Marriage and separation risks among German cohabiters: Differences between types of cohabiter

Abstract

Running title:Marriage and separation among cohabiters Germany presents an interesting case for the study of contextual variation in the meaning of cohabitation and its association with relationship transitions. Despite aligned institutional and political conditions in eastern and western Germany since the reunification in 1990, the two regions of the country have continued to differ in their patterns of relationship and family behaviour. Our study examined differences in the prevalence of specific types of cohabitation in eastern and western Germany and investigated whether these types were differently associated with transitions to marriage and separation. We used data from the German Family Panel (PAIRFAM) and the supplementary study 'Demographic differences in the life course dynamics in Eastern and Western Germany' (DEMODIFF). The data allowed us to follow eastern and western German cohabiting men and women born between 1971 and 1973 and between 1981 and 1983 over a period of up to four years. We constructed a typology of cohabitation and assessed its association with marriage and separation by means of competing risk analysis, controlling for other relevant demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the cohabiting population. Marriage and separation among cohabiters 5 5The study contributes to the literature on cohabitation in two ways. First, because we combined marital intention and attitude in order to classify cohabiters into different types of cohabitation, we are able to show that there is substantial heterogeneity in the cohabiting population in Germany as well as important differences between the eastern and western part of the country. Second, because we used a prospective approach and longitudinal survey data, we are able to provide valuable insights into how the meanings that cohabiters attach to their relationships (as indicated by their responses to the measures of marital intentions and attitude) shape their relationship careers. Ultimately, this study increases our understanding of the role of cohabitation in processes of union formation and dissolution.

Childhood Family Structure and Early Family Formation in East and West Germany

“…This unexpected similarity, however, has to be interpreted in terms of the context‐specific role of cohabitation in family formation, which has been described in previous cross‐national research (Heuveline & Timberlake, ; Hiekel, Liefbroer, & Poortman, ). Cohabitation is widely spread in both parts of the country but still more accepted in the East (Hiekel, Liefbroer, & Poortman, ; Nazio & Blossfeld, ). In western Germany, cohabitation is often considered a stage in the pathway to marriage, whereas eastern Germans more often regard it as an alternative to marriage (Hiekel et al, ).…”

“…Cohabitation is widely spread in both parts of the country but still more accepted in the East (Hiekel, Liefbroer, & Poortman, ; Nazio & Blossfeld, ). In western Germany, cohabitation is often considered a stage in the pathway to marriage, whereas eastern Germans more often regard it as an alternative to marriage (Hiekel et al, ). In the face of these normative differences, Hiekel and collaborators (2015, p. 247) argued “that in western Germany—where strong norms favouring marriage prevail—the types of cohabitation that embody views about it which differ most from the predominant view are the most fragile unions.” Given that children from alternative family structures more often hold such nontraditional attitudes toward family formation, this suggests that young western German cohabiters from alternative family structures are facing an increased risk of splitting up.…”

Do Marriage and Cohabitation Provide Benefits to Health in Mid-Life? The Role of Childhood Selection Mechanisms and Partnership Characteristics Across Countries

“…Moreover, Germany was one of the last countries in Europe to introduce joint parental responsibility for non-marital children. Despite shared institutional and political conditions since reunification in 1990 and the alignment of other family behaviors, such as fertility and divorce, the eastern and western parts of the country still differ considerably with respect to prevalence and meaning of cohabitation (Hiekel et al 2015 ; Klärner 2015 ). Differences are especially apparent for childbearing in cohabitation: of those born in the 1971–73 cohort, by 2009, 31 percent of western German mothers had their first birth out of wedlock while this was the case for 61 percent of eastern German mothers (Kreyenfeld et al 2011 ).…”

Does waiting pay off for couples? Partnership duration prior to household formation and union stability

“…Using the complete partnership history has several advantages over a pure panel approach. Panel studies are usually strongly affected by left-truncation (couples are not followed up after the start of their partnership) and panel attrition (Hiekel, Liefbroer, and Poortman 2015). As a consequence the sample in these panel studies is selective and the issue of union stability is difficult to address because less stable couples are under-represented and leave the survey sample more often.…”

“…The first DemoDiff wave was conducted in 2009/10 and added 1,489 respondents living in eastern Germany to the two oldest pairfam cohorts, of whom 1,173 respondents were re-interviewed in 2010/11. The overall response rate of 37% in the first wave of pairfam and 29% in the first wave of DemoDiff is low but is not very selective (Hiekel, Liefbroer, and Poortman 2015;Huinink et al 2010). The frequency distributions in the German Family Panel do not differ substantially from those in the Mikrozensus 2007, which is a compulsory survey for a 1% sample of the population (Huinink et al 2010;Suckow and Schneekloth 2009.…”