Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is Cohabitation As Good As Marriage for People’s Subjective Well-Being? Longitudinal Evidence on Happiness and Life Satisfaction in the British Household Panel Survey

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Happiness Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates changes in happiness and life satisfaction associated with transitions into cohabitation and marriage in 12 waves from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) collected between 1997 and 2009. Theory suggests that happiness is an emotional state that is linked to one’s physiological reactions to life events, whereas satisfaction is a cognitive evaluation that also depends on social comparisons with other important reference groups as well as the individual’s desires, expectations and hopes. A longitudinal (fixed effects) analysis that controls for time-invariant variation in subjective well-being indicates that entering cohabitation is as beneficial for people’s happiness as entering marriage. Entering marriage is slightly more satisfying than cohabitation but only among previously never-married individuals. This is true for men and women and across age and cohorts. These findings indicate that cohabitation provides similar benefits to marriage with regard to happiness but not how previously never married individuals view their overall satisfaction with their lives.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being (pp. 107–123). New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, A. (2004). Regulation of cohabitation, changing family policies and social attitudes: A discussion of Britain within Europe. Law and Policy, 26, 57–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995). The normal chaos of love. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1991). A treatise on the family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, J. (1982). The future of marriage. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blekesaune, M. (2008). Partnership transitions and mental distress: Investigating temporal order. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 879–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botha, F., & Booysen, F. (2013). The gold of one’s ring is not far more precious than the gold of one’s heart: Reported life satisfaction among married and cohabitating South African adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 433–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation level theory (pp. 287–302). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L. (2000). The effect of union type on psychological well-being: Depression among cohabitors versus marrieds. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. H., Greenstein, T. N., & Marks, J. P. G. (2007). Effects of union type on division of household labor: Do cohabiting men really perform more housework? Journal of Family Issues, 28, 1246–1272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61, 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M., & Larsen, R. J. (Eds.). (2008). The science of subjective wellbeing. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ermisch, J., & Francesconi, M. (2000). Cohabitation in Britain: Not for long, but here to stay. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A-Statistics in Society, 163, 153–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. D., & Kelley, J. (2004). Effect of family structure on life satisfaction: Australian evidence. Social Indicators Research, 69, 303–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haring-Hidore, M., Stock, W. A., Okun, M. A., & Witter, R. A. (1985). Marital status and subjective well-being: A research synthesis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 947–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, L. (1998). Intimacy: Personal relationships in modern societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalmijn, M., & Bernasco, W. (2001). Joint and separated lifestyles in couple relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 639–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiernan, K. (2002). 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: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. S., & Uno, H. (2012). Marriage, cohabitation, and happiness: A cross-national analysis of 27 countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 953–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, M., Hoffmann, W., Eid, M., & Lucas, R. E. (2012). Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 592–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, P. L. (2006). Quality profile: British household panel survey. Essex: Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastekaasa, A. (1992). Marriage and psychological well-being: Some evidence on selection into marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 901–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, W. L., Sinclair, S., & DePaulo, B. M. (2007). No shelter for singles: The perceived legitimacy of marital status discrimination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 457–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musick, K., & Bumpass, L. (2012). Reexamining the case for marriage: Union formation and changes in well–being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Næss, S., Blekesaune, M., & Jakobsson, N. (2015). Marital transitions and life satisfaction: Evidence from longitudinal data from Norway. Acta Sociologica, 58, 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nock, S. L. (1995). A comparison of marriages and cohabiting relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 53–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ONS. (2012). Cohabitation in the UK 2012. London: Office for National Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • ONS. (2015). Families and households, 2015. Statistical bulletin. London: Office for National Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelli-Harris, B., & Gassen, N. S. (2012). How similar are cohabitation and marriage? Legal approaches to cohabitation across Western Europe. Population and Development Review, 38, 435–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reneflot, A., & Mamelund, S. E. (2012). The Association between marital status and psychological well-being in Norway. European Sociological Review, 28, 355–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, J., Hughes, M., & Hawson, J. (1998). Marital status, general-life satisfaction and the welfare state: A cross-national comparison. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 39, 224–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1141–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soons, J. P. M., Liefbroer, A. C., & Kalmijn, M. (2009). The long-term consequences of relationship formation for subjective well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 1254–1270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stack, S., & Eshleman, J. R. (1998). Marital status and happiness: A 17–nation study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 527–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stata (2007). Which references should I cite when using the vce (cluster clustvar) option to obtain Stata’s cluster-correlated robust estimate of variance? Retrieved from http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/statistics/references.

  • Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2006). Does marriage make people happy, or do happy people get married? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 326–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsou, M. W., & Liu, J. T. (2001). Happiness and domain satisfaction in Taiwan. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 269–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Kaa, D. J. (1987). Europe’s second demographic transition (population bulletin 42). Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanassche, S., Swicegood, G., & Matthijs, K. (2012). Marriage and children as a key to happiness? Cross-national differences in the effects of marital status and children on well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 501–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially. New York: Broadway Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B., & Stuchbury, R. (2010). Do partnerships last? Comparing marriage and cohabitation using longitudinal census data. Population Trends, 139, 37–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology and Social Work, University of Agder, Post Box 422, 4604, Kristiansand, Norway

    Morten Blekesaune

Authors
  1. Morten Blekesaune
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morten Blekesaune.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 3 and 4.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blekesaune, M. Is Cohabitation As Good As Marriage for People’s Subjective Well-Being? Longitudinal Evidence on Happiness and Life Satisfaction in the British Household Panel Survey. J Happiness Stud 19, 505–520 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9834-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9834-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation