Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Intentions to Live Together Among Couples Living Apart: Differences by Age and Gender

  • Published:
European Journal of Population Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the central questions about LAT (living apart together) is whether these partnerships are short-term arrangements due to temporary constraints, and should be viewed as part of courtship towards cohabitation and marriage, or whether they replace cohabitation and marriage as a long-term arrangement. The current study addresses this question and examines intentions to live together among people living apart by age and gender. This study uses Generations and Gender Study (GGS) data for eleven European countries. The findings reveal an interesting interaction of age and gender. More specifically, younger women have higher intentions to live together than younger men, but older women have lower intentions than older men. These gender differences remain significant also in the multivariate analyses. These findings suggest that older women in LAT may be undoing gender to a greater extent than younger women, who still intend to live in a more traditional (and probably gendered) arrangement of cohabitation and possibly marriage. Having resident children reduces intentions to live together among people younger than age 50, but the effect does not differ by gender. The effect of non-resident children on intentions to live together is statistically non-significant.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this study, I do not distinguish intentions to marry from intentions to cohabit because both indicate a transition from living apart to living together. Those intending to cohabit may also intend to marry at a later stage.

  2. Georgia (n = 67) and Estonia (n = 58) have too few valid cases to be included in the analyses.

  3. Data for The Netherlands and Sweden were not available in the GGS contextual database and were drawn from the UNECE database (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe).

  4. Bryan and Jenkins (2016) conduct Monte Carlo simulations that demonstrate that at least 30 countries are necessary to estimate a multi-level logit model with random effects (Mills and Prag 2016).

References

  • Amato, P. R., & Hayes, L. N. (2014). ‘Alone Together’ marriages and ‘Living Apart Together’ relationships. In A. Abela & J. Walker (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on Partnerships, Parenting and Support in a Changing World, John Wiley & Sons Ltp. Chapter 3, pp. 31–45.

  • Bryan, M. L., & Jenkins, S. P. (2016). Multilevel modelling of country effects: A cautionary tale. European Sociological Review, 32, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, D. (2004). The desire to date and remarry among older widows and widowers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1051–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castro-Martin, T., Dominguez-Folgueras, M., & Martin-Garcia, T. (2008). Not truly partnerless: Non-residential partnerships and retreat from marriage in Spain. Demographic Research, 18, 443–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherlin, A. J. (1978). Remarriage as an incomplete institution. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 634–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, S., & Kenney, C. (2010). Is the United States experiencing a “Matrilineal Tilt”? Gender, family structure and financial transfers to adult children. Social Forces, 88, 1753–1778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conference of European Statisticians’ Task Force on Families and Households. (2009). Measurement of different emerging forms of households and families. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/publications/Measurement_ermerging_forms_households_and_families.pdf. Downloaded 27 December 2016.

  • Coulter, R., & Hu, Y. (2017). Living apart together and cohabitation intentions in Great Britain. Journal of Family Issues, 38, 1701–1729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, K. (2002). Gender differences in new partnership choices and constraints for older widows and widowers. Ageing International, 27(4), 43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong Gierveld, J. (2002). The dilemma of repartnering: Considerations of older men and women entering new intimate relationships in later life. Ageing International, 27(4), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong Gierveld, J., & Merz, E. M. (2013). Parents’ partnership decision making after divorce or widowhood: The role of stepchildren. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 1098–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. B. (1971). Explaining cross-cultural variations in age at marriage and proportions never marrying. Population Studies, 25, 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, S. (2015). Women’s agency in living apart together: Constraint, strategy and vulnerability. The Sociological Review, 63, 589–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, S., Carter, J., Phillips, M., Roseneil, S., & Stoilova, M. (2013). Why do people live apart together? Families, Relationships and Societies, 2, 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, S., & Phillips, M. (2010). People who live apart together (LATs)—How different are they? The Sociological Review, 58, 112–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk, L. M., & Kobayashi, K. M. (2016). From motivations to accounts: An interpretive analysis of: “Living Apart Together” relationships in mid-to later-life couples. Journal of Family Issues, 37, 1101–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J., & Kenney, C. (2001). Marriage delayed or marriage forgone? New cohort forecasts of first marriage for U.S. women. American Sociological Review, 66(4), 506–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. (2010). The gendered dimensions of inheritance: Empirical food for legal thought. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2, 322–354.

