The Effect of Children on Men’s and Women’s Chances of Re-partnering in a European Context

  • Katya IvanovaEmail author
  • Matthijs Kalmijn
  • Wilfred Uunk


This work examines what role children play in the re-partnering process in five European countries (Norway, France, Germany, Romania, and the Russian Federation) by addressing the following research questions: (1) To what extent do men and women differ in their re-partnering chances?; (2) Can gender differences in re-partnering be explained by the presence of children?; (3) How do the custodial arrangements and the child’s age affect the re-partnering chances of men and women? We use the partnership and parenthood histories of the participants in the first wave of the Generations and Gender Survey (United Nations, Generations and Gender Programme: Survey Instruments. United Nations, New York/Geneva, 2005) to examine the transition to moving in with a new partner following the dissolution of the first marital union, separately for men and women. The story that emerges is one of similarities in the effects rather than differences. In most countries, men are more likely to re-partner than women. This gender difference can be attributed to the presence of children as our analyses show that childless men and women do not differ in their probability to re-partner. Mothers with resident children are less likely to re-partner than non-mothers and a similar though often non-significant effect of resident children is observed for fathers. In most countries we find that as the child ages, the chances to enter a new union increase. In sum, our study indicates that children are an important factor in re-partnering and a contributor to the documented gender gap in re-partnering, and this holds throughout distinct institutional and cultural settings.


Children Gender differences Re-partnering Residence 

L’impact des enfants sur les chances d’une nouvelle union pour les hommes et pour les femmes dans un contexte européen


Cet article étudie le rôle joué par les enfants dans la formation d’une nouvelle union dans cinq pays européens (Norvège, France, Allemagne, Roumanie et la Fédération de Russie) en tentant de répondre aux questions de recherche suivantes (1) dans quelle mesure les probabilités des hommes et des femmes de former une nouvelle union diffèrent-elles ? (2) la présence d’enfants peut-elle expliquer les différences de genre dans ce domaine ? (3) Les dispositions relatives à la garde de l’enfant et l’âge de l’enfant ont-ils un impact sur les probabilités d’une nouvelle union pour les hommes et pour les femmes ? Les histoires des unions et les histoires parentales des participants à la première vague des enquêtes Générations et Genre (GGS, Nations Unies ?, 2005) ont été utilisées pour étudier la transition vers une nouvelle union après la dissolution du premier mariage pour les hommes et pour les femmes séparément. Les résultats montrent des effets semblables plutôt que divergents. Dans la plupart des pays, les hommes ont des probabilités de former une nouvelle union plus élevées que les femmes. Cette différence de genre peut être attribuée à la présence d’enfants car nos analyses montrent que les probabilités d’une nouvelle union des hommes et des femmes sans enfant sont similaires. Les mères dont les enfants vivent avec elles sont moins susceptibles de former une nouvelle union que les femmes sans enfant, un effet semblable quoique non significatif étant observé pour les pères vivant avec leurs enfants. Dans la plupart des pays, plus l’enfant est âgé et plus les chances de former une nouvelle union augmentent. En résumé, notre étude montre que les enfants jouent un rôle important dans la transition vers une nouvelle union et qu’ils contribuent aux différences de genre, déjà connues, dans la formation d’une nouvelle union, ceci quels que soient les contextes culturels et institutionnels.


Enfants Différences de genre Nouvelle union Résidence 


  1. Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 650–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, G. S. (1993). A treatise on the family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bernhardt, E., & Goldscheider, F. (2002). Children and union formation in Sweden. European Sociological Review, 18(3), 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bumpass, L., Sweet, J., & Castro Martin, T. (1990). Changing patterns of remarriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52(3), 747–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cherlin, A. J., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1994). Stepfamilies in the United States: A reconsideration. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of progress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1288–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Graaf, P. M., & Kalmijn, M. (2003). Alternative routes in the remarriage market: Competing-risk analyses of union formation after divorce. Social Forces, 81(4), 1459–1498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dewilde, C., & Uunk, W. (2008). Remarriage as a way to overcome the financial consequences of divorce—A test of the economic need hypothesis for European women. European Sociological Review, 24(3), 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2009). The provision of childcare services: A comparative review of 30 European countries. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  10. Eurostat. (2012). At-risk-of-poverty rate by poverty threshold and household type. Retrieved from
  11. Goldscheider, F. K., & Waite, L. J. (1986). Sex-differences in the entry into marriage. American Journal of Sociology, 92(1), 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kalmijn, M. (2007). Explaining cross-national differences in marriage, cohabitation, and divorce in Europe, 1990–2000. Population Studies: A Journal of Demography, 61(3), 243–263.Google Scholar
  13. Kiernan, K. (2001). The rise of cohabitation and childbearing outside marriage in Western Europe. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 15(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koo, H. P., Suchindran, C. M., & Griffith, J. D. (1984). The effects of children on divorce and re-marriage: A multivariate analysis of life table probabilities. Population studies: A Journal of Demography, 38(3), 451–471.Google Scholar
  15. Lampard, R., & Peggs, K. (1999). Repartnering: The relevance of parenthood and gender to cohabitation and remarriage among the formerly married. The British Journal of Sociology, 50(3), 443–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lokshin, M., & Popkin, B. M. (1999). The emerging underclass in the Russian Federation: Income dynamics, 1992–1996. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 47(4), 803–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lyngstad, T. H., & Jalovaara, M. (2010). A review of the antecedents of union dissolution. Demographic Research, 23, 257–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meggiolaro, S., & Ongaro, F. (2008). Repartnering after marital dissolution: Does context play a role? Demographic Research, 19, 1913–1933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mills, M. (2004). Stability and change: The structuration of partnership histories in Canada, the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation. European Journal of Population, 20(2), 141–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Munch, A., McPherson, J. M., & SmithLovin, L. (1997). Gender, children, and social contact: The effects of childrearing for men and women. American Sociological Review, 62(4), 509–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. OECD. (2012a). Enrolment in childcare and pre-schools. Retrieved from
  22. OECD. (2012b). Informal childcare arrangements. Retrieved from
  23. Ongaro, F., Mazzuco, S., & Meggiolaro, S. (2009). Economic consequences of union dissolution in Italy: Findings from the European community household panel. European Journal of Population, 25(1), 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American Journal of Sociology, 94(3), 563–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Poortman, A. R. (2000). Sex differences in the economic consequences of separation: A panel study of the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 16(4), 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Poortman, A. R. (2007). The first cut is the deepest? The role of the relationship career for union formation. European Sociological Review, 23(5), 585–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rieck, D. (2006). Transition to second birth—The case of Russia. MPIDR working paper WP 2006-036. Retrieved from
  28. Sederlof, H. S. A. (2000). Russia: Note on social protection. Retrieved from
  29. Skew, A. J., Evans, A., & Gray, E. E. (2009). Re-partnering in Australia and the UK: The impact of children and relationship histories. 26th International Population Conference. Marrakech, Morocco. Retrieved from
  30. 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(5), 1141–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. South, S. J. (1991). Sociodemographic differentials in mate selection preferences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(4), 928–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Steele, F., Kallis, C., & Joshi, H. (2006). The formation and outcomes of cohabiting and marital partnerships in early adulthood: The role of previous partnership experience. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 169(4), 757–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stewart, S. D., Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2003). Union formation among men in the U.S.: Does having prior children matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(1), 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sweeney, M. M. (2002). Remarriage and the nature of divorce: Does it matter which spouse chose to leave? Journal of Family Issues, 23, 410–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sweeney, M. M. (2010). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 667–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Teachman, J. D., & Heckert, A. (1985). The impact of age and children on remarriage: Further evidence. Journal of Family Issues, 6(2), 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. United Nations. (2005). Generations and Gender Programme: Survey Instruments. New York/Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  38. Vikat, A., Spéder, Z., Beets, G., Billari, F., Buehler, C., Desesquelles, A., et al. (2007). Generations and gender survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demographic Research, 17, 389–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang, H., & Amato, P. R. (2000). Predictors of divorce adjustment: Stressors, resources, and definitions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 655–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wu, Z., & Schimmele, C. M. (2005). Repartnering after first union disruption. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(1), 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yamaguchi, K. (1991). Event history analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations