Advertisement

The impact of education on modern family-union initiation

  • Jan M. Hoem
Articles

Abstract

The impact of education on formation of first unions is analyzed using interview data from a sample of Swedish women born in 1936–1960. A distinction is made between achieved level of education and the effect of being a student. The former appears to have little effect, but students start consensual unions at lower rates than corresponding non-students, and they also marry at much lower rates. Social background has not been important for marriage formation, but it has been for cohabitation, which was pioneered by the working class. There is no evidence that modern cohabitation started as a campus movement.

Keywords

Public Finance Interview Data Social Background Swedish Woman Consensual Union 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Effet du niveau d'instruction sur la formation du couple moderne

Résume

L'impact du niveau d'instruction sur la conclusion d'une première union est analysé à partir de données d'enquête sur un échantillon de Suédoises nées entre 1936 et 1960. Le fait d'être étudiante se révèle plus décisif que le niveau d'instruction lui-même. Les étudiantes sont moins enclines que les non-étudiantes à s'engager dans une union consensuelle, et beaucoup moins encore à se marier. Si le milieu social n'a guère eu d'effet sur le mariage, il en a eu sur la cohabitation, qui a été ‘lancée’ par la classe ouvrière. Rien ne prouve que le concubinage moderne ait débuté sur les campus.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arvidsson, Arne et al., 1982, Kvinnor och barn: intervjuer med kvinnor om familj och arbete, Information i prognosfrågor no. 4 (Swedish National Central Bureau of Statistics, Stockholm).Google Scholar
  2. Bernhardt, Eva and Britta Hoem, 1985, Cohabitation and social background: Trends observed for Swedish women born 1936–1960, Stockholm Research Reports in Demography, no. 23.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, Yvonne M.M., Stephen E. Fienberg and Paul W. Holland, 1975, Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
  4. Brown, Audrey and Kathleen Kiernan, 1981, Cohabitation in Great Britain: Evidence from the General Household Survey, Population Trends 25, no. 1, 4–10.Google Scholar
  5. Catlin, Nancy, James W. Croake and James F. Keller, 1978, Commitment and relationship factors in consensual cohabitation, International Journal of Sociology of the Family 8, no. 2, 185–193.Google Scholar
  6. Etzler, Cecilia, 1984a, Första steget i familjebildningen — gifta sig, börja sambo eller få barn: Utveckling och skillnader bland svenska kvinnor med olika social bakgrund födda 1936–1960, Stockholm Research Reports in Demography, no. 21.Google Scholar
  7. Etzler, Cecilia, 1984b, Rättningar och ändringar i fruktsamhetsundersökningens sysselsättningsschema (University of Stockholm, Section of Demography, Memorandum of 1984-08-22).Google Scholar
  8. Etzler, Cecilia, 1985, Val av utbildningsvariabel vid analys av kvinnors livsfaser (University of Stockholm, Section of Demography, Memorandum of 1985-06-13).Google Scholar
  9. Grønmo, Sigmund and Susan Lingsom, 1982, Sexual differences in household work: Patterns of time use change in Norway, Paper presented to the 10th World Congress of Sociology, Mexico City.Google Scholar
  10. Grønmo, Sigmund and Susan Lingsom, 1983, Husholdsarbeid og likestilling: Utviklingstendenser i 1970-årene, Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning 24, no. 5, 415–439.Google Scholar
  11. Hansen, Marianne Nordli, 1986, Sosiale utdanningsforskjeller. Hvordan er det blitt forklart? Hvordan bør de forklares?, Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning 27, no. 1, 3–28.Google Scholar
  12. Hoem, Jan M., 1985, The impact of education on modern union initiation, Stockholm Research Reports in Demography, no. 27.Google Scholar
