Advertisement

European Journal of Population

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 87–118 | Cite as

Mortality Differences by Partnership Status in England and Wales: The Effect of Living Arrangements or Health Selection?

  • Sebastian Franke
  • Hill Kulu
Article

Abstract

This article investigates the relationship between partnership status and mortality in England and Wales. Using data from the Office for National Statistics Longitudinal Study for the period between 2001 and 2011, we examine whether married people have lower mortality levels than unmarried individuals; whether individuals who cohabit have mortality levels similar to those of married or single persons; and how much the fact that married couples live with someone rather than alone explains their low mortality. Our analysis shows first that married individuals have lower mortality than unmarried persons. Second, men and women in premarital unions exhibit mortality levels similar to those of married men and women, whereas mortality levels are elevated for post-marital cohabitants. Third, controlling for household size and the presence of children reduces mortality differences between married and unmarried non-partnered individuals, but significant differences persist. The study supports both protection and selection theory. The increase in mortality differences by age between never-married cohabitants and married couples is likely a sign of the long-term accumulation of health and wealth benefits of marriage. Similar mortality levels of cohabiting and married couples at younger ages suggest that healthier individuals are more likely to find a partner.

Keywords

England and Wales Survival analysis Mortality differences Marital status Cohabitation ONS LS 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Phil Sapiro and two anonymous referees for valuable comments and suggestions on a previous version of this article. Sebastian Franke’s research was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [ES/J500094/1] through the North West Doctoral Training Centre Social Statistics pathway (Ph.D. project: “Health, Mortality and Partnership Status: Protection or Selection”). The permission of the Office for National Statistics to use the Longitudinal Study is gratefully acknowledged, as is the help provided by staff of the Centre for Longitudinal Study Information and User Support (CeLSIUS). CeLSIUS is supported by the ESRC Census of Population Programme (Award Ref: ES/K000365/1). The authors alone are responsible for the interpretation of the data. This work contains statistical data from ONS which is Crown Copyright. The use of the ONS statistical data in this work does not imply the endorsement of the ONS in relation to the interpretation or analysis of the statistical data. This work uses research datasets which may not exactly reproduce National Statistics aggregates.

References

  1. Allan, G., & Crow, G. (2001). Families, households and society. Palgrave: Basingstoke and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, P. D. (2010). Survival analysis. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 413–425). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Arber, S. (2004). Gender, marital status, and ageing: Linking material, health, and social resources. Journal of Aging Studies, 18, 91–108. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2003.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Band, E. B., & Weisz, J. R. (1988). How to feel better when it feels bad: Children’s perspectives on coping with everyday stress. Developmental Psychology, 24, 247–253. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.24.2.247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Shlomo, Y., Smith, G. D., Shipley, M., & Marmot, M. G. (1993). Magnitude and causes of mortality differences between married and unmarried men. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 47, 200–205. doi: 10.1136/jech.47.3.200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blomgren, J., Martikainen, P., Grundy, E., & Koskinen, S. (2012). Marital history 1971–91 and mortality 1991–2004 in England and Wales and Finland. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 66, 30–36. doi: 10.1136/jech.2010.110635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brockmann, H., & Klein, T. (2004). Love and death in Germany: The marital biography and its effect on mortality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 567–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheung, Y. (1998). Can marital selection explain the differences in health between married and divorced people? From a longitudinal study of a British birth cohort. Public Health, 112, 113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheung, Y., & Sloggett, A. (1998). Health and adverse selection into marriage: Evidence from a study of the 1958 British birth cohort. Public Health, 112, 309–311.Google Scholar
  10. Cox, P., & Ford, J. (1964). The mortality of widows shortly after widowhood. Lancet. Google Scholar
  11. Drefahl, S. (2012). Do the married really live longer? The role of cohabitation and socioeconomic status. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(3), 462–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duncan, S., & Phillips, M. (2010). People who live apart together (LATs)—How different are they? The Sociological Review. Google Scholar
  13. Dupre, M. E., Beck, A. N., & Meadows, S. O. (2009). Marital trajectories and mortality among US adults. American Journal of Epidemiology, 170, 546–555. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dupre, M. E., & Meadows, S. O. (2007). Disaggregating the effects of marital trajectories on health. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 623–652. doi: 10.1177/0192513X06296296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ermisch, J., & Francesconi, M. (2000). Cohabitation in Great Britain: Not for long, but here to stay. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 163, 153–171. doi: 10.1111/1467-985X.00163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Espinosa, J., & Evans, W. N. (2008). Heightened mortality after the death of a spouse: Marriage protection or marriage selection? Journal of Health Economics, 27, 1326–1342. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox, J. (2002). Cox proportional-hazards regression for survival data. An R and S-PLUS Companion to Applied Regression. http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox/books/companion/appendix/Appendix-Cox-Regression.pdf.
  18. Fu, H., & Goldman, N. (1994). Are healthier people more likely to marry? An event history analysis based on the NLSY.Google Scholar
  19. Fu, H., & Goldman, N. (1996). Incorporating health into models of marriage choice: Demographic and sociological perspectives. Journal of Marriage and the Family. Google Scholar
  20. Gardner, J., & Oswald, A. (2004). How is mortality affected by money, marriage, and stress? Journal of Health Economics, 23, 1181–1207. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2004.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldman, N. (2001). Mortality differentials: Selection and causation. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 10068–10070) Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldman, N., & Hu, Y. (1993). Excess mortality among the unmarried: A case study of Japan. Social Science and Medicine, 36, 533–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gove, W. R. (1973). Sex, marital status, and mortality. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grundy, E. (2000). Living arrangements and the health of older persons in developed countries. Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Grundy, E. M. D., & Tomassini, C. (2010). Marital history, health and mortality among older men and women in England and Wales. BMC Public Health, 10, 554. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guner, N., Kulikova, Y., & Llull, J. (2014). Does marriage make you healthier? 1–37.Google Scholar
  27. Hannemann, T., & Kulu, H. (2015). Union formation and dissolution among immigrants and their descendants in the United Kingdom. Demographic Research, 33(August), 273–312. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2015.33.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hayward, J., & Brandon, G. (2010). Cohabitation in the 21st Century. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Horwitz, A. V., White, H. R., & Howell-white, S. (1996). Becoming married and mental health: A longitudinal study of a cohort of young adults. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 895–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hu, Y. R., & Goldman, N. (1990). Mortality differentials by marital status: An international comparison. Demography, 27, 233–250. doi: 10.2307/2061451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson, N. J., Backlund, E., Sorlie, P. D., & Loveless, C. A. (2000). Marital status and mortality: The National Longitudinal Mortality Study. Annals of Epidemiology, 10, 224–238. doi: 10.1016/S1047-2797(99)00052-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Joung, I. M., van de Mheen, H. D., Stronks, K., van Poppel, F. W. A., & Mackenbach, J. P. (1998). A longitudinal study of health selection in marital transitions. Social Science and Medicine, 46, 425–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kennedy, S., & Bumpass, L. (2008). Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements. Demographic Research, 19, 1663–1692. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kilpi, F., Konttinen, H., Silventoinen, K., & Martikainen, P. (2015). Living arrangements as determinants of myocardial infarction incidence and survival: A prospective register study of over 300,000 Finnish men and women. Social Science and Medicine, 133, 93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koskinen, S., Joutsenniemi, K., Martelin, T., & Martikainen, P. (2007). Mortality differences according to living arrangements. International Journal of Epidemiology, 36, 1255–1264. doi: 10.1093/ije/dym212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kulu, H., & Boyle, P. J. (2010). Premarital cohabitation and divorce: Support for the “Trial Marriage” Theory? Demographic Research, 23, 879–904. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2010.23.31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lesthaeghe, R., & Van de Kaa, D. (1986). Twee demografische transities. … groei en krimp.Google Scholar
  38. Lillard, L. A., & Panis, C. W. A. (1996). Marital status and mortality: The role of health. Demography, 33, 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lillard, L. A., & Waite, L. J. (1995). Til death do us part: Marital disruption and mortality. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1131–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lund, R., Due, P., Modvig, J., Holstein, B. E., Damsgaard, M. T., & Andersen, P. K. (2002). Cohabitation and marital status as predictors of mortality—an eight year follow-up study. Social Science and Medicine, 55, 673–679. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00219-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lynch, K., Leib, S., Warren, J., Rogers, N., & Buxton, J. (2011). Longitudinal Study 2001–2011 Completeness of census linkage Series LS No. 11.Google Scholar
  42. Manor, O., & Eisenbach, Z. (2003). Mortality after spousal loss: Are there socio-demographic differences? Social Science & Medicine. Google Scholar
  43. Mastekaasa, A. (2006). Is marriage/cohabitation beneficial for young people? Some evidence on psychological distress among Norwegian college students. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 165, 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McRae, S. (1999). Changing Britain: Changing families and households in the 1990s. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Murphy, M., Grundy, E., & Kalogirou, S. (2007). The increase in marital status differences in mortality up to the oldest age in seven European countries, 1990–99. Population Studies (New York), 61, 287–298. doi: 10.1080/00324720701524466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Murray, J. E. (2000). Marital protection and marital selection: Evidence from a historical-prospective sample of American men. Demography, 37, 511–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Popham, F., & Boyle, P. J. (2011). Is there a “Scottish effect” for mortality? Prospective observational study of census linkage studies. Journal of Public Health (Oxford), 33, 453–458. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdr023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rendall, M. S., Weden, M. M., Favreault, M. M., & Waldron, H. (2011). The protective effect of marriage for survival: A review and update. Demography, 48, 481–506. doi: 10.1007/s13524-011-0032-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scafato, E., Galluzzo, L., Gandin, C., Ghirini, S., Baldereschi, M., Capurso, A., et al. (2008). Marital and cohabitation status as predictors of mortality: A 10-year follow-up of an Italian elderly cohort. Social Science and Medicine, 67(9), 1456–1464. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.06.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shumaker, S. A., & Hill, D. R. (1991). Gender differences in social support and physical health. Health Psychology, 10, 102–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Soons, J. P. M., & Kalmijn, M. (2009). Is marriage more than cohabitation? Well-being differences in 30 European countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 1141–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Staehelin, K., Schindler, C., Spoerri, A., & Zemp Stutz, E. (2012). Marital status, living arrangement and mortality: Does the association vary by gender? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 66, e22. doi: 10.1136/jech.2010.128397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thomson, E. (2014). Family complexity in Europe. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wagner, M., & Weiß, B. (2006). On the variation of divorce risks in Europe: Findings from a meta-analysis of European longitudinal studies. European Sociological Review, 22, 483–500. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcl014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Waite, L. J. (1995). Does marriage matter? Demography.Google Scholar
  56. Waldron, I., Hughes, M. E., & Brooks, T. L. (1996). Marriage protection and marriage selection—prospective evidence for reciprocal effects of marital status and health. Social Science and Medicine, 43, 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wallace, M., & Kulu, H. (2014a). Migration and health in England and Scotland: A study of migrant selectivity and Salmon bias. Population, Space and Place, 20, 694–708. doi: 10.1002/psp.1804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wallace, M., & Kulu, H. (2014b). Low immigrant mortality in England and Wales: A data artefact? Social Science and Medicine, 120, 100–109. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.08.032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilcox, W. B., Doherty, W. J., & Al, E. (2005). Why marriage matters (2nd edn, pp. 1–44).Google Scholar
  60. Wilson, B., & Stuchbury, R. (2010). Do partnerships last? Comparing marriage and cohabitation using longitudinal census data. List of figures, 37–63.Google Scholar
  61. Wu, Z., & Hart, R. (2002). The effects of marital and nonmarital union transition on health. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 420–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and Planning, School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.School of Geography and Sustainable DevelopmentUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK

Personalised recommendations