Serial Cohabitation among Men in Britain: Does Work History Matter?

Article

Abstract

This article asks three research questions: Do serially cohabiting men form a selected group via their work histories? Are serial cohabitors less likely to marry but more likely to separate than single-instance cohabitors? If so, what part is played by features of their work histories in explaining these outcomes? The analyses are based on two British birth cohort studies relating to men born in 1958 (N = 7,333) and 1970 (N = 6,126). I find that serial cohabitors are less likely to marry but are more likely to separate. Although serial cohabitors do form a selected group via their work histories, the negative effect of serial cohabitation on marriage and the positive effect of serial cohabitation on separation remain significant and strong even after I control for cohabitors’ before-cohabitation and within-cohabitation work histories. It appears that the experience of serial cohabitation itself that affects the attitudes of men towards marriage.

Keywords

Cohabitation Marriage Separation Work histories Event-history analysis Birth cohort studies 

Cohabitations successives des hommes en Angleterre : l’histoire professionnelle joue-t-elle un rôle ?

Résumé

Cet article s’articule autour de trois questions de recherche : les hommes ayant connu des cohabitations successives forment-ils un groupe sélectionné au regard de leurs expériences de travail ? Les hommes qui ont expérimenté plusieurs cohabitations connaissent-ils des probabilités plus élevées de rupture que ceux qui n’ont connu qu’une seule cohabitation ? Dans l’affirmative, comment des caractéristiques de leur trajectoire professionnelle peuvent-elles expliquer ces résultats ? Les analyses sont réalisées à partir de deux études britanniques de cohortes de naissance d’hommes nés en 1958 (N = 7,333) et 1970 (N = 6,126). Les résultats montrent que les hommes ayant connu plusieurs cohabitations ont moins de probabilité de se marier et plus de probabilité de rupture. Bien qu’ils forment un groupe sélectionné au regard de leur histoire professionnelle, les effets négatif de cohabitations successives sur le mariage et positif sur la rupture restent significatifs et importants même après le contrôle des histoires professionnelles des cohabitants avant la cohabitation et pendant la cohabitation. Il semble que ce soit l’expérience de la cohabitation successive elle-même qui ait une incidence sur les attitudes des hommes vis-à-vis du mariage.

Mots-clés

Cohabitation Mariage Séparation Histoire professionnelle Analyse des biographies Études de cohortes de naissances 

