Advertisement

Demography

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 535–551 | Cite as

Interrelated family-building behaviors: Cohabitation, marriage, and nonmarital conception

  • Michael J. Brien
  • Lee A. Lillard
  • Linda J. Waite
Other Articles

Abstract

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972 are used to estimate a series of models of entry into marriage, entry into cohabitation, and nonmarital pregnancy. Our models account explicitly for the endogeneity of one outcome as a predictor of another by taking into account both heterogeneity across individuals due to unmeasured factors that may affect all these outcomes and the correlation in the unmeasured factors across processes. We find that these heterogeneity components are strongly and positively related across the outcomes. Women who are more likely to cohabit, marry, or become pregnant while unmarried are also more likely to do each of the others. Although black and white women differ in the likelihood of these behaviors, the interrelations of the behaviors are quite similar across groups.

Keywords

White Woman Black Woman Marriage Market Heterogeneity Component High School Class 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akerlof, G.A., J.L Yellen, and M.L. Katz. 1996. “An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 61:277–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachrach, C.A. 1987. “Cohabitation and Reproductive Behavior in the United States.” Demography 24:623–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, G.S. 1991. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, N.G., D.E. Bloom, and C.K. Miller. 1995. “The Influence of Nonmarital Childbearing on the Formation of First Marriages.” Demography 32:47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Booth, A. and D. Johnson. 1988. “Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Success.” Journal of Family Issues 9:255–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brien, M.J. 1997. “Racial Differences in Marriage and the Role of Marriage Markets.” Journal of Human Resources 32:741–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brien, M.J, L.A. Lillard, and S. Stern. 1999. Cohabitation, Marriage, and Divorce in a Model of Match Quality.” Unpublished manuscript. Department of Economics, University of Virginia.Google Scholar
  8. Bumpass, L.L., R.K. Raley, and J.A. Sweet. 1995. “The Changing Character of Stepfamilies: Implications of Cohabitation and Nonmarital Childbearing.” Demography 32:425–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bumpass, L.L. and J.A. Sweet. 1989. “National Estimates of Cohabitation.” Demography 26:615–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bumpass, L.L., J.A. Sweet, and A. Cherlin. 1991. “The Role of Cohabitation in Declining Rates of Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:913–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarkberg, M., R.M. Stolzenberg, and L.J. Waite. 1995. “Attitudes, Values, and the Entrance Into Cohabitational Unions.” Social Forces 74:609–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldscheider, F.K. and L.J. Waite. 1986. “Sex Differences in Entry Into Marriage.” American Journal of Sociology 92:91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hotz, V.J., J.A. Klerman, and R.J. Willis. 1997. “The Economics of Fertility in Developed Countries.” Pp. 275–347 in Handbook of Population Economics, Vol. 1A, edited by M.R. Rosenzweig and O. Stark. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  14. Landale, N.S. and R. Forste. 1991. “Patterns of Entry Into Cohabitation and Marriage Among Mainland Puerto Rican Women.” Demography 28:587–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laumann, E.O., J.H. Gagnon, R.T. Michael, and S. Michaels. 1994. The Social Organization of Sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lichter, D.T., F.B. LeClere, and D.K. McLaughlin. 1991. “Local Marriage Markets and the Marital Behavior of Black and White Women.” American Journal of Sociology 96:843–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lillard, L.A. 1993. “Simultaneous Equations for Hazards: Marriage Duration and Fertility Timing.” Journal of Econometrics 56:189–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lillard, L.A., M.J. Brien, and L.J. Waite. 1995. “Pre-Marital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Dissolution: Is It Self-Selection?” Demography 32:437–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lillard, L.A. and T. Cottet. 1998. “Some Monte-Carlo Results on the Impact of Heterogeneity Distributional Assumptions in Replicated Hazard Models.” Working paper, RAND, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Loomis, L. and N. Landale. 1994. “Nonmarital Cohabitation and Childbearing Among Black and White American Women.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 56:949–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manning, W.D. 1993. “Marriage and Cohabitation Following Premarital Conception.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55:839–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Manning, W.D. and N.S. Landale. 1996. “Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Role of Cohabitation in Premarital Childbearing.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manning, W.D. and P.J. Smock. 1995. “Why Marry? Race and the Transition to Marriage Among Cohabitors.” Demography 32: 509–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Michael, R.T. and N.B. Tuma. 1985. “Entry Into Marriage and Parenthood by Young Men and Women: The Influence of Family Background.” Demography 22:515–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mortensen, D.T. 1988. “Matching: Finding a Partner for Life or Otherwise.” American Journal of Sociology 94:S215–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oppenheimer, V.K. 1988. “A Theory of Marriage Timing.” American Journal of Sociology 94:563–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pagnini, D. and R. Rindfuss. 1993. “The Divorce of Marriage and Childbearing in the United States.” Population and Development Review 19:331–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Plotnick, R. 1992. “The Effect of Attitudes on Teenage Premarital Pregnancy and Its Resolution.” American Sociological Review 57:800–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rao, K. and A. DeMaris. 1995. “Coital Frequency Among Married and Cohabiting Couples in the United States.” Journal of Biosocial Science 27:135–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thornton, A., W. Axinn, and D. Hill. 1992. “Reciprocal Effects of Religiosity, Cohabitation, and Marriage.” American Journal of Sociology 98:628–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1974. Educational Attainment in the United States. Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 274. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  32. Ventura, S., J. Martin, T. Mathews, and S. Clarke. 1996. “Advance Report of Final Natality Statistics, 1994.” Monthly Vital Statistics Report 44(11):Supplement. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
  33. Waite, L.J. and K. Joyner. Forthcoming. “Emotional and Physical Satisfaction With Sex in Married, Cohabiting and Dating Sexual Unions: Do Men and Women Differ?” In Studies on Sex, edited by E. Laumann and R. Michael. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Waite, L. and L. Lillard. 1991. “Children and Marital Disruption.” American Journal of Sociology 96:930–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Waite, L. and G. Spitze. 1981. “Young Women’s Transition to Marriage.” Demography 18:681–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Willis, R. and R. Michael. 1994. “Innovation in Family Formation: Evidence on Cohabitation in the United States.” Pp. 119–45 in The Family, the Market and the State of Aging Societies, edited by J. Ermisch and N. Ogawa. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Wu, Z. and T. Balakrishnan. 1995. “Dissolution of Premarital Cohabitation in Canada.” Demography 4:521–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Brien
    • 1
  • Lee A. Lillard
    • 2
  • Linda J. Waite
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesville
  2. 2.Department of Economics and lSRUniversity of MichiganUSA
  3. 3.Department of Sociology and NORCUniversity of ChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations