Dear
Diane,
Of all the
talks I have given in my life, the keynote at Smart Marriages
in
2002 on “What is it with Men and Commitment, Anyway?”
was the most important to me. In the week before that talk, I
had many
lines of thinking and theory fall into place about men vs.
women and issues related to commitment. It was a great week
for me.
One of the problems with empirical papers in data driven journals
is that they
don’t afford much room for exploration of theory, and are
instead
(to be) narrowly focused on the finding and data presented, with
only some latitude for
extension to theory. In a talk of the sort I gave at Smart
Marriages, one has far more
latitude to think and explore the edges. In this case, the edges
were well set by various
important findings, but I had room around these edges to allow
for
speculation and thought about men, women and marriage in our modern
day context.
The talk represents
theoretical streams, provocative points
about
differences between men and women regarding commitment,
and hypotheses that we have
continued to develop and refine in various
research projects at the University of Denver (“we” being me,
Galena Kline,
Sarah Whitton, and Howard Markman).
So, two years
later, I have finally taken the transcript of that talk, the power
point
containing my originally intended message (of course, it being more
complete than the
actual talk) and developed a full and updated paper based on the
ideas presentated
that year at Smart Marriages. I have just finished getting
this into a form that
you can distribute to any who might be interested. I hope it
is helpful to members of the coalition.
Scott Stanley,
PhD
_____________________________
What is it with Men and
Commitment, Anyway?
Scott M. Stanley,
PhD
University of
Denver
Citation: Stanley, S. M.
(2002, July). What is it with Men and Commitment,
Anyway?
Keynote address to the 6th Annual
Smart Marriages Conference. Washington D. C.
This paper was given as a keynote address to the 2002 Annual Smart
Marriages
Conference in Washington D. C. The referencing has been updated as
of
November, 2004 to reflect works that were in press or under review
that have been
published since the time of the address. The paper reflects the
structure of my
thought and comments in the address, though, as a paper, it has the
luxury of
greater detail on a number of key points compared to the
address. The flow
is also slightly different from the address so as to improve
readability of the
paper. The recorded talk (#752-P6) is available on audio or
video through Playback Now at
800-241-785 or at http://www.playbacknow.com/cmfce.
The footnotes in
this paper contain references to findings in research that are
consistent with,
or further bolster, the points being made but that were not
available to me at
the time of the address or that I thought would be useful to the
reader.
Support: Preparation of this presentation and paper was supported
in party
by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health: Division
of Services
and Intervention Research, Adult and Geriatric Treatment and
Prevention
Branch, Grant 5-RO1-MH35525-12, "The Long-term Effects of
Premarital
Intervention” (awarded to Howard Markman and Scott Stanley).
What is it with Men and
Commitment, Anyway?
Scott M. Stanley
Before looking at the question of how men may differ
from women with
regard to commitment, I want to address the general question,
“does
commitment still matter?” Let us begin by looking at some of the
findings
that were just released from the Oklahoma Baseline Survey (Johnson
et al.,
2002). In this phone survey of 2300 Oklahoma residents, those who
had
been divorced were asked about the things that led to divorce. They
were
given a list of ten things and asked whether each was a major
contributor
to their divorces (see Table 1). Commitment was the mostly
highly
endorsed item. In fact, 85% said that “lack of commitment” was the
major
reason for divorce. I would not have predicted that it would
be so highly
rated in this day and age, much less the highest rated reason for
divorce
among the options presented.
Another finding coming from this survey just released from
Oklahoma
supports the importance of commitment in marriage. A question
was
asked of the currently married respondents: "Have you ever
seriously
thought your marriage was in trouble?” Thirty-four percent said
“yes.”
Those who said “yes,” were asked, “Are you glad you are still
together?”
Ninety-two percent said that they were glad they were still
together.
A recent finding from the large-scale National Survey of Families
and
Households (NSFH) is consistent with this point from the
Oklahoma
survey. As part of a report entitled, Does Divorce Make People
Happy,
a team headed by Linda Waite examined longitudinal data from the
NSFH
(Waite et al., 2002). Among the findings, of those who were
very
unhappy in their marriages at one time point, two-thirds of those
who
stayed together were happy 5 years later.
These simple findings suggest that there is something wrong with
the
belief that many Americans seem to have: Once a marriage is
down,
it’s done. My impression is that Americans generally believe
that
marriages don’t recover and that the choice is black and white:
either
hang on in stable misery (perhaps some people’s definition of
commitment)
or get out. The fact is, some marriages are, indeed, like that. For
any
number of reasons, they will not improve. However, there are
also
couples who hang in there and bounce back from difficult times.
They
endure, persevere, and continue to put one foot in front of the
other.
In the end, many get to a very different place in life.
So, at least for some couples, the perseverance that comes with
commitment
produces important, positive outcomes. This is also true more
broadly,
with couples generally doing best if they have a clear sense of
future
together (Amato & DeBoer, 2001; Amato & Rogers, 1999; Waite
&
Joyner, 2001). These data I briefly present, along with a
great deal of
evidence in various studies not presented, suggest that
commitment
certainly does matter in marriage (and divorce). Certainly,
the average
person thinks that it matters a great deal.
Before I continue with other points, I want to highlight that
nothing in
this talk should be construed to mean that I am arguing that
people
should remain in highly destructive relationships no matter what
else.
When there is danger of serious harm, safety should be the
overarching
priority.
What is Commitment?
How do couples experience commitment? Our theory suggests
there
are two components to commitment: personal dedication and
constraint
(Stanley & Markman, 1992). Personal dedication
speaks to how
intrinsically committed partners are to one another whereas
constraints are the things that might keep couples together when
partners would rather leave. Constraints are the things that
accumulate as relationships grow and make it hard to break up, such
as financial considerations, responsibilities for children, social
pressure, and a lack of foreseeable alternatives. Despite the
connotation, constraints can have a positive function in the lives
of couples because they can help prevent one or both partners from
making drastic decisions that unravel investment during periods of
intense unhappiness. However, constraints don’t lead to great,
happy marriages. They mostly put the brakes on impulsive,
destabilizing behaviors at critical times for many couples.
Of course, when someone is really unhappy for a long time in a
marriage, constraints can lead a sense of feeling trapped.
Personal dedication, on the other hand, refers to interpersonal and
more intrinsic commitment processes, particularly in commitment to
the partner and the relationship. It has four important
components: a desire for a future together, a sense of “us” or “we”
(or as being part of a team), a high sense of priority for the
relationship, and more satisfaction with sacrificing for the
other.
There are two fundamentals that underline all of what commitment is
about for couples. First, developing and maintaining a long-term
view is crucial for marital success. Fundamentally, what commitment
brings to a marriage is a long-term perspective that allows
partners to weather the inevitable ups and downs in marital
satisfaction. Second, commitment means making a choice to give up
choices. Giving up choices is not a prized notion in American
culture. We want to hang on to everything. In fact, we’re generally
reinforced to believe that we should hang on to everything and keep
all of our options open. Of course, at times, this presents a
serious problem for individuals because one cannot have certain
things in life by hanging onto everything in life. It is like
the proverbial monkey with his hand in the jar who is trying to
hold on to so much that he can’t get his fist out. We end up with
much less in life when we try to hang on to everything rather then
being more devoted and dedicated to a particular path or
partner. So, while commitment remains crucial in so many ways
to relationship and marital success, there are fundamentals to
commitment that are at odds with much in American culture at this
point, especially in regard to holding longer term views and making
clear decisions to be committed.
Why Commitment
Develops
So why would somebody give up any choices in life? What is it
about commitment that would make the whole idea of giving up
anything worthwhile? Figure 1 presents a model for how
commitment develops. The reason commitment develops answers
the question as to why one would ever make a choice to give up
other choices in the first place.
First, attraction develops based on partners’ similarities and
differences. There is a great deal of mystery, thankfully, in the
roots of attraction, but let’s assume for the moment that the
attraction has developed between two people. Because of this,
they spend more time together. As the relationship progress, the
ongoing satisfaction between partners results in a growing
emotional attachment. However, along with the attachment comes a
type of anxiety. I believe this is a nearly universal
phenomenon.
Why do we get anxious? We get anxious because we start to
think about and feel the potential for loss of something valuable
(Stanley, Lobitz, & Dickson, 1999): “I like you, I like
spending time with you, I enjoy being with you. What if
you’re not going to stay with me? What if you’re not going to
remain in my life?”
While I think this attachment process is entirely normal; I also
believe that people will vary in how they experience it based on
their own attachment history in their family of origin or in prior,
romantic relationships.
It is important to recognize that the development of attachment is
not the same as the development of commitment, nor is attachment
the same as commitment. Strong attachments between partners
often lead to commitment, but this is not automatic. It is the
formation of commitment—a clear series of decisions about choices
and the future—that brings security to a relationship, thereby
settling any anxieties about attachment. Attachment often
pushes one to desire security but commitment brings evidence that
one can actually trust that security exists.
This simple model portrays what may be the most important role that
commitment plays in relationship success and failure.
Accordingly, marriage represents the highest expression of security
between romantic partners. Therefore, a clearly understood,
expressed, and regularly acted out I do is going to be the
strongest foundation for relationship quality and security.
Of course marriages are not always permanent. But, generally
speaking, two partners derive a sense of permanence and a future
when they look each other in the eyes and say I do and—by
implication—I will. Couples clearly expressing and acting on such
commitment will have an easier time in large measure because the
long term perspective is in place to begin with, and that is
crucial to help them. weather the ups and downs that are inevitable
in life together. Conflicts, set backs, and challenges that
could otherwise threaten a relationship will be managed better
because of the secure bond.
American’s views of how commitment in relationships develops appear
to be changing. In a report entitled Hooking Up, Hanging Out and
Hoping for Mr. Right, Norval Glenn and Elizabeth Marquardt examined
the dating experiences of women on college campuses, focusing on
how they are thinking about their relationships and how
relationships form (Glenn & Marquardt, 2001). One fact
gleaned by observing the current dating scene among college
students is that there are relatively few standards and structures
for relationship development compared to past eras.
Personally, I have been struck by how much has changes in recent
decades.
It used to be that there were relatively clear steps in
relationship formation for a great number of people. While I am
sure customs have always varied by region and cultural background,
relationships progressed along pathways marked by stages of
commitment. For many, dating moved toward “going steady”
which may have moved to a woman being “pinned” or wearing her
beau’s class ring, and so forth. These actions represent
emblems of commitment, with such patterns being ways young people
practiced making commitments. It seems that such steps of
practicing commitment are no longer existent for many younger
people in America. In talking to experts in this field, I’ve
come to the conclusion that it is not at all clear that anything
else has replaced these patterns that have largely
disappeared. In contrast, there is a general practicing of
not committing, or not committing in any particularly tangible
ways. I’m not suggesting—not at all—that young people should
become, using Norval Glenn’s (2002) concept, prematurely entangled
and thereby close out alternative options too early in a
relationship. Yet, I am suggesting that some important symbols of
commitment have been lost in recent years and I think the loss is
meaningful.
Such a shift in basic relationship development behaviors is clear
in Glenn and Marquardt’s report. It is also very clear in Popenoe
and Whitehead’s (2002) findings that such emblems of commitment are
no longer made in young adulthood. Rather, relationships and
boundaries and futures are ambiguous as couples develop toward the
possibility of marriage. Hence, with regard to the developmental
model presented earlier, attachments without commitments have
become widespread. This change, I believe, has consequences.
Where We Find Few Differences Between Men and Women in
Commitment
Before exploring the ways in which I believe commitment works
differently for men and women, I want to look at a few ways in
which men and women are quite similar with regard to commitment. In
a nationwide, random digit dialing phone survey that we conducted
in 1995, we found that married men are, on average, just as
dedicated as married women to their spouses (if not more so)
(Stanley & Markman, 1997; Stanley, Markman, & Whitton,
2002). Similar findings were also found in the large survey we
conducted in Oklahoma. Additionally, in the Oklahoma study, there
were no meaningful differences between men and women in terms of
how trapped they felt in their marriages (Johnson et al.,
2002).
Being equally dedicated to marriage does not mean that people
derive equal benefits from the dedication of their partners. The
benefits of commitment in marriage may be somewhat different
between men and women. On balance, it appears that men and
women both benefit from marriage, though men may benefit somewhat
more; and women clearly are more likely to suffer the most when
marriages fail or are of chronic low quality (Waite &
Gallagher, 2000). I will come back to this point about benefits of
marriage.
In the same national poll noted above, cohabiting individuals were,
on average, less dedicated to their partners than their married
counterparts, even when controlling for length of relationship in
years (Stanley, Whitton, & Markman, 2004). Hence,
it is not merely institutional commitment that matters in our
culture (i.e., whether you are married or not). Commitment to the
institution of marriage does tend to differ between marrieds and
cohabiters (Nock, 1995). More importantly, institutional commitment
appears to be linked with interpersonal commitment (dedication) to
the partner. Thus, some people may under-interpret the meaning of
their partner’s reluctance (male or female) to move toward marriage
in the future. Resistance of marriage may, quite often, mean
uncertainty about the relationship, not merely uncertainty about
marriage per se.
Differences Between the Sexes in Views of Marriage and
Commitment
With this background on commitment in mind, I want to explore a
theory about one of the major ways commitment is different between
women and men related to marriage: Although married men and women
may be equally committed (dedicated) on average, men see the line
between marriage and not marriage differently than women do. Below,
I review the research and thinking that led me to this theoretical
statement. This is, to be clear, a theory requiring more
thought and testing in the years to come; but it is a theory that
explains a great deal of what people often see in the behavior of
men compared to women.
The Desire for Marriage
Let us look at some simple findings that suggest a difference
between men and women in the view of marriage. First, various
findings suggest that men, compared to women, see marriage as more
desirable or important. In a 1998 poll, 39% of unmarried men
reported that they would prefer to be married, whereas 29% percent
of unmarried women reported that they would prefer to be
married. In a 1994 with a similar question, but different
wording, 59% percent of unmarried men said they want to get
married, whereas 48 percent of women said they did.
There is some evidence of a difference in men’s and women’s views
of marriage having opened up on the past few decades in the
Monitoring the Future surveys conducted by the Survey Research
Center at the University of Michigan. Over the past few
decades, roughly 38% of male high school seniors agree or mostly
agree that people who marry have happier lives than those who
remain single or cohabit (see Figure 2). While the percentage
has remained unchanged for males during this period, between 1976
and 2000, the percentage of female high school seniors who think
that marriage matters in this same way fell from 37.8% to
28.5%. This is an amazing gap opening up between young men
and young women, with women increasingly coming to think, at least
in high school, that marriage really does not matter. Of
course, these data also make it clear that the majority of both
young men and women believe similarly, but I think the change in
female beliefs is particularly disturbing. It is almost as if
we have finally succeeded in talking young women into thinking that
marriage does not really have a great bearing on their prospects in
life—this at the same time, as I will mention later, it is becoming
clearer that marriage may make a particularly important difference
in how men treat women.
Broadly speaking, all of these data show a 10-point difference in
the percentage of males and females regarding beliefs about the
value or desirability of marriage. This is a curious
thing. The popular conception is that men are commitment
phobic, especially about marriage, and women are the ones eager to
move relationships toward that committed state. But these
data suggest that men, maybe more than women, would be the ones
pursuing marriage because they may actually see it as a more
desirable or important step. What could explain this
disconnect between the popular perceptions of men and the
sentiments that men express? As I mentioned above, I think an
understanding of how men vs. women see crossing the line between
marriage and not marriage may explain a great deal.
To build the case for this theory that there are important
differences in views about “the line,” I will present findings from
four sources, but I would point out that there are many other ways
these arguments could be supported. What is presented here are
merely the steps on the path I took, and they are in the order I
find most logically compelling for this presentation, not at all in
the order that I encountered them: 1) qualitative, focus
group research by Whitehead and Popenoe presented this year, and at
this conference; 2) findings and thought from the work of
sociologist Steve Nock; 3) findings from work in our lab on
sacrifice and commitment; and 4) findings from our research on
cohabitation prior to marriage.
Why Men Won’t Commit
Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe just issued their State
of Our Unions Report from the National Marriage Project at Rutgers
(2002). This report contains an analysis of data
gathered in focus groups led by Whitehead and Popenoe that explored
the beliefs of men in their 20s about marriage and
commitment. Barbara and David would be the first to
acknowledge that such research lacks representativeness and
sophisticated statistical procedures, but it is nevertheless a
method of great value for the generation of further thought,
theory, and hypotheses. Some things cannot be initially well
understood in highly controlled research. I have scarcely had
more enjoyment reading any document in our field. It’s a
fascinating report.
Whitehead and Popenoe derived important insights about how men view
marriage, their female partners, and the process of growing
up. Here are the highlights in my reading of what they
found. First and foremost, men report that they can enjoy
many of the same benefits by cohabiting rather then marrying.
Further, they report few social pressures to marry; not from
family, not from friends, and not from the families of the women
they live with. They also associate marriage, not cohabitation,
with the possibility of financial loss. Another fear expressed is
that, in marriage, a woman will want to have children sooner.
Across a spectrum of possible changes, they are essentially saying
they are not ready and that they would like to put such changes off
as long as they possibly can—for example, until their late
20s. Essentially, they report that they are not ready for all
the responsibility implied by marriage. To them, cohabitation
without marriage provides all the desirable benefits of
companionship without the potential risks of marriage.
Whitehead and Popenoe suggest that “men see marriage as a final
step in a prolonged process of growing up.”
There were two elements of their report that I found particularly
intriguing; one disturbing and one semi-humorous. First, Whitehead
and Popenoe suggest that many young adults today are seeking
soul mates. Ninety-four percent (94%) of younger adults
actually express this as the most important feature of what or who
they are looking for in a mate (Popenoe & Whitehead
2001). Part of what they implied in that sentiment is that a
soul mate is someone who will take them as they are and not try to
change them. Disturbingly, some significant number of men
essentially reported that part of why they were resisting
commitment in marriage was that they were not sure their female
cohabitant was their soul mate.
Until they find a soul mate, however, they are willing to wait.
They don’t want to "settle" for second best in their choice of a
marriage partner, though they don’t have the same standards for a
choice of a live-in girlfriend. (p. 12, Whitehead &
Popenoe, 2002)
Put in my own rough language, some of these men were reporting this
sentiment: “I’m happy here for the time being, sleeping with my
partner and letting her care for me in various ways, but I am not
sure she’s really ‘the one’ for me, and I’m biding my time here
while I keep looking around or until I decide that she is the
one.” I wondered as I read their report how many women know
that their partners may still be “on the market?” How many think
they are on a trajectory toward marriage when they are actually in
a stationary, low earth orbit? Surely there are many women
who are equally uncertain about a future with a particular man,
and, therefore, prefer aspects of cohabitation to marriage for the
time being. Yet, I have a hunch many of these women think that
their male partners are more locked into a future with them than
might actually be the case. That is sobering and sad to
me.
On a lighter note, I found it amusing that the men were essentially
saying that, when they are married, their wives will be allowed to
tell them what to do in a way that is not part of the cohabiting
compact. There is some clear sense that marriage requires a greater
level of mutual dedication and responsibility—as if they are
thinking, “When we’re really teammates in life, you will have
earned the right to tell me when there is something wrong with my
play. But, not until we cross that line and are clearly on the same
team.”
Teammates can ask things of one another, but not until one crosses
the line and signs with the team. I found this amusing
because I was reflecting on this simple finding in light of the
evidence of health benefits for men in marriage (Waite &
Gallagher, 2000). Most all scholars assume, rightly so I
believe, that a major reasons for these benefits for men is that
their wives tell them what to do in very important ways: “Why
don’t you stop with the beer, that’s your third tonight.”
“You need to go to the doctor and get that looked into. I
want you to go this week.” “You have been working every
night, running yourself ragged. You need to cut back.”
“You need more sleep; how are you going to get it?”
I’m pretty sure that one major reason that men live approximately 8
years longer if they are married (and are otherwise healthier in
various ways) is that their wives tell them what to do and they do
some of what their wives tell them. So, younger men are likely
seeing something as a drawback in marriage that may be the major
reason why they will live longer if they become (and remain)
married.
All of this is consistent, of course, with my theory expressed
above that men see the line between marriage and not marriage in
ways that are, perhaps, quite different from women; that men see
this line in particularly clear terms. Women see the line,
too, of course, but men seem to think that marriage will change
them, and that being a husband is very different from being a
boyfriend or live in partner. They clearly believe that a greater
level of responsibility is required in the role of husband than in
the role of boyfriend, whereas I really do not think that women
have this same sense that they (women) are going to change
dramatically when they cross the marriage line. Marriage seems to
have a big effect on how men think about themselves, what they do,
what a woman can ask of them, and what they’re willing to give.
This may be the very reason why men are widely seen as resisting
crossing the line between marriage and not marriage, especially in
comparison to women. They believe that crossing the line has many
implications for how they have to behave and what they need to give
to their female partners. There are surely many exceptions,
but I think, on average, it’s different for women.
What Happens When Men Cross the Line Deliberately?
Sociologist Steven Nock has been, for years, building the case that
marriage changes men, amassing both conceptual and empirical
arguments that show this is the case. In his book, Marriage in
Men’s Lives (1998), he discusses how men’s belief systems about
themselves and their wives seem to change when they cross the
line. His argument rests on several points, with the major
one being the powerful social role of “husband” that is associated
with the institutional of marriage. These institutional forces
have, historically, been quite potent and generally
constructive—though there have been less constructive elements, as
well, which Nock handles well in his book as he contemplates the
nature of marriage in our modern culture. Nock shows how men
begin to see themselves as fathers, providers, and protectors in
marriage. He reports behavior changes, as well. For example, men
earn more income when they’re married, work more, and spend
less time with friends apart from marriage and family, spending
more time with family and community around the family. In many
ways, men allocate their time differently when they marry.
Other important changes in men when they “cross the line” have to
do with the nature of normal, healthy sacrifices that are required
in a good marriage over time. Recent work by Sarah Whitton, me, and
Howard Markman at the University of Denver indicates the importance
of sacrifice in relationships (Whitton, Stanley, & Markman,
2002). We theorized that people should be most willing
to sacrifice for their partners when they have a long term view and
they have a sense of “us” or “we” or team. In this research,
sacrifice was defined as an act of foregoing immediate
self-interest in order to promote the well being of a partner or
the relationship. We found that sacrifice was seen as less
detrimental to the self when males reported high levels of couple
identity and when males and females reported having a long term
view for the relationship. However, the association between
sacrifice and commitment to the future was far stronger for men
than women. The findings did not show that women are more or less
likely to report sacrificing than men. The difference was
more in the degree to which attitudes about sacrificing were tied
to commitment to the future. For men to sacrifice for
their partners without resenting it, they seem to need to see a
clear future together and clear sense of being a team. For men to
sacrifice for their partners freely and fully, they may need to be
married—to have fully decided that “this woman is my future.”
Whatever flips the switch for women is less linked to the level of
commitment to the future. I have an idea what that is, and I
will come to that shortly.
My main point here is that commitment in marriage changes men.
Crossing over the line changes how they see themselves and how they
behave. It changes how they view a relationship with a woman
and how they are to act in relation to a woman. To be clear,
I am not suggesting that marriage makes a dangerous man a safe
man. I am saying that, on average, marriage changes the
average man in the direction of greater responsibility and
sacrifice to a female partner. Consistent with the major point I
made in the previous section, this is partly why men resist
marriage. They associate marriage with the expectancy of having to
grow up. That step across the line will have a powerful
impact on their lives. If they can, many men will resist this
until quite late into their 20s.
Walking Over the Line vs. Being Dragged Across It
Premarital cohabitation has received much research attention
recently. There are some important gender differences
beginning to appear in this literature, that relate to commitment,
and that shed further light on the themes presented here.
This area of research has led me to think that there are some very
important dynamics in how marriages form that have implications for
men’s and women’s commitment to their partners in marriage. I want
to explore some background from this area of research before
presenting a hypothesis about men and women and how numerous
couples transition to marriage these days.
In our larger survey in Oklahoma and surrounding states, we asked
young men and women about their beliefs about cohabitation (Johnson
et al., 2002). Of those 18-24 years old, 62% of men and 55%
of women thought that living together would improve one’s chances
in marriage. While Oklahoma is no doubt different in many
ways from other states, I am sure that those high percentages
reflect a widely held belief by young adults across the U. S.
The belief that cohabitation prior to marriage improves one’s odds
for marital success is widely held but it is also seriously flawed.
It is a belief based on a theory of discovering compatibility and
finding a fit, with the particular hope being that “we’ll live
together and we’ll discover whether we’re compatible, whether we’re
right for one another.” The problem is that this is a strategy
selective for risky relationships with nothing in place to lower
risks except the hope of breaking up if the fit is
poor. Let me put that in plainer terms and then explain
the point in detail: it is becoming clear to Galena Kline, me, and
Howard Markman (and many others doing work in this area) that those
who are at greater risk may be those most likely to act on this
belief; yet the only way this strategy can work is if partners who
are poorly matched do, in fact, break up rather than remain
together. There simply isn’t another mechanism that most couples
avail themselves of to otherwise lower the actual risks a couple
may experience.
A theory we have developed, inertia theory , suggests that living
together triggers forces that makes it more likely that a couple
will get married, even if the fit between the partners was poor to
begin with, or they were otherwise at higher risk. What couples may
not realize is that ending a cohabiting relationship is more
difficult (practically, financially, emotionally, and socially)
than ending a dating relationship. In effect, constraint commitment
(the source of the inertia) is increased by cohabitation, making
continuation of the relationship somewhat more likely than if the
identical couple had been merely dating, each retaining full access
to separate places to live (Stanley & Markman, 1997). We
suspect that this is the glaring fact that unsuspecting young
couples do not see when they are acting on the belief that
cohabiting can lower their odds of marital
failure.
To put the underlying theory here in clear conceptual terms, we
think that some cohabiting couples may move into marriage without
making a deliberate decision to cross the line together. One of the
places where we do see important gender differences in cohabitation
research is with regard to commitment levels. In our national
sample, selecting respondents who have been married up to 10 years,
we found that husbands who lived with their wives before marriage
were less interpersonally committed (less dedicated) to their
spouses than men who did not live with their partners, even
controlling for religiosity (Stanley et al., 2004). This
research suggests that premarital cohabitation may be riskier for
females than for males because some cohabiting men may not fully
commit themselves to their partners in a subsequent marriage.
Psychologically, they may not have really crossed the line of
commitment to their partners in marriage even though they became
legally married. In other words, while they may be married, a
higher percentage of couple who cohabit prior to marriage likely
did not have two partners who clearly and strongly decided to be
married; they moved into marriage more from a process of being
carried into it than from a process of making a clear
decision. Perhaps one partner, more often the male, was
actually coaxed or dragged across the line, so to speak, by the
other.
What does all of this mean? I think it means that there are a
greater number of marriages than ever before that begin with a
“Maybe I do” rather than a clear “I do” at the root of the
commitment underlying the marriage (Figure 3). Further, I
believe there is evidence in the research on premarital
cohabitation that men are much more likely to be the “maybe” factor
in marital commitment. Does this matter? I think it does and I can
express it best as a hypothesis for future research.
A Hypothesis about Men and Women: Commitment vs. Attachment Based
Motivation
Drawing on those findings, I have come to a hypothesis that I hope
to directly test in the years to come. My hypothesis is that
attachment triggers committed and sacrificial behavior in women
whereas a decision to be committed triggers committed and
sacrificial behavior in men. In other words, women begin to give
their best to men when they are strongly attached. However, men may
be less inclined to give fully of themselves to women unless they
have decided that a particular woman is their future. This
theory could, therefore, explain these phenomena I have covered
here:
• Why men seem to resist marriage more than
women, even though there is growing evidence that they see the
importance of marriage, in some ways, more than women.
• Why commitment levels for men are very strongly
associated with attitudes about sacrificing, but much less so for
women.
• Why some, but not all, couples who cohabit
prior to marriage are at greater risk, and contain men who score
lower than other men on measures of dedication to their
mates.
• Why male behavior reflecting responsibility in
their lives and toward their wives grows when they marry.
Related to this reasoning, I would hypothesize that this change
will be found to be greatest and most positive when men make
deliberate choices to cross the line, compared to scenarios where
they slid across the line or felt compelled to cross it in some way
that impairs (or reflects) lower intrinsic, dedication to the
partner.
If the overall theory and specific hypotheses expressed here are
true, they have important implications. For example, if a female
thinks that a male becoming attached to her means that he’s
committed, she may be wrong. He may not have crossed the line even
if he agrees or suggests that they move in together. In cases where
the sense of the future is ambiguous, people may grossly
misinterpret what behavior, such as moving in together, means to
their partner. While I may take this prediction back in the future
(and ingest my words), I believe the tendency is generally for
females more than males to over interpret what it means that a male
is willing to move in with a female—at least in many parts of our
society at this time. Some males are, indeed, very attached
and seriously thinking about a future with a particular
woman. But others may merely be thinking “this is great for
now, until I figure out what I’m doing and who I really want to be
with in life.” Such a disconnect puts women at greatly
increased risks for adverse outcomes, especially if a child results
from the union—which has become increasingly common.
Conclusion (and Paradox)
An ancient Greek philosopher, Zeno, described a paradox that I
believe is relevant to the themes presented here. He was a
philosopher who focused, in part, on the nature of continuums and
discontinuities. He posited numerous paradoxes about these
and other subjects. Here is one of his masterpieces.
Imagine that you’re in a room and you walk halfway between where
you are and the wall. Then you do this again, walking halfway
between where you are now and the wall. And again. And
again. And again. And, . . ., well, you get the
idea. Zeno noted that if you keep going halfway between where
you are and the wall, you will never get to the wall.
Now picture the wall as a line. If you keep going halfway
between where you are and the line, you will never cross the line.
You’ll get right up to the edge of it, you may even get dragged
over it, but you’ll never cross the line from a deliberate choice.
Half steps and measures don’t result in the full commitment that a
deliberate choice confers and confirms. A deliberate choice brings
the fullest sense of mutual dedication in life, together, which in
turn causes marriages to thrive. There are many couples who,
through any number of pathways, make a very clear decision to cross
over the line, as partners in life. They have this understanding as
a base from which to move into the future. But men who have not yet
committed to their female partners will, understandably so, resist
crossing the line. They may inch up to it. They may dangle a toe
over it. Yet, without the clear, deliberate step over, the
commitment is at best, Maybe I do, not the firmly expressed and
embraced I do.
References
Amato, P. R., & DeBoer, D. D. (2001). The transmission of
marital instability across generations: Relationship skills or
commitment to marriage? Journal of Marriage & the Family,
63(4), 1038-1051.
Amato, P. R., & Rogers, S. J. (1999). Do attitudes toward
divorce affect marital quality? Journal of Family Issues, 20(1),
69-86.
Glenn, N. D. (2002). A plea for greater concern about the quality
of marital matching. In A. J. Hawkins, L. D. Wardle & D. O.
Coolidge (Eds.), Revitalizing the institution of marriage for the
twenty-first century: An agenda for strengthening marriage (pp.
45-58). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Glenn, N. D., & Marquardt, E. (2001). Hooking up, hanging out,
and hoping for Mr. Right: College women on dating and mating today.
New York: Institute for American Values.
Johnson, C. A., Stanley, S. M., Glenn, N. D., Amato, P., Nock, S.
L., Markman, H. J., & Dion, M. R. (2002). Marriage in Oklahoma:
2001 baseline statewide survey on marriage and divorce (S02096
OKDHS). Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Department of Human
Services.
Nock, S. L. (1998). Marriage in men's lives. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Popenoe, D., & Whitehead, B. D. (2001). Who wants to
marry a soul mate? In D. Popenoe & B.
D. Whitehead, The State of Our Unions: The Social Health of
Marriage in America (pp. 6
– 16). Piscataway, NJ: National Marriage Project.
Stanley, S. M., Lobitz, W. C., & Dickson, F. C. (1999). Using
what we know: Commitment and cognitions in marital therapy. In J.
M. Adams & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal
commitment and relationship stability (pp. 379-392). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment
in personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54,
595-608.
Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1997). Marriage in the 90s: A
nationwide random phone survey. Denver, Colorado: PREP.
Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. W. (2002).
Communication, conflict and commitment: Insights on the foundations
of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process,
41(4), 659-675.
Waite, L. J., Browning, D., Doherty, W. J., Gallagher, M., Lou, Y.,
& Stanley, S. M. (2002). Does divorce make people happy?
Findings from a study of unhappy marriages. New York: Institute for
American Values.
Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage.
New York: Doubleday.
Waite, L. J. & Joyner, K. (2001). Emotional Satisfaction and
Physical Pleasure in Sexual Unions: Time Horizon, Sexual
Investment, and Sexual Exclusivity. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 63, 247 264.
Whitehead, B. D., & Popenoe, D. (2002). The State of Our
Unions: The Social Health of
Marriage in America. Piscataway, NJ:
National Marriage Project.
Whitton, S. W., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2002).
Sacrifice in romantic relationships: An
exploration of relevant research and theory. In H. T. Reiss, M. A.
Fitzpatrick & A. L.
Vangelisti (Eds.), Stability and Change in Relationship Behavior
across the Lifespan (pp.
156-181). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
®Copyright.
Back to Smart Marriages HOME
Back to Articles Page