The symbolism of rituals creates a shared understanding of events among group members. In the context of romantic relationships, a shared understanding of relationship status transitions may be associated with greater commitment and higher quality relationships. We argue that couples with differing retrospective accounts of their premarital courtship may not have had clear discussions or rituals marking relationship turning points. We test the association between discordance in couples’ reports of premarital courtship stages and marital quality using data from married couples in a national online survey (n = 1504). We find that couple discordance is common, particularly among former premarital cohabitors and for the less institutionalized relationship stages of dating and stayovers, and is associated with lower marital quality. Implications for relationship measurement and the meaning of couple discordance are discussed.
Sociology has long recognized the symbolic power of rituals for communicating shared meaning in social interactions (for a review, see Gusfield and Michalowicz, 1984) even as they are a way of sharing of true emotion (Grimes, 2000, Hochschild, 1998 and Schweingruber et al., 2004). In the romantic relationship context specifically, relationship rituals such as engagement may play a protective role in relationship development because of the clarity, mutuality, and publicness of the information carried about commitment (Stanley et al., 2010b). Couples who “slide” into more serious union stages, rather than “deciding” to do so, may be at greater risk for poor relationship outcomes because of how such courtship patterns affect the development of commitment (Rhoades et al., 2009, Stanley et al., 2010a, Stanley et al., 2006 and Vennum and Fincham, 2011).
If clear decisions and signals about commitment provide some protection as relationships progress toward marriage, discordance in partners’ retrospective reports of the progression of their relationship may be a potential indicator that a couple “slid” into a more serious relationship rather than having “decided” to do so. Turning points in the relationship that were more clearly demarcated should be more salient, and therefore more memorable. Differing reports of a relationship’s history may be a consequence of couples progressing without clear signals in the relationship, such as particular conversations about what was happening in the relationship and what it meant; this may have implications for the quality of their relationship. We examine whether discordance in couples’ retrospective reports of whether and when various relationship stages took place is associated with current marital quality.
The present study builds on previous research by (1) investigating the frequency of discordance in couples’ retrospective reporting of premarital relationship stages, (2) examining premarital relationship stages beyond pre-engagement cohabitation as potentially meaningful areas of discordance, and (3) considering whether such intra-couple discordance is a meaningful risk factor for poorer marital quality. Given that those who cohabit before marriage have experienced an additional relationship stage, compared to those who enter marriage directly, and given indications in the existing literature that premarital cohabitors are more likely than those who enter marriage directly to have slid into a more serious relationship without proactively deciding to do so (as one can more easily slide into cohabitation than marriage), we pay particular attention to potential differences between premarital cohabitors and noncohabitors. We use original survey data collected in a special topics module of the Knowledge Networks online research panel. Our data are representative of currently married couples and include responses from both members of the couple about the timing of their premarital courtship stages.
Discordance in couples’ recounting of premarital courtship stages is quite common, particularly among premarital cohabitors and for the less institutionalized courtship stages of dating and stayovers. The higher rates of discordance among premarital cohabitors are not accounted for by standard demographic controls. Discordance, in turn, is associated with lower marital quality, although the magnitude of this association differs across relationship stages and may be stronger for husbands than for wives.
We argue that discordance is an indicator that partners “slid” into a more serious relationship, as it may be more likely when a couple lacks explicit markers or rituals marking turning points in the relationship (like having “the talk” about the relationship’s future). Along these lines, our findings support the contention in previous theory and research that sliding is associated with more negative marital outcomes (Stanley et al., 2006 and Stanley et al., 2010a). We maintain that discordance in retrospective relationship accounts may reflect less clarity in the process of how couples’ relationships developed – an indication that they may not have shared clear signals of commitment along the way. Notably, our results indicate that sliding during the less institutionalized stages of a relationship – dating and stayovers – is common and consequential for marital quality. Further, discordance appears to be more common among those entering marriage through cohabitation. Future research should develop and test theory on the basis of the present results, investigating why couple concordance on certain premarital relationship stages or transitions is more closely tied to marital quality than others, and why this may be more true for husbands than wives; in addition, the association between discordance and divorce should be explored.
