IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dem/demres/v31y2014i34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a new understanding of cohabitation

Author

Listed:
  • Brienna Perelli-Harris

    (University of Southampton)

  • Monika Mynarska

    (Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie)

  • Ann Berrington

    (University of Southampton)

  • Caroline Berghammer

    (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften)

  • Anna Evans

    (Australian National University)

  • Olga Isupova

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE))

  • Renske Keizer

    (Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam)

  • Andreas Klärner

    (Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut)

  • Trude Lappegård

    (Universitetet i Oslo)

  • Daniele Vignoli

    (Università degli Studi di Firenze)

Abstract

Background: Across the industrialized world, more couples are living together without marrying. Although researchers have compared cohabitation cross-nationally using quantitative data, few have compared union formation using qualitative data. Objective: We use focus group research to compare social norms of cohabitation and marriage in Australia and nine countries in Europe. We explore questions such as: what is the meaning of cohabitation? To what extent is cohabitation indistinguishable from marriage, a prelude to marriage, or an alternative to being single? Are the meanings of cohabitation similar across countries? Methods: Collaborators conducted seven to eight focus groups in each country using a standardized guideline. They analyzed the discussions with bottom-up coding in each thematic area. They then collated the data in a standardized report. The first and second authors systematically analyzed the reports, with direct input from collaborators. Results: The results describe a specific picture of union formation in each country. However, three themes emerge in all focus groups: commitment, testing, and freedom. The pervasiveness of these concepts suggests that marriage and cohabitation have distinct meanings, with marriage representing a stronger level of commitment. Cohabitation is a way to test the relationship, and represents freedom. Nonetheless, other discourses emerged, suggesting that cohabitation has multiple meanings. Conclusions: This study illuminates how context shapes partnership formation, but also presents underlying reasons for the development of cohabitation. We find that the increase in cohabitation has not devalued the concept of marriage, but has become a way to preserve marriage as an ideal for long-term commitment.

