Expert answer:Write a Summary on Should We Live Together? Writin
Answer & Explanation:The is 1 attached word doc that is an example of what the teacher is looking for. There is also a pdf of the article that needs to be summarized. Please view both and the below remarks from the teacher.Read and summarize this somewhat long article by David Popenoe & Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. This type of article is called a “lit review,” that is, it is a comprehensive review of the research literature on the topic at the time it was written (and, because its purpose is to answer a question, it is very much like your Paper 1 assignment). It was published by The Marriage Project which was situated at Rutgers University in New Jersey but is now located at the University of Virginia. Your summary, for which you have been alloted up to two pages, is to be in MLA format,Here is a tip: While the maximum length of this informative summary is two pages, it is recommended that you target two pages, not less. If a student turns in a summary which is, say, only one page, then it is safe to say that some of thearticle’s main ideas or key details have been omitted. Yes, an informative summary is to be succinct, but it is also to beaccurate and comprehensive.Not including a heading and a header. At the top left of the first page, include your name, the instructor’s name, the course number and its section number, and the date.Not including a title. The easiest thing to write would be Summary of “Should we live together?” By the way, the title is simply placed in the center. It is not underlined or italicised, in bold, enclosed in quotes, or in a larger or different font.Giving more attribution than necessary. Remember, when writing a single-source summary, you need not remind the reader again and again who wrote it. Clearly mentioning the source once at the beginning frees you from having to include signal phrases throughout the body. (In most research writing, however, because you would be incorporating MULTIPLE sources, you WOULD mention the authors every time you mention something they said so your readers know without a doubt what part of the writing comes from Author A, what part comes from you, and what parts come from Author B, etc.)Writing descriptive overview rather than informative summary. Don’t simply mention the topics; give your reader the actual informational content, in shorter form. Don’t tell your reader what the author did; rather, give your reader the author’s content.Inserting commentary. Your opinion has no place in these informative summary exercises. Note how this differs from what you would do in most essays. In fact, that is the main purpose of these assignments—to give you structured practice in writing objectively, without commenting on the content, and without letting your own views show. The ability to be that objective in your writing is a skill that will serve you well in the future. So, limit yourself to the author’s content.More things to help you….. WhatHowWhy1st Para. Intro/title/author/ about the author=what are their credentials- 1-2 sentences = summarize the what- purpose- argumentBody Para How is the What communicated?Body Para (last one) Why- does this text matter to other scholars? Specifics:Did you name the authors and the publication?Did you state the year it appeared?Did you include the main ideas and any key details (the WHAT, HOW, and WHY)?Did you meet the length specifications?Did you include a Works Cited section at the end?Did you a) use 12-point Times New Roman font, b) set the margins for 1” all around, c) double space, and d) remove any extra spacing between paragraphs?How did you cite the article? In this case, there would be several options: 1. You could cite it as coming from the course web page, which is where you got it. This is the easiest, and it is accurate. Unfortunately, it is the least useful way to cite it because the page is password protected. That doesn’t help anyone outside the class.2. If The National Marriage Project is online, and the paper is still posted there, you could cite it as from there.3. You could Google it and perhaps find it somewhere else on the Web, where your reader could access it.example_source_summary.docxshould_we_live_together__2nd_ed.__2001_.pdf
example_source_summary.docx
should_we_live_together__2nd_ed.__2001_.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Student Name
Instructor
WRI 1200
January 14, 2016
Should We Live Together?
In the article, “Should We Live Together?” David Popenoe, a professor and
former social and behavioral sciences dean at Rutgers, and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, an
author and social critic, evaluate the research on cohabitation. Throughout the article it is
explained that cohabitation is the status of an unmarried couple that are sexual partners
and share a household, it also emphasizes that cohabitation is on the rise in America
because people might be under the wrong impression that cohabitation is actually
beneficial to marriage.
According to the research cohabitation actually increases the risk of domestic
violence, sexual and physical abuse of a child and lowers the levels of happiness.
