IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dem/wpaper/wp-2013-016.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does waiting pay off? The effect of partnership duration prior to household formation on union stability

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Schnor

    (Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany)

Abstract

This article investigates how the length of the non-residential partnership phase, which is known as LAT (living apart together), relates to separation behavior. There is a large body of literature on the effects of cohabiting prior to marriage on union stability. However, relatively few studies have examined how the LAT period before moving in together influences separation risks. This is surprising, as this study has found that 90 percent of the unions were preceded by an LAT period. On the one hand, we might expect to find that a short LAT period has a negative influence on union stability, because the partners have relatively little information about each other, and mismatches are therefore possible. It is, however, also conceivable that a short LAT period prior to moving in together is indicative of the couple’s commitment to the union. Data for the empirical analyses came from the German Family Panel. The dataset includes 8,230 residential non-marital and marital unions of 2,899 men and 3,866 women born in 1971-1973 and in 1981-1983. Multilevel piecewise constant survival models were estimated to assess the influence of the length of the LAT (living apart together) period on stability. The results reveal that union stability is positively related to the length of the LAT phase. However, the separation rates of unions without a prior LAT period are also low. The LAT stage has a similar impact on cohabitations and on marriages. The findings suggest that the LAT period is a significant phase in the partnership which enables couples to acquire information about the quality of the partnership.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Schnor, 2013. "Does waiting pay off? The effect of partnership duration prior to household formation on union stability," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2013-016, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:dem:wpaper:wp-2013-016
    DOI: 10.4054/MPIDR-WP-2013-016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2013-016.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/MPIDR-WP-2013-016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael J. Brien & Lee A. Lillard & Steven Stern, 2006. "Cohabitation, Marriage, And Divorce In A Model Of Match Quality," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 47(2), pages 451-494, May.
    2. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Nora Sánchez Gassen, 2012. "How Similar Are Cohabitation and Marriage? Legal Approaches to Cohabitation across Western Europe," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 38(3), pages 435-467, September.
    3. Jay Teachman, 2002. "Stability across cohorts in divorce risk factors," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 39(2), pages 331-351, May.
    4. Roberto G. Gutierrez, 2002. "Parametric frailty and shared frailty survival models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(1), pages 22-44, February.
    5. Teresa Castro Martín & Marta Dominguez Folgueras & Teresa Martín García, 2008. "Not truly partnerless: Non-residential partnerships and retreat from marriage in Spain," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 18(16), pages 443-468.
    6. Hans-Peter Blossfeld & Erik Klijzing & Katharina Pohl & Götz Rohwer, 1999. "Why Do Cohabiting Couples Marry? An Example of a Causal Event History Approach to Interdependent Systems," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 229-242, August.
    7. Marika Jalovaara, 2013. "Socioeconomic Resources and the Dissolution of Cohabitations and Marriages [Ressources socio-économiques et dissolution des cohabitations et des mariages]," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(2), pages 167-193, May.
    8. Ron Lesthaeghe, 2010. "The Unfolding Story of the Second Demographic Transition," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 36(2), pages 211-251, June.
    9. Becker, Gary S & Landes, Elisabeth M & Michael, Robert T, 1977. "An Economic Analysis of Marital Instability," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(6), pages 1141-1187, December.
    10. Evelyn L. Lehrer, 2004. "Religion as a Determinant of Economic and Demographic Behavior in the United States," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 30(4), pages 707-726, December.
    11. Guiping Liu, 2002. "How premarital children and childbearing in current marriage influence divorce of Swedish women in their first marriages," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 7(10), pages 389-406.
    12. Tomáš Sobotka & Laurent Toulemon, 2008. "Overview Chapter 4: Changing family and partnership behaviour," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 19(6), pages 85-138.
    13. Arnaud Régnier-Loilier & Eva Beaujouan & Catherine Villeneuve-Gokalp, 2009. "Neither single, nor in a couple. A study of living apart together in France," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 21(4), pages 75-108.
    14. Jennifer Manlove & Elizabeth Wildsmith & Erum Ikramullah & Suzanne Ryan & Emily Holcombe & Mindy Scott & Kristen Peterson, 2012. "Union Transitions Following the Birth of a Child to Cohabiting Parents," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 31(3), pages 361-386, June.
    15. Lee Lillard & Michael Brien & Linda Waite, 1995. "Premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 32(3), pages 437-457, August.
    16. Jay Teachman & Jeffrey Thomas & Kathleen Paasch, 1991. "Legal Status and the Stability of Coresidential Unions," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 28(4), pages 571-586, November.
    17. Michael Svarer, 2004. "Is Your Love in Vain? Another Look at Premarital Cohabitation and Divorce," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 39(2).
    18. R. Raley, 2001. "Increasing fertility in cohabiting unions: evidence for the second demographic transition in the united states?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 38(1), pages 59-66, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christine Schnor, 2015. "Does waiting pay off for couples? Partnership duration prior to household formation and union stability," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 33(22), pages 611-652.
    2. Christine Schnor, 2014. "The Effect of Union Status at First Childbirth on Union Stability: Evidence from Eastern and Western Germany," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 30(2), pages 129-160, May.
    3. Evelyn Lehrer & Yu Chen, 2013. "Delayed entry into first marriage and marital stability," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 29(20), pages 521-542.
    4. Laura Cavalli & Alessandro Bucciol & Paolo Pertile & Veronica Polin & Nicola Sartor & Alessandro Sommacal, 2012. "Modelling life-course decisions for the analysis of interpersonal and intrapersonal redistribution," Working Papers 25/2012, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    5. Kelly Musick & Katherine Michelmore, 2018. "Cross-National Comparisons of Union Stability in Cohabiting and Married Families With Children," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 55(4), pages 1389-1421, August.
    6. Maria Winkler-Dworak & Eva Beaujouan & Paola Di Giulio & Martin Spielauer, 2019. "Simulating Family Life Courses: An Application for Italy, Great Britain, and Scandinavia," VID Working Papers 1908, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
    7. Layla Van den Berg & Jonas Wood & Karel Neels, 2021. "Socioeconomic preconditions to union formation: Exploring variation by migrant background," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 45(32), pages 973-1010.
    8. Lindsay Theunis & Christine Schnor & Didier Willaert & Jan Van Bavel, 2018. "His and Her Education and Marital Dissolution: Adding a Contextual Dimension," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 34(4), pages 663-687, October.
    9. Svarer, Michael, "undated". "Determinants of Divorce in Denmark," Economics Working Papers 2002-19, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    10. Lehrer, Evelyn L. & Chen, Yu, 2012. "Delayed Entry into First Marriage: Further Evidence on the Becker-Landes-Michael Hypothesis," IZA Discussion Papers 6729, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Brienna Perelli-Harris, 2014. "How Similar are Cohabiting and Married Parents? Second Conception Risks by Union Type in the United States and Across Europe," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 30(4), pages 437-464, November.
    12. Michelle Sheran Sylvester, 2007. "The Career and Family Choices of Women: A Dynamic Analysis of Labor Force Participation, Schooling, Marriage and Fertility Decisions," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 10(3), pages 367-399, July.
    13. Rebecca Kippen & Bruce Chapman & Peng Yu, 2010. "What's love got to do with it? Homogamy and dyadic approaches to understanding marital instability," CEPR Discussion Papers 631, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    14. Daniele Vignoli & Anna Matysiak & Marta Styrc & Valentina Tocchioni, 2018. "The positive impact of women’s employment on divorce: Context, selection, or anticipation?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 38(37), pages 1059-1110.
    15. Andreas Klärner, 2015. "The low importance of marriage in eastern Germany - social norms and the role of peoples’ perceptions of the past," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 33(9), pages 239-272.
    16. Alessandra Trimarchi & Jan Van Bavel, 2017. "Pathways to marital and non-marital first birth: the role of his and her education," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 15(1), pages 143-179.
    17. Steffen Reinhold, 2010. "Reassessing the link between premarital cohabitation and marital instability," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 47(3), pages 719-733, August.
    18. Elina Vinberg & Rannveig Kaldager Hart & Torkild H. Lyngstad, 2015. "Increasingly stable or more stressful? Children and union dissolution across four decades Evidence from Norway," Discussion Papers 814, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    19. Marie Bergström & Léonard Moulin, 2022. "Couple Formation is Prolonged not Postponed. New Paths to Union Formation in Contemporary France," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 38(5), pages 975-1008, December.
    20. Nielsen, Helena Skyt & Svarer, Michael, 2006. "Educational Homogamy: Preferences or Opportunities?," IZA Discussion Papers 2271, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Germany; family stability;

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dem:wpaper:wp-2013-016. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Wilhelm (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.