Soc 971: Fertility, families, and households

Week 5: Cohabitation

Jennifer Holland, So Jung Lim

1. The explanations for the rise in cohabitation

(1) Socio, economic and cultural changes:

1)Technological Change: Birth control, Abortion decline in the number of unintended pregnancies, births reduce so-called ‘shotgun marriages’

2)Economic Change: Women’s employment, women’s education; stagnant male earnings less commitment and responsibility (Oppenheimer 1994)

3)Cultural Change: Greater acceptance of sex outside of marriage; reduced stigma associated with living with one’s partner;Greater emphasis placed upon self-fulfillment and individual satisfaction in the relationship, with a consequence that relationships are less stable.

(2) Other explanations

1)Cyclical effect (feedback mechanism): Increase of cohabitation  more acceptance  more cohabiters

2)Advantages of cohabitation: economies of scale; sexual access of marriage without a long-run commitment; “trial marriage”-gather information

3)Obstacles for marriage: Economic constrains; marriage market interpretation: (Oppenheimer, 1995)

4)Search-theoretic model (Brien et al, 1999)- theatrical models of union formation

a. Timing of marriage is the outcome of a search process. Upon meeting a potential partner, an individual compares the gains associated with mar to that partner with the gains expected from further search. Then, individual must gather info by dating, or even living with the partner to determine the actual value of the match.

b. stress the information-gathering component of cohabitation relationship

c. beginning of cohabitation is a signal that woman has found a desirable potential partner

d. cohabitation typically are short-lived and many transit into marriages

2. Defining Cohabitation within the larger realm of Family Structure:

Rindfuss & VandenHeuvel 1990; Casper & Bianci 2002;

Heuveline and Timberlake 2004:

Role of Cohabitation / Incidence / Duration / Transition to Marriage / Children’s Exposure / Children’s Experience Duration / Countries
(Heuveline & Timberlake 2004)
Marginal / Low / Short / High / Low / Short / Italy, Poland, Spain
Prelude to marriage / High / Short / High / Low / Short / Belgium, CzechRepublic, Hungary, Switzerleand
State in Marriage Process / High / Short / High / High / Short / Austria, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Slovenia (US?)
Alternative to Single / High / Short / Low / Low / Short / New Zealand, United States
Alternative to Marriage / High / Long / Low / High / Long / Canada, France (US?)
Indistinguishable from Marriage / High / Long / Low / High / Long / Sweden

3. The effect of cohabitation on marriage (quality and stability)

(1) selection factors:

the selection perspective assumes that the association between premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital dysfunction is due to selection. That is, people who cohabit before marriage are different from those who do not and these differences increased the likelihood of poor marital quality and divorce. Characteristics supposed to be related to selection include lower educational attainment, being poor, parents’ divorce, attitude toward marriage, and religion, etc. (Booth & Johnson, 1988; Lillard, Brien & Waite, 1995; Thomson & Colella, 1992)

(2) experience of cohabitation:

the experience of cohabitation perspective assumes that the cohabitation itself increase the likelihood of marital dysfunction above and beyond the cohabiters’ characteristics. Cohabitation changes people and their relationships in ways that undermine later marital quality and commitment. Some empirical research support this perspective, such as being more accepting of divorce after cohabitation (Axinn Thornton, 1992; Amato Rogers, 1999) and fostering individualistic attitudes and behaviors that increase the risk of marital dysfunction (Bennett, Blanc, & Bloom, 1988).

4. Cohabitation’s impact on Children

  1. Smaller portion of the literature, but growing. (Attention, Measurement issues.)
  2. Considerations:

Measurement/Data issues

Definitional issues: Heterogeneity!

  1. Areas of research: (Literature review: Manning 2003 “The Implications of Cohabitation for Children’s Well-Being” in Booth & Crouter Just Living Together: Implication of cohabitation for children, families and social policy)

Economic; Behavioral; School-related; Cognitive; Risk taking behavior.

  1. Why?

1)Selection?

2)Something unique to experiencing cohabitation?

3)Something else?

1