Abstract
Different studies of same-sex couples based on the Generations and Gender Survey (GSS) have been published in recent years. However, in this survey, people in gay and lesbian couples are not identified via a direct question but by comparing two separate variables: the sex of the respondent and that of the partner. But the identification of same-sex couples by comparing the sex of both partners is very unreliable. The few sex-coding errors of one of the partners in heterosexual couples generate a very high proportion of “false” same-sex couples among all couples considered to be of the same sex. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the problematic nature of the indicator in order to avoid inappropriate use of GGS data (and other surveys more generally) and to discuss the reliability of analyses of same-sex couples made with these data.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Source: Generations and gender survey, harmonized datafile, version 4.2 (Australia, Austria, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden)
Source: Generations and Gender Survey, harmonized datafile, version 4.2 (Australia, Austria, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden)
Source: Fictitious data
Notes
In reality, the sample size and the lower and upper limits of the age group may vary slightly from one country to another one (http://www.ggp-i.org/data/online-codebook).
These numbers appear small in relation to the GGS sample. The aggregate number of cohabiting couples in the seven countries concerned is 39,776 including 174 gay couples, 163 lesbian couples and 44 indeterminate couples (sex variable missing for at least one partner). So the article only covers a part of the population concerned, perhaps because of missing values for certain variables of interest.
In Bulgaria and Poland, the number of gay and lesbian cohabiting couples is too small (9 and 8 couples, respectively). The variability of the share of errors may be due to different factors (for example, data collection method and post-collection checks) whose specific effects are difficult to estimate.
My thanks to Benjamin Marteau (an INED Ph.D. student) for making these checks.
The question was: "Who does the following tasks in your household… preparing daily meals; shopping for food; vacuum cleaning the house; doing small repairs in and around the house: Always Respondent/Usually R/R and Partner equally/Usually P/Always P/Other". We consider here as "egalitarian" couples for whom the answer was "R and P equally".
Although this group probably still includes some "false" same-sex couples.
Table 2 of Gerrit Bauer's article (p. 108) describing the variables used in his study according to the sexual orientation of the couple should be considered with caution.
(151/255) × 100.
In reality, the observed proportion is 29% (see Fig. 1).
22% = {10% (ph(A)) × 40% (share of "real" same sex couples)} + {30% (pr(A)) × 60% (share of "false" same sex couples)}.
Pr – ph = 30–10%.
pr – ph = 22–10%.
pr – ph = 40–10%.
References
Banens, M., & Le Penven, É. (2016). Sex miscoding in the census and its effects on the enumeration of same-sex couples. Population English Edition, 71(1), 135–148.
Bauer, G. (2016). Gender roles, comparative advantages and the life course: the division of domestic labor in same-sex and different-sex couples. European Journal of Population, 32(1), 99–128.
Buisson, G., & Lapinte, A. (2013). Le couple dans tous ses états. Non-cohabitation, conjoints de même sexe, Pacs… Insee Première, 1435.
Cortina, C., & Festy, P. (2014). Identification of same-sex couples and families in censuses, registers and surveys. Families and Societies Working Paper Series, 8. http://www.familiesandsocieties.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/WP8CortinaFesty2014.pdf.
Fischer, M. M., Kalmijn, M., & Steinmetz, S. (2016). Does tolerance matter? A comparative study of well-being of persons in same-sex and mixed-sex unions across nine European countries. European Societies. doi:10.1080/14616696.2016.1207793.
Goldani, A.,M., Esteve, A., Turu, A. (2013). Coming out in the 2010 census: Same-sex couples in Brazil and Uruguay. Paper presented at the IUSSP XXVII International Population Conference, Buzan, North Korea.
Statistique Canada, (2011). Portrait des familles et situation des particuliers dans les ménages au Canada. Familles, ménages et état matrimonial, Recensement de la population de 2011. Document analytique. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011001-fra.pdf.
Toulemon, L., Vitrac, J., & Cassan, F. (2005). Le difficile comptage des couples homosexuels d’après l’enquête EHF. In Lefèvre C. et Filhon A. (dir.), Histoires de familles, histoires familiales (pp. 589–602). Coll. Les cahiers de l’Ined, PUF-Ined.
Vikat, A., Spéder, Z., Beets, G., Billari, F. C., Bühler, C., Désesquelles, A., et al. (2007). Generations and gender survey (GGS): towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demographic Research, 17(14), 389–440.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Laurent Toulemon (INED) and Thomas Emery (NIDI) for their advice and Catriona Dutreuilh (INED) for the English proofreading.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Régnier-Loilier, A. Are the Generations and Gender Surveys Well Suited for Studying Same-Sex Couples?. Eur J Population 34, 567–578 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9440-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9440-6