Currently cohabiting: relationship attitudes and intentions in the BHPS. Ernestina Coast

Cohabitation Fuzzy Heterogeneous, includes: Evolving Post-marriage (pre- and post-divorce) Pre-marriage Post widowhood Evolving “a moving target” 1980s “alternative lifestyle”

Relationship pathways, all women, BHPS (2005)

Good large-scale descriptive data on incidence and trends Representative attitudinal surveys Empirical gap: cohabitees US research emerging qualitative research survey data relationship intentions and attitudes longitudinal data – collected while subjective state exists systematic empirical investigation of social change

Normative attitudes Changing social norms around marriage Deinstitutionalisation of marriage (Cherlin, 1994) Démariage (Thery, 1994), Disestablishment of marriage (Coontz, 2004, quoting Cott).

BHPS normative attitudes “Living together outside of marriage is always wrong” 1992, 1994, 1996 “It is alright for people to live together even if they have no interest in considering marriage” 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004

Percentage distribution of youths aged 11-15 years response to the question statement “Living together outside of marriage is always wrong”, BHPS 1994-2005 1994 1999 2000 2001 2005 Strongly agree/ agree 19.0 12.8 11.9 10.6 13.3 Neither agree nor disagree 21.2 27.9 26.7 23.5 30.8 Strongly disagree / disagree 59.8 59.3 61.4 65.9 55.9

Social acceptance of cohabitation well-established Moved from deviant to normative behaviour Acceptance likely to increase Cohort replacement Socialisation Social diffusion

British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) Annual since 1991 Approx. 5,000 households Full interview with new partners

Questions “We are interested in why you and your partner have chosen to live together rather than being married. Do you think there are any (dis)advantages in living as a couple, rather than being married?” If “Yes” “What do you think are the (dis)advantages of living as a couple?”

Question: Future intentions “Obviously you cannot say for certain what will happen, but could you please look at this card and read out the number of the statement which you feel applies most closely to your current relationship? 1 Planning to marry 2 Probably get married at some point 3 Probably just keep living together without marrying 4 Have not really thought about the future 5 Other (specify) 6 Don’t know

Supplementary Question “Even though you have no plans to marry at the moment, can you please look at this card and tell me how likely it is that you will ever get married to anyone in the future?” 1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Unlikely 4 Very unlikely 5 Don’t know

Interrogating the questions Grounded in reality Take account of circumstances rather than an expression of abstract desire Supplementary question on marriage expectation moves from current relationship to any future hypothetical relationship Phrased relative to marriage

Percentage distribution of reported advantages of cohabitation relative to marriage, currently cohabiting respondents, 1998 and 2003. 1998 2003 Advantages in living as a couple rather than marriage? 40.0% 32.0% First mentioned advantage Trial marriage No legal ties Improves relationship Previous bad marriage Personal independence Financial advantage Companionship Prefer cohabitation Other 30.7 29.8 5.2 1.6 10.0 16.1 2.0 1.4 3.2 23.6 24.5 3.6 2.7 10.9 22.2 3.1 1.3 8.2 Parenthood status is significant: Non-parents = trial marriage. Parents = personal independence + absence of legal ties

Percentage distribution of reported disadvantages of cohabitation relative to marriage, currently cohabiting respondents, 1998 and 2003. 1998 2003 Disadvantages in living as a couple rather than marriage? 26.7 23.6 First mentioned disadvantage Financial insecurity No legal status Effects on children Lack of commitment Social stigma Other 39.0 16.6 5.4 15.6 16.3 7.1 30.4 32.1 6.2 9.6 11.3 10.4

1998 n=268 2003 n=401 Male Female Very likely 4.7 5.8 3.1 3.4 Likely Percentage distribution of responses to the statement “How likely it is that you will ever get married to anyone in the future?”, by currently cohabiting, never married respondents with no plans to marry their current partner, by sex, 1998 and 2003. 1998 n=268 2003 n=401 Male Female Very likely 4.7 5.8 3.1 3.4 Likely 24.0 28.8 18.9 23.9 Unlikely 25.6 38.8 40.8 42.9 Very unlikely 34.1 18.0 27.0 22.9 Don’t know 11.6 8.6 10.2 6.8

Expectation of current cohabiting relationship Percentage distribution of future relationship expectations, by duration of current cohabiting relationship (n=1,015 respondents), 2003 Expectation of current cohabiting relationship Plan to marry Probably marry Live together Duration of current cohabiting relationship < 1 year 30.5 38.0 31.6 1-2 years 29.9 44.4 25.7 2-5 years 19.8 48.5 31.7 > 5 years 9.2 33.4 57.4

% distribution of union expectations, by prior live-in relationship, 1998 and 2003 No prior live-in union Prior live-in union Expect. of current cohabit union Plan to marry 24.7 13.3 22.7 16.9 Prob. marry 46.8 37.6 47.2 33.7 Live together 28.5 49.0 30.1 49.4

Do individuals achieve their relationship expectations? Outcome Expectation Split up Marry Continue cohabit Plan to marry 0.9 10.7 4.2 Probably marry 7.0 13.6 20.9 Live together 6.6 4.8 23.9 No thought to future 1.3 0.6 3.7 Do not know 0.1 1.5 Never-married childless couples interviewed in 1998 – subsequent birth of a child is sig. associated with continuation of cohabitation compared to entry to marriage

Couple concordance / discordance Use only couples with full responses to questions Potential bias for homogeneity of response Only first-ever live-in relationships Interview effect? 1998 58% of individual interviews record 3rd party 89% coded as no influence exerted by the third party

% distribution couple expectations, 1998 and 2003, first unions only n=137 couples 2003 n=196 couples Women Plan to marry Prob. marry Just live tog. Men 20.4 8.0 0.7 19.9 5.1 1.0 3.6 43.8 5.8 37.8 10.7 11.7 4.6 17.3

Percentage distribution of relationship outcomes by 1998 relationship expectations, cohabiting couples.

Discussion Analyses at the relationship level Living apart together (LAT) Assumption of rational choice Vague or underspecified goals Qualitative insights Cohabitation versus marriage or LAT?

Mid-career research training fellowship “Multiplier” effect Research and training skills Longitudinal data in the developing world Qualitative longitudinal research Other datasets New avenues of research: The Household