Suggested Citation

  • Brienna Perelli-Harris & Monika Mynarska & Ann Berrington & Caroline Berghammer & Anna Evans & Olga Isupova & Renske Keizer & Andreas Klärner & Trude Lappegård & Daniele Vignoli, 2014. "Towards a new understanding of cohabitation," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 31(34), pages 1043-1078.
  • Handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:31:y:2014:i:34
    DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2014.31.34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol31/34/31-34.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/DemRes.2014.31.34?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ron Lesthaeghe, 2010. "The Unfolding Story of the Second Demographic Transition," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 36(2), pages 211-251, June.
    2. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Theodore Gerber, 2011. "Nonmarital Childbearing in Russia: Second Demographic Transition or Pattern of Disadvantage?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 48(1), pages 317-342, February.
    3. Sara Mclanahan, 2004. "Diverging destinies: How children are faring under the second demographic transition," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 41(4), pages 607-627, November.
    4. Monika Mynarska & Laura Bernardi, 2007. "Meanings and attitudes attached to cohabitation in Poland," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 16(17), pages 519-554.
    5. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Michaela Kreyenfeld & Wendy Sigle-Rushton & Renske Keizer & Trude Lappegård & Aiva Jasilioniene & Caroline Berghammer & Paola Di Giulio, 2012. "Changes in union status during the transition to parenthood in eleven European countries, 1970s to early 2000s," Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 66(2), pages 167-182, July.
    6. Jennifer A. Holland, 2012. "Home and Where the Heart Is: Marriage Timing and Joint Home Purchase [Où se trouve le cœur, là est la maison: Calendrier du mariage et achat conjoint d’un logement]," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 28(1), pages 65-89, February.
    7. Brienna Perelli‐Harris & Wendy Sigle‐Rushton & Michaela Kreyenfeld & Trude Lappegård & Renske Keizer & Caroline Berghammer, 2010. "The Educational Gradient of Childbearing within Cohabitation in Europe," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 36(4), pages 775-801, December.
    8. Monika A. Mynarska & Laura Bernardi, 2007. "Meanings and attitudes attached to cohabitation in Poland: qualitative analyses of the slow diffusion of cohabitation among the young generation," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2007-006, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    9. Gunnar Andersson & Dimiter Philipov, 2002. "Life-table representations of family dynamics in Sweden, Hungary, and 14 other FFS countries," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 7(4), pages 67-144.
    10. R. Raley, 2001. "Increasing fertility in cohabiting unions: evidence for the second demographic transition in the united states?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 38(1), pages 59-66, February.
    11. Alessandra De Rose & Filomena Racioppi & Anna Laura Zanatta, 2008. "Italy: Delayed adaptation of social institutions to changes in family behaviour," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 19(19), pages 665-704.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniele Vignoli & Valentina Tocchioni & Silvana Salvini, 2016. "Uncertain lives: Insights into the role of job precariousness in union formation in Italy," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 35(10), pages 253-282.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brienna Perelli-Harris, 2014. "How Similar are Cohabiting and Married Parents? Second Conception Risks by Union Type in the United States and Across Europe," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 30(4), pages 437-464, November.
    2. Julia Mikolai & Ann Berrington & Brienna Perelli-Harris, 2018. "The role of education in the intersection of partnership transitions and motherhood in Europe and the United States," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(27), pages 753-794.
    3. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Laura Bernardi, 2015. "Exploring social norms around cohabitation: The life course, individualization, and culture," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 33(25), pages 701-732.
    4. Monika Mynarska & Anna Baranowska-Rataj & Anna Matysiak, 2014. "Free to stay, free to leave: Insights from Poland into the meaning of cohabitation," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 31(36), pages 1107-1136.
    5. Júlia Mikolai, 2012. "With Or Without You. Partnership Context Of First Conceptions And Births In Hungary," Demográfia English Edition, Hungarian Demographic Research Institute, vol. 55(5), pages 37-60.
    6. Andreas Klärner, 2015. "The low importance of marriage in eastern Germany - social norms and the role of peoples’ perceptions of the past," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 33(9), pages 239-272.
    7. Paola Di Giulio & Roberto Impicciatore & Maria Sironi, 2019. "The changing pattern of cohabitation: A sequence analysis approach," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 40(42), pages 1211-1248.
    8. Nitzan Peri-Rotem & Jacqueline Scott, 2017. "Differences in partnership and marital status at first birth by women’s and their partners’ education: evidence from Britain 1991–2012," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 15(1), pages 181-213.
    9. Christine Schnor, 2014. "The Effect of Union Status at First Childbirth on Union Stability: Evidence from Eastern and Western Germany," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 30(2), pages 129-160, May.
    10. Paulina Gałęzewska & Brienna Perelli-Harris & Ann Berrington, 2017. "Cross-national differences in women's repartnering behaviour in Europe: The role of individual demographic characteristics," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 37(8), pages 189-228.
    11. Sebastian Klüsener, 2015. "Spatial variation in non-marital fertility across Europe: recent trends, past path dependencies, and potential future pathways," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2015-001, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    12. Linus Andersson, 2023. "A Novel Macro Perspective on Family Dynamics: The Contribution of Partnership Contexts of Births to Cohort Fertility Rates," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 49(3), pages 617-649, September.
    13. Katrin Schwanitz & Clara Mulder & Laurent Toulemon, 2017. "Differences in leaving home by individual and parental education among young adults in Europe," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 37(63), pages 1975-2010.
    14. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Mark Amos, 2015. "Changes in partnership patterns across the life course," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 33(6), pages 145-178.
    15. Laura Wright, 2019. "Union Transitions and Fertility Within First Premarital Cohabitations in Canada: Diverging Patterns by Education?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 56(1), pages 151-167, February.
    16. Rannveig Kaldager Hart, 2019. "Union Histories of Dissolution: What Can They Say About Childlessness?," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 35(1), pages 101-131, February.
    17. Caroline Berghammer & Katrin Fliegenschnee & Eva-Maria Schmidt, 2014. "Cohabitation and marriage in Austria," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 31(37), pages 1137-1166.
    18. Olga Isupova, 2015. "Trust, responsibility, and freedom: Focus-group research on contemporary patterns of union formation in Russia," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(11), pages 341-368.
    19. Alessandra Trimarchi & Jan Van Bavel, 2017. "Pathways to marital and non-marital first birth: the role of his and her education," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 15(1), pages 143-179.
    20. Marie Bergström & Léonard Moulin, 2022. "Couple Formation is Prolonged not Postponed. New Paths to Union Formation in Contemporary France," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 38(5), pages 975-1008, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cohabitation; marriage; unions; family; Europe; partnership; relationships;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:31:y:2014:i:34. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.