1

Living Apart Together (LAT) Relationships in the U.S.

Susan L. Brown, Wendy D. Manning, and Krista K. Payne

Adult living arrangements have shifted dramatically in recent decades. The rate has plunged by 60% since 1970 (Cruz, 2013). Nowadays, just over one-half of Americans are unmarried. But even though a slight majority of U.S. adults are unmarried, not all of them are single. Instead, many are partnered. The retreat from marriage has coincided with a rapid acceleration in unmarried , a common living arrangement not only among young adults but older adults, too. The burgeoning literature on unmarried cohabitation underscores the growing centrality of this union type in the life course. Cohabitation is now recognized as a viable family context that often serves as a setting for childbearing and childrearing (Smock &

Greenland, 2010). Roughly two out five children born in the U.S. are to cohabiting .

Whereas family scholarship once primarily focused on marriage, the prominence of cohabitation is reflected in the fact that research now emphasizes unions more broadly—both marital and cohabiting unions (Sassler, 2010).

Although this approach recognizes the diversity of co-residential couple living arrangements, it obscures non-co-residential partnerships that may play a key role in the lives of unmarried adults. In particular, there is growing recognition in Europe of Living Apart Together

(LAT) relationships that are characterized by a long-term couple relationship that does not involve co-residence (Duncan & Phillips, 2010; Levin, 2004; Upton-Davis, 2012). Rather, couples choose to maintain separate residences, spending some of their time (days and nights) together and some of their time apart. Researchers have used various definitions of LAT relationships and there is no consensus about how to measure them (Strohm et al., 2009).

Precisely because they do not involve co-residence it is arguably challenging to pinpoint what 2 constitutes a LAT relationship as opposed to a relationship. Indeed, some studies that purport to capture LAT couples are arguably tapping into dating relationships, which range widely in terms of commitment, duration, and outcomes (e.g., eventuating in cohabitation or marriage).

The goal of this study is to assess the viability of a new measure of LAT relationships we devised and tested on a large national U.S. sample. Our measure is innovative because it explicitly models the fluidity of LAT relationships by providing a definition of LAT relationships and then asking unmarried, non-cohabiting respondents with a partner to rate their level of agreement that this definition reflects the contours of their relationship. We examine the correlates of agreeing that you are in a LAT relationship and compare LATS with non-LATS

(i.e., daters). Additional comparisons are performed to assess how LATS and daters differ from cohabitors and marrieds. This study moves the field forward by introducing and evaluating a new measure of LAT relationships that could be used in future data collections to capture a relationship type that is somewhat fuzzy and nebulous but likely to gain prominence in the coming years as individuals seek more flexibility, autonomy, and independence within their intimate relationships (Cherlin, 2004; Giddens, 1992).

Method

Data come from the and Relationships Survey (FRS), a nationally representative survey of 7,517 adults ages 18-65 that was fielded in 2013. The FRS was modeled largely on the

1987-88 National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) to permit analyses of family change over the past 25 years but it also includes new items that were not part of the NSFH, such as the LAT measure that is the focus of the current study. The FRS survey was designed by the

National Center for Family and Marriage Research (NCFMR) at Bowling Green State 3

University, which sponsored the data collection performed by Knowledge Networks (KN) using their nationally representative online panel sample.

The KN panel includes both the online and offline populations in the U.S. by using a dual sampling frame of both addressed-based-sampling and random-digit-dialing to randomly recruit a probability-based sample. This sampling frame includes listed and unlisted phone numbers, telephone and non-telephone households, and cell-phone-only households. KN provides hardware and internet access to panel members if needed. Other social science studies have relied on the KN panel, which has been used in federally funded data collections on couples and families (Lichter & Carmalt, 2009; Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012; Sassler, Addo, & Lichter, 2012).

The data quality of the KN panel is comparable to or even exceeds that derived from RDD surveys (Chang & Krosnick, 2009).

The item designed to measure a LAT relationship states: “Nowadays, many couples are in a committed, long-term relationships and choose to live apart (maintaining separate residences) rather than cohabit or marry. This describes my current relationship with my partner…”

Respondents select from five responses: strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree. This item was administered to respondents who reported having a non-co-resident partner (n = 608). Those who answered strongly agree or agree were coded as being in a LAT relationship (n = 228). All others were coded as being in a dating relationship (n

= 380).

In addition to differentiating between LAT and dating respondents, we also identified cohabiting and married respondents. Note that for all four partnered relationship types, couples could be different-sex or same-sex.

Preliminary Results 4

Our initial analyses compared LATs and dating non-LATS on key demographic characteristics as shown in the table. As expected, LATS tend to be older than daters. Whereas

42% of LATS are between the ages of 50-65, just 17% of daters are in this age group. A majority

(63%) of daters are between the ages of 18-29. These patterns align with the notion that a committed non-co-residential relationship that is unlikely to eventuate in either cohabitation or marriage is more common among older than younger adults. LATS and daters do not appreciably differ in terms of their education levels or racial-ethnic composition. Over one-third of LATS have been previously married versus about one-quarter of daters.

Next Steps

Subsequent analyses will include an examination of various features of LAT relationships, namely relationship duration, expectations (e.g., plans to cohabit or marry), reasons for not living together, and multiple dimensions of relationship quality. Additional analyses will compare LATS, daters, cohabitors, and marrieds across both sociodemographic characteristics and relationship quality to better decipher how LAT relationships should be conceptualized in the spectrum of partnered relationships. Little is known about the prevalence of LAT relationships in the U.S. context, nor do we know much about the characteristics of

LATs (Strohm et al., 2009). This paper will help to fill this gap by providing new insights from a recent national study that piloted a new measure of LAT relationship status.

5

References

Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2009). National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing versus

the internet comparing representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 73, 1-38.

Cruz, J. (2013). Marriage: More than a Century of Change. (FP-13-13). National Center for

Family & Marriage Research. Retrieved from

http://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-

sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-13-13.pdf

Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 66(4), 848-861.

Duncan, S., & Phillips, M. (2011). People who live apart together (LATs): new family form or

just a stage? International Review of Sociology, 21(3), 513-532.

Duncan, S., & Phillips, M. (2010). People who live apart together (LATs)–how different are

they? The Sociological Review, 58(1), 112-134.

Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, and eroticism in modern societies. John Wiley & Sons.

Levin, I. (2004). Living apart together: A new family form. Current Sociology, 52(2), 223-240.

Lichter, D. T., & Carmalt, J. H. (2009). Religion and marital quality among low-income couples.

Social Science Research, 38, 186-187.

Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a

social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77, 523-547.

Sassler, S. (2010). Partnering across the life course: Sex, relationships, and mate selection.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 557-575. 6

Sassler, S., Addo, F.R., & Lichter, D.T. (2012). The tempo of sexual activity and later

relationship quality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 708-725.

Smock, P. J., & Greenland, F. R. (2010). Diversity in pathways to parenthood: Patterns,

implications, and emerging research directions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3),

576-593.

Strohm, C. Q., Seltzer, J. A., Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (2009). “Living apart together”

relationships in the United States. Demographic Research, 21, 177.

Upton-Davis, K. (2012). Living apart together relationships (LAT): severing intimacy from

obligation. Gender Issues, 29, 25-38. 7

Table. Characteristics of LATS versus Daters LATs Daters % % Age 18-34 33.77 62.9 35-49 24.12 19.5 50-65 42.11 17.4 Education H.S. or less 44.8 54.6 Some college 21.3 15.6 Bachelors+ 33.8 29.8 Race/Ethnicity White, Non-Hispanic 60.5 62.3 Black, Non-Hispanic 19.7 15.2 Hispanic 13.2 16.1 Other, Non-Hispanic 3.1 2.4 2+ Races, Non- Hispanic 3.5 3.9 Previously Married Yes 36.4 24.1 No 63.6 75.9 Total N=608 2013 Families and Relationships Survey