Skip to main content
View expanded cover

Fertility, Living Arrangements, Care and Mobility pp 105–125Cite as

Currently Cohabiting: Relationship Attitudes, Expectations and Outcomes

Part of the Understanding Population Trends and Processes book series (UPTA,volume 1)

The rise in cohabitation – pre-marital, non-marital and post-marital – represents one of the most significant changes in union formation patterns in many developed economies. The importance of cohabitation, and the public debates it generates, are reflected in the media attention it has received. In 2006, there were 2.3 million cohabiting couple families in the UK (ONS, 2007). The increase in cohabitation has occurred alongside other, related, major demographic shifts, including: rising levels of divorce; delay in entry into marriage and childbearing; and a rise in the proportion of births taking place outside marriage. These are all characteristic of the second demographic transition (Van de Kaa, 1987; Lesthaeghe and Surkyn, 2004b), although rising levels of cohabitation in the UK have only partially offset declining marriage rates (Berrington and Diamond, 2000). Even within Europe, divergent trends in the timing, duration, type and composition of cohabiting unions have been identified (Liefbroer and Dourleijn, 2006; Kiernan, 2001; 2004; Prinz, 1995). Theorising about cohabitation encompasses a broad range of perspectives, from notions of selfish individualism and breakdown of the family (Morgan, 2000) to those of the democratic, consensual and “pure” relationship (Giddens, 1992; Beck-Gernsheim, 2002).

Keywords

  • Living Arrangement
  • British Household Panel Survey
  • Selfish Individualism
  • Recent Interview
  • Attitudinal Data

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.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9682-2_6
  • Chapter length: 21 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4020-9682-2
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 6.1
Fig. 6.2

Notes

  1. 1.

    There are no annual official estimates of the cohabiting population of England and Wales, unlike legal marital status, and trends tend to be derived from surveys such as the Labour Force Survey and General Household Survey (GAD).

  2. 2.

    BSA ad hoc questions on attitudes towards cohabitation are as follows: 1986 “Do you agree or disagree? As a society we ought to do more to safeguard the institution of marriage”. 1986 “Do you agree or disagree? Most people nowadays take marriage too lightly”. 1989 “Do you agree or disagree? Personal freedom is more important than the companionship of marriage”. 1989 “If you were advising a young (wo)man, which of the following ways would you recommend? Live alone with no partner /Live with a partner and not marry / Live with a partner and then marry/ Marry first”. 1989 and 1994 “Do you agree or disagree? The main advantage of marriage is that is gives financial security”. 1994 “Imagine an unmarried couple who decide to have a child, but do not marry? What would your general opinion be?”. 2000 “Many people who live together without getting married are just scared of commitment”. 2000 “There is no point getting married - it’s only a piece of paper”.

  3. 3.

    For example, in 1998, of 187 interviews of currently cohabiting couples, 108 (58 per cent) record a third party as being present. 96 of these 108 interviews (89 per cent) are coded as no influence exerted by the third party.

References

  • Alders, M.P.C. and Manting, D. (2001) Household scenarios for the European Union, 1995–202, Genus, LVII (2): 17–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allan, G. and Crow, G. (2001) Families, Households and Society, Palgrave, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axinn, W. and Thornton, A. (1993) Mothers, children, and cohabitation: the intergenerational effects of attitudes and behaviour, American Sociological Review, 58 (2): 233–246.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Axinn, W.G. and Thornton, A. (2000) The transformation of the meaning of marriage. The ties that bind: perspectives on marriage and cohabitation. Waite, L. (ed.), New York, Aldine de Gruyter, pp. 147–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachrach, C., Hindin, M.J. and Thomson, E. (2000) The changing shape of ties that bind: an overview and synthesis. The ties that bind: perspectives on marriage and cohabitation. Waite, L., New York, Aldine de Gruyter, pp. 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, A., Duncan, S., James, G. and Park, A. (2001) Just a piece of paper? Marriage and cohabitation in Britain, in Park, A., Curtice, J., Thomson, K., Jarvis L. and Bromley, C. (eds.) British Social Attitudes: The 18th Report – Public Policy and Social Ties, Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, A. (2004) Regulation of cohabitation, changing family policies and social attitudes: a discussion of Britain within Europe, Law and Policy 26(1): 57–86.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bawin-Legros, B. and Gauthier, A. (2001) Regulation of intimacy and love semantics in couples living apart together, International Review of Sociology 11(1): 39–46.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002) Reinventing the Family: In Search of New Lifestyles, Polity Press, Cambridge, pp. 170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, J. and Bernard, J.S. (1982) The Future of Marriage, Yale University Press, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt, E. (2004) Cohabitation or Marriage? Preferred Living Arrangements in Sweden, www.oif.ac.at/sdf/sdf04-04-bernhardt.pdf Accessed 30/06/08

  • Berrington, A. (2004) Perpetual postponers? Women’s, men’s and couple’s fertility intentions and subsequent fertility behaviour, Population Trends, 112: 9–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrington, A. and Diamond, I. (2000) Marriage or cohabitation: a competing risks analysis of first-partnership formation among the 1958 British birth cohort, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 163(2): 127–152.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Berthoud, R. (2000) Introduction: the dynamics of social change. in Berthoud, R. and Gershuny, J. (eds.) Seven years in the lives of Britain’s families: evidence on the dynamics of social change from the British Household Panel Survey, Policy Press, Bristol, pp. 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borell, K. and Karlsson, S.G. (2003) Reconceptualising intimacy and ageing: living apart together, in Arber, S. Davidson, K. and Ginn, J. (eds.) Gender and Ageing: Changing Roles and Relationships, Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp. 47–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, G. (2006) Cohabitation versus marriage: the role of dyadic adjustment in relationship dissolution, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 46(1–2): 107–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. (2000) Union transitions among cohabitors: the significance of relationship assessments and expectations, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(3): 833–846.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S.L. and Booth, A. (1996) Cohabitation versus marriage: a comparison of relationship quality, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(3): 668–678.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bumpass, L.L. and Sweet, J.A. (1989) National estimates of cohabitation, Demography, 26: 615–25.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bumpass, L.L., Raley, R.K. and Sweet, J.A. (1995) The changing character of stepfamilies: implications of cohabitation and non-marital childbearing, Demography, 32(3): 425–436.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bumpass, L.L., Sweet, J.A. and Cherlin, A. (1991) The role of cohabitation in declining rates of marriage, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 3(4): 913–927.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, K.B. and Scott J. (2002) Parent and adolescent gender role attitudes in 1990s Great Britain, Sex Roles, 46(7/8): 239–245.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, M., McLanahan, S. and P. England. (2004) Union formation in fragile families, Demography, 41(2): 237–262.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, W.Y. (1993) Attitudes towards pre-marital sex, non-marital childbearing, cohabitation, and marriage among Blacks and Whites, National Survey of Families and Households Working Paper 61, University of Wisconsin, Center for Demography and Ecology, pp. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casper, L.M. and Bianchi S.M. (2002) Continuity and Change in the American Family, Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherlin, A. (2004) The deinstitutionalization of American marriage, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66(4): 848–861.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cohan, C.L. and Kleinbaum S. (2002) Toward a greater understanding of the cohabitation effect: premarital cohabitation and marital communication, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64(1): 180–192.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coontz, S. (2004) The world historical transformation of marriage, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66(4): 974–979.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong Gierveld, J. (2004) Remarriage, unmarried cohabitation, living apart together: partner relationships following bereavement or divorce, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66(1): 236–243

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMaris, A. (1984) A comparison of remarriages with first marriages on satisfaction in marriage and its relationship to prior cohabitation, Family Relations, 33(3): 443–449.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • de Vaus, D., Qu, L. and Weston, R. (2005) The disappearing link between premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital stability, 1970–2001, Journal of Population Research, 22(2): 99–118.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, I. and Wasoff, F. (2007) Protection, parity, or promotion: public attitudes to cohabitation and the purposes of legal reform, Law and Policy, 29(2): 159–182

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ermisch, J. and Francesconi, M. (2000) Cohabitation in Great Britain: not for long, but here to stay, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 163(2): 153–172.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • ESRC (2006) Changing Household and Family Structures and Complex Living Arrangements, ESRC Seminar Series: Mapping the Public Policy Lanscape, ESRC, Swindon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forste, R. (2002) Prelude to marriage or alternative to marriage? A social demographic look at cohabitation in the U.S, Journal of Law and Family Studies, 4(1): 91–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forste, R. and Tanfer, K. (1996) Sexual exclusivity among dating, cohabiting, and married women, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(1): 33–47.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fowers, B.J. (1991) His or her marriage: a multivariate study of gender and marital satisfaction, Sex Roles, 24: 209–221.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Galland, O. (1997) Leaving home and family relations in France, Journal of Family Issues, 18(6): 645–670.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Davis, C.M., Edin, K. and McLanahan, S. (2005) High hopes but even higher expectations: the retreat from marriage among low-income couples, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67(5): 1301–1312.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy, Polity Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillis, J.R. (2004) Marriages of the mind, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66(4): 988–991.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Haskey, J. (2001) Cohabitation in Great Britain: past, present and future trends – and attitudes, Population Trends, 103, 4–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haskey, J. (2005) Living arrangements in contemporary Britain: having a partner who usually lives elsewhere and living apart together (LAT), Population Trends, 122: 35–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuveline, P. and Timberlake, J.M. (2004) The role of cohabitation in family formation: the United States in comparative perspective, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66(5): 1214–1230.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, S.G. and Borell, K. (2002) Intimacy and autonomy, gender and ageing: living apart together, Ageing International, 27(4): 11–26.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, C.T. and McLanahan, S.S. (2006) Why are cohabiting relationships more violent than marriages? Demography, 43(1): 127–140.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kiernan, K. (2004) Unmarried cohabitation and parenthood in Britain and Europe, Law and Policy, 26(1): 33–56.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • King, V. and Scott, M.E. (2005) A comparison of cohabiting relationships among older and younger adults, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67: 271–285.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Knab, J. (2005) Cohabitation: Sharpening a Fuzzy Concept, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Princeton University, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kwak, A. (1996) Non-marital cohabitation in law and public opinion in Poland, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 10(1): 17–26.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, E.L. (2004) The role of religion in union formation: an economic perspective, Population Research and Policy Review, 23(2): 161–185.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lesthaeghe, R. (ed.) (2002) Meaning and Choice: Value Orientations and Life Course Decisions, NIDI-CBGS publications No. 37, The Hague and Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesthaeghe, R. and Surkyn, J. (2004a) When history moves on: the foundations and diffusion of a second demographic transition, Australian Population Association, 12th Biennial Conference, 15–17 September, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesthaeghe, R. and Surkyn, J. (2004b) Value orientations and the second demographic transition (SDT) in Northern, Western and Southern Europe: an update, Demographic Research, Special Collection, 3(3): 45–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I. (2004) Living apart together: a new family form, Current Sociology, 52(2): 223–240.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I. and Trost, J. (1999) Living apart together, Community, Work and Family, 2(3): 279–294.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. (2001) Debates and issues regarding marriage and cohabitation in the British and American literature, International Journal of Law, Policy, and the Family, 15(1): 159–184.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. and Haskey, J. (2006) Living-apart-together in Britain: context and meaning, International Journal of Law in Context, 2(1): 37–48.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A.C. and Dourleijn, E. (2006) Unmarried cohabitation and union stability: testing the role of diffusion using data from 16 European Countries, Demography, 43(2): 203–221.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, J.M. (2000) An ambiguous commitment: moving into a cohabiting relationship, Journal of Family Studies, 6: 120–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, W.D., Longmore, M.A. and Giordano, P.C. (2007) The changing institution of marriage: adolescents’ expectations to cohabit and to marry, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 69(3): 559–575.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, W.D. and Smock, P.J. (1995) Why marry? Race and the transition to marriage among cohabitors, Demography, 32(4): 509–520.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, W.D. and Smock, P.J. (2005) Measuring and modeling cohabitation: new perspectives from qualitative data, Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4): 989–1002.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C. and Thery, I. (2001) The Pacs and marriage and cohabitation in France, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 15(1): 135–158.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, S.L. (2003) Cohabiting, dating and perceived costs of marriage: a model of marriage entry, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65(1): 105–116.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Milan, A. and Peters, A. (2003) Couples living apart, Canadian Social Trends, 69: 2–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, P.M. (2000) Marriage-lite: The Rise of Cohabitation and its Consequences, Institute for the Study of Civil Society, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, C.H. and Manting, D. (1994) Strategies of nest-leavers: ‘settling down’ versus flexibility, European Sociological Review, 10(2): 155–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, M. (2000a) Cohabitation in Britain, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 163(2): 123–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, M. (2000b) The evolution of cohabitation in Britain, 1960–95, Population Studies, 54(1): 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mynarska, M. and Bernardi, L. (2007) Meanings and attitudes attached to cohabitation in Poland: qualitative analyses of the slow diffusion of cohabitation among the young generation, Demographic Research, 16(17): 519–554.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nock, S.L. (1998) Marriage in Men’s Lives, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2007) Focus on Families: 2007 Edition, [www.statistics.gov.uk/focuson/families].

