Course Relevance Paper InstructionsPurpose
The purpose of this assignment is to challenge students to consider carefully what you
think about some content (e.g. video, articles, etc.) assigned for the week in relation to the
material being presented in the text book and slides.
Instructions
An article, video, or some other content will be provided by me and you will be
responsible for responding to it using the guidelines below. The paper should be very structured
and demonstrate careful thought with regard to relating the content to the course material. You
should have a clear introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion.
Students should write a two to three page reaction paper. Each paper should:
1. Use Headings (such as Introduction and conclusion, body paragraphs should include
meaningful heading that demonstrates what is to come).
2. Begin with an introduction! Your introduction should be a short synopsis of the content
of the video or article. What the video or article was about, what was the message it was
trying to convey and what did they argue? This should not be a play by play of what
happened, but more why does what happened matter. Look up the definition of the
word summary. Make sure to have a Thesis statement!!!!!
3. The body of the paper should be comprised of multiple paragraphs addressing,
a. Why you think this work is relevant in the context of the course specifically
regarding the current week’s chapter, specifically explain carefully the concept,
theory, ideas in the Chapter then show how it connects to the article you chose.
b. What was your initial reaction to the information in the video,
c. What about the video was interesting to you? What impact did the material have
on you or your way of thinking,
d. Critical thought will be important throughout; your paper should demonstrate the
product of critical thought not simply talking through your opinion on the topic.
4. Things you should not do include simply saying that the material relates to the course
because this is a class about social problems and the material was about a social problem
in some form or just pointing out that it relates to the current chapter which is likely why
it was assigned that particular week. I am asking you to be creative and demonstrate a
mastery of the course content by relating it to the material presented intellectually.
5. End with a conclusion, summarize. Conclude by discussing what impact the content of
the video had on you and what you feel like you learned from it.
6. Papers that do all of these well will receive the highest grade.
Format
Each paper should begin with the student’s name and the title of the topic. Do not use a cover
page. Each paper should be typed and double spaced; the font size should be 12, Times New
Roman; the paper should have one inch margins, and finally, pages should be numbered.
Quoting
Students normally ask how much of the paper should be direct quoting as opposed to their own
wording. The general rule is that quotes should be used only when the language is distinctive
enough to enhance the writers point or when paraphrasing would lessen the impact of the quoted
statement. Quotes should only contain those words necessary to make the writers point – don’t
over-quote. Using too many quotes suggests that the writer was merely pasting together passages
from the source without thoroughly understanding them. Since students are graded on their
understanding students may want to avoid quoting altogether. Papers that are string quoted will
receive a zero.
Flow
Each sentence in the paper should be well written and should make sense; each sentence should
be logically connected to the sentences around it, each paragraph to the paragraphs around it, and
each section to the sections around it, and all of them to the theme of the paper. In other words,
the paper should be easy to read and structured in such a manner that it guides the reader through
the logical steps of the paper’s format. One way to help guide the reader through these important
areas is divide the paper into paragraphs and to provide transition sentences or phases that inform
readers where the paper has gone and where it is going. These transitions indicate how sentences,
paragraphs, and sections logically fit together.
HELP!
If you need help, I am available to discuss your ideas. I do not read drafts so do not send them. I
am always available by phone and/or email.
Due Dates:
Refer to the syllabus
Grading Rubric:
Each paper should demonstrate 5 clear sections that will each be assessed a total of 20 points
each for a total of 100 points. Please read carefully!
A. The introduction will be worth 20 points if it follows directions and provide an
accurate assessment of what the article or video is about, no discussion of your
opinion should be present here, points will be deducted for adding opinion in this
section. A reasonable Intro should be at least 5 sentences. This should be the easiest
part of the paper, but many students overlook accurately setting up the rest of the
paper. The intro should end with a clear statement of what will be discussed forth
coming in the paper. For example, this paper will demonstration how this newspaper
article relates to both sociological concepts ____ and _____.
B. Accurately identifying the content in the course that relates to the material can receive
a possible 20 points. Points are deducted for unclear connections, not including the
specific Chapter the material came from, drawing an incorrect connection, lacking
clarity, etc.
C. Demonstrating critical thought is key; therefore the most obvious assessments cannot
receive the full 20 points. For example, giving me an article about suicide and saying
it relates to our discussion about suicide this week and I thought it was interesting
shows no critical thought and cannot to be assessed the full 20 points. Points will also
be deducted for demonstrating a lack of understanding the material. You should even
show critical thought in what interest you.
D. Another 20 points will be assessed for discussing how the content impacted you, so
making sure you answer all areas presented in the instructions above.
E. Lastly, 20 points will go towards having a clear conclusion. Papers that end without a
clear conclusion will automatically lose 20 points. A conclusion should be at least 5
sentences and both summarize and bring closure to your work.
Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution among
Women
Author(s): Jay Teachman
Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 65, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 444-455
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3600089
Accessed: 24-08-2015 11:22 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Marriage and Family.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 152.21.15.165 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JAYTEACHMANWesternWashingtonUniversity
andthe Riskof
Premarital
Sex, Premarital
Cohabitation,
MaritalDissolutionAmongWomen
Subsequent
Using nationally representativedata from the
1995 National Surveyof Family Growth,I estimate the associationbetweenintimatepremarital
relationships(premaritalsex and premaritalcohabitation)and subsequentmaritaldissolution.I
extendpreviousresearchby consideringrelationship historiespertaining to both premaritalsex
andpremaritalcohabitation.Ifind thatpremarital
sex or premaritalcohabitationthat is limitedto a
woman’shusbandis not associated with an elevated riskof maritaldisruption.However,women
who have more than one intimatepremaritalrelationshiphave an increasedrisk of maritaldissolution. These results suggest that neitherpremaritalsex nor premaritalcohabitationby itself
indicateeitherpreexistingcharacteristicsor subsequent relationshipenvironmentsthat weaken
marriages.Indeed,thefindingsare consistentwith
the notion that premaritalsex and cohabitation
limitedto one’sfuture spouse has becomepart of
the normalcourtshipprocessfor marriage.
Unmarriedheterosexualcohabitationhas become
very commonin the UnitedStates.Amongrecent
birthcohortsof young men and women, the majority will cohabit at some point in their lives
(Smock, 2000). Bumpassand Lu (2000) estimate
that nearly 60% of unions formed in the early
1990s began with cohabitation.At the same time
of Sociology,WesternWashington
Department
University,
Bellingham,WA98225-9081(teachman@cc.wwu.edu).
Key Words: divorce, premarital cohabitation, premarital
sex.
444
that cohabitationhas increased,so has the incidence of premaritalintercourse.Among women
born between 1950 and 1954, nearlyone quarter
experiencedtheir first instance of sexual intercoursewithinmarriage(Abma,Chandra,Mosher,
Peterson,& Piccinino,1997).Forwomenbornbetween 1965 and 1969, only about 10%had first
sex within marriage.These trendsclearlysignify
a continuingseparationof marriagefrom the initiationof sexualintimacyandcoresidentialliving.
Social scientistshave asked what these trends
mean for the natureand functioningof marriage.
One of the most clearlydefinedcorrelatesof cohabitationis an increasedrisk of maritaldissolution (Bumpass,Martin,& Sweet, 1991; DeMaris
& McDonald, 1993; DeMaris & Rao, 1992;
Smock,2000; Teachman& Polonko, 1990). Marriages precededby a spell of cohabitationare as
much as 50%morelikely to end in divorceat any
maritaldurationthan marriagesnot precededby
cohabitation.Althoughless well researched,there
is also evidence to suggest that premaritalintercourseis associatedwith an increasedriskof marital disruption(Kahn & London, 1991; Whyte,
1990).Using a nationallyrepresentative
sampleof
women, I seek to extend researchon the effects
of intimatepremaritalrelationshipson maritalstability in two ways. First,I considerthe joint relationship between both premaritalcohabitation
and premaritalintercourseand the risk of marital
dissolution.Clearly,premaritalsex andpremarital
cohabitationoverlap, yet no prior researchhas
consideredtheireffects simultaneously.Second,I
considerthe effects of variationsin historiesof
Journalof Marriageand Family65 (May 2003): 444-455
This content downloaded from 152.21.15.165 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Premarital Sex, Cohabitation, and Divorce
intimate,premaritalrelationships.In particular,I
distinguishbetween premaritalcohabitationand
premaritalintercoursethatis limitedto a woman’s
eventualhusbandfrom intimaterelationshipsthat
occurwith othermen. I findthatneitherpremarital
intercoursenor premaritalcohabitation,if limited
to a woman’shusband,is linkedto the subsequent
risk of maritaldisruption.However,intimatepremaritalrelationshipswithothermen areassociated
with a substantialincreasein the likelihoodof divorce.
PRIOR RESEARCHON PREMARITAL
RELATIONSHIPSAND THE RISK OF DIVORCE
PremaritalCohabitation
One of the most robustpredictorsof maritaldissolutionthathas appearedin the literatureis premaritalcohabitation.Beginning with reportsby
Booth and Johnson (1988) and Bennett, Blanc,
and Bloom (1988), virtuallyall studiesof the relationshipbetweenpremaritalcohabitationanddivorce have found a positive link. Early investigatorsexpressedsurpriseat this resultbecauseit
had sometimesbeen theorizedthatpremaritalcohabitationwould act as a screeningdevice, allowing couples to choose a mate with whom they
could form a successfulmarriage.Two alternative
explanationshave been put forwardto explainthe
consistently positive link between cohabitation
and maritaldisruption.
The firstthesis used to explainthe higherrisk
of divorceexperiencedby marriagesprecededby
a spell of cohabitationis selectivity.A numberof
authorshave arguedthatpeople who cohabitbefore marriage possess different characteristics
comparedwith those who do not cohabit, and
these characteristicsare tied positivelyto the risk
of divorce.The characteristicsthoughtto be importantin distinguishingcohabitorsfrom noncohabitorsinclude less commitmentto marriageas
a permanentinstitution,acceptanceof divorceas
an appropriatemeans to end a poor relationship,
an emphasison individualism,poor relationship
skills, and so on. A numberof studieshave found
evidenceof selectivity,eitherthroughdirectmeasurementof differenceson importantcharacteristics (Axinn & Thornton,1992; DeMaris& MacDonald, 1993; Thomson & Colella, 1992;
Thornton,Axinn, & Hill, 1992) or the use of statisticalproceduresthatadjustfor unmeasuredheterogeneitydistinguishingcohabitorsfrom noncohabitors(Lillard,Brien,& Waite, 1995).
445
The second thesis linkingpremaritalcohabitation to the risk of divorce focuses on the experience of cohabitationitself. That is, it is argued
that there is a causal effect of having lived with
someone outside of marriagethat cannot otherwise be attributedto differenceson other,preexthat may be associatedwith
isting characteristics
the risk of maritaldisruption.The underlyingnotion in this thesis is that cohabitationallows individualsto learnaboutintimateliving outsideof
marriage,providesinformationaboutalternatives
to marriage,and acts to erode their belief in the
permanenceof marriage.Althoughless well researchedthan the selectivityargument,the thesis
of a causaleffect of cohabitationhas also received
empiricalsupport(Axinn & Barber,1997; Axinn
& Thornton,1992).
PremaritalIntercourse
The literatureon the relationshipbetween premaritalintercourseand divorce is limited. Kahn
and London(1991) found a relativelystrongpositive relationshipbetweenthe two. They suggested, as is the case for premaritalcohabitation,that
the relationshipmay be due to either selectivity
on preexistingcharacteristicsor altered perceptions of marriageand alternativesto marriagethat
occur as the resultof engagingin premaritalsex.
Their statisticalmodeling strategysuggests that
selectivitymay be the moreimportantmechanism
to consider.Unfortunately,
no studyhas attempted
to directlymeasuredifferencesin characteristics
affectingthe risk of divorcethat might exist between women who do and women who do not
engage in premaritalintercourse,nor has their
been any researchindicatingthatexperiencewith
premaritalsex altersattitudestowardand expectationsaboutmarriage.
EXTENDINGPRIOR RESEARCH
Joint Effectsof PremaritalIntercourseand
PremaritalCohabitation
Althoughthe researchfindingsareconsistent,prior researchcan be extendedin at least two ways.
First,no study has simultaneouslyconsideredthe
relationshipbetweenboth premaritalcohabitation
andpremaritalintercourseandmaritaldissolution.
Clearly,the two arelinked,andfailureto consider
both variablessimultaneouslymay yield biased
estimatesof theireffects on divorce.Forexample,
it is reasonableto assume that women who co-
This content downloaded from 152.21.15.165 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
446
Journal of Marriage and Family
two broadlydifferentgroupsof cohabitingcouples. One group consists of cohabitingcouples
who plan to marryand are using cohabitationas
a newly evolved stage in the courtshipprocess.
The second groupconsists of very differentcouples who have no plans to marryand are using
cohabitationas an alternativeto marriage.The
first grouptends to resemblemarriedcouples on
variousdimensionsof relationshipquality,andthe
latter group appearsto have lower qualityrelationships(Brown & Booth, 1996; Skinner,Bahr,
Crane,& Call, 2002).
Even thoughfewerdataareavailable,the same
may be said for premaritalintercourse.A significant majorityof couplesin today’smarriagemarket engagein premaritalintercourse,andfor some
The VariableMeaningof PremaritalIntercourse couples it may simply be anotherstage in the
courtship process. Indeed, data on premarital
and PremaritalCohabitation
pregnanciesindicatepremaritalsex with one’s fuAnotherlimitationof priorresearchis that, with
turespousewas not uncommonin the past(Teachfew exceptions,diversityin historiesof premarital man,
1985). Recent data from the 1995 National
relationshipshas not been considered.Most studof FamilyGrowthindicatethatpremarital
Survey
ies of the relationshipbetweenpremaritalcohabsex and marriageare linked for a nontrivialproitation and divorce have used a simple variable
portionof women (Abma et al., 1997). Among
indicating whether the respondent(usually the
ever-marriedwomen who have had premarital
wife) cohabitedbefore marriage.This measure- sex,
nearly 15% experienced first intercourse
mentstrategyignoreswith whomthe cohabitation within
12 monthsof marriageandmorethan25%
occurred(the person the respondentmarriedor
had firstsex with theirhusband.In addition,about
someoneelse); if the questionaboutcohabitation
25% of all women who have had sex have had
refersspecificallyto the personmarried,it ignores
only one partnerin theirlifetime,most often their
previous cohabitations.The study by Kahn and
husband.
London(1991) on the relationshipbetween preIf premaritalsex and, increasingly,premarital
maritalintercourseand divorce also ignored dihave become a normaland accepted
cohabitation
versity in patternsof premaritalintercourseand
of
the
part
courtship
processin the contemporary
used a simpledummyvariableto indicatewhether
for
at
least
some couples,one might
United
States,
premaritalsex occurred,ignoring with whom it
little
association
between
the risk of subexpect
occurred.The importanceof makingsuch distincif
it
is
limitedto one’s
marital
dissolution
sequent
tions is illustrated by research conducted by
eventual
marital partner.However, an intimate
DeMaris and MacDonald(1993) and Teachman
and Polonko (1990), who found that premarital premaritalrelationshipwith someone other than
one’s maritalpartnermay indicateincreasedrisk
cohabitationlimited to one’s spouse does not increasethe risk of maritalinstability(eithermarital to subsequentmarital disruption.Multiple predissolutionor perceivedrisk of maritaldissolu- maritalsexualpartnersmay indicateless commitment to the idea of a permanentrelationshipwith
tion). Only respondentswho had cohabitedwith
one individual.Multiplesexualpartnersmay also
someone in addition to their spouse were at a
weaken the maritalbond by heighteningawarehigherrisk of maritalinstability.
of alternativesto one’s maritalpartneras
ness
The use of a simplemeasurementstrategymay
of sexualintimacyandfulfillment.Similar
sources
lead to biasedestimates;for example,sucha stratto
the
case
for premaritalsex, multiplecoresidento
the
extent
which
not
measure
diversity
egy may
tial unionspriorto marriagemay indicatea range
in historiesof premaritalrelationshipsis linkedto
of personalattitudesand beliefs thatmightundereitherselectivityon variablesaffectingthe riskof
divorceor learnedbehaviorsand attitudesrelated mine the stabilityof unions.In addition,a coresidentialrelationshipthatdoes not lead to marriage
to the stabilityof marriage.For example,thereis
a growingliteraturesuggestingthattheremay be
may providefirsthandexperiencewith the process
habit prior to marriageare more likely to have
engagedin premaritalsex thanwomenwho do not
cohabitbefore marriage.If premaritalsex is the
primaryforce drivingan increasedrisk of marital
dissolutionand it is not measured,the effect of
premaritalcohabitationwill be overstated.I take
this possibilityinto accountby includingmeasures
of both premaritalintercourseand premaritalcohabitationin my analysis. In this fashion, I can
ascertainwhetherthe effects of premaritalsex and
cohabitationare independentand additive.I can
also ascertainwhetherthereis an interactionbeI can detween these two variables.In particular,
terminewhetherthe effect of premaritalsex decohabitation.
pendson the occurrenceof premarital
This content downloaded from 152.21.15.165 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
447
Premarital Sex, Cohabitation, and Divorce
of ending a union, reducingtransactioncosts of
futuredisruptions.
This line of reasoningleads me to expect that
premaritalcohabitationor sex that is limited to
one’s spouse will not be linkedto the risk of subsequentmaritaldissolution.As partof the normal
and expected courtship pattern, such behavior
does not indicate reduced commitmentto marriage and likely does not providesocializingexperiences that might weaken the maritalunion.
However, either premaritalcohabitationor sex
thatoccurswith someoneotherthanone’s spouse
is expected to be relatedto an increasedrisk of
maritaldissolution.These individualsare either
thatincreasethe riskof
selectedon characteristics
divorceor theirexperienceswith disruptedunions
lead to destabilizinginfluenceson marriage.
Changeacross time in the effectof premaritalcohabitation.At least one authorhas suggestedthat
the meaning of cohabitationhas changed over
time. Schoen (1992) arguesthat early cohabitors
were selective of people more willing to break
social norms and less committed to marriage.
However,as cohabitationhas become more common, it has become less selective of people possessing characteristicsrelatedto maritalstability.
Given more acceptingattitudestowardcohabitation in recentyears,premaritalcohabitationis also
less likely to provide experiences that weaken
subsequentmarriages.The same argumentcan be
appliedto premaritalsex. As an increasingproportionof peoplehaveexperiencedpremaritalsex,
it is less likely to be a markerof characteristics
or experiencesthat raise the risk of maritaldisruption.
This perspectivesuggestschangesover time in
the relationshipbetweenintimatepremaritalrelationships and subsequent marital stability, although at least one study has failed to find a
change in the associationbetweenpremaritalcohabitationand divorceover a wide rangeof marriage cohorts(Teachman,2002). However,offsetting changes could have occurredaccordingto
type of cohabitingunion.Forexample,it couldbe
the case that premaritalcohabitationwith one’s
spouse has become more acceptable(leadingto a
decreasedrisk of maritaldissolutionover time),
whereas premaritalcohabitationwith multiple
partnershas becomeincreasinglyselectiveof people less committedto marriage(leadingto an increased risk of marital dissolution over time).
Even though availableevidence is not sufficient
to posit a firm expectation,thereis enoughjusti-
ficationto investigatewhetherthe associationbetween maritalstabilityandpremaritalcohabitation
and sex has variedacrosstime.
In the followinganalysis,I estimatethe effects
of different histories of premaritalcohabitation
and sex on the risk of maritaldisruption,using a
nationallyrepresentativesampleof women.I control for a wide range of potentiallyconfounding
variablesthathavebeen identifiedin theliterature.
These confoundingvariablesreflect variationin
attitudesand valuesthatarerelatedto maritalstability, as well as differencesin ability to engage
in the exchange of expressive and instrumental
goods and services betweenhusbandsand wives
thatact to increasetheirinterdependence
(Becker,
1991; Teachman,2002). The characteristicsincluded are measuresof race, religion, education,
parentaleducation,parentalmaritalhistory, premaritalbirthsand conception,and spouse homogeneitywith respectto race,religion,andage. For
reviews of the literaturethat documentthe relationshipbetweenthese variablesand maritalstability, see DaVanzo and Rahman(1993), Faust
and McKibben(1999), and White (1990). Bumpass and Sweet (1989), Smock(2000), andTanfer
(1987) provideexamplesof the linkagesbetween
cohabthese confoundingvariablesandpremarital
itation.
METHOD
Data
The data are taken from the 1995 round of the
NationalSurvey of FamilyGrowth(NSFG).The
NSFG is a national area probabilitysurvey, a
cross-sectionalsample of 10,847 civilian noninstitutionalizedwomen aged 15-45 residingin the
United States (NationalCenterfor HealthStatistics, 1998).TheNSFGcollectedextensivelife history datafrom women that detailtheirpremarital
relationships,as well as the dates at which each
of their marriagesbegan and ended. Although
some caution should be exercised in examining
databasedon retrospectivelife histories,in an extensive examinationof the quality of the NSFG
data,Teachmanand Tedrow(1998) reportedthat
the informationpertainingto relationshiphistories
is internallyconsistentandof generallyhigh quality.
For analysis,I select a subset of ever-married
women whose firstmarriageswere contractedbetween 1970 and 1995. I exclude first marriages
begun before 1970 because they are selective of
This content downloaded from 152.21.15.165 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
448
Journal of Marriage and Family
women who marriedearly (given the age limitations of the samplingframe,women aged 15-45,
these women would had to have marriedas teenagers) and thereforemay not representthe life
courseexperiencesof womenwho marriedat that
pointin history.The resultingsamplesize is 6,577
women.
Measures
Dependentvariable.The dependentvariableof interestis the rate at which first marriagesare disruptedand is estimatedusing informationon the
durationof firstmarriages(measuredin months).
Marriagesare consideredto be disruptedat either
the date of divorce, or the date of separation,
whichevercame first. Following common practice, I censor stable marriagesat the date of the
survey (Bumpasset al., 1991).
Independentvariables.The NSFG containsinformationaboutthe beginningand ending dates for
each nonmarital,cohabitingunionexperiencedby
women in the sample and whetherthese unions
ended in disruptionor marriage.Fromthis information,I createdtwo variables.The firstvariable
is a simple dichotomy indicating whether the
womanever cohabitedpriorto her firstmarriage.
The second variablecontainsfour categories(essentiallydividingwomenwho had ever cohabited
priorto marriageinto categoriesaccordingto their
historiesof cohabitation):womenwho did not cohabitbeforefirstmarriage,womenwho cohabited
beforetheirfirstmarriagebut only with theirhusband, women who cohabited before their first
marriagewith someoneotherthantheirhusband,
and womenwho cohabitedtwo or moretimesbefore theirfirstmarriage,includingwith theirhusbandand at least one otherman.
The NSFG also containsinformationaboutthe
dates at which women initiatedsex with each of
theirsexualpartners,as well as informationabout
their relationshipto each of these partners(i.e.,
whetherthe sexual partnerwas a husbandor cohabitingpartnerthat she married,someone with
whom she was cohabitingbut did not marry,or
someoneelse). Fromthis information,I againcreated two variables.The first variableis a simple
dichotomy indicating whether the woman ever
had sex prior to her first marriage.The second
variablehas threecategories:womenwho did not
have sex before first marriage,women who had
premaritalsex but only with their husbands,and
women who had premaritalsex with their husbandsand at least one otherman.
Controlvariables.A numberof commonlyused
familybackground,life course,and socioeconomic variablespertainingto women are availablein
the NSFG, and I use them to limit the likelihood
thatany effectsof premaritalcohabitationandpremaritalsex are spurious.Each of these control
variableshas been identifiedin priorresearchas
being linked to the risk of marital dissolution
(Bumpasset al., 1991; Teachman,1983, 2002).
The control variablesthat I use are as follows:
father’seducationin years;mother’seducationin
years;numberof siblings;whetherthe respondent
is White,Black, or Hispanic(being Whiteserves
as the baseline);whetherthe respondentis Protestant, Catholic,Jewish, or some other religion
(Protestantserves as the baseline); whetherthe
womangrewup in an intactfamilyor experienced
parentaldeath,parentaldivorce,or any othernonintact family form during childhood (having
grown up in an intactfamily serves as the baseline); the numberof differentchildhoodliving situationsexperiencedby the woman;the woman’s
age at marriage;her educationin yearsat the time
of marriage;whethershe had a birthpriorto marriage; whethershe was pregnantat the time of
marriage;and a series of dummyvariablesindicating 5-year marriagecohorts. In models estimatingthe effect of premaritalsex, I also include
a controlfor the woman’sage at first sex on the
assumptionthat sex at a youngerage is likely to
indicateeitherless commitmentto the permanency of unions or provide greateropportunityfor
learningpoor relationshipskills. Womenwho begin theirsexualcareersearlierin life are also less
likely to marrytheirfirstpartner,are more likely
to have a largernumberof sexual partners,and
may evidence less discriminationin theirchoice
of eventualmaritalpartner.
The NSFG also containsdataon husbandsthat
can be used to create variablesthat have been
linkedto the risk of maritaldisruption(see Bumpass et al., 1991;Teachman,1983,2002). The variables thatI includeare as follows: husband’sage
at marriage;husband’seducationin years;whether
the husbandwas marriedbefore;whetherthe husband is of a differentrace; whetherthe husband
is 2 or more years youngerthan the respondent;
whetherthe husbandis 5 or moreyearsolderthan
the respondent;whetherthe husbandif of a differentreligion;and whether,accordingto the re-
This content downloaded from 152.21.15.165 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Premarital Sex, Cohabitation, and Divorce
spondent’sreport,religion is importantor very
importantto the husband.
Descriptivestatisticsfor the data used in this
analysis are shown in Table 1 (resultsbased on
unweighteddataare presented;see the discussion
below). Nearly 35% of the women in the sample
reportedthattheirfirstmarriageshad ended,with
34%endingwithinthe first 10 years.Nearly40%
of women had cohabitedpriorto marriage,most
(31%) with their eventualhusband.As expected,
a muchlargerpercentof womenhad experienced
premaritalsex (about82%).Contraryto the situation for premaritalcohabitation,a majorityof
womenhadfirstsex with someoneotherthantheir
husband(55%).
About 18% of women in the sample did not
have premaritalsex and did not cohabitpriorto
marriage.Nearly 19% of women had premarital
sex with their husbandonly and did not cohabit,
andanother8%of womenhadpremaritalsex with
theirhusbandonly and cohabitedwith him. More
women (25%)had premaritalsex with theirhusbandand anotherman but did not cohabit.Nearly
as many women (about23%) had premaritalsex
with theirhusbandandanothermanandcohabited
with theirhusbandonly. Fewer women (6%)had
sex and cohabitedwith theirhusbandandanother
man, and still fewer women had sex with their
husbandandanothermanandcohabitedonly with
the otherman.
Limitations.Althoughthey aregenerallywell suited to the purposesof my analysis,the NSFGdata
are not withoutlimitations.First,the datacontain
no informationabout relationshipskills or attitudes,values, or beliefs thatcan be used to distinguish between groupsof women definedaccording to their historiesof premaritalrelationships.
Althoughthe NSFG containsinformationtapping
attitudestoward marriageand family roles, this
informationis limitedto 1995 and thereforemay
be as much a consequenceof premaritalsex, premaritalcohabitation,marriage,and divorce as a
determinantof these events. Second, there is no
informationpertainingto the premaritalrelationship historiesof husbands(otherthaninformation
ascertainingwhethera husbandwas marriedbefore). Thus, the reported associations between
maritaldisruptionandpremaritalrelationshipsare
specificto the experiencesof women.
Becausethe upperage limit in the NSFGis 45,
resultingin the truncationof marriagesbegunprior to 1970, marriagesof long durationarenot observed.The longestmaritaldurationconsideredin
449
TABLE 1. UNWEIGHTED DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR
VARIABLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF
PREMARITAL COHABITATION AND PREMARITAL SEX ON
THE RISK OF DIVORCE(N = 6,577)
Variable
Ever divorced
Divorced within 1 year
Divorced within 5 years
Divorced within 10 years
Wives’ characteristics
Age at marriage(in years)
Education (in years)
Black
Other race
Premaritalbirth
Premaritalconception
Catholic
Jewish
Other religion
Number of siblings
Father’seducation
Mother’s education
At least one parent died
Parentsdivorced
Other nonintactfamily
Number of childhood living situations
Husbands’ characteristics
Age at marriage
Education
Marriedbefore
Different race than wife
More than 5 years older than wife
More than 2 years younger than wife
Religion importantto very important
Different religion than wife
Cohabitedbefore marriage
Cohabitedwith first husbandonly
Cohabitedwith husbandand other
Cohabitedwith other only
Premaritalsex
First premaritalsex with husband
First premaritalsex with other partner
Age at first sex
No premaritalsex, no cohabitation
Premaritalsex with husbandonly, no premaritalcohabitation
Premaritalsex with husbandonly, cohabited with him
Premaritalsex with husbandand other, no
cohabitation
Premaritalsex with husbandand other,
cohabited with husbandonly
Premaritalsex with husbandand other,
cohabited with husbandand other
Premaritalsex with husbandand other,
cohabited with other only
This content downloaded from 152.21.15.165 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
M (SD) or %
34.9
3.3
20.6
34.0
22.4 (4.3)
13.0 (2.8)
16.4
14.8
15.9
29.1
36.2
1.2
8.7
3.5 (1.8)
11.1 (4.1)
11.0 (3.7)
9.6
21.5
10.8
1.6 (1.2)
25.1 (5.7)
12.7 (2.6)
15.4
3.0
20.8
1.3
1.4
32.0
38.1
30.6
5.8
1.7
81.8
26.6
55.1
18.2
17.8
18.8
8.1
25.4
22.5
5.7
1.7
450
Journal of Marriage and Family
this analysisis 25 years.It is possiblethatresults
for longer marriages(which would be restricted
to marriagesformedpriorto 1970) would be differentfrom those reportedhere.
Model
I use a simpleCox proportional
hazardsmodelfor
examiningthe effects of the covariateson the risk
of maritaldisruption(Blossfeld,Hamerle,& Meyer, 1989). The model takes the following form:
y (t;X) =
x
yo(t)e(lXI +
. +
companyingstandarderrors,using PROCMIANALYZEin SAS.
All models were estimatedusing both weighted and unweighteddata.The resultingparameter
estimates are very similar, so I present results
based on unweighteddatain orderto preservethe
asymptotictheory on which the calculationof
standarderrors is based (Winship & Radbill,
1994). Conclusions would not vary if results
based on weighteddatawere presented.
MultivariateResults
kXk),
where y (t;X) is the rate of maritaldisruptionat
time t for an individualwith a set of characteristics X, andeach e k is an exponentiatedregression
coefficient (Pk) indicatingthe net multiplicative
effect of an independentvariablein shifting upwardor downwardan unobserved,and perfectly
arbitrary,baselinerateof maritaldisruption,y0(t),
thatcan vary acrosstime (here,maritalduration).
By subtracting1.0 from the exponentiatedcoefficientsandmultiplyingby 100, the percentincrementin the riskof maritaldisruptionat time t can
be ascertained(note that this is not the same as
the percentincrementin the eventuallikelihood
of maritaldisruption).As written,the model implies thatthe effects of the covariatesare proportional across maritalduration.Tests for nonproportionality were conducted by including
multiplicativetermsinvolvingeach of the covariates and the logarithmof maritalduration.In no
case did any of these interactiontermsreachstatisticalsignificance.
Becausetherewas a nontrivialamountof missing data for father’s(about 10%) and mother’s
(about 3%) education,I used a multipleimputation scheme for the estimationof model parameters. As describedby Allison (2002), I first used
PROCMI in the SAS softwareprogram(SAS Institute,Cary,NC) to generatea number(five) of
data sets with missing data imputedusing a data
augmentationprocedure.In essence the augmentationprocedureprovidesestimatesof the missing
databy regressingeach variablewith missingdata
on all observedvariables.To achieveconvergence
(i.e., consistentestimatesof predictedvalues for
missing data),severaliterationsof this procedure
are performedpriorto imputinga dataset. I then
estimateda Cox proportionalhazardsmodel for
each of the imputed data sets (using PROC
PHREGin SAS). Finally,I estimatedaverageparameterestimatesover the five data sets, and ac-
I begin the multivariateanalysisby replicatingresults found in previousresearch.Shown in Table
2 are a baselinemodel (Model 1) andtwo simple
extensionsof the baselinemodel, addingpremarital cohabitation(Model 2) and premaritalsex
(Model 3), respectively,as additionalcovariates.
The models are estimatedwith all races pooled
together.Previousresearchhas documentedsimilar processes of maritaldisruptionoperatingfor
WhitesandBlacks(Teachman,2002). In addition,
in this analysis,models includinginteractionsbetween race and the remainingpredictorvariables
failed to yield a betterfit to the data (resultsnot
shown).
Results for Model 1 indicateeffects that are
similarto those foundin previousresearch(Bumpass et al., 1991; Teachman,1983, 2002). In particular,the risk of divorce is greaterfor women
who marryearlier,are Black, have a premarital
birthor conception,have fewer siblings,have less
educatedmothers,andhave experiencewith other
thana two-parentfamily.In addition,womenwho
marry men with less education,men who were
marriedbefore,men of a differentraceor religion,
men who areat least 2 yearsyounger,or men who
believe thatreligionis importantto very important
are at a higherrisk of maritaldisruption.
Model 2 includesa dichotomousvariablemeasuringwhetherthe womancohabitedpriorto marriage and indicatesthatpremaritalcohabitationis
associatedwith a 33% increasein the likelihood
of maritaldisruptionat each point in marriage.
Model 3 includesa dichotomousvariablemeasuring premaritalsex and indicatesthatwomenwho
had their firstsexual encounterpriorto firstmarriage are about 34% more likely to experience
maritaldissolutionat each pointin theirmarriages
(andfor each year thatthey delay sex, the risk of
maritaldisruptionis reducedby about8%).These
resultsclosely replicatepriorresearchby indicating that intimatepremaritalrelationships,either
This content downloaded from 152.21.15.165 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Premarital Sex, Cohabitation, and Divorce
451
TABLE2. PROPORTIONAL
HAZARDS
REGRESSION
COEFFICIENTS
ANDt STATISTICS
IN
MODELS
(EXPONENTIATED
PARENTHESES) REPLICATING PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREMARITAL COHABITATION AND
PREMARITAL
SEXONTHERISKOFMARITAL
DISSOLUTION
(N = 6,577)
Model 1
Baseline
Variable
Wives’ characteristics
Age at marriage
Education
Black
Other race
Premaritalbirth
Premaritalconception
Catholic
Jewish
Other religion
Number of siblings
Father’seducation
Mother’seducation
At least one parentdied
Parentsdivorced
Other nonintactfamily
Number of childhood living situations
Model 2
Premarital
Cohabitation
Model 3
PremaritalSex
0.924*
(7.12)
1.012
(1.07)
1.593*
(7.53)
1.143
(1.73)
1.262*
(3.09)
1.206*
(3.18)
0.869*
(2.62)
1.049
(0.21)
1.118
(1.41)
0.978*
(2.66)
1.009
(1.26)
1.025*
(2.96)
1.059
(0.76)
1.417*
(5.70)
1.339*
(4.07)
0.984
(0.78)
0.917*
(7.70)
1.015
(1.37)
1.628*
(7.87)
1.161
(1.93)
1.204*
(2.46)
1.181*
(2.82)
0.874*
(2.52)
0.990
(0.24)
1.087
(1.06)
0.977*
(2.82)
1.008
(1.16)
1.023*
(2.82)
1.041
(0.53)
1.374*
(5.19)
1.322*
(3.90)
0.979
(0.99)
0.951*
(4.31)
1.023*
(2.10)
1.539*
(6.97)
1.275*
(3.13)
1.151
(1.84)
1.070
(1.12)
0.889*
(2.20)
0.945
(0.25)
1.086
(1.05)
0.983*
(2.09)
1.010
(1.37)
1.017*
(2.04)
1.033
(0.43)
1.325*
(4.58)
1.296*
(3.62)
0.979
(0.99)
0.919*
(8.95)
0.984
(1.80)
0.937*
(6.01)
1.474*
(5.76)
1.359*
(2.74)
1.021
(0.26)
1.760*
(2.48)
4.507*
(13.80)
1.496*
(8.71)
0.984
(1.84)
0.940*
(5.76)
1.423*
(5.22)
1.315*
(2.44)
1.019
(0.23)
1.781″
(2.53)
4.555*
(13.88)
1.451″
(7.99)
1.327*
(5.75)
0.981*
(2.17)
0.944*
(5.27)
1.430*
(5.29)
1.323*
(2.49)
1.041
(0.50)
1.678*
(2.26)
4.572*
(13.91)
1.436*
(7.80)
Age at first sex
Husbands’ characteristics
Age at marriage
Education
Marriedbefore
Different race than wife
More than 5 years older than wife
More than 2 years younger than wife
Religion importantto very important
Different religion than wife
Wife cohabited before marriage
Premaritalsex
Model X2/df
748/28
776/29
1.340*
(4.15)
878/30
Note: All models include controls for marriagecohort. Values of the t statistic are presentedin parentheses.
*p < .05.
This content downloaded from 152.21.15.165 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Marriage and Family
452
TABLE 3. PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS REGRESSION MODELS (EXPONENTIATED COEFFICIENTS AND t STATISTICS IN
PARENTHESES) EXAMINING THE EFFECT OF HISTORIES OF PREMARITAL COHABITATION AND PREMARITAL SEX ON THE
RISK OF MARITAL DISSOLUTION (N = 6,577)
Model 1
Premarital
Cohabitation
Variable
Wife cohabited with husbandonly
Wife cohabited with husbandand other
Wife cohabited with other only
0.920
(1.06)
2.114*
(9.76)
1.057
(1.07)
1.282*
(2.30)
0.814
(0.99)
0.917
(1.10)
2.094*
(9.52)
1093/31
1098/34
1.291"
(5.06)
1.857*
(5.87)
1.103
(0.47)
First premaritalsex with husband
First premaritalsex with other
Model X2/df
Model 2
PremaritalSex
Model 3
Premarital
Cohabitationand
PremaritalSex
784/31
Note: All models include the controls indicated in Table 2. Values of the t statistic are presentedin parentheses.
*p < .05.
premaritalcohabitationor premaritalsex, are
linkedto an increasedrisk of maritaldissolution.
In Table3, I presentthe resultsof includinga
set of dummy variablesthat separatepremarital
cohabitationinto cases thatonly occurredwiththe
woman'shusband,occurredwith her husbandafter having cohabitedwith someone else, or only
occurredwith someoneelse (Model 1). I also present resultsfrom includinga set of dummyvariables that separatepremaritalsex into cases that
occurredonly with the woman'shusbandor with
herhusbandafterhavingoccurredfirstwith someone else (Model 2). Finally, I show the results
from a model thatincludesmeasuresof bothpremaritalcohabitationandpremaritalsex (Model3).
Forthe sake of parsimony,I only presentthe multiplicativeeffects associatedwith premaritalcohabitationand premaritalsex (the effects of the
control variables are largely unchanged from
those reportedin Table2).
The exponentiatedcoefficientsassociatedwith
premaritalcohabitationin Model 1 are positive
and statisticallysignificantfor two of the three
situationscomparedwith not havingpremaritally
cohabited(the effect for having cohabitedonly
with someoneotherthanthe woman'shusbandis
not statisticallysignificantbut is based on a relatively small numberof women). The effect for
havingcohabitedtwice (1.86) is about44%larger
(a statisticallysignificantdifference)than the effect for having cohabitedonly with her husband
(1.29). The effects for premaritalsex in Model 2
indicatethatit is only womenwhose firstsex was
with someoneotherthanher husbandwho expe-
rience an increased risk of marital disruption
(114%).
The resultsin Model 3, which includesthe effects of both premaritalcohabitationand premarital sex (comparedwith women who did not cohabit before marriageand did not engage in
premaritalsex), show thatthe risk of maritaldissolution is higher when the woman cohabited
twice (by about28%) and when her firstsex was
with someone other than her husband(by about
109%). Combining premaritalcohabitationand
premaritalsex in the same model reducesthe effect of havingcohabitedsolely withone'shusband
to nonsignificance.This patternresults because
womenwho cohabitedwiththeirhusbandonly are
more likely thanwomen who did not cohabitbefore marriageto have had firstsex with someone
other thantheir husband(73% vs. 41%;data not
shown).Thatis, for these women,it is not the fact
thatthey cohabitedbeforemarriagethatis important for maritaldissolution;it is the fact thatthey
had at least one other sexually intimaterelationship priorto marrying.
To better understandthe patternof results, I
estimatedan additionalmodel using a cross-tabulation of the two variablesused in Table 3 to
measurepremaritalintimaterelationships(in essence, examiningany interactionthat occurs between the two variables),excluding categories
such as premaritalcohabitationwithoutpremarital
sex in which therewere no observations.The following categoriesresulted(women with no premaritalsex or premaritalcohabitationserve as the
baseline): women who had premaritalsex with
This content downloaded from 152.21.15.165 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Premarital Sex, Cohabitation, and Divorce
their husbandonly but did not cohabitwith him;
womenwho hadpremaritalsex withtheirhusband
only and cohabitedwith him, women whose first
premaritalsex was with anothermanbutwho never cohabited,women whose first premaritalsex
was with anothermanandwho cohabitedwithher
husband,women whose first premaritalsex was
with anotherman and cohabitedwith him as well
as her husband,and a small numberof women
whose firstpremaritalsex was with anotherman
and who cohabitedwith him but not herhusband.
