Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 1

Cohabitation and Education Effects on Length of Marriage

Kayla Benitez

Allan Hancock College

Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 2

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

not cohabitate prior to marriage will result in greater length of marriages.

Keywords: cohabitation, length of marriage, high school and college graduates

.
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 3

Cohabitation and Education Effects on Length of Marriage

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

help provide insight to possible outcomes of other marriages.

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.

The sample of participants must be representational to the population as a whole.

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?

Bramlett and Mosher (2002) concluded, Characteristics of individuals related to a higher

probability of divorce include lower education and premarital cohabitation. The experiments

objective is to examine this; do lower levels of education result in a higher probability of

divorce? If so, does cohabitation also have an impact on the marital outcome or length of

marriage?

Cohabitation can be a muddled definition, although in this study, cohabitation is

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

conjunction to education levels, length of marriage will be regarded.

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

research findings of cohabitation resulting in lower marriage satisfaction, dedication and

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-

year college graduates (N=100; 50 males, 50 females).

Apparatus/Materials

The survey conducted included four close-ended questions, yielding yes or no

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), cohabitation/college grads (N=100), no

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

graduaste de un collegio/Universidad de cuatro anos?). This would be a group of people with a

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

proportional in the four groups.

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

lower levels of education, leads to a reduction of length of marriage.

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

Mean 7.88 Mean 4.04 Mean 16.84 Mean 12.44

Standard 0.5636783 Standard 0.3026549 Standard 0.9826494 Standard 0.6326663
Error 95 Error 19 Error 8 Error 15
Median 8 Median 4 Median 18 Median 11
Mode 8 Mode 5 Mode 19 Mode 11
Standard 2.8183919 Standard 1.5132745 Standard 4.9132473 Standard 3.1633315
Deviation 77 Deviation 95 Deviation 99 Deviation 77
Sample 7.9433333 Sample Sample Sample 10.006666
Variance 33 Variance 2.29 Variance 24.14 Variance 67
-
2.0628907 0.9637256 0.5902013 0.7443466
Kurtosis 52 Kurtosis 19 Kurtosis 11 Kurtosis 01
- -
0.1814100 0.4652203 1.0958406 1.0013305
Skewness 55 Skewness 1 Skewness 08 Skewness 29
Range 14 Range 5 Range 18 Range 12
Minimum 1 Minimum 1 Minimum 5 Minimum 8
Maximum 15 Maximum 6 Maximum 23 Maximum 20
Sum 197 Sum 101 Sum 421 Sum 311
Count 25 Count 25 Count 25 Count 25

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

prior to marriage will lead to higher length of marriages.

Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 11

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

High School Main Effect

(A) College (A) of B
Non-Coh (B) 7.88 16.84 12.36
Coh (B) 4.04 12.44 8.24
Main Effect
of A 5.96 14.64

2x2 Factorial Analysis

Main Effect for Education
Main Effect for Status of Cohabitation
Interaction=NO

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: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
HS -NC 24 191 7.958333333 8.128623188
HS-Coh 24 99 4.125 2.201086957
Col-NC 24 406 16.91666667 25.03623188
Col-Coh 24 301 12.54166667 10.17210145
Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 13

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

independent variables: education and cohabitation have an effect on length of marriage.

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

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

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

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

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

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

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

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

t Critical two-tail 2.02439

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

graduates/cohabitation group. The highest population in the college graduates/cohabitation group

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

whites in the college/cohabitation group, college/no cohabitation group, and high

school/cohabitation group. While Hispanics have a high population in the high school/no

cohabitation group.

Religion HS - NC HS - Coh Col - NC Col-Coh

Catholic 11 5 8 4
O-
Christian 8 12 6 10
Jewish 2 0 3 11
Islam 0 5 5 0
Eastern 0 3 2 0
Other 4 0 1 0
0 0 0 0

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 HS - NC HS - Coh Col - NC Col-Coh

Hispanic 10 5 5 3
White 5 9 11 14
Black 5 4 6 8
Asian 1 2 2 0
Mixed 2 2 0 0
Other 2 3 1 0
0 0 0 0

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

assignments so the sample could be representative.

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

affect marriage, more specifically, length of marriage.

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

cohabiting prior to marriage and continuing education further.

Running head: COHABITATION AND EDUCATION EFFECTS 18

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

variables effects on marriage.

Some confounding variables pertaining to these independent variables could have been

varying levels of education on both spectrums or length of cohabitation. Duration of cohabitation

could have impacted the study. This can be attributed to the fact that one month of cohabitation

varies significantly than 5 or 10 years of cohabitation. Although, these variations in 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,

technical programs or other educational programs/certification. While the 4-year college

graduates included people with Bachelors, Masters, or doctorate degrees, as well as other

academic certifications or professional degrees. These variations in education within and

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:

Selectivity or causal influence?. Demography, 29(3), 357-374.

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

the United States. Vital health statistics, 23(22), 1-32.

Brown, S. L., & Booth, A. (1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship

quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 668-678.

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

divorce?. Journal Of Family Psychology, 26(1), 1-10. doi:10.1037/a0025966

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

effect: A replication and extension of previous findings. Journal Of Family Psychology,

23(1), 107-111. doi:10.1037/a0014358