    Article  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 

  • Haskey, J., & Lewis, J. (2006). Living-Apart-Together in Britain: Context and meaning. International Journal of Law in Context, 2, 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiekel, N., Liefbroer, A. C., & Poortman, A. R. (2014). Understanding diversity in the meaning of cohabitation across Europe. European Journal of Population, 30, 391–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiekel, N., Liefbroer, A. C., & Poortman, A. R. (2015). Marriage and separation risks among German cohabiters: Differences between types of cohabiter. Population Studies, 69(2), 237–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivanova, K., Kalmijn, M., & Uunk, W. (2013). The effect of children on men’s and women’s chances of re-partnering in a European context. European Journal of Population, 29, 417–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iwasawa, M. (2004). Partnership transition in contemporary Japan: Prevalence of childless non-cohabiting couples. The Japanese Journal of Population, 2, 76–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalovaara, M. (2012). Socio-economic resources and first-union formation in Finland, cohort born 1969–1981. Population Studies, 66, 69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalmijn, M. (2007). Explaining cross-national differences in marriage, cohabitation, and divorce in Europe, 1990–2000. Population Studies, 61, 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 269–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, S. G., Johansson, S., Gerdner, A., & Borell, K. (2007). Caring while living apart. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 49(4), 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiernan, K. (2000). European perspectives on union formation. In L. J. Waite (Ed.), The ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 40–58). Aldine de Gruyter: New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klinenberg, E. (2012). Going solo: The extraordinary rise and surprising appeal of living alone. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koren, C. (2015). The intertwining of second couplehood and old age. Ageing & Society, 35(9), 1864–1888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A. C. (2017). Health and relationship quality later in life: A comparison of LAT, first marriages, remarriages and cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 38, 1754–1774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A., Poortman, A.-R., & Seltzer, J. A. (2015). Why do intimate partners live apart? Evidence on LAT relationships across Europe. Demographic Research, 32, 251–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahay, J., & Lewin, A. C. (2007). Age and the desire to marry. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 706–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milan, A., & Peters, A. (2003). Couples living apart. Canadian Social Trends, Statistics Canada—Catalogue No. 11-008, pp. 2–6.

  • Mills, M. C., & Prag, P. (2016). Methodological advances in cross-national research: Multilevel challenges and solutions. European Sociological Review, 32, 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 563–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, V. K. (1994). Women’s rising employment and the future of the family in industrial societies. Population and Development Review, 20, 293–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasteels, I., Lyssens-Danneboom, V., & Mortelmans, D. (2017). A life course perspective on living apart together: Meaning and incidence across Europe. Social Indicators Research, 130, 799–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortman, A.-R., & Hewitt, B. (2015). Gender differences in relationship preferences after union dissolution. Advances in Life Course Research, 26, 11–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regnier-Loilier, A., Beaujouan, E., & Villeneuve-Gokalp, C. (2009). Neither single, nor in a couple: A study of living apart together in France. Demographic Research, 21, 75–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimondos, A., Evans, A., & Gray, E. (2011). Living-Apart-Together (LAT) relationships in Australia. Family Matters, 87, 43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuschke, D. (2010). Living apart together over long distances: Time-space patterns and consequences of a late-modern living arrangement. Erdkunde, 64, 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spitze, G., & Ward, R. (2000). Gender, marriage, and expectations for personal care. Research on Aging, 22, 451–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, S. D., Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2003). Union formation among men in the U.S.: Does having prior children matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(1), 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoilova, M., Roseneil, S., Crowhurst, I., Hellesund, T., & Santos, A. C. (2014). Living apart relationships in contemporary Europe: Accounts of togetherness and apartness. Sociology, 48, 1075–1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strohm, C. Q., Seltzer, J. A., Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (2009). “Living Apart Together” relationships in the United States. Demographic Research, 21, 177–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2005). Generations & gender programme: Survey instruments. New York and Geneva: UN.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Statistical Database. http://w3.unece.org/PXWeb/en/Charts?IndicatorCode=303&CountryCode=756. Accessed June 20 2017.

