Understanding Diversity in the Meaning of Cohabitation Across Europe

Abstract

This study investigates the diversity in the meanings attached to cohabitation across Europe. Utilizing a sample of 9,113 cohabiters between ages 18 and 79 from 10 European countries that participated in the Generations and Gender Surveys, we develop a typology of different meanings of cohabitation and study their prevalence across and within countries. Based on answers to questions about marriage intentions, marriage attitudes and feelings of economic deprivation, six types of cohabiters are distinguished. Cohabiters in some of these types mainly view cohabitation as a stage in the marriage process (i.e. a prelude to marriage, a trial marriage, cohabitation for economic reasons, intend to marry, despite an unfavourable attitude towards the institution of marriage), whereas other cohabiters mainly view it as an alternative to marriage (i.e. refusal of marriage, marriage is irrelevant). Results suggest that cohabiters constitute a heterogeneous group. For many, marriage is important and cohabitation serves as a period preceding marriage. Cohabitation as an alternative to marriage is more prevalent in Western and Northern Europe, where cohabitation rates are high. The group of cohabiters who intend to marry despite an unfavourable attitude towards the institution of marriage is particularly large in Central and Eastern European countries, where cohabitation is less widespread.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The entropy of the cohabitation typology by country is defined as the negative sum of the proportion of cohabiters assigned to each meaning of cohabitation multiplied by its logarithm \(0 \le H_{\text{c}} = - \sum\nolimits_{i}^{k} {p_{i} } \log (p_{i} ) \le \log (k).\)

References

  1. Abrams, L. (1993). Concubinage, cohabitation and the law: Class and gender relations in nineteenth-century Germany. Gender and History, 5, 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barber, J. S., Axinn, W. G., & Thornton, A. (2002). The influence of attitudes on family formation processes. In R. Lesthaeghe (Ed.), Meaning and choice: Value orientations and life course decisions. The Hague: Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bernhardt, E., & Hoem, B. (1985). Cohabitation and social background: Trends observed for Swedish women born between 1936 and 1960. European Journal of Population, 1, 375–395. doi:10.1007/BF01797149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bianchi, S. M., & Casper, L. M. (2000). American families. Population Bulletin, 55, 3–42.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Billari, F. C. (2001). The analysis of early life courses: Complex descriptions of the transition to adulthood. Journal of Population Research, 18(2), 119–142. doi:10.1007/BF03031885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Billari, F. C., & Liefbroer, A. C. (2010). Towards a new pattern of transition to adulthood? Advances in Life Course Research, 15(2–3), 59–75. doi:10.1016/j.alcr.2010.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blossfeld, H.-P., & Huinink, J. (1991). Human capital investments or norms of role transition? How women’s schooling and career affect the process of family-formation. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 143–168. doi:10.1086/229743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bradatan, C., & Kulcsar, L. (2008). Choosing between marriage and cohabitation: Women’s first union patterns in Hungary. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39(4), 491–507.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brines, J., & Joyner, K. (1999). The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage. American Sociological Review, 64(3), 333–355. doi:10.2307/2657490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown, S. L. (2003). Relationship quality dynamics of cohabiting unions. Journal of Family Issues, 24(5), 583–601. doi:10.1177/0192513X03252671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown, S. L., & Booth, A. (1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(3), 668–678. doi:10.2307/353727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Casper, L. M., & Bianchi, S. M. (2002). Continuity and change in the American family. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ciabattari, T. (2004). Cohabitation and housework: The effects of marital intentions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(1), 118–125. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00009.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Clarkberg, M. (1999). The price of partnering: The role of economic well-being in young adult’s first union experiences. Social Forces, 77(3), 945–968. doi:10.1093/sf/77.3.945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Clarkberg, M., Stolzenberg, R. M., & Waite, L. J. (1995). Attitudes, values, and entrance into cohabitational versus marital unions. Social Forces, 74(2), 609–632. doi:10.2307/2580494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Coast, E. (2009). Currently cohabiting: Relationship attitudes, expectations and outcomes. In J. Stillwell, E. Coast, & D. Kneale (Eds.), Fertility, living arrangements, care and mobility: Understanding population trends and processes. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gerber, T. P., & Berman, D. (2010). Entry to marriage and cohabitation in Russia, 1985–2000: Trends, correlates, and implications for the Second Demographic Transition. European Journal of Population, 26(1), 3–31. doi:10.1007/s10680-009-9196-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Guzzo, K. B. (2009). Marital intentions and the stability of first cohabitations. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 179–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hajnal, J. (1965). European marriage pattern in historical perspective. In D. V. Glass & D. E. C. Eversley (Eds.), Population in history. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Heuveline, P., & Timberlake, J. M. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67(2), 1214–1230. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00088.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hoem, J. M. (1986). The impact of education on modern family-union initiation. European Journal of Population, 2(2), 113–133. doi:10.1007/BF01796886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hoem, J. M., & Kostova, D. (2008). Early traces of the Second Demographic Transition in Bulgaria: A joint analysis of marital and non-marital union formation, 1960–2004. Population Studies, 62(3), 259–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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. doi:10.1007/s10680-011-9238-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kantorova, V. (2004). Education and entry into motherhood: The Czech Republic during state socialism and the transition period (1970–1997). Demographic Research, Special Collection, 3(10), 245–274. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2004.S3.10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kasearu, K., & Kutsar, D. (2011). Patterns behind unmarried cohabitation trends in Europe. European Societies, 13(2), 307–325. doi:10.1080/14616696.2010.493586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kiernan, K. (2001). The rise of cohabitation and childbearing outside marriage in Western Europe. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 15, 1–21. doi:10.1093/lawfam/15.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kiernan, K. (2002a). Cohabitation in Western Europe. Trends, issues, and implications. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Just living together. Implications of cohabitation on families, children, and social policy (pp. 3–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kiernan, K. (2002b). The state of European Unions: An analysis of partnership formation and dissolution. In M. Macura & G. Beets (Eds.), Dynamics of fertility and partnership in Europe: Insights and lessons from comparative research (Vol. 1, pp. 57–76). New York: UN.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kiernan, K. (2004). Unmarried cohabitation and parenthood in Britain and Europe. Law and Policy, 26(1), 33–55. doi:10.1111/j.0265-8240.2004.00162.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Klijzing, E. (1992). ‘Weeding’ in the Netherlands: First union disruption among men and women born between 1928 and 1965. European Sociological Review, 8(1), 53–70.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kohler, H.-P., Billari, F. C., & Ortega, J. A. (2002). The emergence of lowest-low fertility in Europe during the 1990s. Population and Development Review, 28(4), 641–680. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2002.00641.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kotycheva, E., & Philipov, D. (2008). Bulgaria: Ethnic differentials in rapidly declining fertility. Demographic Research, 19(13), 361–402. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kravdal, O. (1997). Wanting a child without a firm commitment to the partner: Interpretations and implications of a common behaviour pattern among Norwegian cohabitants. European Journal of Population, 13, 269–298. doi:10.1023/A:1005943724645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kravdal, O. (1999). Does marriage require a stronger economic underpinning than informal cohabitation? Population Studies, 53(1), 63–80. doi:10.1080/00324720308067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lesthaeghe, R., & van de Kaa, D. J. (1986). Twee demografische transities? (Two demographic transitions?). In D. J. van de Kaa & R. Lesthaeghe (Eds.), Bevolking: Groei en Krimp (Population: Growth and Decline) (pp. 9–24). Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Liefbroer, A. C., & Billari, F. C. (2009). Bringing norms back in: A theoretical and empirical discussion of their importance for understanding demographic behaviour. Population, Space and Place, 16, 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Liefbroer, A. C., & Dourleijn, E. (2006). Unmarried cohabitation and union stability: Testing the role of diffusion using data from 16 European Countries. Demography, 43(2), 203–221. doi:10.1353/dem.2006.0018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Liefbroer, A. C., Gerritsen, L., & De Jong Gierveld, J. (1994). The influence of intentions and life course factors on union formation behavior of young adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56(1), 193–203. doi:10.2307/352713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2002). First comes cohabitation and then comes marriage? A research note. Journal of Family Issues, 23(8), 1065–1087. doi:10.1177/019251302237303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Manting, D. (1996). The changing meaning of cohabitation and marriage. European Sociological Review, 12(1), 53–65. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a018177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Martin, C., & Théry, I. (2001). The PACS and marriage and cohabitation in France. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 15, 135–158. doi:10.1093/lawfam/15.1.135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ni Bhrolcháin, M., & Beaujouan, E. (2013). Education and cohabitation in Britain: A return to traditional patterns? Population and Development Review, 39(3), 441–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American Journal of Sociology, 94(3), 563–591. doi:10.1086/229030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Oppenheimer, V. K. (2003). Cohabiting and marriage during young men’s career-development process. Demography, 40(1), 127–149. doi:10.2307/3180815.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Perelli-Harris, B., Kreyenfeld, M., Sigle-Rushton, W., Keizer, R., Lappegard, T., Jasilioniene, A., et al. (2012). Changes in union status during the transition to parenthood in eleven European countries, 1970s to early 2000s. Population Studies, 66(2), 167–182. doi:10.1080/00324728.2012.673004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Perelli-Harris, B., & Sánchez Gassen, N. (2012). How similar are cohabitation and marriage? Legal approaches to cohabitation across Western Europe. Population and Development Review, 38, 435–467. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00511.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Perelli-Harris, B., Sigle-Rushton, W., Kreyenfeld, M., Lappegard, T., Keizer, R., & Berghammer, C. (2010). The educational gradient of childbearing within cohabitation in Europe. Population and Development Review, 36(4), 775–801. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00357.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Philipov, D., Speder, Z., & Billari, F. C. (2006). Soon, later, or ever? The impact of anomie and social capital on fertility intentions in Bulgaria (2002) and Hungary (2001). Population Studies, 60(3), 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Potancokova, M., Vano, B., Pilinská, V., & Jurcova, D. (2008). Slovakia: Fertility between tradition and modernity. Demographic Research, 19(25), 973–1018. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Prinz, C. (1995). Cohabiting, married or single: Portraying, analyzing and modeling new living arrangements in the changing societies of Europe. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rindfuss, R. R., & Vandenheuvel, A. (1990). Cohabitation—A precursor to marriage or an alternative to being single. Population and Development Review, 16(4), 703–726. doi:10.2307/1972963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Seltzer, J. A. (2004). Cohabitation in the United States and Britain: Demography, kinship, and the future. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 921–928. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00062.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sobotka, T. (2003). Re-emerging diversity: Rapid fertility changes in Central and Eastern Europe after the collapse of the communist regimes. Population and Development Review, 58(4–5), 451–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sobotka, T., & Toulemon, L. (2008). Changing family and partnership behaviour: Common trends and persistent diversity across Europe. Demographic Research, 19, 85–138. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Spéder, Z., & Kamarás, F. (2008). Hungary: Secular fertility decline with distinct period effects. Demographic Research, 19(18), 599–664. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Stanley, S. M., Whitton, S. W., & Markman, H. J. (2004). Maybe I do: Interpersonal commitment and premarital or nonmarital cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 25(4), 496–519. doi:10.1177/0192513X03257797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Surkyn, J. J., & Lesthaeghe, R. (2004). Value orientation and the second demographic transition (SDT) in Northern, Western and Southern Europe: An update. Demographic Research, 2(3), 47–86. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2004.S3.3.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Théry, I. (1998). Couple, filiation et parenté aujourd’hui. Paris: Odile Jacob et La Documentation Francaise.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Thornton, A. (2005). Reading history sideways: The fallacy and enduring impact of the developmental paradigm on family life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Thornton, A., Axinn, W. G., & Xie, Y. (2007). Marriage and cohabitation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  62. Thornton, A., & Philipov, D. (2009). Sweeping changes in marriage, cohabitation, and childbearing in Central and Eastern Europe: New insights from the Developmental Idealism framework. European Journal of Population, 25(2), 123–156. doi:10.1007/s10680-009-9181-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(4), 1009–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Trost, J. (1978). Renewed social institution—Nonmarital cohabitation. Acta Sociologica, 21(4), 303–315.

    Google Scholar 

  65. van de Kaa, D. J. (1987). Europe’s Second Demographic Transition. Population Bulletin, 42(1), 1–59.

    Google Scholar 

  66. van de Kaa, D. J. (2001). Postmodern fertility preferences: From changing value orientation to new behavior. Population and Development Review, 27, 290–331.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Vikat, A., Spéder, Z., Beets, G., Billari, F. C., Bühler, C., Désesquelles, A., et al. (2007). Generation and Gender Survey: Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demographic Research, 17, 389–440. doi:10.4054/DemRes.17.14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Villeneuve-Gokalp, C. (1991). From marriage to informal union: Recent changes in the behavior of French couples. Population, 3, 81–111.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Wiik, K. A. (2009). You’d better wait. Socio-economic background and timing of first marriage versus first cohabitation. European Sociological Review, 25(2), 139–153. doi:10.1093/esr/jcn045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Wiik, K. A., Bernhardt, E., & Noack, T. (2009). A study of commitment and relationship quality in Sweden and Norway. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(3), 465–477. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00613.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Wiik, K. A., Bernhardt, E., & Noack, T. (2010). Love or money? Marriage intentions among young cohabitors in Norway and Sweden. Acta Sociologica, 53(3), 269–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Willoughby, B. J., Carroll, J. S., & Busby, D. M. (2012). The different effects of “living together”: Determining and comparing types of cohabiting couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(3), 397–419. doi:10.1177/0265407511431184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole Hiekel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hiekel, N., Liefbroer, A.C. & Poortman, AR. Understanding Diversity in the Meaning of Cohabitation Across Europe. Eur J Population 30, 391–410 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-014-9321-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cohabitation
  • Cross-national comparison
  • Generations and Gender Surveys
  • Central and Eastern Europe