  13. Hoem, Jan M. and Ulla Funck Jensen, 1982, Multistate life table methodology: A probabilist critique, Chapter 4 in: Kenneth C. Land and Andrei Rogers, eds., Multidimensional mathematical demography (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
  14. Hoem, Jan M. and Bo Rennermalm, 1985, Modern family initiation in Sweden: Experience of women born between 1936 and 1960, European Journal of Population 1, no. 1, 81–112.Google Scholar
  15. Hyrenius, Hannes, 1941, Studier rörande den utomäktenskapliga fruktsamhetens variationer, Skrifter utgivna av Fahlbeckska stiftelsen 28 (Gleerup, Lund, Sweden).Google Scholar
  16. Kiernan, Kathleen E., 1983, The structure of families today: Continuity or change?, in: British Society for Population Studies, The Family, Conference Papers, University of Bath, 14–16 September 1983, pp. 17–36 (OPCS Occasional Paper 31, London).Google Scholar
  17. Kravdal, Øystein, 1985, Flytting fra foreldrehjemmet: Regionale og sosiale forskjeller blant svenske kvinner født 1936–60, Stockholm Research Reports in Demography, no. 26.Google Scholar
  18. Laird, Nan and Donald Olivier, 1981, Covariance analysis of censored survival data using log-linear analysis techniques, Journal of the American Statistical Association 76, 231–240.Google Scholar
  19. Lundberg, Stefan and Arne Modig, 1984, Ungdomars etablering på bostadsmarknaden, Byggforskningsrådet, Rapport R182: 1984, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  20. Lyberg, Ingrid, 1984, Att fråga om barn: Teknisk beskrivning av undersökningen ‘Kvinnor i Sverige’, Statistics Sweden, Bakgrundsmaterial från Prognosinstitutet, no. 4.Google Scholar
  21. Matović, Margareta, 1985, ‘The Stockholm marriage’: Family formation and choice of partner in Stockholm 1850–1890 (in Swedish, with a summary of 14 pp. in English) (LiberFörlag, Stockholm).Google Scholar
  22. Nilsson, Anders, 1984, Studiefinansiering och social rekrytering till högre utbildning 1920–1976, Skrifter utgivna av ekonomisk-historiska föreningen i Lund, Vol. 41.Google Scholar
  23. Nordenstam, Ulla, 1984, Ha barn — men hur många? Kvinnors syn på barn, familj och arbete, Statistics Sweden, Information i prognosfrågor, no. 4.Google Scholar
  24. Nordenstam, Ulla and Ingrid Lyberg, 1984, Tids nog...: En undersökning om svenska folkets tidsanvändning 1982 och 1983, Konsumentverket, Allmänna byrå 1984-06-03, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  25. Olivier, Donald C. and Raymond K. Neff, 1976, LOGLIN 1.0 user's guide (with several subsequent updates) (Harvard University Health Sciences Computing Facility, Boston, MA).Google Scholar
  26. Palmgren, Ann-Christine and Peter Springfeldt, 1984, Fertility survey in Sweden, 1981: A summary of findings, Country Report, no. 43 (World Fertility Survey, London).Google Scholar
  27. Pleck, Joseph H., 1985, Working wives/Working husbands (Sage Publications, London).Google Scholar
  28. Reuterberg, Sven-Eric and Allan Svensson, 1983, Studiemedel som rekryteringsinstrument och finansieringskälla: Förändringar under 70-talet enligt de studerandes bedömningar, Universitets-och högskoleämbetet, FoU Projektrapport 1983: 1, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  29. Svensson, Allan, 1984, Vad skall vi göra åt studiemedlen? Några reflektioner utifrån högskolestuderandes bedömningar, Universitets- och högskoleämbetet, FoU Projektrapport 1984: 3, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  30. Waite, Linda J. and Glenna D. Spitze, 1981, Young women's transition to marriage, Demography 18, no. 4, 681–694.Google Scholar
  31. Winberg, Christer, 1986, Giftas på stockholmska. Review of Matović (1984), Historisk tidskrift (Stockholm) pp. 86–96.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan M. Hoem
    • 1
  1. 1.Section of DemographyUniversity of StockholmStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations