The Transition from Living Apart Together to a Coresidential Partnership Wagner, Michael; Mulder, Clara; Weiß, Bernd; Krapf, Sandra
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Groningen The transition from living apart together to a coresidential partnership Wagner, Michael; Mulder, Clara; Weiß, Bernd; Krapf, Sandra Published in: Advances in Life Course Research DOI: 10.1016/j.alcr.2018.12.002 IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2019 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Wagner, M., Mulder, C., Weiß, B., & Krapf, S. (2019). The transition from living apart together to a coresidential partnership. Advances in Life Course Research, 39, 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2018.12.002 Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 23-09-2021 Advances in Life Course Research 39 (2019) 77–86 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Advances in Life Course Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/alcr The transition from living apart together to a coresidential partnership T ⁎ Michael Wagnera, , Clara H. Mulderb, Bernd Weißc, Sandra Krapfd a Institute of Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Cologne, Greinstr. 2, 50939 Cologne, Germany b Faculty of Spatial Sciences, Population Research Centre, University of Groningen, the Netherlands c GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim, Germany d Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, University of Mannheim, Germany ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Moving in with a partner is a step in the process of institutionalising a romantic relationship, that is, establishing Living apart together the relationship in such a way that it is more embedded in the social environment and more strongly regulated Coresidential partnership by social norms and mutual expectations. But under what circumstances do couples decide to establish a joint Residential relocations household? We study the transition to a coresidential partnership among couples in a ‘living-apart-together’ (LAT) relationship. We use data from the seven waves of the German Family Panel (pairfam) dataset (N = 2428 LAT relationships of men and women born in 1971–1973, 1981–1983, and 1991–1993). In order to analyse especially the partnership processes of younger adults, we focus on respondents in the age range of 18 to 42 in the time period between 2008 to 2016. Using discrete-time event-history models, we test hypotheses about the partners’ resources, relationship quality, degree of relationship institutionalisation, and exposure to different kinds of costs. Our results indicate that especially equality and institutionalisation factors, as well as the costs of moving and of starting to coreside, are associated with the decision to move in together. Resources are important for those LAT partners who are living in the parental household, while for LAT partners who have already left the parental home no effect of resources was found on the transition to a coresidential union. 1. Introduction most couples who move in together have been in a pre-existing dating relationship or a non-coresidential partnership. A similar argument was Union formation is a crucial event in the life course that has im- made by Sassler, Michelmore, and Qian, (2018). In a recent study these portant repercussions for fertility, housing demand, and well-being. The authors analysed the transition of women into a coresidential union transition to a coresidential union is therefore an important topic of with a partner they had a sexual relationship with. But most researchers research among family sociologists and demographers. Most earlier rely on what Roseneil (2006) has called a tripartite model of relation- research on union formation focused almost exclusively on the transi- ships, which assumes that individuals are either single, cohabiting, or tion to a married union (e.g., Oppenheimer, 1988). More recently, married; while ignoring non-residential partnerships, or living-apart- however, it has become common practice to consider unmarried co- together (LAT) partnerships. habitation when analysing union formation (e.g., Guzzo, 2006; There are several reasons why neglecting LAT partnerships in ana- Jalovaara, 2012; Mulder, Clark, & Wagner, 2006; Sassler & lyses of union formation can result in a misinterpretation or an un- Goldscheider, 2004; Thornton, Axinn, & Teachman, 1995; Wiik, 2009; realistic view of partnership arrangements and trajectories in a society. Xie, Raymo, Goyette, & Thornton, 2003). In a recent study for Norway, First, failing to take LAT partnerships into account usually leads to a Wiik (2011) concentrated on the transition to cohabitation only, ar- massive overestimation of the proportion of partnerless men and guing that in Norway marriage has become nonstandard behaviour. women (e.g., Castro-Martín, Domínguez-Folgueras, & Martín-García, In most of these previous studies, analyses of the formation of cor- 2008). This is especially true for younger adults, as the prevalence of esidential unions included all individuals who had never lived with a LAT relationships decreases with age until people reach their mid- partner or who were not currently living with a partner. Thus, all in- thirties, and remains low thereafter (Asendorpf, 2008). Accordingly, dividuals without a partner were treated as being ‘at risk’ of starting a European data show that the proportion of men and women in LAT coresidential partnership. This approach failed to take into account that relationships who intend to live together is highest in the age group ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Wagner), [email protected] (C.H. Mulder), [email protected] (B. Weiß), [email protected] (S. Krapf). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2018.12.002 Received 15 November 2017; Received in revised form 16 November 2018; Accepted 30 December 2018 Available online 02 January 2019 1040-2608/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/). M. Wagner et al. Advances in Life Course Research 39 (2019) 77–86 20–30 years and lowest in the age group 51 years and older (Lewin, relationships (Haskey, 2005; Pasteels et al., 2017). These relationships 2017). have also been referred to as non-residential partnerships (Strohm, Second, in many societies, the average age at marriage has been Seltzer, Cochran, & Mays, 2009, p.178), dating partnerships increasing. A possible reason for this trend is that finding a partner and (Meggiolaro, 2010), and bilocal relationships (e.g., Dorbritz, 2009). establishing a stable partnership is becoming more difficult. If this is the There seems to be agreement in the literature that LAT relationships case, individuals might see living apart together as an acceptable ar- differ from casual or dating relationships. Both dating and LATre- rangement during the partner search process. This assumption is sup- lationships are intimate relationships between partners living in dif- ported by empirical evidence showing that the stability of LAT part- ferent households. However, compared to individuals in dating re- nerships tends to be low because the partners usually either separate or lationships or in (short) “romantic experiences” (Régnier-Loilier, 2016), move in together (Asendorpf, 2008), and that the length of a LAT individuals in LAT relationships are more committed to each other. LAT partnership is positively related to the stability of a subsequent cor- partnerships (or LAT relationships) are usually defined as intimate re- esidential union (Schnor, 2015). Third, the transition from a LAT lationships between unmarried partners who live in separate house- partnership to a co-residential union is often a precondition for family holds, but who identify themselves and are identified by network formation. It is therefore clear that the investigation of the process of members as being part of a couple (Levin & Trost, 1999). In particular, transitioning from a non-coresidential to a coresidential union con- being identified as a couple by others indicates a commitment levelthat tributes to our understanding not only of the course of partnerships, but separates a LAT relationship from a pure dating relationship, and from a also of the realisation and the timing of childbirth. boyfriend or girlfriend relationship (Duncan & Phillips, 2011). Another reason why studying non-coresidential partnerships and Several scholars have developed typologies of LAT relationships. the process of transition to coresidence is important is that the LAT These typologies are important for our study because the likelihood of partnership type is quite common. Recent empirical studies have esti- moving in together differs between LAT relationship types. A criterion mated the prevalence of LAT