臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

從台灣過去十年到現今的研究調查都顯示出未婚同居現象的蹤跡與趨勢不可擋，未婚同居人口在現今台灣社會中已是越來越普遍存在的現象，甚至民間團體聯盟發起法規草案以示關注與重視此議題。然而為了更加深入詳細探究未婚同居經驗的質性內涵，本研究目的欲了解二十歲以上的成人未婚同居經驗，包含未婚同居前的狀態、決定進入同居的過程、同居期間與同居伴侶互動及衝突情形、同居的影響與未來發展。本研究採用質性研究之敘事研究取向作為研究方法，以半結構式深度訪談，獲取了解三位成人受訪者的未婚同居經驗，並採用「整體─內容」及「類別─內容」方式進行資料整理與分析。
本研究發現成人在未婚同居前的狀態，在個人對同居的感覺會是「膩在一起很甜蜜、美好」、「進入同居很自然」、「擔憂同居的風險」，對同居的想法為「獲得更多陪伴」、「互相照顧」、「同居試婚」、「立即性交流」、「省房租」。對同居伴侶的期待為「情感需求的滿足」─互相交流分享、立即性情感安撫、主動關注與照顧需求、「生活需求的滿足」、「穩固安全的特質」─成熟的與安全的。再者，成人在未婚同居前知覺家人及朋友的想法，在家人當中，父母基於「反對婚前性行為」、「女性名節不保」的想法時，較偏向反對、不支持未婚同居；相對地，平輩的朋友對同居的想法為「自然平常的現象」、「可以互相照顧」，較接受與認同未婚同居。在決定進入同居的過程中，影響因素為「遠距離戀愛」、「孤單的小空間」、「缺乏安全感」、「熱戀半同居」、「不順與束縛」。決定同居理由為「獲得更多陪伴」、「互相照顧」、「省房租」、「立即性交流以維繫關係」、「嘗試與試婚」。實踐同居決定為「主動提出決定」、「順其自然共同決定」。同居前因應親友採取的行動為「隱瞞同居決定」與「表露同居決定」。
接著，成人未婚同居期間與伴侶日常互動情形當中，家事方面為「個人專精分工」、「主動分配家事」、「獨自負擔家事」、「標準不同」；金錢使用方面為「各自給付」、「平均分攤」、「共同基金」、「不平衡」；生活決策方面為「共同討論做決策」、「獨自決定」、「配合與妥協」、「伴侶影響決策」、「意見不同」。
本研究發現與伴侶的衝突情形當中，衝突發生時經歷「爭吵」、「冷戰」、「化解衝突」、「和好」的過程；透過「了解底限，避觸地雷」、「提升情緒覺察」、「喊卡!暫停討論」預防衝突。同居期間因應親友採取的行動為「隱瞞同居：避免衝突」、「公開同居：獲得贊同」、「分享同居：提升接受度」。
本研究發現成人未婚同居的影響，對伴侶關係影響與變化為「熱情退卻」、「關係可分化」、「衝突因應改變」、「提升衝突因應韌性與關係穩定度」、「伴侶的改變」「個人情緒易受伴侶影響」、「能者多勞、擅長互補」、「性是關係調劑品」。對親友關係方面的影響與變化則為「擁有共同交友圈」、「共同話題獲得共鳴」、「開放談論性話題」、「增添與鄰居交談的話題」、「隱瞞同居的壓力」、「認可關係穩定而催婚」。本研究發現成人未婚同居的未來發展為「分手分居的想像」、「持續未婚同居與準備進入已婚同居」、「已婚同居」。
本研究比較未婚同居前與未婚同居期間的想法異同，發現個人對未婚同居的想法之相同處為「正面肯定的」、「居住空間選擇變多」；相異處為「同居生活的夢幻與現實面」、「同居生活開銷的節省與不省」。個人對未婚同居伴侶的期待相同為「滿足情感需求」、「滿足生活需求」；相異處為「伴侶嗜好」、「共處時間需求」。與未婚同居伴侶關係方面的相異處為「互動方式」、「生活習慣」、「生活作息」、「個人形象」、「與雙方家人接觸」。家人和朋友對同居想法相同處包含朋友部分為「同居稀鬆平常」、「自然現象」、父母和長輩的部分為「傳統觀念的負面風評及影響」；相異為「父母對未婚同居的接受度由低變高」。最後，本研究根據研究結果加以討論，並提供若干建議予諮商專業人員、教育工作者及後續研究者，作為參考依據。

Survey results over the past decade have indicated that cohabitation in Taiwan has begun to gain momentum, as society has seen a sharp increase in the number of people choosing to cohabit without formalizing their relationships for the time being. Some non-governmental organizations have even proposed marriage amendments as a way to respond to this phenomenon. This study conducts a survey among adults aged 20 and over with the aim of exploring the qualitative content of their cohabitation, observing what their relationship is like before cohabitation, the decision-making process, their interactions and possible conflicts when cohabiting, and what effect cohabiting would bring to them when they consider matrimony. This study employs narrative inquiry methodology using semi-structured interviews to obtain in-depth information regarding the experience of cohabitation from three adult respondents. This study adopts holistic-content analysis and category analysis on the materials gleaned for research.