The resultsfromestimatinga modelwiththese
variablesareshownin Table4. Again,for the sake
of parsimony,the effects of the controlvariables
are not shown (they are virtuallyunchangedfrom
the effects shown in Table2). It is clear that an
intimatepremaritalrelationshiplimitedto a woman's husbanddoes not affect the risk of marital
disruption.However,havingat least one otherintimaterelationshippriorto marriageis linked to
an increasedrisk of divorce(from53%to 166%).
Thereis a substantiallyhigherrisk of maritaldissolutionif the womanboth had sex with another
man and cohabitedwith him (166% vs. 53%119%for otherpatternsof premaritalrelationships
involving someone other than one's husband,a
differencethat is statisticallysignificant).Thatis,
there is an interactionbetween having multiple
premaritalsexualpartnersandcohabitingmultiple
times.
I concluded the investigationby considering
whether the effects of premaritalrelationships
vary by marriagecohort.I conductedthe analysis
by creatinginteractiontermsfor each of the variables measuringpremaritalrelationshipsshown
in Table 4 and the dummy variablesindicating
marriagecohort.I found no evidence to suggest
that the effect of any of the differentpremarital
relationshiphistorieshad changedacrosstime (results not shown). None of the effects for the interactiontermsreachedstatisticalsignificance,and
the overall model fit was not significantlybetter
thanthatreportedin Table4.
DIscusSION
The resultspresentedin this articlereplicatefindings frompreviousresearch:Womenwho cohabit
priorto marriageor who havepremaritalsex have
an increasedlikelihoodof maritaldisruption.Concohabitation
sideringthejoint effectsof premarital
and premaritalsex, as well as histories of premaritalrelationships,extends previous research.
The most salientfindingfrom this analysisis that
453
TABLE4. PROPORTIONAL
HAZARDS
REGRESSION
MODEL
COEFFICIENTS
ANDt STATISTICS
IN
(EXPONENTIATED
EXAMINING
THEEFFECT
OFTHE
PARENTHESES)
INTERACTION
BETWEEN
PREMARITAL
COHABITATION
AND
PREMARITAL
SEXONTHERISKOFMARITAL
DISSOLUTION
(N = 6,577)
Variable
Premaritalsex with husbandonly, no cohabitation
Premaritalsex with husbandonly, cohabited
with him
Premaritalsex with husbandand other, no
cohabitation
Premaritalsex with husbandand other, cohabited with husbandonly
Premaritalsex with husbandand other,cohabited with husbandand other
Premaritalsex with husbandand other,cohabited with other only
Model X2/df
Premarital
Cohabitation and
Premarital
Sex
0.933
(0.84)
0.920
(0.73)
2.087*
(9.38)
2.187*
(8.93)
2.656*
(7.40)
1.530*
(1.97)
1095/35
Note: The model includes the controls indicatedin Table
2. Values of the t statistic are presentedin parentheses.
*p < .05.
women whose intimate premaritalrelationships
are limited to their husbands-either premarital
sex alone or premaritalcohabitation--donot experiencean increasedrisk of divorce. It is only
women who have more than one intimatepremaritalrelationshipwho have an elevatedrisk of
marital disruption.This effect is strongest for
womenwho have multiplepremaritalcoresidental
unions.These findingsare consistentwith the notion thatpremaritalsex andcohabitationhave become partof the normalcourtshippatternin the
United States.They do not indicateselectivityon
characteristics
linkedto the risk of divorceanddo
not providecouples with experiencesthat lessen
the stabilityof marriage.
To be sure,this researchis limitedby the lack
of informationpertainingto the relationshiphistories of men. Only informationpertainingto the
premaritalrelationshipsof women is availablein
the NSFG (note, however,that Round 6 of the
NSFG, conductedin 2002, will containinformation aboutmen). Thus, the resultscannotbe extrapolatedto the premaritalrelationshipsof men,
and thereis no immediatebasis for expectingthe
effects of suchrelationshipsto be eithersimilarto
or differentfromthose of women.The currentresults also cannotbe used to ascertainthejoint effects of the premaritalrelationshipsof both men
This content downloaded from 152.21.15.165 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Marriage and Family
454
and women(e.g., the likelihoodof maritaldisrup- Bennett,N., Blanc, A., & Bloom, D. (1988). Commitment and the modernunion:Assessing the link betion if both partnershad cohabitedwith someone
tween premaritalcohabitationandsubsequentmarital
else priorto marriage).Again, this remainsan isinstability. American Sociological Review, 53, 127sue for subsequentresearchto address in full.
138.
These resultsare also limitedto marriagesformed Blossfeld, H., Hamerle,A., & Mayer,K. (1989). Event
history analysis: Statistical application in the social
priorto 1995 andmarriagesof relativelyshortdusciences. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.
ration.As changesin premaritalsex and cohabiBooth, A., & Johnson,D. (1988). Premaritalcohabitatationcontinueto occur,it would prove useful to
tion and marital success. Journal of Family Issues, 9,
considerthe effects of these variableson marital
255-272.
Brown, S., & Booth, A. (1996). Cohabitationversus
stability.
marriage:A comparisonof relationshipquality.JourIt remainsthe case, however,thatwomenwith
nal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 668-678.
more thanone intimaterelationshippriorto mar- Bumpass,
L., & Lu, H. (2000). Trendsin cohabitation
and implicationsfor children'sfamilycontextsin the
riage have an elevatedrisk of maritaldisruption.
United States. Population Studies, 54, 29-41.
The riskof divorceis particularly
greatfor women
Bumpass,L., Martin,T.,& Sweet,J. (1991). The impact
who cohabitedwith both their husbandsand anof family backgroundand early maritalfactors on
otherman.Unfortunately,
this studydoes not promarital disruption. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 22vide any informationthat allows us to betterde42.
termine whether the effect of having multiple Bumpass,L., & Sweet, J. (1989). Nationalestimatesof
cohabitation. Demography, 26, 615-625.
premaritalrelationshipsis basedon differenceson
DaVanzo,J., & Rahman,M. (1993). Americanfamilies:
characteristics
that
are
tied
to
the
risk
preexisting
Trends and correlates. Population Index, 59, 350of divorce or whetherhaving multiple relation386.
ships generatesenvironmentswhere relationship DeMaris,A., & MacDonald,W. (1993). Premaritalcohabitationand maritalinstability:A test of the unskills or attitudesand values aboutthe permanenconventionality hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and
cy of marriageare somehow altered.It remains
the Family, 55, 399-407.
the task of subsequentresearchto considerthese
cohabitation
DeMaris,A., & Rao, K. (1992). Premarital
alternativesmore fully. This limitationnotwithand subsequentmaritalstabilityin the UnitedStates:
A reassessment. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
standing,the results presentedhere should shift
54, 178-190.
attentionaway from researchthat focuses on the
Faust,K., & McKibben,J. (1999). Maritaldissolution:
selectionof individualsinto cohabitationandpreDivorce separation,annulment,and widowhood.In
maritalsex to a focus on the selectionof individM. Sussman, S. Steinmetz,& G. Peterson(Eds.),
Handbook of marriage and the family, (2nd ed., pp.
uals who do not marrythe individualswith whom
475-499). New York:PlenumPress.
they first cohabitor initiatefirst sex. It may well
Kahn,
J., & London,K. (1991). Premaritalsex and the
be the case that,irrespectiveof the legal statusof
risk of divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
the relationship,the relevantdistinctionto make
53, 845-855.
is betweenpeoplewho formmultiplerelationships Lillard,L., Brien, M., & Waite, L. (1995). Premarital
cohabitationand subsequentmaritaldissolution:A
and people who form a single, longer lastingrematterof self-selection?Demography,32, 437-457.
lationship.
NationalCenterfor HealthStatistics.(1998). SampledeREFERENCES
Abma, C., Mosher,W., Peterson,L., & Piccinino, L.
(1997). Fertility, family planning, and women's
health:New data from the 1995 NationalSurvey of
Family Growth. Vital and Health Statistics, 23(19).
WashingtonDC: NationalCenterfor Health Statistics.
Allison, P. (2002). Missingdata. ThousandOaks, CA:
Sage.
Axinn, W., & Barber,J. (1997). Living arrangements
and family formationattitudesin early adulthood.
sign, sampling weights, imputation, and variance estimates in the 1995 National Survey of Family
Growth.WashingtonDC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting
Office.
Schoen,R. (1992). Firstunionsandthe stabilityof first
marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54,
281-284.
Skinner,K., Bahr,S., Crane,D., & Call, V. (2002). CoJournalof Famhabitation,marriage,andremarriage.
ily Issues, 23, 74-90.
Smock,P. (2000). Cohabitationin the UnitedStates:An
appraisalof researchthemes, findings,and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1-20.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 595-611.
Tanfer,K. (1987). Patternsof premaritalcohabitation
among never-marriedwomen in the United States.
influence? Demography, 29, 357-374.
Becker, G. (1991). A treatise on the family. Cambridge,
Teachman,J. (1983). Earlymarriage,premarital
fertility,
Axinn,W., & Thornton,A. (1992). The relationshipbetween cohabitationand divorce:Selectivityor causal
MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 483-497.
and marital dissolution. Journal of Family Issues, 4,
105-126.
This content downloaded from 152.21.15.165 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Premarital Sex, Cohabitation, and Divorce
Teachman,J. (1985). Historicalandsubgroupvariations
in the associationbetween marriageand first childbirth. Journal of Family History, 10, 379-401.
Teachman,J. (2002). Stabilityacrosscohortsin divorce
risk factors. Demography, 39, 331-351.
Teachman,J., & Polonko,K. (1990). Cohabitationand
maritalstabilityin the United States.Social Forces,
69, 207-220.
Teachman,J., & Tedrow,L. (1998, March).Evaluation
of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Re-
portpreparedfor the NationalCenterfor HealthStatistics, Washington,DC.
Thomson,E., & Colella, U. (1992). Cohabitationand
455
maritalstability:Qualityor commitment?Journalof
Marriage and the Family, 54, 259-267.
Thornton,A., Axinn,W., & Hill, D. (1992). Reciprocal
effects of religiosity, cohabitation,and marriage.
American Journal of Sociology, 98, 628-651.
White,L. (1990). Determinantsof divorce:A reviewof
research in the eighties. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 52, 904-912.
Whyte, M. (1990). Dating, mating, and marriage. New
York:RandomHouse.
Winship,C., & Radbill,L. (1994). Samplingweights
and regression analysis. Sociological Methods and
Research, 23, 230-257.
This content downloaded from 152.21.15.165 on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Student Work
Introduction
According to an MSNBC article, when a Minnesota dentist was reported to have
allegedly murdered a famed and beloved lion in Zimbabwe, citizens from all across the United
States were quick to voice their disgust of such a vile act against a beautiful creature of nature.
However, it did not go unnoticed that while Cecil’s death sparked an immediate and national
uproar, the numerous stories of unarmed African-American citizens who were killed by
American Police Forces nationwide seemed to have mattered much less. In comparison to the
death of a lion, many African Americans felt that they had been given a so-called “rude
awakening” in regards to how much their lives really mattered in society. The highly debated
topic of racial equality and the arguments highlighting the lack thereof continue to be a
prominent issue for the American people, and the death of the Cecil the lion made it clear that
the problems are far from being solved.
Course Relevance
Chapter 3 discusses racial inequality from a variety of perspectives. According to the
conflict theory, a dominant ethnic group or race will maintain power over other races, and this
will result in conflict between the two groups. When the American people seemed to have more
concern for the death of a lion in Zimbabwe than they did for the death of unarmed black men in
their own country, the African American people felt as if their rights had been diminished to less
than that of animals. During the age of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s, the African
American people were looked down upon simply because of their race and were discriminated
against and segregated from the rest of the American people. White Americans harbored extreme
hatred of the black community and were raising their children to maintain this same ethnocentric
mentality simply because it was the societal norm for their day and age. The value of black lives
was far less than the value of white lives during the 1960’s, and in the wake of the death of Cecil
the lion, the current African American population felt that they were still looked over and
considered to be devalued in the eyes of the white Americans to the point where they were worth
less than the life of a lion. Because of this extreme social inequality, conflict arose between the
two racial groups once again.
Initial Reactions
Upon reading this article, I empathized with the African American population because I
can understand the level of inequality that is being addressed. Cecil, like so many victims of
police brutality, was innocent in the eyes of the public before he was lured to his death.
However, when an unarmed African American is berated and tested by public officials before
being gunned down in the streets of this so called “land of opportunity”, he is depicted as a
criminal and a terror to society, and other witnesses are led to believe that he deserved it.
Although I do believe Cecil’s death was cruel and inhumane, it is saddening to think that the
value of a lion’s life has still seemingly exceeded that of the life of a human being. We cannot
neglect the fact that although society has moved forward, the social construct that is race has
continued to divide us in a way that allows for the injustice of today to still be based on the
ethnocentric delusions of our past. In reality, we as Americans need to come together and
recognize that we live in a day and age where all lives matter, and that we should take a stand to
prevent senseless deaths from occurring in the future.
Interesting Points
It amazes me that it has come down to the point where African American citizens feel the
need to say that they will “start wearing a lion costume when [they] leave [their] house so if
[they] get shot, people will care.” I also find it interesting that other minority groups or
supporters of highly debated issues such as abortion are also feeling as though their arguments
are being disregarded as well in comparison to Cecil’s death. It goes to show that people all
across the nation are seemingly more concerned about foreign issues rather than dealing with the
prominent issues that are here at home. We as a nation cannot compete on a global scale if we
are tearing each other apart on our soil simply because of racial differences.
Conclusion
The death of Cecil the Lion was heartless and cruel, but many are making the claim that
the rights of animals are receiving more concern and public attention than the rights of African
American citizens. Karl Marx’s Conflict Theory states that conflict arises when one group
continues to maintain power over another, and in this case conflict stems from the inequality that
has been imposed on the African American people by white US citizens for years in the past as
well as in today’s society. I feel that before we can move forward as a nation, we need to let go
of the racial tensions that are keeping us divided and come together to realize that African
Americans are people just as much as any other American citizen, so their lives and rights should
matter as well anyone else’s. We are a great nation, but a house divided against itself will fall
eventually. It’s time we recognize that fact and work towards creating a better and more equal
future.