References

  1. Allison, P. D. (1999). Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods and Research, 28(2), 186–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amato, P. R., & Beattie, B. (2011). Does the unemployment rate affect the divorce rate? An analysis of state data 1960–2005. Social Science Research, 40(3), 705–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnett, J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Axinn, W. G., & Barber, J. S. (1997). Living arrangement and family formation attitudes in early adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59(3), 595–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaujouan, É., & Ní Bhrolcháin, M. (2011). Cohabitation and marriage in Britain since the 1970s. Population Trends, 145(Autumn Issue), 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernardi, F., & Martinez-Pastor, J.-I. (2011). Female education and marriage dissolution: Is it a selection effect? European Sociological Review, 27(6), 693–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berrington, A. (2001). Entry into parenthood and the outcome of cohabiting partnerships in Britain. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 80–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berrington, A. (2003). Change and continuity in family formation among young adults in Britain. SSRC Applications and Policy Working Paper A03/04. Social Statistics Research Centre, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
  9. Berrington, A., & Diamond, I. (2000). Marriage and cohabitation: A competing risks analysis of first partnership formation among the 1958 British birth cohort. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 163(2), 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blackwell, D. L., & Lichter, D. T. (2004). Homogamy among dating, cohabiting and married couples. Sociological Quarterly, 45(4), 719–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blekesaune, M. (2008). Unemployment and partnership dissolution. ISER Working Paper No. 2008-21. Institute for Social & Economic Research.Google Scholar
  12. Blossfeld, H.-P., Golsch, K., & Rohwer, G. (2007). Techniques of event history modelling using stata. New approaches to causal analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Boehmke, F. J. (2005). DURSEL: A Program for Duration Models with Sample Selection, Version 2.0. Iowa City: University of Iowa.Google Scholar
  14. Boehmke, F. J., Morey, D. S., & Shannon, M. (2006). Selection bias and continuous-time duration models: Consequences and a proposed solution. American Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 192–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boheim, R., & Ermisch, J. (2001). Partnership dissolution in the UK—the role of economic circumstances. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 63(2), 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Booth, A., & Johnson, D. (1988). Premarital cohabitation and marital success. Journal of Family Issues, 9(2), 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brien, M. J., Lillard, L. A., & Stern, S. (2006). Cohabitation, marriage and divorce in a model of match quality. International Economic Review, 47(2), 451–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brown, S. L., Sanchez, L. A., Nock, S. L., & Wright, J. D. (2006). Links between premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital quality, stability and divorce: A comparison of covenant versus standard marriages. Social Science Research, 35(2), 454–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bukodi, E. (2012). The relationship between work history and partnership formation in cohorts of British men born in 1958 and 1970. Population Studies, 66(2), 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bukodi, E., & Dex, S. (2010). Bad start: Is there a way up? Gender differences in the effect of initial occupation on early career mobility in Britain. European Sociological Review, 26(4), 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bukodi, E., Dex, S., & Goldthorpe, J. (2011). The conceptualisation and measurement of occupational hierarchies: A review, a proposal and some illustrative analyses. Quality & Quantity, 45(3), 623–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Charles, K. K., & Stephens, M. (2004). Job displacement, disability and divorce. Journal of Labor Economics, 22(2), 489–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Cherlin, A. J., & Kiernan, K. E. (1995). The long-term effects of parental divorce on mental health of young adults: A developmental perspective. Child Development, 66(6), 1614–1634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohan, C. L., & Kleinbaum, S. (2002). Toward a greater understanding of the cohabitation effect: Premarital cohabitation and marital communication. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(1), 180–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cohen, J., & Manning, W. (2010). The relationship context of premarital serial cohabitation. Social Science Research, 39(5), 766–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Coviello, V., & Boggess, M. (2004). Cumulative incidence estimation in the presence of competing risks. Stata Journal, 4(2), 103–112.Google Scholar
  27. Dean, G., & Gurak, D. T. (1978). Marital homogamy the second time around. Journal of Marriage and Family, 40(3), 559–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Di Salvo, P. (1995). NCDS5 Partnership histories, CLS Data Note 2, London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  29. Ferri, E., Bynner, J., & Wadsworth, M. (Eds.). (2003). Changing Britain, changing lives. London: Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  30. Gelissen, J. (2004). Assortative mating after divorce: A test of two competing hypotheses using marginal models. Social Science Research, 33(3), 361–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guzzo, K. (2009). Marital intentions and the stability of first cohabitations. Journal of Family Issues, 30(2), 179–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hansen, H. T. (2005). Unemployment and marital dissolution: A panel data study of Norway. European Sociological Review, 21(2), 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hardie, J. H., & Lucas, A. (2010). Economic factors and relationship quality among young couples: Comparing cohabitation and marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1141–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hawkes, D., & Plewis, I. (2006). Modelling non-response in the national child development study. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 169(3), 479–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heckman, J. (1976). The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5(4), 120–137.Google Scholar
  36. Jalovaara, M. (2003). The joint effects of marriage partners’ socioeconomic positions on the risk of divorce. Demography, 40(1), 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kalmijn, M. (2005). The effects of divorce on men’s employment and social security histories. European Journal of Population, 21(4), 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kalmijn, M. (2011). The influence of men’s income and employment on marriage and cohabitation: Testing Oppenheimer’s theory in Europe. European Journal of Population, 27(3), 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kalmijn, M., & Luijkx, R. (2005). Has the reciprocal relationship between employment and marriage changed for men? An analysis of the life histories of men born in the Netherlands between 1930 and 1970. Population Studies, 59(2), 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kamp Dush, C. M., Cohan, C. L., & Amato, P. R. (2003). The relationship between cohabitation and marital quality and stability: Change across cohorts? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65(4), 539–549.Google Scholar
  41. Ketende, S. C., McDonald, J., & Dex, S. (2010). Non-response in the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70) from birth to 34 years. CLS Working Paper 2010/4. London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies.Google Scholar
  42. Kulu, H., & Boyle, P. J. (2010). Premarital cohabitation and divorce: Support for the “trial marriage” theory? Demographic Research, 23, 879–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lampard, R. (1994). An examination of the relationship between marital dissolution and unemployment. In D. Gallie, C. Marsh, & C. Vogler (Eds.), Social change and the experience of unemployment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lichter, D. T., & Graefe, D. R. (2007). Men and marriage promotion: Who marries unwed mothers? Social Service Review, 81(3), 397–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lichter, D. T., & Qian, Z. (2008). Serial cohabitation and the marital life course. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 70(4), 861–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lichter, D. T., Turner, R., & Sassler, S. (2010). National estimates of the rise in serial cohabitation. Social Science Research, 39(5), 754–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lillard, L. A., Brien, M. J., & Waite, L. J. (1995). Premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital dissolution: A matter of self-selection? Demography, 32(3), 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2005). Measuring and modelling cohabitation: New perspectives from qualitative data. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67(4), 989–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mills, M., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2005). Globalisation, uncertainty and the early life-course. A theoretical framework. In H.-P. Blossfeld, E. Klizing, M. Mills, & K. Kurz (Eds.), Globalization, uncertainty and youth in society (pp. 1–25). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Mood, C. (2010). Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review, 26(1), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nathan, G. (1999). A review of sample attrition and representativeness in three longitudinal surveys (p. 13). London: Governmental Statistical Service Methodology Series.Google Scholar
  52. Nickell, S. (1982). The determinants of occupational success in Britain. Review of Economic Studies, 49(1), 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2005). The national statistics socio-economic classification: Origins, development and use. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2009). Social trends No. 39. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  55. Oppenheimer, V. K. (2003). Cohabiting and marriage during young men’s career-development process. Demography, 40(1), 127–149.Google Scholar
  56. Oppenheimer, V. K., Kalmijn, M., & Lim, N. (1997). Men’s career development and marriage timing during a period of rising inequality. Demography, 34(3), 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stanley, S. M., Kline-Rhoades, G., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55(October), 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Amato, P. R., Markman, H. J., & Johnson, C. A. (2010). The timing of cohabitation and engagement: Impact on first and second marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72(4), 906–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Steele, F., Kallis, C., Goldstein, H., & Joshi, H. (2005). The relationship between childbearing and transitions from marriage and cohabitation in Britain. Demography, 42(4), 647–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stott, D. H. (1987). The social adjustment of children: Manual to the Bristol social adjustment guides. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  61. Teachman, J. (2003). Premarital sex, premarital cohabitation, and the risk of subsequent marital dissolution among women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(2), 444–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Teachman, J. (2008). Complex life course patterns and the risk of divorce in second marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(2), 294–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thornton, A., Axinn, W. G., & Teachman, J. D. (1995). The influence of school enrolment and accumulation on cohabitation and marriage in early adulthood. American Sociological Review, 60(5), 762–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thornton, A., Axinn, W. G., & Xie, Y. (2007). Marriage and cohabitation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  65. Winkler-Dworak, M., & Toulemon, L. (2007). Gender differences in the transition to adulthood in France: Is there convergence over the recent period? European Journal of Population, 23(3–4), 273–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wu, Z. (1999). Premarital cohabitation and the timing of first marriage. Canadian Review of Sociology, 36(1), 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Xie, Y., Raymo, J. M., Goyette, K., & Thorton, A. (2003). Economic potential and entry into marriage and cohabitation. Demography, 40(2), 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oxford Institute of Social Policy, Department of Social Policy and Intervention and Nuffield CollegeUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations