Attitudes toward Cohabitation, Family, and Gender Roles: Relationships to Values and Political Ideology

Abstract

This study investigates four hypotheses concerning relationships between values or beliefs and attitudes toward cohabitation, family and gender roles. These are the Social Concerns Hypothesis, the Political Ideology Hypothesis, the Higher Order Needs Hypothesis, and the Consumerism Hypothesis. Each hypothesis has been tested, using data from several nationally representative subsamples of white high school seniors. As predicted by the Social Concerns Hypothesis, students with more social concerns had more favorable attitudes toward gender equality and nontraditional gender roles, particularly among males. This finding suggests that, for males, concern for fairness and the well-being of others may be an important motive for support for gender equality and acceptance of nontraditional gender roles. As predicted by the Political Ideology Hypothesis, conservative political beliefs were associated with traditional attitudes toward cohabitation, family, and gender roles. In contrast, our findings provide only weak support for the Higher Order Needs Hypothesis, and our findings suggest that the Consumerism Hypothesis should be reformulated.

Premarital cohabitation and divorce: Support for the "Trial Marriage" Theory?

“…Cohabiters may have unobserved characteristics that make them more prone to separation, such as less conventional attitudes about marriage and, perhaps, higher expectations about the quality of unions, or poorer relationship skills (Bennett, Blanc, and Bloom 1988;Hall 1996;Smock 2000;Thomson and Colella 1992). For example, we know that those who cohabit tend to be more liberal, less religious, and more supportive of egalitarian gender roles (Clarkberg, Stolzenberg, and Waite 1995;Lye and Waldron 1997). For cohabiters, relationships in general, be they marital or non-marital, may be characterised by a lack of commitment and stability and they may be more willing to contemplate divorce if a subsequent marriage proves unsatisfactory (Bennett, Blanc, and Bloom 1988).…”

Naive realism in the unmarried cohabitation controversy in the United States

“…Central to proponents' and opponents' perspectives are differing viewpoints regarding religion, the significance of marriage and family, and commitment to historical family roles and institutions (Feltey & Poloma, 1991;Lottes & Kuriloff, 1992;Lye & Waldron, 1997;Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001). UC proponents frequently cite pragmatic arguments (e.g., financial considerations) or attach a practical consideration to their support of the practice (e.g., as a test for compatibility; Popenoe & Whitehead, 1999;Surra, Gray, Cottle, & Boettcher, 2004).…”

“…UC proponents frequently cite pragmatic arguments (e.g., financial considerations) or attach a practical consideration to their support of the practice (e.g., as a test for compatibility; Popenoe & Whitehead, 1999;Surra, Gray, Cottle, & Boettcher, 2004). In addition, proponents tend to have less traditional views towards family and marriage than opponents (Lye & Waldron, 1997).…”

“…Opponents also tend to cite moral arguments underscoring the importance and permanence of marriage, and the inappropriateness of cohabitation, sexual relations, and child-bearing outside of marriage (Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001). In addition to the religious and moral arguments, other research has demonstrated a connection between attitudes toward family and other general values and beliefs such as political ideology (Lye & Waldron, 1997;Thornton, 1989). Specifically, individuals with more conservative ideology tend to have more traditional attitudes toward sex and marriage (Lye & Waldron, 1997).…”

“…In addition to the religious and moral arguments, other research has demonstrated a connection between attitudes toward family and other general values and beliefs such as political ideology (Lye & Waldron, 1997;Thornton, 1989). Specifically, individuals with more conservative ideology tend to have more traditional attitudes toward sex and marriage (Lye & Waldron, 1997).…”