Marriage vs. Cohabitation – which is healthier?

A Cornell professor, examining the relative benefits of marriage vs. cohabitation, compared four human characteristics across both populations – happiness, depression, health and self-esteem – and concluded that “the boundaries between marriage and cohabitation are blurring and . . . the experiences of marriage and cohabitation may be converging.”

Married couples earned higher marks for health, while cohabitating coupled experienced greater gains in happiness and self-esteem. But the broad conclusion was clear, according to study author Dr. Kelly Musick: “The similarities between marriage and cohabitation [are] more striking than the differences.” Musick is associate professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University's College of Human Ecology.

For generations, research has aimed to establish a link between marriage and well-being, with advocates comparing marriage both to cohabitation and to being single.  But on both counts, said Musick, few substantial long-term benefits appear to accrue.  She explained: "Compared to most industrialized countries, America continues to value marriage above other family forms. . . . However our research shows that marriage is by no means unique in promoting well-being and that other forms of romantic relationships can provide many of the same benefits." Musick said that: “For some, cohabitation may come with fewer unwanted obligations than marriage and allow for more flexibility, autonomy, and personal growth.” She added: “[Marriage] is far from a blanket prescription for individual well-being.”

In evaluating marriage, Musick pointed out that the literature typically compares marriage to being single.  On this score, “the results showed a spike in well-being immediately following both marriage and cohabitation as couples experienced a honeymoon period with higher levels of happiness and fewer depressive symptoms compared to singles. However, these advantages were short lived.”

Musick's study overview: “We hypothesized that union formation would provide benefits over being single, and that these would diminish over time; these expectations were largely supported in our analyses of psychological well-being and health, but not social ties. We offered two views on the relative benefits of marriage. One suggested that if the mechanisms linking marriage and well-being applied in part to cohabitation, the benefits of marriage would apply in part to cohabitation. The other posited that if the institutional supports of marriage were outweighed by its more structured expectations and obligations, cohabitation would confer advantages over marriage. We found evidence for each of these views.” 

Two cautionary notes were offered by Musick: a modest sample size and aging data (Musick relied upon the 1987-1992 National Survey of Families and Households of 2,737 single men and women, 896 of whom married or moved in with a partner over the course of six years).