Cohabitation is actually associated with higher divorce risk and it increases the
acceptance of divorce in younger people. This is due to the fact that cohabitating
relationships are easier to terminate and move on from than an actual marriage, which
would force the couple to work the problems they are experiencing out. However these
negative effects of cohabitation have not been as distinct in couples that are cohabitating
for a short time prior to marriage.
In addition to weakening the institution of marriage, cohabitation increases risks
for women and children. The article states that, “Child abuse has become a major national
problem and has increased dramatically in recent years, by more than 10% a year
according to one estimate… this increase is related strongly to changing family forms.”
The article also points out how women in cohabiting relationships are “nine time more
likely to be killed by their partner than are women in marital relationships” (Popenoe and
Whitehead). Cohabiting also reduces economic resources, according to the research “… in
1996 poverty rate for children living in cohabiting households was 31%, much closer to
the rate of 45% for children living in families headed by single mothers” (Popenoe and
Whitehead).
The authors end the article by indicating how the risks of cohabitation can be
prevented. The main argument against cohabitation is religion, stating that living together
outside of marriage or all sex outside of marriage is a direct attack to the sanctity of
marriage. This argument addressed that if people are old enough to have sex then they are
old enough to be married, this however will not solve the rising numbers of divorce
because teenage marriages usually have a higher risk of break up. The argument for
cohabitation is that it promotes monogamy, settling down with one sexual partner,
however this argument does not resolve the problem that cohabitation does not promote
longer lasting relationships or commitments.
In conclusion the article states that the only thing to be done about cohabitation is to
educate the public. This is why The National Marriage Project has been established and
carries 5 goals, to annually publish The State of Our Union or the index of health if
marriage in America, investigate and report on younger adult’s attitude towards marriage,
examine the popular media’s portrait of marriage, serve as a clearinghouse source of
research and expertise and develop strategies to revitalize marriage.
Work Cited
Popenoe, David, and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. “Should We Live Together?” The
National
Marriage Project. State University of New Jersey, 2002. Web. 31 March 2015.
Should We
Live Together?
What Young Adults Need to Know about
Cohabitation before Marriage
A
COMPREHENSIVE
REVIEW
OF
RECENT
RESEARCH
SECOND EDITION
David Popenoe and
Barbara Dafoe Whitehead
THE NATIONAL MARRIAGE PROJECT
The Next Generation Series
The National Marriage Project
The National Marriage Project is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian and interdisciplinary initiative located at Rutgers, the State University
of New Jersey.The project is financially supported by the university in cooperation with private foundations.The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis
on the state of marriage in America and to educate the public
on the social, economic and cultural conditions affecting marital success and wellbeing.
The National Marriage Project has five goals: (1) annually
publish The State of Our Unions, an index of the health of marriage and marital relationships in America; (2) investigate and
report on younger adults’ attitudes toward marriage; (3)
examine the popular media’s portrait of marriage; (4) serve
as a clearinghouse source of research and expertise on marriage; and (5) bring together marriage and family experts to
develop strategies for revitalizing marriage.
Leadership
The project is co-directed by two nationally prominent family
experts. David Popenoe, Ph.D., a professor and former social
and behavioral sciences dean at Rutgers, is the author of Life
Without Father, Disturbing the Nest and many other scholarly
and popular publications on marriage and family. Barbara
Dafoe Whitehead, Ph.D., an author and social critic, writes
extensively on issues of marriage, family and child wellbeing.
She is the author of The Divorce Culture (Alfred A. Knopf,
1997).
© Copyright 2002, 1999 by the National Marriage Project.
All rights reserved.
For more information:
The National Marriage Project
Rutgers,The State University of New Jersey
54 Joyce Kilmer Avenue, Lucy Stone Hall A347
Piscataway, NJ 08854-8045
(732) 445-7922
marriage@rci.rutgers.edu
http://marriage.rutgers.edu
RESEARCH ADVISORY BOARD A Research Advisory Board
made up of the following distinguished academic and social science
experts guides the work of the National Marriage Project.
