Towards a new understanding of cohabitation

Brienna Perelli-Harris, Trude Lappegård, Daniele Vignoli (), Monika Mynarska, Caroline Berghammer, Ann Berrington, Andreas Klärner, Renske Keizer, Anna Evans and Olga Isupova
Additional contact information
Brienna Perelli-Harris: University of Southampton
Trude Lappegård: Universitetet i Oslo
Monika Mynarska: Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie
Caroline Berghammer: Universität Wien
Ann Berrington: University of Southampton
Andreas Klärner: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut
Renske Keizer: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Anna Evans: Australian National University

Demographic Research, 2014, vol. 31, issue 34, 1043-1078

Abstract: Background: Across the industrialized world, more couples are living together without marrying. Although researchers have compared cohabitation cross-nationally using quantitative data, few have compared union formation using qualitative data. Objective: We use focus group research to compare social norms of cohabitation and marriage in Australia and nine countries in Europe. We explore questions such as: what is the meaning of cohabitation? To what extent is cohabitation indistinguishable from marriage, a prelude to marriage, or an alternative to being single? Are the meanings of cohabitation similar across countries? Methods: Collaborators conducted seven to eight focus groups in each country using a standardized guideline. They analyzed the discussions with bottom-up coding in each thematic area. They then collated the data in a standardized report. The first and second authors systematically analyzed the reports, with direct input from collaborators. Results: The results describe a specific picture of union formation in each country. However, three themes emerge in all focus groups: commitment, testing, and freedom. The pervasiveness of these concepts suggests that marriage and cohabitation have distinct meanings, with marriage representing a stronger level of commitment. Cohabitation is a way to test the relationship, and represents freedom. Nonetheless, other discourses emerged, suggesting that cohabitation has multiple meanings. Conclusions: This study illuminates how context shapes partnership formation, but also presents underlying reasons for the development of cohabitation. We find that the increase in cohabitation has not devalued the concept of marriage, but has become a way to preserve marriage as an ideal for long-term commitment.

Keywords: cohabitation; marriage; unions; family; Europe; partnership; relationships (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: J1 Z0 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2014
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol31/34/31-34.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:dem:demres:v:31:y:2014:i:34

DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2014.31.34

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Demographic Research from Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Editorial Office ().