The present paper explores how respondents imagine what cohabitation would be like. Results show that they have positive and negative feelings toward this arrangement, which are: “a sweet experience of living together,” “cohabitation is a natural result (of seeing each other for some time),” “worrying about risks involved in cohabitation”. What they expect from cohabitation are as follows: “spending more time together,” “attending to the other’s needs,” “seeing it as a trial marriage,” “immediate sharing and communication,” and “splitting the cost of rent”. Their expectations for their partner are: “emotional needs being met,” meaning sharing of ideas, giving words of comfort when it is needed, and caring about each other in times of need, “daily needs being met,” and “being mature and secure”. Furthermore, these adults are aware of what their family and friends think about a possible cohabitation. Parents tend to disagree with this arrangement as they are mostly “against premarital sex,” and “believing that women who do not practice chastity would have a bad reputation”. Friends of similar age groups are more lenient about cohabitation, as they regard it as “a common type of arrangement,” and “a convenient way to take care of one another”. With regard to the decision about whether to cohabit or not, influential factors are: “long-distance relationship,” “living alone in a tiny place and feeling rather lonely,” “lacking a sense of security,” “being passionately in love,” “being at odds with each other and hating constraints”. The major reasons for deciding to cohabit are placed in descending order of importance: “spending more time together,” “attending to the other’s needs,” “splitting the cost of rent,” “immediate sharing and communication that improves the quality of their relationship,” and “seeing it as a trial marriage”. When it comes to making final decisions, some couples are “led by a partner,” whereas others “live together very naturally and this is precisely both hope for”. As to whether they would disclose their cohabitation condition, some chooses to “keep it from parents,” whilst others “prefer to disclose this arrangement to other people” .
Regarding dividing household chores when a couple cohabits, some are “each doing what she/he is good at,” “making an arrangement and sticking to it,” “one party doing all chores,” or “having divergent standards”. As to the use of money, “each paying her/his expenses,” “splitting household expenses,” “putting in a mutual fund,” and “feeling out of balance”. As to decisions on everyday life, some couples “would discuss matters and reach a decision,” while other examples might be “making decisions independently,” “reconciliation,” “being persuaded by the partner,” or just “having disagreements”.
The current study tackles the issue of conflicts between a couple by exploring a number of phases: “bickering,” “give the other the silent treatment,” “easing the tension,” and “reconciliation”. Couples may try to “avoid touching the other’s sore spot,” or by “increasing emotional awareness,” or “making a conscious effort to cool down” so as to prevent exacerbation of conflicts. As to their response to family or acquaintances’ inquiries, some would “keep it from parents so as to keep conflict at bay,” whilst others “prefer to disclose this arrangement to gain approval,” or “sharing their experience so as to enhance acceptance”.
This study identifies the effect of cohabitation on a couple’s relationship (or subsequent changes) are as follows: “passion subsides,” “differentiation of the relationship,” “changes brought about by incessant conflicts,” “endurance toward conflicts strengthens and stability increases,” “the partner’s behavioral change,” “moods being affected by one’s partner,” “the abler one shoulders more responsibility, while the other makes effort to contribute to the household in her/his own way,” “sex as a spice for the relationship”. With regard to how they interact with family or friends, they would “have a shared base of friends,” “more easily finding the topic for communication,” “inclined to talk about sex openly,” “being able to start a dialogue with neighbors,” “pressure from hiding the fact of cohabitation,” and “being pressured to get into marriage by family and relatives”. This study also discovers that future development for cohabiting couples would be “considerations about saying goodbye,” “maintaining the same arrangement and pondering marriage as an option,” and “registering for marriage”.
This study makes comparison between attitudes and ideas held by couples before deciding to cohabit and choosing cohabitation as a living arrangement. Individuals tend to share similar thoughts such as “holding a positive attitude on cohabitation,” “having more options in choosing a place to live”. They are inclined to differ in “seeing cohabitation as a dream come true or a process toward disillusion,” and “whether living together saves up money or not”. Couples have similar expectations as “emotional needs being met” and “daily needs being met,” whereas they differ in having expectations in “the partner’s hobbies” and “how much quality time is needed”. They also have different ideas about “the ways of interaction,” “living habits,” “waking hours and daily routines,” “personal images,” and “contact with the other’s family”. Their family and friends regard “cohabitation as commonplace,” “cohabitation as a natural result,” or “cohabitation as an undesirable thing that easily ruins a female’s reputation and affects her future marriage”. Their parents have incompatibly different ideas in “cohabitation gaining popularity in recent years”. Lastly, this study proffers discussions and suggestions with the hope of providing useful reference for counseling staff, educators and future researchers.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 11
第三節 名詞解釋 12

第二章 文獻探討 13
第一節 同居的內涵 13
第二節 同居的相關研究 16
第三節 伴侶關係的相關研究 19

第三章 研究方法 23
第一節 研究取向 23
第二節 研究參與者 27
第三節 研究工具 30
第四節 研究程序 32
第五節 研究品質的檢核 38
第六節 研究倫理 42

第四章 研究結果 44
第一節 初生之犢不畏虎的草兒 44
第二節 規矩與自由奔放的小乖 70
第三節 上半輩子的白白 86
第四節 草兒、小乖與白白的未婚同居經驗 106
第五節 草兒、小乖與白白的未婚同居經驗之比較 186

第五章 綜合討論 219
第一節 成人未婚同居前的狀態 219
第二節 成人未婚同居期間與伴侶互動及衝突情形 227
第三節 成人未婚同居的影響與未來發展 233
第四節 成人未婚同居前後想法之異同 237

第六章 結論與建議 238
第一節 結論 238
第二節 研究者反思 240
第三節 研究限制 242
第四節 建議 243

參考文獻 246
壹、中文部分 246
貳、英文部分 250

附錄 258
附錄一、研究邀請函（正式研究用）258
附錄二、訪談同意書（前導性研究用）259
附錄三、訪談同意書（正式研究用）260
附錄四、受訪者基本資料表（前導性研究用）261
附錄五、受訪者基本資料表（正式研究用）262
附錄六、訪談大綱（前導性研究用）263
附錄七、訪談大綱（正式研究用）264
附錄八、訪談札記範例 265
附錄九、受訪者檢核回饋表 266
附錄十、生命主題範例 267
附錄十一、未婚同居經驗之綜合比較圖 268

中文部分
內政部（2011）。家庭暴力事件通報兩造關係統計。臺北市：內政部。取自 http://dspc.moi.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=2917&ctNode=776&mp=1
內政部統計處（2013）。中華民國102年國民生活狀況意向調查報告。臺北市：內政部。取自http://.sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/Survey/102年國民生活狀況意向調查報告.pdf
王勇智、鄧明宇（譯）（2003）。敘說分析。（原作者：Riessman, C.K.）。臺北：五南。（原著出版於1993年）
王重陽（2011）。事實婚法制之研究（博士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識系統。（系統編號099NCCU5194010）
王莉婷（2012）。青少年的同居態度與婚姻期待之研究（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號100NTNU5261014）
朱詩瑀（2008）。事實上夫妻之同居保護（碩士論文）。取自http://ir.lib.pccu.edu.tw/retrieve/68035/181-1.pdf
行政院主計總處（2001）。89年人口普查提要分析。臺北市：行政院。取自http://www.stat.gov.tw/public/Attachment/41171663571.rtf
行政院主計總處（2012）。99年人口及住宅普查總報告統計結果提要分析。臺北市：行政院。取自http://www.stat.gov.tw/public/Attachment/21081884771.pdf
何嘉雯（1998）。臺北縣市大學生親子關係、婚姻態度與婚前性行為、同居行為之研究（未出版碩士論文）。中國文化大學，臺北市。
吳至潔（2004）。未婚同居者之經驗及其意義─詮釋觀點的探究（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號092NCUE5464011）
吳欣燁（2013）。從詮釋現象學的觀點看夫妻衝突歷程（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號101TMTC5328002）
吳芝儀（譯）（2008）。敘事研究：閱讀、分析與詮釋（原作者：Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R. &; Zilber, T.）。嘉義市：濤石文化。（原著出版年：1998）。
吳昱廷（2000）。同居伴侶家庭的生活與空間：異性戀V.S.男同性戀同居伴侶的 比較分析（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號　　088NTU00225016）。
呂玉瑕、周玉慧（2015）。二十一世紀臺灣青少年性別角色態度之形成與變遷。臺灣社會學刊，58，95-155。
李雅惠（2006）。大學生同居態度、同居經驗與心理福祉之研究（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號094NTNU5261036）。
卓依蒨（2012）。婚姻變奏曲─談婚姻衝突及教育介入策略。家庭教育雙月刊，35（1），48-59。
取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號101SCC00164002）。
易之新（譯）（2000）。敘事治療─解構並重寫生命的故事。（原作者：J. Freedman＆G. Combs）。臺北：張老師文化。（原著出版於1996年）
邱必欣（2013）。論異性同居之保護（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號101SCU00194073）。
邱愛婷（2013）。婚前是否同居對夫妻關係品質的影響：結婚理由的調節效果（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號102FJU01164002）。
邱獻輝、葉光輝（2012）。從傳統華人貞節觀念探討男性殺妻。本土心理學研究，38，43-100。doi：10.6254／2012.38.43
施采宜（2012）。非婚者同居者同居經驗與寂寞感之相關研究（碩士論文）。
柯澍馨、何嘉雯（2004）。大學生親子關係、婚姻態度與同居行為之研究-以臺北縣市私立大學學生為例。華岡農科學報，13，57-74。
紀淳萍（2015）。同居伴侶互動歷程研究：對偶觀點（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號103NCUE5658001）。
范雲（2011）。「同居人就在你身邊」─同居問卷分析報告。臺灣伴侶權益推動聯盟委託調查報告。取自http://tapcpr.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/若要月圓人團圓，良緣還須伴侶權！-232位律師連署/
徐曼寧（2013）。同居關係中家務分工的性別差異（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號101NTPU0208005）。
紐文英（2014）。質性研究方法與論文寫作（修訂版）。臺北：雙葉。
張書豪（2009）。台灣同居生活的樣貌─規範與需求的落差（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號097NHU05208005）。
張榮富、陳怡伶（2009年12月）。影響大學生未婚同居態度的因素：東海大學為例。2009年社會與區域發展學術研討會。臺北：國立臺北教育大學。
畢恆達、吳昱廷（2000）。男同居伴侶的住宅空間體驗：四個個案。應用心理學研究，8，121-147。
許連高（譯）（1991）。同居。（原作者：Mireille, Dewevre-Fourcade）。臺北市：遠流。（原著出版年：1989）
陳毓容（2011）。談婚前同居關係與婚前教育之現況。教育家庭月刊，34，56-63。
彭思蓉（2012）。衝突與美夢「生命夢想」概念在伴侶衝突中的應用。諮商與輔導，320，24-27。
曾琪方（2011）。親愛的你，怎麼不在我身邊：跨國遠距離情侶的關係維繫（碩士論文）。取自華藝線上圖書館系統。（系統編號U0055-0812201116104500）。
黃欣蓉（譯）（2014）。婚戒戴不戴，真的差很多：科學告訴你選擇結婚而非同居的關鍵原因（原作者：Glenn T, Stanton）。臺北：財團法人愛家文化。（原著出版年：2011）。
黃憶欣（2000）。同居潮流。臺北：高霖。
楊中芳（1991）。回顧港台「自我」研究：反省與展望。載於高尚仁、楊中芳（主編），中國人‧中國心—人格與社會篇（15-92頁）。臺北：遠流。
楊佳羚（2007）。台灣女生瑞典樂活。臺北：女書文化。
楊靜利（2004）。同居的生育意涵與臺灣同居人數估計。台灣社會學刊，36，189-213。
楊靜利（2014年1月6日）同居、婚姻與生育：人口學觀點的多元成家﹝網路部落格評論﹞。取自http://twstreetcorner.org/2014/01/06/yangchingli/
裴于雯（2008）。非關婚姻：同居生活的家庭與家人之未來展演（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號096TKU05721001）。
鄧郁馨、王嵩音（2015）。見面還是不見面？情侶維繫關係之管道分析。新聞學研究，122，121-167。
鄭筠樺（2012）。大學生同居議題與親密關係教育需求。家庭教育雙月刊，36，16-22。
鍾宜吟（2008）。臺灣地區民眾婚前同居、婚姻態度之相關分析（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號096NTPU0208011）。
鍾宜吟、蔡明璋（2008）。婚前同居、婚姻價值與婚姻滿意度：臺灣民眾的分析。 研究台灣，5，43-72。
簡維昌（2010）。不同世代未婚者之同居態度、同居經驗及其婚姻態度之研究（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號098NCYU5658038）。
羅國華、劉訓蓉、呂淑君、吳雅君、曾孟琹（2012）。99年人口及住宅普查資料確度評估之研析。行政院主計總處研究報告（編號：101年 01）。臺北市：行政院。取自http://www.stat.gov.tw/public/Data/341615303071.pdf
龔寀禎（2008）。未婚同居分手者在愛情經驗中的自我轉變（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號098NTNT5464013）。
Tiffany（2008）。瑞典居遊：闖進維京海盜的版圖。臺北：上澤社文化。


英文部分
Bailey, M. (2004). Regulation of cohabitation and marriage in Canada. Law & Policy, 26(1), 153-175. doi:10.1111/j.0265-8240.2004.00166.x
Baker, M., & Elizabeth, V. (2012). Second-class marriage? Civil Union in New Zealand. Journal Of Comparative Family Studies, 43(5), 633-645.
Baker, M., & Elizabeth, V. (2013). Tying the knot: The impact of formalization after long-term cohabitation. Journal Of Family Studies, 19(3), 254-266. doi:10.5172/jfs.2013.19.3.254
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bendeck, O. (2008). Florida's "cohabitation" statute: the revolution that wasn't. Florida Bar Journal, 82(6), 95-98.
Bumpass, L. L., & Lu, H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the U.S. Population Studies, 54, 29-41.
Bumpass, L. L., & Sweet, J. A. (1989). National estimates of cohabitation. Demography, 26(4), 615-625.
Bumpass, L. L., & Sweet, J. A. (1995).Cohabitation, marriage and union stability: preliminary findings from NSFH2. NSFH Working Paper, 65.
Bumpass, L. L., & Sweet, J. A.,＆ Cherlin, A. J. (1991). The role of cohabitation in declining rates of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 913-927.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clandinin, D. J., & Huber, J. (2002). Narrative inquiry: Towards understanding life’s artistry. Curriculum Inquiry, 32(2), 161-169.
Clandinin, D. J., & Huber, J., Huber, M., Murphy, M. S., Orr, A. M., Pearce, M., & Steeve, P. (Eds.). (2006). Composing diverse identities. New York, NY: Routledge.
Clandinin, D. J., Pushor, D., & Orr, A. M. (2007). Navigating sites for narrative inquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 21-35. doi:10.1177/0022487106296218
Conle, C. (2001). The rationality of narrative inquiry in research and professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 24(1), 21-33.
Daatland, S. (2007). Marital history and intergenerational solidarity: The impact of divorce and unmarried cohabitation. Journal Of Social Issues, 63(4), 809-825. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00538.x
Duvander, A. E. (1999). The transition from cohabitation to marriage. Journal of Family Issues, 20(5), 698-717.
Edmondson, B. (1997). New life stage: Trial marriage. Forecast, 17 (10) ,7.
Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative therapy: The social construction of preferred realities. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.
Gault-Sherman, M., & Draper, S. (2012). What will the neighbors think? The effect of moral communities on cohabitation. Review Of Religious Research, 54(1), 45-67. doi:10.1007/s13644-011-0039-9
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haretz. (2002, August 14). Unmarried cohabitation becoming prevalent in Israel. [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/members/news/2002/August-DP/Unmarried_chabitation_prevalent_n_Israel_Aug_14,2002.html
Hayford, S. R., & Morgan, S. (2008). The quality of retrospective data on cohabitation. Demography, 45(1), 129-141.
Hewitt, B. (2006).Trial marriage: Is premarital cohabitation an effective risk minimisation strategy for marriage breakdown? Paper presented to the Social Change in the 21st Century Conference, Centre for Social Change Research Queensland University of Technology 27th October 2006.
Hewitt, B., & Vaus, D. (2009). Change in the association between premarital cohabitation and separation, Australia 1945-2000. Journal Of Marriage & Family, 71(2), 353-361. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00604.x
Hochschild, Arlie. (1989). The Second Shift. New York: Avon Books.
Hoem, J. & Hoem, B. (1988). The swedish family: Aspects of contemporary development. Journal of Family Issues, 9, 397-424.
Hoem, J. M., Muresşan, C., & Haărăgusş, M. (2013). Recent features of cohabitational and marital fertility in romania. Population-E, 68(4), 579-605. doi:10.3917/pope.1304.0579
Kalmijn, M. (2005). Attitude alignment in marriage and cohabitation: The case of sex-role attitudes. Personal Relationships, 12(4), 521-535. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00129.x
Kamp Dush, C. M., Rhoades, G. K., Sandberg-Thoma, S. E., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2014). Commitment across the transition to parenthood among married and cohabiting couples. Couple And Family Psychology: Research And Practice, 3(2), 126-136. doi:10.1037/cfp0000006
Kaplan, A. (2002). The roads of freedom: cohabitation patterns in Israel. M. A. Thesis, Tel-Aviv University (in Hebrew).
Kiernan, K. (2004). Unmarried cohabitation and parenthood in Britain and Europe. Law & Policy, 26(1), 33-55.
Koopman-Boyden, P. G., & Abbott, M. (1985). Expectations for household task allocation and actual task allocation: A New Zealand study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 211-219.
Lachance-Grzela, M., & Bouchard, G. (2009). La cohabitation et le mariage, deux mondes à part? Un examen des caractéristiques démographiques, individuelles et relationnelles. (French). Canadian Journal Of Behavioural Science, 41(1), 37-44. doi:10.1037/a0013407
Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative research: Reading, analysis, and interpretation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Liefbroer, A. C., & de Jong Gierveld, J. (1993). The impact of rational considerations and perceived opinions on young adults' union formation intentions. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 213-235.
Liefbroer, A. C., & Dourleijn, E. (2006). Unmarried cohabitation and union stability: Testing the role of diffusion using data from 16 European countries. Demography, 43(2), 203-221.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lixia, Q., Weston, R., & de Vaus, D. (2009). Cohabitation and beyond: The contribution of each partner's relationship satisfaction and fertility aspirations to pathways of cohabiting couples. Journal Of Comparative Family Studies, 40(4), 587-601.
Macklin, E. D. (1983). Nonmarital heterosexual cohabitation: An overview. In E. D.Macklin & R. H.Rubin ( Eds.), Contemporary families and alternative lifestyles (pp. 49-74). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Manting, D. (1996). The changing meaning of cohabitation and marriage. European Sociological Review, 12(1), 53-65.
Miller, A., & Sassler, S. (2012). The construction of gender among working-class cohabiting couples. Qualitative Sociology, 35(4), 427-446. doi:10.1007/s11133-012-9234-4
Mokomane, Z. (2005). A demographic and socio-economic portrait of cohabitation in Botswana. Society In Transition, 36(1), 57-73.
Moore, E., & Govender, R. (2013). Marriage and cohabitation in south africa: An enriching explanation?. Journal Of Comparative Family Studies, 44(5), 623-639.
Murrow, C., & Shi, L. (2010). The influence of cohabitation purposes on relationship quality: An Examination in Dimensions. The American Journal Of Family Therapy, 38(5), 397-412. doi:10.1080/01926187.2010.513916
Näsholm, Astrid. (1972). Sammanboende gifta och Sammanboende ogifta. (Marriage cohabitation and unmarried cohabition.). SOU, 41.
Newcomb, Paul R. (1979) . Cohabitation in America: An Assessment of Consequences. Journal of Marriage and Family. 41(3), 597-603.
Olday, D. (1977). Some consequences for heterosexual cohabitation for marriage. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and human science. Albany, NY: University of New York Press.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. S. Valle & S. Halling (Eds.) Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 41-60). New York, NY: Plenum.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1991). Narrative and self-concept. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1(2 & 3), 135-153.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. In J. A. Hatch & R. Wisniewski (Eds.), Life history and narrative (pp. 5-24). New York, NY: The Falmer Press.
Rachel Henneck. (2003). Family Policy in the US, Japan, Germany, Italy and France: Parental Leave, Child Benefits/FamilyAllowances, Child Care,Marriage/Cohabitation, and Divorce. A Briefing Paper Prepared for the Council on Contemporary Families. Council on Contemporary Families.
Raymo, J. M., Iwasawa, M., & Bumpass, L. (2009). Cohabitation and family formation in japan. Demography, 46(4), 785-803.
Reinhold, S. (2010). Reassessing the link between premarital cohabitation and marital instability. Demography, 47(3), 719-733.
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2012). The impact of the transition to cohabitation on relationship functioning: Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings. Journal Of Family Psychology, 26(3), 348-358. doi:10.1037/a0028316.
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Kelmer, G., & Markman, H. J. (2010). Physical aggression in unmarried relationships: The roles of commitment and constraints. Journal Of Family Psychology, 24(6), 678-687. doi:10.1037/a0021475.
Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Riessman, C. K. (2002). Analysis of personal narratives. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 335-353). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Riessman, C. K. (Ed.). (1994). Qualitative studies in social work research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Risman, B. J., Hill, C. T., & Rubin, Z et al. (1981). Living together in college : Implications for courtship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43(1), 77-83.
Sassler, S., & Miller, A. J. (2011). Class differences in cohabitation processes. Family Relations, 60(2), 163-177. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00640.x
Scanzoni, J., & Greer L. F. (1980). Sex roles, family and society: The seventies and beyond. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(4), 743-756.
Smock, P. J. (2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review Of Sociology, 261.
Soons, J. M., & Kalmijn, M. (2009). Is marriage more than cohabitation? well-being differences in 30 European countries. Journal Of Marriage & Family, 71(5), 1141-1157. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00660.x
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G., & Markman, H. J. (2006).Sliding Versus Deciding: Inertia and the Premarital Cohabitation Effect. Family Relations, 55(4), 499-509. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00418.x
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-135. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119
Sweet, J.A., Bumpass, L.L., & Call, V.(1988). The design and content of the National Survey of Families and Households. NSFH Work. Pap. No. 1. Cent. Demography Ecol., Univ.Wisc.-Madison
Tach, L., & Halpern-Meekin, S. (2009). How Does premarital cohabitation affect trajectories of marital quality?. Journal Of Marriage & Family, 71(2), 298-317. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00600.x
Tanfer, K. (1987). Patterns of premarital cohabitation among never-married women in the United States. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49(3), 483-497.
Thrall, C. A. (1978). Who does what? role stereotyping, children’s work, and continuity between generations in the household division of labor. Human Relations, 31(3), 249-265.
Vespa, J., & Painter, M. (2011). Cohabitation history, marriage, and wealth accumulation. Demography, 48(3), 983-1004. doi:10.1007/s13524-011-0043-2
Wang, A. Y. (2007). Unmarried cohabitation: What can we learn from a comparison between the united states and china?. Family Law Quarterly, 41(1), 197-217.
Waite, L. J. (1995). Does marriage matter?. Demography, 32(4), 483-507.
White, J. M. (1987). Premarital cohabitation and marital stability in Canada. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49(3), 641-647.
Williams, L., Kabamalan, M., & Ogena, N. (2007). Cohabitation in the Philippines: attitudes and behaviors among young women and men. Journal Of Marriage & Family, 69(5), 1244-1256. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00444.x
Willoughby, B. J., & Belt, D. (2016). Marital orientation and relationship well-being among cohabiting couples.Journal Of Family Psychology, 30(2), 181-192. doi:10.1037/fam0000150