The choice between a married or unmarried first union by young adults

Abstract

Liefbroer, A.C., 1991, The choice between a married or unmarried first union by young adults: A competing risks analysis, European Journal of Population 7, In this paper the choice between marriage and unmarried cohabitation as a first union by young adults is studied. A hazard analysis is performed on a sample of 590 26-year-old men and women from the Netherlands. Students are much less likely to start a union in general, and marriage in particular, than are other categories of young adults. Young adults living at home are less likely to enter a consensual union than those living on their own. Religious young adults are much less likely to enter a consensual union and much more likely to marry than are non-religious ones. Educational attainments at age 16 do not influence union formation. A.C. Liefbroer / Married or unmarried first union by .young adultsCet article 6tudie le choix des jeunes adultes entre mariage et cohabitation pour leur premi&e union : une analyse, utilisant un mod61e ~ risques proportionnels, est effectu6e sur un 6chantillon de 590 jeunes hommes et jeunes femmes ftg6s de 26 ans en Hollande. Les 6tudiants ont une plus faible probabilit6 de s'engager dans une union en g6n6ral, et plus particuli6rement dans tm mariage, que les autres cat6gories de jeunes. Les jeunes vivant chez leurs parents ont 6galement une plus faible probabilit6 d'entrer dans une union consensuelle que ceux vivant ind6pendamment. Enfin les jeunes qui pratiquent une religion ont une plus faible probabilit6 d'entrer dans une union consensuelle et une plus forte probabilit6 de se mailer que les non pratiquants. En revanche le niveau d'6ducation ~ 16 ans n'a aucune influence sur les unions ~t venir.

Has the reciprocal relationship between employment and marriage changed for men? An analysis of the life histories of men born in the Netherlands between 1930 and 1970

“…Starting with background characteristics, we find that the parents' religiosity has no effect on union formation. It does have a very clear effect on the type of entry, however, with men from more religious backgrounds being less likely to cohabit and more likely to marry directly, as earlier studies have indicated (Liefbroer 1991;Thornton et al 1992). It is interesting that religiosity has no effect on the transition to marriage that follows a period of cohabitation.…”

“…Cohabitation can therefore be used as a way for couples to reduce uncertainty, before marriage, about future career prospects. Recent American evidence does suggest that economic prospects are less important for entry into cohabitation, although it is less clear whether favourable economic prospects among men also have a positive effect on the transition from cohabitation to marriage (Liefbroer 1991;Smock and Manning 1997;Bracher and Santow 1998;Kravdal 1999;Brown 2000;Oppenheimer 2003;Sassler and McNally 2003;Xie et al 2003).…”

“…For men, the mean age at first marriage was 28 in 1950, reached a low of 24.6 in the early 1970s, and increased again to 29 in the 1990s (Kalmijn 1994a). About two-thirds of couples now live together before they marry and there are few cohabiting couples who remain unmarried for long (Liefbroer 1991;Manting 1996;De Graaf and Steenhof 1999). Second, the Netherlands has experienced the same trend towards more egalitarian gender roles that other countries have experienced.…”

Resources, Living Arrangements and First Union Formation in the United States, the Netherlands and West Germany

“…In contrast, Liefbroer et al (1994) found a lower rate of union formation for those living independently than for those living with their parents (note that their study only included young people who had a steady dating relationship with someone from the opposite sex). Liefbroer (1991) found no significant effect on union formation, but a positive effect on unmarried cohabitation and a negative effect on marriage. For Britain, Berrington and Diamond (2000) found a strong positive effect on cohabitation for both men and women, a smaller negative effect on marriage for women, and hardly any effect on marriage for men.…”

“…On the one hand, level of education indicates income potential and would thus lead to earlier union formation (compare Oppenheimer, 1988). On the other hand, high education has been argued to indicate a degree of non-traditionality (Liefbroer, 1991;Manting, 1994), which would lead to later union formation (and particularly later marriage). For the Netherlands and Flanders, Liefbroer and Corijn (1999) found a small delaying impact of educational attainment on union formation.…”