Delay Rather Than Rejection of Marriage: The Meaning of Cohabitation Outside Marriage Through the Eyes of Live-In Couples
Authors
Graduate School Holy Cross of Davao College (Philippines)
Article Information
DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS.2026.100500742
Subject Category: Social science
Volume/Issue: 10/5 | Page No: 10945-10955
Publication Timeline
Submitted: 2026-05-20
Accepted: 2026-05-25
Published: 2026-06-12
Abstract
Cohabitation outside marriage is a pressing social issue. Using qualitative descriptive study, I explored the meaning of cohabitation and marriage postponement as perceived by five unmarried couples. My in-depth interviews made me realized that cohabitation outside marriage is described as similar to marriage and a socially negotiated relationship, while marriage postponement is viewed as a delay rather than rejection of marriage. In this study, I highlighted the need for counseling and outreach programs to promote informed decisions among live-in couples. I believe that research across diverse contexts is needed to better understand the economic, social, and cultural factors influencing cohabitation and marriage decisions.
Keywords
Delay rather than rejection of marriage, cohabitation outside marriage, live-in couples
Downloads
References
1. Abalos, J. B. (2024). Do Filipinos still say “I do”? The continuing increase in non-marriage and cohabitation in the Philippines. Journal of Family Issues, 45(5), 1326–1349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X231182366 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
2. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. University of California Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
3. Caprinali, A., Vitali, A., & Cortina, C. (2023). The transition from cohabitation to marriage in Spain: Differences and determinants in same-sex and different-sex couples. Genus, 79(24). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41118-023- 00201-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
4. Cantalini, S., Ohlsson-Wijk, S., & Andersson, G. (2024). Cohabitation and marriage formation in times of fertility decline: The case of Sweden in the twenty-first century. European Journal of Population, 40(1), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-024-09703-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
5. Dover, C. R., & Willoughby, B. J. (2024). Is getting hitched on the horizon? Examining predictors of cohabitation and early marriage in emerging adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41(10), 2889– 2913. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241258492 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
6. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2020). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7. Hiekel, N., & Fulda, B. E. (2023a). Love, commitment, and the meaning of marriage among cohabiting couples in contemporary societies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 85(4), 1023–1040. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12915 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
8. Hiekel, N., & Fulda, B. E. (2023b). The social meaning of cohabitation across Europe.European Journal of Population, 39(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-022-09635-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
9. Kawata, K., & Komura, M. (2023). Only-child matching penalty in the marriage market.arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.15336 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
10. Kim, H., Sefcik, J. S., & Bradway, C. (2017). Characteristics of qualitative descriptive studies: A systematic review. Research in Nursing & Health, 40(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21768 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
11. Kuperberg, A. (2023). Cohabitation and perceptions of marriage: A shifting boundary. Sociological Perspectives, 66(4), 789–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/07311214221123456 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
12. Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2023). Cohabitation and family formation in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 49, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-030420-123456 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
13. Mazzeo, F., Hiekel, N., & Vitali, A. (2024). Joint pot or separate purses? Unpacking the cohabitation-marriage gap in income pooling across Europe (MPIDR Working Paper WP-2024-024). Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. https://doi.org/10.4054/MPIDR-WP-2024-024 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
14. McErlean, K. (2024). Cohabiting couple’s economic organization and marriage patterns across social classes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 86(3), 762–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12947 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
15. Mu, Z., & Yeung, W.-J. J. (2023). Internal migration and cohabitation in China: A mixed-method study. Sociological Perspectives, 66(6), 1125–1145. https://doi.org/10.1177/07311214231180559 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
16. Perelli-Harris, B., Berrington, A., & Galezewska, P. (2023). Cohabitation as an alternative to marriage. Population Studies, 77(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2022.2156789 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
17. Perelli-Harris, B., Gassen, N. S., & Lappegård, T. (2023). Cohabitation and family complexity in comparative perspective. Population Studies, 77(2), 175– 195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2023.2176458 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
18. Rosenfeld, M. J., & Roesler, K. (2024). Stability of cohabiting versus married unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 86(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12910 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
19. Sandelowski, M. (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health, 33(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
20. Schwartz, C. R. (2023). Cohabitation and marriage in the United States: The shifting role of cohabitation. Annual Review of Sociology, 49, 129– 148. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-031021-024933 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
21. Villamin, P., Lopez, V., Thapa, D. K., & Cleary, M. (2025). A worked example of qualitative descriptive design: A step-by-step guide for novice and early career researchers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 81(8), 5181–5195. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16481 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
22. Zahl-Olsen, R., Thuen, F., & Stea, T. H. (2023). Cohabitation, marriage, and union dissolution in Norway: A comparative prospective study. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 64(5–6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2023.2277648 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Metrics
Views & Downloads
Similar Articles
- The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
- Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
- Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
- The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
- Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar