IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dem/demres/v39y2018i15.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Joint lifestyles and the risk of union dissolution: Differences between marriage and cohabitation

Author

Listed:
  • Kirsten van Houdt

    (Stockholms Universitet)

  • Anne-Rigt Poortman

    (Universiteit Utrecht)

Abstract

Background: Love, intimacy, and companionship are considered the cement of contemporary couple relationships. Yet previous research studying how the way that couples arrange their social life and leisure time relates to the stability of their union has focused exclusively on married couples. Objective: This study examines the extent to which married and cohabiting couples have joint lifestyles and how this relates to their risk of union dissolution, and explores heterogeneity within these groups. In this way, it provides insight into how couples in these different types of unions arrange their lives jointly and what keeps them together. Methods: We apply multilevel panel models and Cox event history models using four waves of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study (N = 4,255). Results: Cohabiters have more separate lifestyles than married couples, in particular when it comes to joint friendships and social visits, while marital intentions or prior cohabitation makes no difference. Joint lifestyles are – for marriage and cohabitation – negatively related to the risk of union dissolution. Conclusions: Companionship – that is, a joint lifestyle – seems to have an important role in couple relationships. Although the marital vow still divides couples in how they arrange their lives together, joint lifestyles seem to be equally important in keeping cohabiting and married couples together, suggesting that married and cohabiting couples do not differ in their social foundations. Contribution: This study is one of the first to examine the relation between joint lifestyles and separation for cohabiting couples, and to use a longitudinal design with a prospective and sophisticated measure of joint lifestyles.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirsten van Houdt & Anne-Rigt Poortman, 2018. "Joint lifestyles and the risk of union dissolution: Differences between marriage and cohabitation," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(15), pages 431-458.
    • Handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:39:y:2018:i:15
    DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2018.39.15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol39/15/39-15.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/DemRes.2018.39.15?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. Nicole Hiekel & Renske Keizer, 2015. "Risk-avoidance or utmost commitment," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(10), pages 311-340.
    2. Nicole Hiekel & Aart C. Liefbroer & Anne-Rigt Poortman, 2014. "Income pooling strategies among cohabiting and married couples," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 30(55), pages 1527-1560.
    3. Marin Clarkberg & Ross M. Stolzenberg & Linda J. Waite, "undated". "Attitudes, Values, and the Entrance into Cohabitational Unions," University of Chicago - Population Research Center 93-4, Chicago - Population Research Center.
    4. Hill Kulu & Paul Boyle, 2010. "Premarital cohabitation and divorce: Support for the "Trial Marriage" Theory?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 23(31), pages 879-904.
    5. Becker, Gary S & Landes, Elisabeth M & Michael, Robert T, 1977. "An Economic Analysis of Marital Instability," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(6), pages 1141-1187, December.
    6. Aart Liefbroer & Edith Dourleijn, 2006. "Unmarried cohabitation and union stability: Testing the role of diffusion using data from 16 European countries," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 43(2), pages 203-221, May.
    7. William Axinn & Arland Thornton, 1992. "The relationship between cohabitation and divorce: Selectivity or causal influence?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 29(3), pages 357-374, August.
    8. Matthijs Kalmijn & Anneke Loeve & Dorien Manting, 2007. "Income dynamics in couples and the dissolution of marriage and cohabitation," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 44(1), pages 159-179, February.
    9. Marieke Voorpostel & Tanja Lippe & Jonathan Gershuny, 2009. "Trends in Free Time with a Partner: A Transformation of Intimacy?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 165-169, August.
    10. Anna Matysiak & Marta Styrc & Daniele Vignoli, 2014. "The educational gradient in marital disruption: A meta-analysis of European research findings," Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 68(2), pages 197-215, July.
    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. Alessandra Trimarchi, 2022. "Gender-Egalitarian Attitudes and Assortative Mating by Age and Education," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 38(3), pages 429-456, August.
    2. Sayda Mahmuda & Md. Nayeem Badsha, 2024. "A Study on the Perception of Love Relationships among University Students," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(6), pages 1832-1847, June.

    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. Marika Jalovaara, 2013. "Socioeconomic Resources and the Dissolution of Cohabitations and Marriages [Ressources socio-économiques et dissolution des cohabitations et des mariages]," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(2), pages 167-193, May.
    2. Daniele Vignoli & Anna Matysiak & Marta Styrc & Valentina Tocchioni, 2018. "The positive impact of women’s employment on divorce: Context, selection, or anticipation?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 38(37), pages 1059-1110.
    3. Giammarco Alderotti & Cecilia Tomassini & Daniele Vignoli, 2022. "‘Silver splits’ in Europe: The role of grandchildren and other correlates," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 46(21), pages 619-652.
    4. Ausra Maslauskaite & Aiva Jasilioniene & Domantas Jasilionis & Vladislava Stankuniene & Vladimir Shkolnikov, 2015. "Socio-economic determinants of divorce in Lithuania: Evidence from register-based census-linked data," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 33(30), pages 871-908.
    5. Maike Damme, 2020. "Overcrowded Housing and Relationship Break-up," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 36(1), pages 119-139, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Deniz Yucel, 2016. "Together, Forever? Correlates of Marital Well-Being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 125(1), pages 257-269, January.
    8. Roberto Impicciatore & Francesco C. Billari, 2012. "Secularization, Union Formation Practices, and Marital Stability: Evidence from Italy [Sécularisation, Pratiques de Mise en Union et Stabilité des Mariages: Le Cas de l’Italie]," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 28(2), pages 119-138, May.
    9. Giammarco Alderotti & Cecilia Tomassini & Daniele Vignoli, 2020. "Antecedents of 'Grey Divorces' in Europe: The Role of Children and Grandchildren," Econometrics Working Papers Archive 2020_08, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Statistica, Informatica, Applicazioni "G. Parenti".
    10. Patrick Ishizuka, 2018. "The Economic Foundations of Cohabiting Couples’ Union Transitions," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 55(2), pages 535-557, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Amit Kaplan & Anat Herbst-Debby, 2018. "Fragile Employment, Liquid Love: Employment Instability and Divorce in Israel," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 37(1), pages 1-31, February.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Signe Hald Andersen & Lars GÅrn Hansen, 2010. "The Rise and Fall of Divorce - A Sociological Adjustment of Becker’s Model of the Marriage Market," IFRO Working Paper 2010/4, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    16. repec:pri:crcwel:wp07-03-ff is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Lindsay Theunis & Christine Schnor & Didier Willaert & Jan Van Bavel, 2018. "His and Her Education and Marital Dissolution: Adding a Contextual Dimension," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 34(4), pages 663-687, October.
    18. Magdalena Muszyńska-Spielauer, 2008. "Women’s employment and union dissolution in a changing socio-economic context in Russia," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 18(6), pages 181-204.
    19. Tanja van der Lippe & Marieke Voorpostel & Belinda Hewitt, 2014. "Disagreements among cohabiting and married couples in 22 European countries," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 31(10), pages 247-274.
    20. Marianne Bitler & Jonah Gelbach & Hilary Hoynes & Madeline Zavodny, 2004. "The impact of welfare reform on marriage and divorce," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 41(2), pages 213-236, May.
    21. Diederik Boertien & Juho Härkönen, 2018. "Why does women’s education stabilize marriages? The role of marital attraction and barriers to divorce," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 38(41), pages 1241-1276.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cohabitation; divorce; intimate relationship; marriage;
    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:39:y:2018:i:15. 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.