How well can we track cohabitation using the sipp? A consideration of direct and inferred measures

Baughman, Reagan; Dickert‐Conlin, Stacy; Houser, Scott

doi:10.1353/dem.2002.0024

Cited by 20 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The past decline in the general marriage rate has been partially offset by a rise in nonmarital cohabitation. Recent studies have improved the measurement of cohabitation and indicate a larger increase than previously thought (Baughman, Dickert-Conlin, and Houser 2002;Casper and Cohen 2000). According to an analysis of the 1987-88 National Survey of Families and Households and the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, the general cohabitation rate among women aged 15-29 increased from 2.1 percent in the early 1970s to 7.3 percent in the early 1990s and 12.3 percent in 2000, while the general marriage rate declined (Raley 2001).…”

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of Demographic Trends on US Household Size and Structure

Jiang¹,

O’Neill²

2007

Population & Development Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use a household projection model to construct future scenarios for the United States designed to reflect a wide but plausible range of outcomes, including a new set of scenarios for union formation and dissolution rates based on past trends, experience in other countries, and current theory. The period covered is from 2000 to 2100. We find that the percentage of people living in households headed by the elderly may climb from 11 percent in 2000 to 20–31 percent in 2050 and 20–39 percent in 2100, while the average size of households could plausibly be as low as 2.0 or as high as 3.1 by the second half of the century. We assess the sensitivity of household size and structure to various demographic events, and show that outcomes are most sensitive to changes in fertility rates and rates of union formation and dissolution. They are less sensitive to the timing of marriage and childbearing and to changes in life expectancy.

show abstract

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of Demographic Trends on US Household Size and Structure

Jiang¹,

O’Neill²

2007

Population & Development Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the past, data was not explicitly collected on cohabiting partners precluding the possibility of accurately tracking cohabitation and more complex patterns such as those prevailing under transient domesticity (Baughman, Dickert-Conlin, & Houser, 2002; Casper & Cohen, 2000). This changed in 1990 when the Decennial Census added the option of specifying that a person was the unmarried partner of the householder, the person (or one of the persons) in whose name the home is owned or rented.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Improving Surveys of Living Arrangements among Poor African Americans

Golub

Strickler

Dunlap

2012

Journal of Comparative Family Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines a mismatch between the surveys used to study U.S. household composition and the dynamics of living arrangements prevailing among many lowincome African Americans. Mounting survey findings suggest that many low-income African Americans engage in a series of short cohabitations resulting in children with a succession of partners. Ethnographic data suggest these behaviors may be based within a relationship paradigm that needs to be understood on its own terms. Because of the tenuous nature of these relationships, we refer to this paradigm as transient domesticity. An original analysis of partnership and child custody statuses using the 2001 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) presented provides an indication of the extent of transient domesticity among low-income African Americans. Multivariate analysis suggests that transient domesticity or a paradigm that results in similar characteristics is more common among low income and African American adults and not unique to low-income African Americans. Lowincome African Americans as compared to higher-income whites and other subpopulations were much less likely to be married, although most of them reported they were single as opposed to cohabiting. The majority (60%) of low-income African American females age 20-44 were single parenting. The discussion presents recommendations for improving the measurement of living arrangements that may provide greater insight into transient domesticity. The discussion also examines possible improvements to our conceptualization of transient domesticity.

show abstract

“…Because the CEX does not contain a direct measure of cohabitation, we rely upon an inferred measure. We follow Baughman, Dickert‐Conlin, and Houser (2002) by defining cohabiting‐parent families as those that contain both an unmarried family head and an unmarried and unrelated adult of the opposite gender. In addition, we require the age difference between these two family members to be 10 years or less.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although this inferred measure will result in some degree of mismeasurement, several papers have found that inferred measures of cohabitation are reliable relative to direct measures (Baughman et al, 2002; Casper & Cohen, 2000; Manning, 1995 reported in Bauman, 1999). Any misclassification of cohabitation from using inferred measures will tend to lead to underestimates of any differences between cohabiting and other families.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do cohabiting couples with children spend their money?

DeLeire

Kalil

2005

J of Marriage and Family

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing rates of cohabitation in the United States raise important questions about how cohabitation fits in with the definition of family. Answers to this question depend in part upon the extent to which cohabitors’ behavior differs from that of other family types. Using data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, we compare the expenditure patterns of cohabiting‐parent (n = 1,804), married‐parent (n = 33,159), divorced single‐parent (n = 7,641), and never‐married single‐parent (n = 2,893) families. We find that cohabiting‐parent families, compared to married‐parent families, spend a greater amount on 2 adult goods (alcohol and tobacco) and a smaller amount on education. Cohabiting‐parent families also differ in their spending patterns from divorced single‐parent families and from never‐married single‐parent families. Overall, our results show that cohabiting‐parent families allocate their budgets differently than do other families.

show abstract

How well can we track cohabitation using the sipp? A consideration of direct and inferred measures

Cited by 20 publications

References 16 publications

Impacts of Demographic Trends on US Household Size and Structure

Impacts of Demographic Trends on US Household Size and Structure

Towards Improving Surveys of Living Arrangements among Poor African Americans

How do cohabiting couples with children spend their money?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About