Don S. Browning, Alexander Campbell Professor of Religious
Ethics and the Social Sciences, and Director, the Religion,
Culture and Family Project, University of Chicago
William J. Doherty, Professor of Family Social Science and
Director of the Marriage and Family Therapy Program,
University of Minnesota, and former President of the
National Council on Family Relations
Amitai Etzioni, University Professor, George Washington
University, founder and head of the Communitarian
Network, and former President of the American
Sociological Association
William A. Galston, Professor and Director of the Institute for
Philosophy and Public Policy, School of Public Affairs,
University of Maryland, and former domestic advisor to
President Clinton
Neil Gilbert, Milton and Gertrude Chernin Professor of Social
Welfare and Social Services, University of California at
Berkeley
Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard
University
Norval D. Glenn, Ashbel Smith Professor of Sociology and Stiles
Professor of American Studies, University of Texas at Austin
James Davison Hunter,William R. Kenan Professor, and
Executive Director, Institute for Advanced Studies in
Culture, University of Virginia
David G. Myers, John Dirk Werkman Professor of Psychology,
Hope College
Alice S. Rossi, Professor Emerita of Sociology, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, and former President of the
American Sociological Association
Isabel Sawhill, Arjay Miller Chair in Public Policy, the Urban
Institute, and Senior Fellow, Johnson Chair, the Brookings
Institution, and President of the National Campaign to
Prevent Teen Pregnancy
Linda J.Waite, Professor of Sociology, University of Chicago,
and former President of the Population Association of
America
Judith S.Wallerstein, Founder, Judith Wallerstein Center for the
Family in Transition, Corte Madera, CA, and Senior
Lecturer Emerita, University of California, Berkeley
James Q.Wilson, Professor Emeritus of Management, University
of California at Los Angeles, and Fellow of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences; former Henry Lee Shattuck
Professor of Government, Harvard University, and
President of the American Political Science Association
Alan Wolfe, Professor of Political Science and Director Center
for Religion and Public Life, Boston College, and
Contributing Editor, The New Republic
S H O U L D
W E
L I V E
1
T O G E T H E R ?
Executive Summary
ohabitation is replacing marriage as the first living together experience
for young men and women.When blushing brides walk down the aisle at
the beginning of the new millennium, well over half have already lived
together with a boyfriend.
For today’s young adults, the first generation to come of age during the
divorce revolution, living together seems like a good way to achieve some of the
benefits of marriage and avoid the risk of divorce. Couples who live together can
share expenses and learn more about each other.They can find out if their partner
has what it takes to be married. If things don’t work out, breaking up is easy to
do. Cohabiting couples do not have to seek legal or religious permission to dissolve their union.
Not surprisingly, young adults favor cohabitation. According to surveys, most
young people say it is a good idea to live with a person before marrying.
But a careful review of the available social science evidence suggests that living together is not a good way to prepare for marriage or to avoid divorce.What’s
more, it shows that the rise in cohabitation is not a positive family trend.
Cohabiting unions tend to weaken the institution of marriage and pose special
risks for women and children. Specifically, the research indicates that:
C
●
Living together before marriage increases the risk of breaking up after marriage.
●
Living together outside of marriage increases the risk of domestic violence
for women, and the risk of physical and sexual abuse for children.
●
Unmarried couples have lower levels of happiness and wellbeing than married couples.
Because this generation of young adults is so keenly aware of the fragility of
marriage, it is especially important for them to know what contributes to marital
success and what may threaten it.Yet many young people do not know the basic
facts about cohabitation and its risks. Nor are parents, teachers, clergy and others
who instruct the young in matters of sex, love and marriage well acquainted with
the social science evidence.Therefore, one purpose of this paper is to report on
the available research.
At the same time, we recognize the larger social and cultural trends that
make cohabiting relationships attractive to many young adults today. Unmarried
cohabitation is not likely to go away. Given this reality, the second purpose of this
paper is to guide thinking on the question: “should we live together?”We offer
four principles that may help.These principles may not be the last words on the
subject but they are consistent with the available evidence and may help nevermarried young adults avoid painful losses in their love lives and achieve satisfying
and long-lasting relationships and marriage.
“
Cohabiting unions
tend to weaken
the institution of
marriage and pose
special risks for
women and
children.
”
2
“
By 2000, the
total number of
unmarried
couples in America
was almost
4.75 million, up
from less than half
a million in 1960.”
”
S H O U L D
W E
L I V E
T O G E T H E R ?
1. Consider not living together at all before marriage. Cohabitation
appears not to be helpful and may be harmful as a try-out for marriage.There
is no evidence that if you decide to cohabit before marriage you will have a
stronger marriage than those who don’t live together, and some evidence to
suggest that if you live together before marriage, you are more likely to break
up after marriage. Cohabitation is probably least harmful (though not necessarily helpful) when it is prenuptial – when both partners are definitely planning to marry, have formally announced their engagement and have picked a
wedding date.
2. Do not make a habit of cohabiting. Be aware of the dangers of multiple
living together experiences, both for your own sense of wellbeing and for
your chances of establishing a strong lifelong partnership. Contrary to popular wisdom, you do not learn to have better relationships from multiple failed
cohabiting relationships. In fact, multiple cohabiting is a strong predictor of
the failure of future relationships.
3. Limit cohabitation to the shortest possible period of time. The longer
you live together with a partner, the more likely it is that the low-commitment ethic of cohabitation will take hold, the opposite of what is required for
a successful marriage.
4. Do not cohabit if children are involved. Children need and should have
parents who are committed to staying together over the long term.
Cohabiting parents break up at a much higher rate than married parents and
the effects of breakup can be devastating and often long lasting. Moreover,
children living in cohabiting unions with stepfathers or mother’s boyfriends
are at higher risk of sexual abuse and physical violence, including lethal violence, than are children living with married biological parents.
S H O U L D
W E
L I V E
T O G E T H E R ?
SHOULD WE LIVE TOGETHER?
What Young Adults Need to Know about Cohabitation
before Marriage
A Comprehensive Review of Recent Research
iving together before marriage is one of America’s most significant and
unexpected family trends. By simple definition, living together—or
unmarried cohabitation—is the status of couples who are sexual partners,
not married to each other, and sharing a household. By 2000, the total number of
unmarried couples in America was almost four and three-quarters million, up
from less than half a million in 1960.1 It is estimated that about a quarter of
unmarried women between the ages of 25 and 39 are currently living with a partner and about half have lived at some time with an unmarried partner (the data
are typically reported for women but not for men). Over half of all first marriages are now preceded by cohabitation, compared to virtually none earlier in
the century.2
What makes cohabitation so significant is not only its prevalence but also its
widespread popular acceptance. In recent representative national surveys nearly
66% of high school senior boys and 61% of the girls indicated that they “agreed”
or “mostly agreed” with the statement “it is usually a good idea for a couple to live
together before getting married in order to find out whether they really get
along.” And three quarters of the students stated that “a man and a woman who
live together without being married” are either “experimenting with a worthwhile
alternative lifestyle” or “doing their own thing and not affecting anyone else.”3
Unlike divorce or unwed childbearing, the trend toward cohabitation has
inspired virtually no public comment or criticism. It is hard to believe that across
America, only thirty years ago, living together for unmarried, heterosexual couples was against the law.4 And it was considered immoral—living in sin—or at
the very least highly improper.Women who provided sexual and housekeeping
services to a man without the benefits of marriage were regarded as fools at best
and morally loose at worst. A double standard existed, but cohabiting men were
certainly not regarded with approbation.
Today, the old view of cohabitation seems yet another example of the repressive Victorian norms.The new view is that cohabitation represents a more progressive approach to intimate relationships. How much healthier women are to be
free of social pressure to marry and stigma when they don’t. How much better
off people are today to be able to exercise choice in their sexual and domestic
arrangements. How much better off marriage can be, and how many divorces can
be avoided, when sexual relationships start with a trial period.
Surprisingly, much of the accumulating social science research suggests other-
L
3
4
S H O U L D
W E
L I V E
T O G E T H E R ?
wise.What most cohabiting couples don’t know, and what in fact few people
know, are the conclusions of many recent studies on unmarried cohabitation and
its implications for young people and for society. Living together before marriage
may seem like a harmless or even a progressive family trend until one takes a
careful look at the evidence.
How Living Together Before Marriage May Contribute to
Marital Failure
he vast majority of young people today want to marry and have children.
And many if not most see cohabitation as a way to test marital compatibility and improve the chances of long-lasting marriage.Their reasoning is as
follows: Given the high levels of divorce, why be in a hurry to marry? Why not
test marital compatibility by sharing a bed and a bathroom for a year or even
longer? If it doesn’t work out, one can simply move out. According to this reasoning, cohabitation weeds out unsuitable partners through a process of natural deselection. Over time, perhaps after several living-together relationships, a person
Percentage of High School Seniors
will eventually find a marriageable mate.
Who “Agreed” or “Mostly Agreed”
The social science evidence challenges the popular idea that cohabiting
With the Statement That “It Is
ensures greater marital compatibility and thereby promotes stronger and more
Usually a Good Idea for a Couple
enduring marriages. Cohabitation does not reduce the likelihood of eventual
to Live Together Before Getting
divorce; in fact, it is associated with a higher divorce risk. Although the associaMarried in Order to Find Out
tion was stronger a decade or two ago and has diminished in the younger generaWhether They Really Get Along,”
tions, virtually all research on the topic has determined that the chances of
by Period, United States.
divorce ending a marriage preceded by cohabitation are significantly greater than
for a marriage not preceded by
cohabitation. A 1992 study of 3,300
%
Boys
Girls
cases, for example, based on the 1987
70
National Survey of Families and
Households, found that in their mar60
riages prior cohabitors “are estimated
to have a hazard of dissolution that is
50
about 46% higher than for noncohab40
itors.”The authors of this study concluded, after reviewing all previous
30
studies, that the enhanced risk of
marital disruption following cohabita20
tion “is beginning to take on the status
of an empirical generalization.”5
10
More in question within the
0
research community is why the strik1976-1980 1981-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000
ing statistical association between
T
S H O U L D
W E
L I V E
5
T O G E T H E R ?
cohabitation and divorce should exist. Perhaps the most obvious explanation is
that those people willing to cohabit are more unconventional than others and less
committed to the institution of marriage.These are the same people, then, who
more easily will leave a marriage if it becomes troublesome. By this explanation,
cohabitation doesn’t cause divorce but is merely associated with it because the
same types of people are involved in both phenomena.
There is substantial empirical support for this position.Yet, in most studies,
even when this “selection effect” is carefully controlled statistically, a negative
effect of cohabitation on later marriage stability still remains. And no positive
contribution of cohabitation to marriage has been ever been found.6
The reasons for a negative “cohabitation effect” are not fully understood. One
may be that while marriages are held together largely by a strong ethic of commitment, cohabiting relationships by their very nature tend to undercut this ethic.
Although cohabiting relationships are like marriages in many ways—shared
dwelling, economic union (at least in part), sexual intimacy, often even children—they typically differ in the levels of commitment and autonomy involved.
According to recent studies, cohabitants tend not to be as committed as married
couples in their dedication to the continuation of the relationship and reluctance
to terminate it, and they are more oriented toward their own personal
autonomy.7 It is reasonable to speculate, …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades