Divorce, Remarriage and Contributors

Question

Berk, L. E. (2017). Development Through the Lifespan (7th Edition). Pearson Education (US).

The Diversity of Adult Lifestyles

14.8 Discuss the diversity of adult lifestyles, focusing on singlehood, cohabitation, and childlessness.

14.9 Cite factors that contribute to high rates of divorce and remarriage.

14.10 Discuss challenges associated with varied styles of parenthood, including stepparents, never-

married parents, and gay and lesbian parents.

The current array of adult lifestyles dates back to the 1960s, when young people began to question the

conventional wisdom of previous generations and to ask, “How can I find happiness? What kinds of

commitments should I make to live a full and rewarding life?” As the public became more accepting of

diverse lifestyles, choices such as staying single, cohabiting, remaining childless, and divorcing seemed

more available.

Today, nontraditional family options have penetrated the American mainstream. Many adults

experience not just one but several. As we will see, some adults make a deliberate decision to adopt a

lifestyle, whereas others drift into it. The lifestyle may be culturally imposed, as is the case for

cohabiting same-sex couples who live in countries or regions where they cannot marry legally. Or people

may choose a certain lifestyle because they feel pushed away from another, such as a marriage gone

sour. In sum, the adoption of a lifestyle can be within or beyond the person’s control.

Singlehood

On finishing her education, Heather joined the Peace Corps and spent four years in Ghana. Though open

to a long-term relationship, she had only fleeting romances. After she returned to the United States, she

went from one temporary job to another until, at age 30, she finally secured steady employment in a

large international travel company as a tour director. A few years later, she advanced into a

management position. At age 35, over lunch with Sharese, she reflected on her life: “I was open to

marriage, but after I got my career going, it would have interfered. Now I’m so used to independence

that I question whether I could adjust to living with another person. I like being able to pick up and

go where I want, when I want, without having to ask anyone or think about caring for anyone. But

there’s a trade-off: I sleep alone, eat most of my meals alone, and spend a lot of my leisure time alone.”

Singlehood—not living with an intimate partner—has increased in recent years, especially among young

adults. For example, the rate of never-married Americans age 25 and older has more than doubled since

1960, to 23 percent of men and 17 percent of women. Today, more people marry later or not at all, and

divorce has added to the numbers of single adults—slightly more than half when adults of all ages are

considered. In view of these trends, it is likely that most Americans will spend a substantial part of their

adult lives single, and a growing minority—about 8 to 10 percent—will stay that way (Pew Research

Center, 2014b).

Because they marry later, more young-adult men than women are single. But women are far more likely

than men to remain single for many years or their entire life. With age, fewer men are available with

characteristics that most women seek in a mate—the same age or older, equally or better educated, and

professionally successful. In contrast, men can choose partners from a large pool of younger unmarried

women. Because of the tendency for women to “marry up” and men to “marry down,” men with a high

school diploma or less and highly educated women in prestigious careers are overrepresented among

singles after age 30.

Ethnic differences also exist. For example, more than one-third of African Americans age 25 and older

have never married, a figure more than double that of European Americans (Pew Research Center,

2014b). As we will see later, high unemployment among black men interferes with marriage. Many

­African Americans eventually marry in their late thirties and forties, a period in which black and white

marriage rates move closer together.

Singlehood can have a variety of meanings. At one extreme are people who choose it deliberately; at the

other are those who see themselves as single because of circumstances beyond their control. Most, like

Heather, are in the middle—adults who want to marry but made choices that took them in a different

direction or say they have not found the right person. In interviews with never-married women, some

said they focused on occupational goals instead of marriage (Baumbusch, 2004; Pew Research Center,

2014b). Others reported that they found singlehood preferable to their disappointing intimate

relationships.

The most commonly mentioned advantages of singlehood are freedom and mobility. But singles also

recognize drawbacks—loneliness, the dating grind, limited sexual and social life, reduced sense of

security, and feelings of exclusion from the world of married couples. Single men have more physical

and mental health problems than single women, who more easily come to terms with their lifestyle, in

part because of the greater social support available to women through intimate same-sex friendships.

But overall, people over age 35 who have always been single are content with their lives (DePaulo &

Morris, 2005; Pinquart, 2003). Though not quite as happy as married people, they report feeling

considerably happier than people recently widowed or divorced.

Nevertheless, many single people go through a stressful period in their early thirties, when most of their

friends have married and they become increasingly mindful of their own departure from society’s

marital social clock. Widespread veneration of marriage, along with negative stereotyping of singles as

socially immature and self-centered, contributes (Morris et al., 2008). The mid-thirties is another trying

time, as the biological deadline for pregnancy approaches. Interviews with 28- to 34-year-old single

women revealed that they were acutely aware of pressures from family members, the shrinking pool of

eligible men, the risks of later childbearing, and a sense of being different (Sharp & Ganong, 2011). A

few decide to become parents through artificial insemination or a love affair. And an increasing number

are adopting, often from overseas countries.

Compared with single men, single women more easily come to terms with their lifestyle, in part because

of the greater social support available to women through intimate same-sex friendships.

KLAUS VEDFELT/GETTY IMAGES

Cohabitation

Cohabitation refers to the lifestyle of unmarried couples who have a sexually intimate relationship and

who share a residence. Until the 1960s, cohabitation in Western nations was largely limited to low-SES

adults. Since then, it has increased in all groups, with an especially dramatic rise among well-educated,

economically advantaged young people. Today’s young adults are much more likely than those of a

generation ago to form their first conjugal union through cohabitation. Among U.S. young people,

cohabitation is now the preferred mode of entry into an intimate partnership, chosen by over 70

percent of couples age 30 and younger (Copen, Daniels, & Mosher, 2013). Cohabitation rates are even

higher among adults with failed marriages; about one-third of these households include children.

For some couples, cohabitation serves as preparation for marriage—a time to test the relationship and

get used to living together. For many others, it is an alternative to marriage, offering the rewards of

sexual intimacy and companionship along with the possibility of easy departure if satisfaction declines. It

is not surprising, then, that cohabiters vary greatly in the extent to which they share money and

possessions and take responsibility for each other’s children.

Although Americans have become increasingly favorable toward cohabitation, with more than 60

percent expressing approval, their attitudes are not as positive as those of Western Europeans. In the

Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, cohabitation is thoroughly integrated into society. Cohabiters have

many of the same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples and express nearly the same level

of commitment to each other (Daugherty & Copen, 2016; Perelli-Harris & Gassen, 2012). Whereas about

60 percent of American cohabiting unions break up within three years, only 6 to 16 percent dissolve in

Western Europe (Guzzo, 2014; Kiernan, 2002). When they decide to marry, Dutch, Norwegian, and

Swedish cohabiters more often do so to legalize their relationships, especially for the sake of children.

American cohabiters typically marry to affirm their love and commitment—sentiments that Western

Europeans attach to cohabitation.

As cohabitation has risen in acceptability in the United States, cohabiting relationships have become

more prone to dissolution. Two decades ago, U.S. cohabiters who were engaged were more likely than

their non-engaged counterparts to stay together and transition to lasting marriages. But today, the

majority of both types of cohabiting relationships dissolve at a similarly high rate (60 percent) and less

often lead to marriage (Guzzo, 2014). Furthermore, engagement at the start of cohabitation is declining

while cohabitation is on the rise—trends suggesting that contemporary cohabitation is less often serving

as preparation for marriage (Vespa, 2014). More U.S. young adult cohabiters are entering these unions

without expectations or plans to marry, perhaps motivated instead by a desire to increase the cost-

effectiveness and convenience of life with their current romantic partner.

Cohabitation is common throughout Western industrialized nations. As this cohabiting couple brings

home a newly adopted dog, the longevity of their relationship will depend on how committed they are

to each other.

©TAMPA BAY TIMES/LARA CERRI/THE IMAGE WORKS

Furthermore, couples who do transition from cohabitation to marriage are at slightly greater risk of

divorce than couples who marry directly, without cohabiting. But the difference is largely explained by

the earlier age at which premarital cohabiters, compared with direct marriers, began living together

(Kuperberg, 2014). Premarital cohabitation before age 25, like early marriage, is associated with reduced

readiness to select a compatible partner and forge a committed romantic bond. Also, young premarital

cohabiters are more likely than direct marriers to be non-college-educated, to come from single-parent

families, to differ in age and background from their partner, and to have previously cohabited with a

partner other than their spouse. Among couples in general, all these factors are linked to risk of divorce.

Lesbian and gay cohabiters are exceptions to the high risk for breakup just described. The legal right to

marry, granted to same-sex couples throughout the United States in 2015, is so recent that many

already viewed their cohabiting relationships as symbols of long-term commitment (Haas & Whitton,

2015). When marriage became broadly available, nearly 100,000 same-sex couples transitioned from

cohabitation to marriage within the following four months, yielding an 8 percent marriage-rate gain

(Gallup, 2015c). If this trend continues, perhaps marriage will supplant cohabitation as the more

common relationship status among committed same-sex couples, as it is among committed

heterosexual couples.

In sum, cohabitation combines the rewards of a close relationship with the opportunity to avoid legal

marital obligations. But cohabiting couples can encounter difficulties precisely because they do not have

these obligations. Disputes over property, money, rental contracts, and responsibility for children are

the rule rather than the exception when unmarried couples split up.