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Oropesa, R.S. (1996) Normative beliefs about marriage and cohabitation: a comparison of non-Latino whites, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58: 49–62.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Otnes, C. and Pleck, E.H. (2003) Cinderella Dreams: The Allure of the Lavish Wedding, University of California Press, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, C. (1995) Cohabiting, Married or Single: Portraying, Analyzing and Modelling New Living Arrangements in the Changing Societies of Europe, Avebury, Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, J. and Mansfield, P. (1999) The effect of changing attitudes to marriage on its stability, in Simons, J. (ed.) High Divorce Rates: The State of the Evidence on Reasons and Remedies, Lord Chancellor’s Department Research Series, 2.99, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindfuss, R.R. and VendenHeuvel, A. (1990) Cohabitation: a precursor to marriage or an alternative to being single, Population and Development Review, 16(4):703–26

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sassler, S. (2004) The process of entering into cohabiting unions, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66(2): 491–505.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, H. and S. Presser, (1996) Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J., Alwin, D.F. and Braun, M. (1996) Generational changes in gender-role attitudes: Britain in a cross-national perspective, Sociology, 30: 471–492.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Seltzer, J.A. (2000) Families formed outside of marriage, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4): 1247–1268.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Seltzer, J.A. (2004) Cohabitation in the United States and Britain: demography, kinship, and the future, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66(4): 921–928.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, C. and Stevens, P. (2000) Cohabitation Breakdown, London Policy Studies Centre, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, S.M., Rhoades, G.K. and Markman, H.J. (2006) Sliding versus deciding: inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect, Family Relations, 55(4): 499–509.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sweet, J.A. and Bumpass, L.L. (1992) Young adults’ views of marriage, cohabitation and family, in South, S.J. and Tolany, S.E. (eds.) The Changing American Family, Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 143–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teitler, J.O. and Reichman, N.E. (2001) Cohabitation: an elusive concept, Social Indicators Survey Center Working Paper 01-4, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Théry, I. (1993) Le Démariage, Justice et Vie Privée, Odile Jacob, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, E. and Collela, U. (1992) Cohabitation and marital stability: quality of commitment, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(2): 259–267.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, A. (1989) Changing attitudes toward family issues in the United States, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51(4): 873–893.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, A. (1995) Attitudes, Values and Norms related to Non-marital Fertility. Report to Congress on out-of-wedlock Childbearing, DHSS pub no {PHS} 95-1257, US Gov Printing Office, pp. 201–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, A., Axinn, W.G. and Hill, D.H. (1992) Reciprocal effects of religiosity, cohabitation, and marriage, American Journal of Sociology, 93(3): 628–651.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, A. and 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 the Family, 63(4): 1009–1037.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., Rips, L.J. and Rasinski, K. (2000) The Psychology of Survey Response, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trost, J. (1978) A renewed social institution: non-marital cohabitation, Acta Sociologica, 21(4): 303–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Essex (2006) British Household Panel Survey: Waves 1–15. Institute for Social and Economic Research, SN5151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Kaa, D.J. (1987) Europe’s second demographic transition, Population Bulletin, 42(1): 1–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waite, L. and Gallagher, M. (2000) The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially, Broadway, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research was based on the British Households Panel Survey Consolidated Marital, Cohabitation and Fertility Histories, 1991–2006, produced by the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex. Access to the data was via the Economic and Social Data Service, SN: 5629.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, WC2A 2AE, London, UK

    Ernestina Coast

Authors
  1. Ernestina Coast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ernestina Coast .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and Permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

    About this chapter

    Cite this chapter

    Coast, E. (2009). Currently Cohabiting: Relationship Attitudes, Expectations and Outcomes. In: Kneale, D., Coast, E., Stillwell, J. (eds) Fertility, Living Arrangements, Care and Mobility. Understanding Population Trends and Processes, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9682-2_6

    Download citation