabitate prior to
marriage. Education levels will be divided between those who are high school graduates and
those who are 4-year college graduates. Therefore, this experiment aims to draw conclusions on
cohabitation and education trends and their relationship with length of marriage; doing so could
Marriages have decreased within the years and divorces have become more likely.
Bramlett and Mosher (2002) describe this, the proportion of peoples lives spent in marriage
declined due to postponement of marriage to later ages and higher rates of divorce.
Furthermore, since length of marriage has decreased how is it measured? In this research
experiment, length of marriage (LOM) will be the dependent variable analyzed, measured in
number of months. More specifically, the interval of number of months will be from the month
the participants got married to the month they finalized the divorce. Length of marriage can be
impacted by multiple variables, although we will be observing the effects of two: education and
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 4
cohabitation. Many people would ideally like to be married and as Baker and Emery (1993) put
it expressed thoroughly idealistic expectations about both the longevity of their own marriages
and the consequences should they personally be divorced. So, how and why is the longevity of
marriage being affected? Well, an explanation for this could be due to different levels of
education.
Obtaining participants with different educational backgrounds allowed the sample to be so.
Participants were divided into high school graduates and 4-year college graduates, in an attempt
to analyze this independent variable: education. Musick, Brand and Davis (2012) noticed a trend
that, College graduates are on average more likely to get married and stay married than others.
Most studies point this to being true, the higher the level of education, the higher probability the
marriage will last. If so, this studys desire is to test how much longer do the marriages last?
probability of divorce include lower education and premarital cohabitation. The experiments
divorce? If so, does cohabitation also have an impact on the marital outcome or length of
marriage?
described as the act of living together and having a relationship prior to marriage. The
participants in the study are adults, aged eighteen and over. The study will observe groups of
people who cohabitated prior to marriage with people who did not cohabitate prior to marriage.
The research will provide an outlet to analyze the data, to determine if cohabitation results in as
Bramlett and Mosher put it a higher probability of divorce. Or as well as Rhoades, Stanley and
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 5
Markman (2009) found Those who cohabited before engagement (43.1%) reported lower
marital satisfaction, dedication, and confidence as well as more negative communication and
greater potential for divorce than those who cohabited only after engagement (16.4%) or not at
all until marriage (40.5%) These numbers are very large, pointing to people who have not
cohabitated having a higher chance of a longer marriage. To determine if this is the case in
This experiment must yield results on whether cohabitation and education have an affect
on length of marriage and if so, how greatly do they affect it. The hypothesis is that cohabitation
before marriage must decrease longevity of marriage and higher levels of education must
increase the chances of longer marriages. This can be attributed to a consensus of previous
confidence. It can as well be connected to higher educational levels resulting in the chances of
longer marriages. In conclusion, noticing the patterns and trends in the ways education and
cohabitation affect marriage could result in methods to improve marital longevity, satisfaction
and confidence.
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 6
Method
Participants
Surveys were administered to participants who got married between the years 1990 to
2015. The population was drawn randomly from people who got married in Santa Barbara
County within the set time interval. Although the experiment was done randomly, the
participants were still volunteers. They were not offered any money or course credit but
participated voluntarily. Moreover, verbal consent was first needed before the research
proceeded and deaths were excluded from the experiment (i.e. Spouse died). The study aimed to
encompass the general population of heterosexual couples this could also including people with
vision problems, color-blindness, but may not representational of deaf, hard of hearing people or
people who did not have phones since the surveys were done through telephone calls. It also
included people of different college majors distributed into the groups randomly. The subjects
came from different backgrounds in economic status, religion, politics and ethnicities to be
representational of Santa Barbara County. The subject pool included 400 previously married
participants (N=400; 200 males, 200 females), the first independent variable included
cohabitation. This included people whom cohabitated prior to marriage and people who did not
cohabitate prior to marriage. Therefore, there were 200 participants (N=200; 100 females, 100
males) who got divorced and cohabitated and the other 200 participants (N=200; 100 females,
100 males) who got divorced but did not cohabitate. These groups were broken down even
further by another independent variable: education. Education included people who were high
school graduates and those who were 4-year college graduates. The divorce-cohabitation group
consisted of high school graduates (N=100; 50 males, 50 females) and college graduates
((N=100; 50 males, 50 females). While the divorce non-cohabitation group consisted of high
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 7
school graduates ((N=100; 50 males, 50 females) and college graduates ((N=100; 50 males, 50
females). To clear up the education variable, the high school graduates included people who
completed their GED, completed some college, attended community college, or completed a 2
year program from any accredited institution while the 4-year college graduates included people
with BA, BS degrees or higher such as PhDs, Masters etc also from any accredited institution. In
conclusion, there were four separate groups being analyzed: Those who cohabitated and were
high school graduates ((N=100; 50 males, 50 females) those who cohabitated and were 4 year
college graduates (N=100; 50 males, 50 females), those who did not cohabitate and were high
school graduates (N=100; 50 males, 50 females) and those who did not cohabitate and were 4-
Apparatus/Materials
affirmations (see appendix). These questions were written and spoken in both English and
Spanish therefore utilized bilingual people to administer the surveys. The study utilized
telephones and divorce databases to be able to obtain data. Windows and Mac computers were
used, more specifically the Microsoft Excel program, to be able to record the data. Within the
Excel program, statistical data was obtained through the use of the softwares tools.
Procedure
The research questions aim to get information about cohabitation and non-cohabitation
before marriage, education levels and length of the marriage. The study is conducted in a 2x 2
factorial design which analyzes the impact (if any) of the independent variables between each
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 8
other and within each other. For example, this could be through main effects, which are the
effects each variable has individually or interactionswhere the effect of one variable depends
on the level of the other. As a review, these four separate groups in this design include:
cohabitation/high school grads (N=100) and no cohabitation/college grads (N=100). The survey
questions will be administered in both Spanish and English since Santa Barbara County contains
many native Spanish speakers. Two research questions asked are to determine their varying
education levels: Did you graduate from high school? (Te graduaste de la preparatoria?). The
next question is a follow-up: If yes, did you graduate from a 4-year college/university? (Te
BA, BS, MA, PhD. These are both simple questions that are close-ended questions since they
yield a yes/no response. They are aligned with the research questions since we are categorizing
them into groups based on education. The next question categorizes individuals based on
cohabitation and non-cohabitation before marriage: Did you live with your spouse prior to
marriage (Viviste con tu pareja antes de casar?). This is also a simple question with a yes/no
response. It is aligned with the research question since we are categorizing them into groups
based on cohabitation vs. those who did not cohabitate. The final question will be about length of
marriage: How long was your marriage, in months? (Cuanto tiempo estaban casados, en meses?).
This as well is a close-ended question since it yields number of months. It is aligned with the
research question since we are looking at length of marriage as our dependent variable. Since the
study only requires 4 close-ended questions and is supposed to be asked to a large population,
the methods for obtaining the research data is through telephone calls. A divorce database will be
utilized to recruit volunteers and the information will be recorded in an excel spreadsheet. To
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 9
control for any bias or oversaturated samples, the survey, in the form of telephone calls will have
data recorded and used in the research anonymously. The participants will be administered to the
four groups based on the independent variables but will be taken randomly from the divorce
database. This is so the different income levels, religions, ages etc. that could affect our study, be
Results
The results of this study indicate as Thornton and Axinn (1992) put it the experience of
premarital cohabitation produces attitudes and values which increase the probability of divorce.
Therefore cohabitation is likely to reduce length of marriage. Affirming the findings of Feng,
Giarrusso, Bengtson and Frye(1999) that variables for the transmission of divorce include
demographic and life course factors (low education). Which suggests that lower education
levels results in a higher probability of divorce. The data analysis in the study demonstrates that
The data of the variables all vary, as shown in figure 1, High school/No cohabitation (HS
- NC) has a mean of 7.88, mode: 8, Median: 8, Standard Deviation: 2.81, Range: 14, Minimum
value: 1, and Maximum value: 15. High school/Cohabitation (HS - Coh) has a mean of 4.04,
mode: 5, Median: 4, Standard Deviation: 1.51, Range: 5, Minimum value: 1, and Maximum
value: 6. College/No cohabitation (Col - NC) has a mean of 16.84, mode: 19, Median: 18,
Standard Deviation: 4.91, Range: 18, Minimum value: 5, and Maximum value: 23. College/No
Cohabitation (Col - NC) has a mean of 12.44, mode: 11, Median: 11, Standard Deviation: 3.16,
Range: 12, Minimum value: 8, and Maximum value: 20. The difference in the means will give us
insight as to what is causing the effects on the dependent variable (length of marriage). To be
able to do this a 2x2 factorial design is utilized to analyze these two independent variables.
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 10
Figure 1
HS - NC HS - Coh Col - NC Col-Coh
A 2x2 factorial design allows for main effects and interactions to be observed (Figure 2).
This is done with the means of the variables, (obtained through data analysis). The factorial
designs yields two main effects for two independent variables. The main effect refers to the
effect each variable has (individually) on the dependent variable. In the table, being a high
school graduate has a 5.96 main effect on length of marriage, while being a college graduate has
a 14.64 main effect on length of marriage. Also, no cohabitation prior to marriage has a 12.36
main effect on length of marriage and cohabitation prior to marriage has an 8.24 main effect on
length of marriage. This demonstrates that being a 4yr college graduate and not cohabitating
There is an interaction if the lines intersect on the 2x2 factorial line plot graph. Since the
lines do not intersect no interaction occurs. Interaction refers to one independent variable
depending on the particular level of the other independent variable. For this study, this means
that education is not dependent of a particular level of cohabitation and cohabitation is not
dependent on a particular level of education. The frequency table and the histogram give a visual
Figure 2
2x2 Factorial
20
15
10 Non-Coh
Coh
5
0
High School College
representation of how many occurrences there were for the four groups being analyzed (HS-NC,
HS-Cob, Col-NC, Col-Coh). These graphs indicate that High school graduates who did not
cohabitate prior to marriage occur more frequently than the rest of the groups in this study.
Frequency
BINS Intervals HS - NC HS - Coh Col -Coh Col- NC
4 0-4 2 13 0 0
9 5-9 20 12 4 3
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 12
14 10-14 2 0 15 3
19 15-19 1 0 4 11
24 20-24 0 0 2 8
0 0 0 0
25 Frequencies
20
15
HS - NC
HS - Coh
10
Col -Coh
5 Col- NC
0
BINS 4 9 1 1 2
ANOVA determines if the results are significant or not. To access if differences between
the means are statistically significant, the p-value is compared to the significance level (0.05) to
evaluate the null hypothesis (reject or accept). The null hypothesis in this study, is that both
independent variables: cohabitation and education do not have an effect on length of marriage.
The significance level used in this experiment is 0.05, which indicates a 5% chance of
concluding that a difference exists when there is no difference (this would be an Error). The P-
value is 1.2393E-22 this is less than 0.05, which means the null hypothesis is rejected (if this
were higher than 0.05 than the null hypothesis would be accepted). To determine which data set
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between 1.2393E-
Groups 2217.364583 3 739.1215278 64.92343292 22 2.703594041
Within
Groups 1047.375 92 11.38451087
Total 3264.739583 95
result is responsible for the significant finding found in the ANOVA, T-tests of each four data
sets can be calculated. There was no significant finding because the p-value is extremely low
compared to the significant level. To affirm this the P-values can be observed in the T-tests. The
HS-Coh compared to Col-Coh yields: P(T<=t) one-tail: 4.74298E-14 and P(T<=t) two-tail:
9.48597E-14 both of which are lower than 0.05 (Significant level). This remains true for the rest
of the groups Col-NC compared to Col-Coh, HS-NC compared to HS-Coh, and HS-NC
compared to Col NC. The p values P(T<=t) one-tail: and P(T<=t) two-tail are lower than the
critical value (0.05) indicating that the null hypothesis can be rejected. This means that the
HS - Coh Col-Coh
Mean 4.04 12.44
Variance 2.29 10.00666667
Observations 25 25
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 34
t Stat -11.97720796
P(T<=t) one-tail 4.74298E-14
t Critical one-tail 1.690924255
P(T<=t) two-tail 9.48597E-14
t Critical two-tail 2.032244509
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 14
Col-NC Col-Coh
Mean 16.91666667 12.54166667
Variance 25.03623188 10.17210145
Observations 24 24
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 39
t Stat 3.61210981
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000428117
t Critical one-tail 1.684875122
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000856234
t Critical two-tail 2.02269092
HS - NC HS - Coh
Mean 7.88 4.04
Variance 7.943333333 2.29
Observations 25 25
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 37
t Stat 6.001954079
P(T<=t) one-tail 3.12027E-07
t Critical one-tail 1.68709362
P(T<=t) two-tail 6.24053E-07
t Critical two-tail 2.026192463
HS-NC Col-NC
Mean 7.88 16.84
Variance 7.94333 24.14
Observations 25 25
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 38
t Stat -7.9093
P(T<=t) one-tail 7.5E-10
t Critical one-tail 1.68595
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.5E-09
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 15
The Frequency Graphs of Demographic data: Race and Religion are provided for each of
the four data sets. These tables and histograms allow for the representation of the population in
this sample. The population has the most Orthodox Christians in the High school
is Jews while Catholics are the highest population in the High school graduates/no cohabitation
group and the College/no cohabitation group. In terms of race, there is a high population of
school/cohabitation group. While Hispanics have a high population in the high school/no
cohabitation group.
Relion Demographics
14
12
Catholic
10
O-Christian
8 Jewish
6 Islam
Eastern
4
Other
2
0
HS - NC HS - Coh Col - NC Col-Coh
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 16
Race Demographics
16
14
Hispanic
12
White
10
Black
8
Asian
6
Mixed
4 Other
2
0
HS - NC HS - Coh Col - NC Col-Coh
The subjects in the data sets are not equally distributed in our demographics sets (race
and religion) thus this may impact the dependent variable: length of marriage. The sample taken
showcases a large population of White Orthodox Christians. This may not necessarily be a bad
thing if the sample is representative of Santa Barbara County, then it will yield results that are
representative of the population. However, this data may not be representational of the general
public, therefore can be generalized across the states. This may not be representational of the
Islamic people since there was a low population of them and even some missing from the four
data sets being observed. This also yields true to mixed races, since some were absent from the
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 17
four data sets. Confounding variables in the data could include age, gender, income and different
locations (in SB county) that can impact the results. These variables have been accounted for
through the use of random assignment, meaning the study is not saturating one of the four data
sets with only high-income people, or only middle class people etc. The study utilized random
Discussion
The research aimed to analyze the causal relationship between cohabitation and education
variables in order to determine what impacts length of marriage. This is beneficial to gaining
insight on how to predict marital outcomes. Or the trends could also allow for information on
increasing the longevity or marriage. Further, this research could pave the way for other research
questions regarding marriage. The results of this study provide insight on cohabitation and it's
effects on marriage as well as educations impact on marriage. Although, this study may have
some confounding variables, it suggests there can be further analysis of the many variables that
This study analyzed the independent variables: education and cohabitation. This was in
order to determine if it had an effect with the dependent variable: length of marriage. The results
demonstrated the higher the level of education (college grads) and no cohabitation, the higher the
length of marriage. Thus, it indicates lower level of education (high school grads) and
cohabitation, the shorter the length of marriage. This study also recorded differences in race and
religion that may affect the length of marriage. The research intended to be representational of
the general population, therefore increasing the chances of a longer marriage means not
The study hypothesized that no cohabitation prior to marriage and being a 4yr college
grad would yield a higher probability of a longer length of marriage. This is due to previous
research, for instance as Brown and Booth (1996) state, we find that cohabitors in general report
poorer relationship quality than their married counterparts. Thus, if they have poorer
relationships they may have shorter lengths of marriage. As the results came in, this turned out to
be true. Therefore, our null hypothesis could be rejected. The null hypothesis stated that
cohabitation prior to marriage and being a high school graduate would yield longer lengths of
marriages. The research questions posed were answered because the patterns in our results
indicated the effects, each individually from the independent variables, had an effect on length of
marriage. Although, there could have been confounding variables these were accounted for by
randomization. Further, the intent of the research was completed with the exploration of the
Some confounding variables pertaining to these independent variables could have been
could have impacted the study. This can be attributed to the fact that one month of cohabitation
were accounted for by randomization. The high school graduates consisted of people who
graduated high school, completed their GED, had some college, Associate degree holders,
graduates included people with Bachelors, Masters, or doctorate degrees, as well as other
between these groups can be significant, for example someone could have almost completed
their 4-year degree and only would have needed one more semester or even one more class, they
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 19
would therefore be closer to the level of education of a person with a bachelors degree than
someone with a high school degree. Another example could be the varying levels of education
within the 4-year college degrees. There can be an immense difference with someone who got a
4yr degree vs. someone who took 8 or 10 years to get their degree, training and license. This
study may be altered by the variances in the within groups as well as the between groups.
However, the study has accounted for these differences by obtaining these participants randomly
through a divorce database. This also adds validity to the experiment since this is
representational of the general population; this is due to the fact that not everyones educational
levels are clear-cut. The general population has multiple variations; this can also be seen from
the varying races and religions of the participants. Age, income, and children could also be
confounding variables however like the other confounding variables randomization aids in
distributing the groups so they are representational. These potential confounding variables could
also lead the way to further research and could be studied as independent variables on the length
of marriage.
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 20
References
Axinn, W. G., & Thornton, A. (1992). The relationship between cohabitation and divorce:
Baker, L. A., & Emery, R. E. (1993). When every relationship is above average: Perceptions and
expectations of divorce at the time of marriage. Law And Human Behavior, 17(4), 439-
450. doi:10.1007/BF01044377
Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in
Brown, S. L., & Booth, A. (1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship
Feng, D., Giarrusso, R., Bengtson, V. L., & Frye, N. (1999). Intergenerational transmission of
Marital Quality and Marital Instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 451-463.
Lavner, J. A., & Bradbury,T. N. (2012). Why do even satisfied newlyweds eventually go on to
Musick, K., Brand, J. E., & Davis, D. (2012). Variation in the relationship between education
and marriage: Marriage market mismatch?. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(1), 53-
69.
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009). The pre-engagement cohabitation