  • Upton-Davis, K. (2012). Living Apart Together Relationships (LAT): Severing intimacy from obligation. Gender Issues, 29(1), 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upton-Davis, K. (2015). Subverting gendered norms of cohabitation: Living Apart Together for women over 45. Journal of Gender Studies, 24(1), 104–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by the Israel Science Foundation, Grant #894/12. I thank Ariane Ophir for excellent data management, and Hanna Ayalon, Asaf Levanon, Ameed Saabneh and Haya Stier for comments, suggestions and methodological guidance in various stages of this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, 3498838, Haifa, Israel

    Alisa C. Lewin

Authors
  1. Alisa C. Lewin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alisa C. Lewin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares there is no conflict of interest.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Logistic regression coefficients predicting intentions to live together among people in LAT relationships.

 

(1)

Bulgaria

(2)

Russia

(3)

Germany

(4)

Netherlands

(5)

Romania

(6)

Austria

(7)

Lithuania

(8)

France

(9)

Norway

(10)

Belgium

(11)

Sweden

Female

0.504*

0.320

0.188

− 0.161

0.238

0.048

0.155

0.059

0.091

0.259

− 0.158

(0.204)

(0.195)

(0.221)

(0.266)

(0.359)

(0.129)

(0.258)

(0.210)

(0.188)

(0.222)

(0.254)

Age 31–50

− 0.021

− 0.841***

− 0.694**

− 0.722*

0.218

− 0.789***

− 1.553***

− 1.275***

− 0.555**

− 0.908**

− 0.569

(0.355)

(0.202)

(0.217)

(0.281)

(0.548)

(0.154)

(0.362)

(0.234)

(0.211)

(0.286)

(0.303)

Age 51 +

− 1.214*

− 0.874**

− 1.726***

− 2.111***

− 0.883

–

− 1.415**

− 2.061***

− 2.087***

− 1.641***

− 1.582***

(0.612)

(0.303)

(0.330)

(0.436)

(0.666)

–

(0.508)

(0.296)

(0.271)

(0.353)

(0.338)

Owns home

0.585

0.181

− 0.006

− 0.206

0.299

− 0.044

− 0.154

− 0.206

− 0.357*

− 0.524*

− 0.225

(0.333)

(0.164)

(0.241)

(0.261)

(0.489)

(0.156)

(0.292)

(0.195)

(0.167)

(0.237)

(0.201)

Resident children

− 1.199

− 0.497

1.160

− 0.396

− 1.121

− 1.066

0.694

− 0.686

− 0.098

0.460

− 0.521

(0.657)

(0.591)

(0.638)

(0.948)

(0.845)

(0.664)

(0.903)

(0.464)

(0.280)

(0.465)

(0.367)

Non-resident children

− 0.647

0.346

− 0.049

− 0.173

− 0.506

0.397

0.292

0.149

0.411

1.159**

− 0.233

(0.633)

(0.287)

(0.319)

(0.439)

(0.615)

(0.324)

(0.470)

(0.291)

(0.289)

(0.376)

(0.351)

Has BA

0.278

− 0.161

0.224

0.030

0.243

0.093

0.648*

0.074

0.054

0.504*

0.125

(0.247)

(0.148)

(0.206)

(0.234)

(0.409)

(0.155)

(0.275)

(0.175)

(0.156)

(0.202)

(0.197)

Employed

0.366

0.318*

0.155

0.728**

1.019***

0.817***

0.651*

0.534**

0.572***

0.763***

0.563**

(0.192)

(0.159)

(0.189)

(0.251)

(0.299)

(0.130)

(0.270)

(0.179)

(0.160)

(0.198)

(0.189)

Duration 1–5

0.363

0.218

1.207***

− 0.669

0.437

0.673***

0.467

− 0.069

0.640***

− 0.063

0.471*

(0.212)

(0.201)

(0.337)

(0.399)

(0.354)

(0.133)

(0.288)

(0.204)

(0.183)

(0.325)

(0.225)

Duration 6 +

0.474

− 0.285

0.833*

− 1.528***

− 0.119

0.519**

− 0.217

− 0.522*

0.076

− 0.102

− 0.460

(0.328)

(0.260)

(0.387)

(0.450)

(0.491)

(0.188)

(0.410)

(0.244)

(0.248)

(0.379)

(0.278)

Female*resident children

0.533

− 0.265

− 1.623*

− 0.154

0.486

0.468

− 0.661

0.999

− 0.834*

− 0.907

0.273

(0.706)

(0.611)

(0.695)

(0.998)

(1.007)

(0.680)

(0.944)

(0.522)

(0.348)

(0.529)

(0.434)

Female*non-resident children

− 1.522

− 1.869***

− 0.712

− 0.697

− 1.094

− 0.370

− 0.851

− 0.407

− 0.732*

− 1.148*

− 0.353

(0.946)

(0.443)

(0.470)

(0.655)

(0.819)

(0.520)

(0.797)

(0.374)

(0.359)

(0.542)

(0.403)

Constant

0.032

0.351

− 0.581

1.392

0.616

0.099

0.120

1.620

0.629

0.618

1.266

Observations

634

883

648

480

378

1580

423

957

1191

641

837

χ 2

42.927

111.970

91.838

144.948

50.015

108.458

72.767

199.499

293.552

88.708

209.710

df

12

12

12

12

12

11

12

12

12

12

12

  1. Standard errors in parentheses. Among aged 20–30, own home only for those not living with parents
  2. * p < 0.05
  3. ** p < 0.01
  4. *** p < 0.001

Appendix 2

Logistic regression coefficients predicting intentions to live together among people in LAT relationships.

 

Intention to live together

Female

0.353***

(0.071)

Age 31–50

− 0.311**

(0.096)

Age 51 +

− 1.358***

(0.13)

Female*age 31–50

− 0.745***

(0.125)

Female*age 51 +

− 0.769***

(0.182)

Has BA

0.135*

(0.057)

Employed

0.562***

(0.055)

Owns home

− 0.073

(0.062)

Duration 1–5

0.404***

(0.065)

Duration 6 +

− 0.019

(0.084)

Resident children

− 0.490**

(0.149)

Non-resident children

− 0.097

(0.112)

Female*non-resident children

− 0.295

(0.178)

Female*resident children

0.201

(0.174)

Bulgaria

− 0.489***

(0.121)

Russia

− 0.956***

(0.108)

Germany

− 1.027***

(0.116)

Netherlands

− 0.897***

(0.127)

Romania

0.394*

(0.16)

Norway

− 0.419***

(0.103)

Austria

− 0.538***

(0.098)

Belgium

− 0.419***

(0.12)

Lithuania

− 0.773***

(0.133)

Sweden

0.049

(0.113)

Constant

0.858

Observations

8652

χ 2

1419.28

df

24

  1. Standard errors in parentheses. Among aged 20–30, own home only for those not living with parents
  2. * p < 0.05
  3. ** p < 0.01
  4. *** p < 0.001

Appendix 3

See Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Model of intentions to live together: country-specific intercepts and mean age at marriage, GGS wave 1 (11 countries)

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lewin, A.C. Intentions to Live Together Among Couples Living Apart: Differences by Age and Gender. Eur J Population 34, 721–743 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9446-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9446-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation