1

Running head: COHABITATION: A CASE STUDY

Cohabitation: A Case Study or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Student: Nicholas Mackay
Student ID: N01042976
Date Submitted: April 20, 2015
PSYC-210
Professor: Rena Borovilos
Humber College ITAL

Cohabitation: A Case Study or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

Running head: COHABITATION: A CASE STUDY

Why get married? Proposing is scary. A wedding is horrifically expensive. Marriage can
wait and wait. Its really ones actions and emotions that count and therefore what is the worth of
a ceremony and a piece of paper? Surely one knows better than those billions who came before
and were married. To many of todays youth cohabitation seems to be an excellent alternative to
marriage. It offers the sex, intimacy, constant companionship, and convenience of marriage
without all of the commitment and social pressure that accompanies married life. Due to the
rising divorce rate in Canada, marriage has been discredited to a certain extent. This paper will
explore this trend towards cohabitation and its implications for those experiencing it. It seems the
best way to achieve this end is to examine the subject through the case study of Alexander and
Elizabeths partnership.
Alexander and Elizabeth met, as so many do, in school; in kindergarten. They didnt get
along well at first. They knew each other for 17 years before cohabiting. They were friends for 8
years before cohabiting. They dated for 3 weeks. They never married but they did live together in
an intimate, passionate, and committed fashion. They cohabited for 4 years. They didnt get
along well afterwards.
Alexander came from a stable middle class family. His parents were married for decades.
He had been raised as a Baptist but became an atheist. He was politically liberal and not
especially masculine. He viewed marriage favourably, in theory. In reality he was hesitant about
settling down in the near future. The distant future seemed like the right time. He wanted kids
and a formal marriage but knew that Elizabeth never would. In his mind, the relationship was
always going to end but it was fine for the present. The present could stretch for a long time. He

Running head: COHABITATION: A CASE STUDY

was never sure that Elizabeth was the right choice but he found her to be comfortable and
familiar. It was a dress rehearsal for marriage.
Elizabeth was raised by her abusive, impoverished mother. She was born out of wedlock
and never knew her father. She never lived in a stable, functional family. She saw her mothers
countless relationships begin and end. Despite all of this, Elizabeth was thoughtful and kind. She
was ethnically and culturally Jewish but had chosen to be an atheist. She was liberal. She was
androgynous in both appearance and behavior. When Alexander and Elizabeth began their
relations she had recently failed to maintain a seven year relationship. She was never sure about
Alexander as a boyfriend but he was pleasant and convenient. Convenience is an
underappreciated part of romance.
Neither of them really viewed cohabitation as equal or as a real alternative to marriage. It
was just something that had happened and kept happening.
According to the text, Alexander and Elizabeth were typical examples of those who
cohabitate. In Canada and America those who cohabitate are often less religious than those who
marry (Berk, 2014). They tend to not be socially conservative. Cohabitants are often more
androgynous and therefore the importance of being a man and a husband and a woman and a
wife is of less significance for their identity. In addition, those who cohabitate tend to be from
low socioeconomic status families, as was the case for Elizabeth. Cohabiters tend to be under
twenty-five years old and this was the true in this case (Berk, 2014). They are commonly just too
young to make a lifetime partnership.
This case differed in some ways from the texts typical cohabitants. Those who cohabitate
tend to have seen their parents marriage fail (Berk, 2014). Alexanders parents never divorced.

Running head: COHABITATION: A CASE STUDY

Elizabeth never saw a divorce because her parents never married. The author suspects that those
who have parents that never married are more likely to not marry themselves but this is not
supported by Berk (2014). The book also states that those who cohabitate tend to have had an
above average number of sexual partners (Berk, 2014). This was not the case for Alexander and
Elizabeth. Sometimes those who cohabitate are engaged to be married but this was not true of
this case study.
Marriage tends to be more lasting than cohabitation. People in stable long term
relationships tend to be happier, healthier, and wealthier (Kisker, 1987). The outcomes for
children in two parent household also tend to be much more positive. Marriage is a way to
extend the lifespan of a relationship and this benefits both parties. In the authors view, the most
significant difference between those who are married and those who cohabitate is that cohabiters
tend to be less committed to their relationship (Berk, 2014). Robert Sternberg identified three
key components to enduring love- intimacy, passion, and commitment. Cohabitants do not lack
intimacy or passion. They do lack commitment. The wedding ceremony, the rings, the costumes,
the licence, the vows, and the audience are all symbols. Symbols like these are important; they
are a kind of proof. They are proof of commitment to the bride and groom and, as importantly, to
their family and friends. If their friends see their relationship as real and permanent they will
support it. Those who are married will aspire to live up to those symbols and the vows of their
social contract. Cohabitants do not have these symbols, vows and social supports to the same
degree as married couples. Cohabitation often feels impermanent, casual, and optional.
Over the course of their four years together Elizabeth and Alexander were never
especially committed. He was gone on travel or business for months at a time while she was left
alone. Often she was so much more engaged in her career that she returned very late at night

Running head: COHABITATION: A CASE STUDY

from her office. In the end, the passion had faded away and the constant absences had eroded the
intimacy. Elizabeths grandparents died in rapid succession and that put more emotional stress on
an already weak relationship. Considering the time that commitment buys, they might have
recovered their passion and intimacy and overcome her family tragedy. A marriage might have
survived. The relationship ended shortly after the funerals.
Alexander and Elizabeth formed a typical cohabitation in most ways. They were young,
liberal, androgynous atheists who were not ready for marriage. They were not very committed to
their relationship and when it became difficult they ended their arrangement. When it ended
neither family nor friends intervened and there was none of the shame that accompanies divorce.
Moreover, there were none of the legal complications that would usually accompany divorce.
The collapse of a relationship is usually detrimental to all parties involved and yet in this case it
may have been for the best. Alexander and Elizabeth were never right for one another. They had
very different goals. Is it a sad event for it to have ended without a great struggle?

References
Berk, L. (2014). Cohabitation. In Exploring Lifespan Development (3rd ed., p. 389). Pearson
Education.

Running head: COHABITATION: A CASE STUDY

Kisker, E. E., & Goldman, N. (1987). Perils of single life and benefits of marriage. Biodemography and
Social Biology, 34(3-4), 135-152.