Overcrowded Housing and Relationship Break-up

Abstract

To what extent is there an association between crowding and relationship break-up? And if so, is it a causal relationship? Housing space may affect the probability of separation because of stress, lower subjective well being, and poor mental health, any of which could put pressure on the relationship with the partner and eventually cause a break-up. Using the Luxembourgish PSELL 2003–2011, we operationalize crowding with a subjective measure. We check for the following confounding factors: financial difficulties, home ownership, nationality, and type of household member. We find that there is no significant association between crowding and separation once confounders are taken into account, not to mention causality. Instead, home ownership turns out to be of the utmost importance in explaining the bivariate association between crowding and union dissolution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    We investigate housing effects on the dissolution of marital and cohabitational relationships and use break-up, separation, and union dissolution interchangeably when referring to these kinds of dissolutions.

  2. 2.

    Some scholars use the net divorce/marriage ratio to compare countries’ divorce rates (i.e. the Crude Divorce Rate/Crude Marriage Rate). Unlike some statistics, it is not advisable to look at the net divorce/marriage ratio in Luxembourg since this figure might be misleading: One would think that Luxembourg would be in the ‘vanguard’ of countries when it comes to divorce [having a net divorce-to-marriage ratio of 67.5 in 2013 (Eurostat)]. The reason is that the marriage rate in the country is extremely low, and (or likely because) the country has exceptionally high immigration rates.

  3. 3.

    The housing cost overburden rate is the percentage of the population living in households that spent 40% or more of their equivalized disposable income on housing.

  4. 4.

    About half of the Luxembourgish population is of foreign descent, and about one-sixth of the population has a Portuguese passport (the biggest group of immigrants in the country).

  5. 5.

    Commuting to work in Luxembourg from another country is very common. The country is small and distances from towns like Trier, Thionville, or Arlon are close.

  6. 6.

    On the relationship between income and housing deprivation in Luxembourg, see Fusco (2015).

  7. 7.

    Note that this might be a proxy for financial stress since it is a subjective measure; a perception of the individual about their own situation.

  8. 8.

    Couples with a mixed background (whether it is e.g. education, age, ethnicity, or religion) have been found to be more likely to break-up than those from a non-mixed background (Janssen 2001). We assume the same applies to couples with heterogamous nationalities.

  9. 9.

    According to the diffusion hypotheses of Liefbroer and Dourleijn (2006), countries with a small proportion of cohabitors (in the Luxembourgish PSELL this proportion is 16%) show a ‘positive’ effect of cohabitation on the risk of union dissolution. This is due to the fact that cohabitors in such societies are a selected group with more modern values than married couples.

  10. 10.

    This is 1.6% in each wave (3.6% between-averages per wave), which is comparable to the wavely number of separations in the BHPS/Understanding Society Panels in the UK (about 1–2%).

  11. 11.

    We also considered including (poor) health of the household head into the model, but this can be a mediator. Hence, we decided to leave it out.

  12. 12.

    Because the logistic regression is a latent dependent variable model, the variance of the dependent variable is not fixed and the estimator for the regression coefficients requires an assumption about the distribution and the variance of the error terms in particular (Karlson et al. 2012; Mood 2010). The regression coefficients of the full and the reduced model (the model without confounders) are therefore a combination of the true regression coefficients and a rescaling factor.

  13. 13.

    Note that the concomitant variables are just control variables, in the sense they are included in both the reduced and the full model, but their residual is not calculated and included in the reduced model.

  14. 14.

    Without the kitchen, bathroom, outbuildings, or study/work rooms.

  15. 15.

    Meaning that the house is seen as a place of self-expression, which is made a place of one’s own, which provides security and stability (André et al. 2017).

References

  1. André, S., DeWilde, C., & Muffels, R. (2017). Do housing wealth and tenure (change) moderate the relationship between divorce and subjective wellbeing? HOWCOME Working paper Series, (19). Tilburg University.

  2. Baldassare, M. (1983). Residential crowding and social behavior. In J. S. Pipkin, M. E. LaGory, & J. R. Blau (Eds.), Remaking the city. Social science perspectives on urban design (pp. 148–161). Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baum, A., & Koman, S. (1976). Differential responses to anticipated crowding: Psychological effects of social and spatial density. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,34(3), 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baum, A., & Paulus, P. B. (1987). Crowding. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (p. 533). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Becker, G., Landes, E. M., & Michael, R. T. (1977). An economic analysis of marital instability. The Journal of Political Economy,85(6), 1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bodson, L., & Segura, J. (2010). Le divorce au Luxembourg: en droit et en chiffres. Les cahiers du ceps/instead. nr. 2010-01. Esch-sur-Alzette.

  7. Boertien, D., & Härkönen, J. (2018). Why does women’s education stabilize marriages? The role of marital attraction and barriers to divorce. Demographic Research,38, 1241–1276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Breen, R., & Karlson, K. B. (2014). Education and social mobility: New analytical approaches. European Sociological Review,30(1), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jct025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Breen, R., Karlson, K. B., & Holm, A. (2013). Total, direct, and indirect effects in logit and probit models. Sociological Methods & Research,42(2), 164–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113494572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brons, M. D., & Härkönen, J. (2018). Parental education and family dissolution: A cross-national and cohort comparison. Journal of Marriage and Family,80(2), 426–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brüderl, J., & Kalter, F. (2001). The dissolution of marriages: The role of information and marital-specific capital. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology,25(4), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250x.2001.9990262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. De Graaf, P. M., & Kalmijn, M. (2006). Change and stability in the social determinants of divorce: A comparison of marriage cohorts in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review,22(5), 561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dewilde, C. (2008). Divorce and the housing movements of owner-occupiers: A European comparison. Housing Studies,23(6), 809–832. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673030802423151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. European Commission. (2016). MISSOC: Social protection in the Member States of the European Union. Situation on 1 January 1998–2006 and evolution. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_protection/missoc_tables_en.htm. Accessed January 16, 2017.

  15. EUROSTAT. (2014). Housing statistics. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Housing_statistics. Accessed 10 Apr 2017.

  16. EUROSTAT. (2016). Housing statistics. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Housing_statistics. Accessed 11 Mar 2019.

  17. Evans, G. W., & Lepore, S. J. (1993). Household crowding and social support: A quasiexperimental analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,65(2), 308–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Feijten, P., & van Ham, M. (2010). The impact of splitting up and divorce on housing careers in the UK. Housing Studies,25(4), 483–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673031003711477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Foye, C. (2016). The relationship between size of living space and subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9732-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fuller, T. D., Edwards, J. N., Vorakitphokatorn, S., & Sermsri, S. (1996). Chronic stress and psychological well-being: Evidence from Thailand on household crowding. Social Science and Medicine,42(2), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00089-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fusco, A. (2015). The relationship between income and housing deprivation: A longitudinal analysis. Economic Modelling,49, 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2015.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gambaro, L., Joshi, H., & Lupton, R. (2017). Moving to a better place? Residential mobility among families with young children in the Millennium Cohort Study. Population, Space and Place,23(8), e2072. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. González, L., & Viitanen, T. K. (2009). The effect of divorce laws on divorce rates in Europe. European Economic Review,53, 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Goode, W. J. (1962). Marital satisfaction and instability: A cross-cultural class analysis of divorce rates. International Social Science Journal,14, 507–526.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Goux, D., & Maurin, E. (2005). The effect of overcrowded housing on children’s performance at school. Journal of Public Economics,89, 797–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gove, W. R., Hughes, M., & Galle, O. R. (1979). Overcrowding in the home: An empirical investigation of its possible pathological consequences. American Sociological Review,44(1), 59–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Graff-Reed, R. (2004). Positive effects of stressful life events: Psychological growth following divorce. Oxford, OH: Miami University.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Guio, A.-C. (2018). Monoparentalité = Précarité? Paper presented at the Café-scientific Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.

  29. Härkönen, J., & Dronkers, J. (2006). Stability and change in the educational gradient of divorce: A comparison of seventeen countries. European Sociological Review,22, 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcl011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Högnäs, R. S., & Carlson, M. J. (2010). Intergenerational relationships and union stability in fragile families. Journal of Marriage and the Family,72(5), 1220–1233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00760.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jalovaara, M. (2001). Socio-economic status and divorce in first marriages in Finland 1991–93. Population Studies,55(2), 119–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jalovaara, M. (2002). Socioeconomic differentials in divorce risk by duration of marriage. Demographic Research. https://doi.org/10.4054/demres.2002.7.16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Janssen, J. (2001). Do opposites attract divorce? Dimensions of mixed marriage and the risk of divorce in the Netherlands. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen.

  34. Karlson, K. B., Holm, A., & Breen, R. (2012). Comparing regression coefficients between same-sample nested models using logit and probit. Sociological Methodology,42(1), 286–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175012444861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kaya, N., & Weber, M. J. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in the perception of crowding and privacy regulation: American and Turkish students. Journal of Environmental Psychology,23(3), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-4944(02)00087-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Killewald, A. (2016). Money, work, and marital stability. American Sociological Review,81(4), 696–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416655340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kitson, G. C., & Morgan, L. A. (1990). The multiple consequences of divorce: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and the Family,52(4, Family Research in the 1980s: The Decade in Review), 913–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Krapf, S., & Wagner, M. (unpublished work). Housing affordability, housing tenure status and household density—Are housing characteristics associated with union dissolution?

  39. Kurz, K., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2004). Home ownership and social inequality in comparative perspective. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Interpretation of statistical relations as research operation. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & M. Rosenberg (Eds.), The language of social research. Glencoe: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lersch, P. M., & Luijkx, R. (2015). Intergenerational transmission of homeownership in Europe: Revisiting the socialisation hypothesis. Social Science Research,49, 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.08.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lersch, P. M., & Vidal, S. (2014). Falling out of love and down the housing ladder: A longitudinal analysis of marital separation and home ownership. European Sociological Review,30(4), 512–524. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Matysiak, A., Styrc, M., & Vignoli, D. (2014). The educational gradient in marital disruption: A meta-analysis of European research findings. Population Studies,68(2), 197–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mikolai, J., & Kulu, H. (2018). Divorce, separation, and housing changes: A multiprocess analysis of longitudinal data from England and Wales. Demography,55(1), 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-017-0640-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ministry of Housing. (2017). Observatoire de l’Habitat. http://observatoire.liser.lu/.

  47. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mulder, C. H. (2006). Home-ownership and family formation. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,21(3), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-006-9050-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Mulder, C. H., Dewilde, C., van Duijn, M., & Smits, A. (2015). The association between parents’ and adult children’s homeownership: A comparative analysis. European Journal of Population = Revue Europeenne de Demographie,31(5), 495–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-015-9351-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Nieuwenhuis, R., & Maldonado, L. (2018). The triple bind of single-parent families: Resources, employment and policies. In R. Nieuwenhuis & L. Maldonado (Eds.), The triple bind of single-parent families: Resources, employment and policies to improve well-being. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Notten, G., & De Neubourg, C. (2011). Monitoring absolute and relative poverty: “Not enough” is not the same as “much less”. Review of Income and Wealth,57(2), 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2011.00443.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. O’Connor, T., Pickering, K., & Dunn, J. (1999). Frequency and predictors of relationship dissolution in a community sample in England. Journal of Family Psychology,13(3), 436–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Palisi, B. J. (1984). Household crowding and well-being: A cross-cultural analysis. International Journal of Sociology of the Family,14(1), 17–31.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Papp, L. M., Cummings, E. M., & Goeke-Morey, M. C. (2009). For richer, for poorer: Money as a topic of marital conflict in the home. Family Relations,58(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00537.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Poortman, A.-R. (2005). How work affects divorce: The mediating role of financial and time pressures. Journal of Family Issues,26(2), 168–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sierminska, E., & Doorley, K. (2013). To own or not to own? Household portfolios, demographics and institutions in a cross-national perspective. SOEP papers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research, nr. 611. DIW Berlin.

  57. Solari, C. D., & Mare, R. D. (2012). Housing crowding effects on children’s wellbeing. Social Science Research,41(2), 464–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.09.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Thomas, M. J., Mulder, C. H., & Cooke, T. J. (2017). Linked lives and constrained spatial mobility: The case of moves related to separation among families with children. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,42(4), 597–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. UN Statistics Division. (2017). Demographic Yearbook 2015. Retrieved from https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2.htm.

  60. van Damme, M. (2019). The negative female educational gradient of union dissolution: Towards an explanation in six European countries. In: D. Mortelmans (Ed.), Divorce in Europe. Berlin: Springer (forthcoming).

  61. Wagner, M., & Mulder, C. H. (2015). Spatial mobility, family dynamics, and housing transitions. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie,67(1), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-015-0327-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wells, N. M., & Harris, J. D. (2007). Housing quality, psychological distress, and the mediating role of social withdrawal: A longitudinal study of low-income women. Journal of Environmental Psychology,27, 69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Matthias Kuepie and Laureen Vanni for their help with the data at various stages of the data manipulation and analyses. I would also like to thank Stéfanie André, Marie-Sophie Callens, Alessio Fusco, Amparo Nagore Garcia, Julien Licheron, Andrea Mercatanti, Javier Oliviera, and Alex Theloudis for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Funding

The author did not receive any funding for this study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maike van Damme.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Maike van Damme: Research affiliation at LISER, Living conditions department, 11 Porte des Sciences, L-4366, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Descriptive statistics of the concomitant variables (between-averages per wave, analytical sample)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Damme, M. Overcrowded Housing and Relationship Break-up. Eur J Population 36, 119–139 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-019-09523-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Divorce
  • Housing
  • Crowding
  • Spuriousness
  • Union dissolution