Living Apart Together (LAT) Relationships in the U.S. Susan L. Brown ([email protected]), Wendy D. Manning, Krista K. Payne, Huijing Wu Department of Sociology Bowling Green State University

Introduction LATs vs Daters Conceptualizing LAT Relationships Multivariate Results Data & Sample • Retreat from and rapid increase Descriptives: Percentages within AGE • & Relationships Survey (FRS), 2013 Relationship Type Predicted Probability of Being Very Happy 12% in Dater LAT 27% • Nationally representative survey of 18% 50-65 Taking things all together, how would you describe • Despite rise in unmarried population, non- Male 44.7 48.6 7,517 adults ages 18-65 Educational attainment 35-49 25% your current relationship? 1. Very Unhappy  7. Very Happy residential partnerships receive relatively H.S. or less 30.1 35.6 • Designed by NCFMR @ BGSU Some college 35.3 38.7 70% 18-34 Zero-order Model Full Model little research attention 38% Bachelors+ 34.6 25.8 Daters Ambivalent LATs Daters Ambivalent LATs • Collected by GfK—online panel • Growing recognition in Europe of Living Race/Ethnicity • Analytic sample includes those who White, non-Hispanic 65.1 63.3 DATER LAT Apart Together (LAT) relationships Black, non-Hispanic 12.5 18.7 identify as or LAT (n=578) Hispanic 22.4 18.0 81% 80% Rationale Previously Married 21.5 32.0 RELATIONSHIP DURATION *** 53% 57% ** 63% 61% Child(ren) in household 21.6 25.4 60 Discussion Dater LAT • Researchers have used various definitions Metro residence 86.8 83.3 50 Household income • Nearly 40% of daters are in LAT of LAT relationships—no measurement 40 Committed, long-term unions Predicted Mean Commitment Less than $25,000 14.3 35.2 relationships

% 30 ♦ consensus $25,000--$39,999 15.4 17.8 How committed are you to your relationship with your • LATs and daters are distinct across • Distinction between LAT and dating $40,000--$$74,999 31.5 18.9 20 Represent an end point—unlikely to dating partner? 1. Not at all  5. Completely committed $75,000--$$99,999 14.6 12.0 10 demographic characteristics and $100,000 or more 24.2 16.2 eventuate in cohabitation or marriage Full Model relationships can be a challenge 0 Zero-order Model Mean (SD) ♦ relationship quality • Prior research may be confounding LAT and 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 35 Daters Ambivalent LATs Daters Ambivalent LATs Relationship dur. (years) 1.9 (0.31) 4.2 (0.54) YEARS LAT partners maintain separate • LAT relationships are the next frontier in dating relationships domiciles to preserve autonomy, not individualized partnerships 4.4 Research Goals because less committed to each other 3.9 4.4 4.2 * 4.2 4.0 ♦ * Next Steps • A new measure of LAT TEST LAT relationships are gaining momentum • Investigate whether LAT relationships are relationship status especially among middle-aged and older Predicted Mean Influence of Finances better conceptualized as a continuum to • Innovative measure adults who may have less to gain from How much do financial matters influence whether you recognize fluidity explicitly models fluidity of cohabitation or marriage stay in this relationship? 1. Not at all  5. Extremely • Examine how LATs compare with LAT relationships How likely do you think it is that you and your [dating Zero-order Model Full Model cohabitors and marrieds, especially Distribution of Responses for Direct partner] will decide to get married? Daters Ambivalent LATs Daters Ambivalent LATs • Are LATs distinctive from Question RE: LAT among older adults DISTINGUISH Very likely Likely Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know daters on age, relationship Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 2.4 2.6 2.6 duration, home ownership, LAT 16% 28% 15% 23% 18% 2.1 2.1 2.3 or plans to marry? 15% 23% 32% 12% 18% * * Dater 41% 25% 6% 4% 23%

This research was supported in part by the Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD050959).