IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/demogr/v57y2020i5d10.1007_s13524-020-00904-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Social Significance of Interracial Cohabitation: Inferences Based on Fertility Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Kate H. Choi

    (University of Western Ontario)

  • Rachel E. Goldberg

    (University of California, Irvine)

Abstract

Interracial couples cohabit at higher rates than same-race couples, which is attributed to lower barriers to interracial cohabitation relative to intermarriage. This begs the question of whether the significance of cohabitation differs between interracial and same-race couples. Using data from the 2006–2017 National Survey of Family Growth, we assessed the meaning of interracial cohabitation by comparing the pregnancy risk, pregnancy intentions, and union transitions following a pregnancy among women in interracial and same-race cohabitations. The pregnancy and union transition behaviors of women in White-Black cohabitations resembled those of Black women in same-race cohabitations, suggesting that White-Black cohabitation serves as a substitute to marriage and reflecting barriers to the formation of White-Black intermarriages. The behaviors of women in White-Hispanic cohabitations fell between those of their same-race counterparts or resembled those of White women in same-race cohabitations. These findings suggest that White-Hispanic cohabitations take on a meaning between trial marriage and substitute to marriage and support views that Hispanics with White partners are a more assimilated group than Hispanics in same-race unions. Results for pregnancy intentions deviated from these patterns. Women in White-Black cohabitations were less likely than Black women in same-race cohabitations to have an unintended pregnancy, suggesting that White-Black cohabitations are considered marriage-like unions involving children. Women in White-Hispanic cohabitations were more likely than White and Hispanic women in same-race cohabitations to have an unintended pregnancy, reflecting possible concerns about social discrimination. These findings indicate heterogeneity in the significance of interracial cohabitation and continuing obstacles to interracial unions.

Suggested Citation

  • Kate H. Choi & Rachel E. Goldberg, 2020. "The Social Significance of Interracial Cohabitation: Inferences Based on Fertility Behavior," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(5), pages 1727-1751, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:demogr:v:57:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s13524-020-00904-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s13524-020-00904-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13524-020-00904-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13524-020-00904-5?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paula England & Lawrence Wu & Emily Shafer, 2013. "Cohort Trends in Premarital First Births: What Role for the Retreat From Marriage?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 50(6), pages 2075-2104, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Wendy Manning & Pamela Smock, 1995. "Why marry? Race and the transition to marriage among cohabitors," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 32(4), pages 509-520, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Aaron Gullickson, 2006. "Education and black-white interracial marriage," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 43(4), pages 673-689, November.
    6. Larry Bumpass, 1990. "What’s happening to the family? Interactions between demographic and institutional change," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 27(4), pages 483-498, November.
    7. Nicole Hiekel & Aart Liefbroer & Anne-Rigt Poortman, 2014. "Understanding Diversity in the Meaning of Cohabitation Across Europe," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 30(4), pages 391-410, November.
    8. Lee Lillard & Linda Waite, 1993. "A joint model of marital childbearing and marital disruption," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 30(4), pages 653-681, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Larry Bumpass & R. Raley & James Sweet, 1995. "The changing character of stepfamilies: implications of cohabitation and nonmarital childbearing," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 32(3), pages 425-436, August.
    11. 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.
    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. Kate H. Choi & Arabella Soave, 2024. "Housing Attainment of Interracial Couples in the United States," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 43(4), pages 1-25, August.
    2. Annegret Gawron & Nadja Milewski, 2024. "Migration, Partner Selection, and Fertility in Germany: How Many Children are Born in Mixed Unions?," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 40(1), pages 1-29, December.
    3. Kate Choi & Rachel Goldberg & Patrick Denice, 2022. "Stability and outcome of interracial cohabitation before and after transitions to marriage," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 46(33), pages 957-1006.

    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. Roberta Rutigliano & Gøsta Esping-Andersen, 2018. "Partnership Choice and Childbearing in Norway and Spain," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 34(3), pages 367-386, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Júlia 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Kate Choi & Nancy Reichman, 2019. "The health of biracial children in two-parent families in the United States," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 41(8), pages 197-230.
    6. Bijlsma, Maarten J. & Wilson, Ben, 2020. "Modelling the socio-economic determinants of fertility: a mediation analysis using the parametric g-formula," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102414, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. 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.
    8. Fumiya Uchikoshi & Ryohei Mogi, 2018. "Order matters: The effect of premarital pregnancy on second childbearing in Japan," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(48), pages 1305-1330.
    9. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Monika Mynarska & Ann Berrington & Caroline Berghammer & Ann 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.
    10. Tony Fahey & Patricia Keilthy, 2013. "Absent fathers, absent siblings: Two sides of lone parenthood for children," Working Papers 201303, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    11. Sharon Sassler & Soma Roy & Elizabeth Stasny, 2014. "Men’s economic status and marital transitions of fragile families," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 30(3), pages 71-110.
    12. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Stefanie Hoherz & Trude Lappegård & Ann Evans, 2019. "Mind the “Happiness” Gap: The Relationship Between Cohabitation, Marriage, and Subjective Well-being in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and Norway," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 56(4), pages 1219-1246, August.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Maarten J. Bijlsma & Ben Wilson, 2020. "Modelling the socio‐economic determinants of fertility: a mediation analysis using the parametric g‐formula," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(2), pages 493-513, February.
    17. James Raymo & Marcia Carlson & Alicia VanOrman & Sojung Lim & Brienna Perelli-Harris & Miho Iwasawa, 2015. "Educational differences in early childbearing," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 33(3), pages 65-92.
    18. Steven Ruggles, 2015. "Patriarchy, Power, and Pay: The Transformation of American Families, 1800–2015," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 52(6), pages 1797-1823, December.
    19. Elena Pirani & Daniele Vignoli, 2021. "Childbearing Across Partnerships in Italy: Prevalence, Demographic Correlates, Social Gradient," Econometrics Working Papers Archive 2021_15, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Statistica, Informatica, Applicazioni "G. Parenti".
    20. James M. Raymo & Miho Iwasawa & Larry Bumpass, 2008. "Cohabitation and Family Formation in Japan," ISER Discussion Paper 0714, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.

    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:spr:demogr:v:57:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s13524-020-00904-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.