Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Diversity in the Meaning of Cohabitation Across Europe

  • Published:
European Journal of Population Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 20 December 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

This study investigates the diversity in the meanings attached to cohabitation across Europe. Utilizing a sample of 9,113 cohabiters between ages 18 and 79 from 10 European countries that participated in the Generations and Gender Surveys, we develop a typology of different meanings of cohabitation and study their prevalence across and within countries. Based on answers to questions about marriage intentions, marriage attitudes and feelings of economic deprivation, six types of cohabiters are distinguished. Cohabiters in some of these types mainly view cohabitation as a stage in the marriage process (i.e. a prelude to marriage, a trial marriage, cohabitation for economic reasons, intend to marry, despite an unfavourable attitude towards the institution of marriage), whereas other cohabiters mainly view it as an alternative to marriage (i.e. refusal of marriage, marriage is irrelevant). Results suggest that cohabiters constitute a heterogeneous group. For many, marriage is important and cohabitation serves as a period preceding marriage. Cohabitation as an alternative to marriage is more prevalent in Western and Northern Europe, where cohabitation rates are high. The group of cohabiters who intend to marry despite an unfavourable attitude towards the institution of marriage is particularly large in Central and Eastern European countries, where cohabitation is less widespread.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

Notes

  1. The entropy of the cohabitation typology by country is defined as the negative sum of the proportion of cohabiters assigned to each meaning of cohabitation multiplied by its logarithm \(0 \le H_{\text{c}} = - \sum\nolimits_{i}^{k} {p_{i} } \log (p_{i} ) \le \log (k).\)

References

  • Abrams, L. (1993). Concubinage, cohabitation and the law: Class and gender relations in nineteenth-century Germany. Gender and History, 5, 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, J. S., Axinn, W. G., & Thornton, A. (2002). The influence of attitudes on family formation processes. In R. Lesthaeghe (Ed.), Meaning and choice: Value orientations and life course decisions. The Hague: Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt, E., & Hoem, B. (1985). Cohabitation and social background: Trends observed for Swedish women born between 1936 and 1960. European Journal of Population, 1, 375–395. doi:10.1007/BF01797149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, S. M., & Casper, L. M. (2000). American families. Population Bulletin, 55, 3–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billari, F. C. (2001). The analysis of early life courses: Complex descriptions of the transition to adulthood. Journal of Population Research, 18(2), 119–142. doi:10.1007/BF03031885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billari, F. C., & Liefbroer, A. C. (2010). Towards a new pattern of transition to adulthood? Advances in Life Course Research, 15(2–3), 59–75. doi:10.1016/j.alcr.2010.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blossfeld, H.-P., & Huinink, J. (1991). Human capital investments or norms of role transition? How women’s schooling and career affect the process of family-formation. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 143–168. doi:10.1086/229743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradatan, C., & Kulcsar, L. (2008). Choosing between marriage and cohabitation: Women’s first union patterns in Hungary. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39(4), 491–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brines, J., & Joyner, K. (1999). The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage. American Sociological Review, 64(3), 333–355. doi:10.2307/2657490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L. (2003). Relationship quality dynamics of cohabiting unions. Journal of Family Issues, 24(5), 583–601. doi:10.1177/0192513X03252671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L., & Booth, A. (1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(3), 668–678. doi:10.2307/353727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casper, L. M., & Bianchi, S. M. (2002). Continuity and change in the American family. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciabattari, T. (2004). Cohabitation and housework: The effects of marital intentions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(1), 118–125. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00009.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkberg, M. (1999). The price of partnering: The role of economic well-being in young adult’s first union experiences. Social Forces, 77(3), 945–968. doi:10.1093/sf/77.3.945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkberg, M., Stolzenberg, R. M., & Waite, L. J. (1995). Attitudes, values, and entrance into cohabitational versus marital unions. Social Forces, 74(2), 609–632. doi:10.2307/2580494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coast, E. (2009). Currently cohabiting: Relationship attitudes, expectations and outcomes. In J. Stillwell, E. Coast, & D. Kneale (Eds.), Fertility, living arrangements, care and mobility: Understanding population trends and processes. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, T. P., & Berman, D. (2010). Entry to marriage and cohabitation in Russia, 1985–2000: Trends, correlates, and implications for the Second Demographic Transition. European Journal of Population, 26(1), 3–31. doi:10.1007/s10680-009-9196-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, K. B. (2009). Marital intentions and the stability of first cohabitations. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 179–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajnal, J. (1965). European marriage pattern in historical perspective. In D. V. Glass & D. E. C. Eversley (Eds.), Population in history. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuveline, P., & Timberlake, J. M. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67(2), 1214–1230. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00088.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoem, J. M. (1986). The impact of education on modern family-union initiation. European Journal of Population, 2(2), 113–133. doi:10.1007/BF01796886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoem, J. M., & Kostova, D. (2008). Early traces of the Second Demographic Transition in Bulgaria: A joint analysis of marital and non-marital union formation, 1960–2004. Population Studies, 62(3), 259–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalmijn, M. (2011). The influence of men’s income and employment on marriage and cohabitation: Testing Oppenheimer’s theory in Europe. European Journal of Population, 27(3), 269–293. doi:10.1007/s10680-011-9238-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kantorova, V. (2004). Education and entry into motherhood: The Czech Republic during state socialism and the transition period (1970–1997). Demographic Research, Special Collection, 3(10), 245–274. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2004.S3.10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasearu, K., & Kutsar, D. (2011). Patterns behind unmarried cohabitation trends in Europe. European Societies, 13(2), 307–325. doi:10.1080/14616696.2010.493586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiernan, K. (2001). The rise of cohabitation and childbearing outside marriage in Western Europe. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 15, 1–21. doi:10.1093/lawfam/15.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiernan, K. (2002a). Cohabitation in Western Europe. Trends, issues, and implications. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Just living together. Implications of cohabitation on families, children, and social policy (pp. 3–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiernan, K. (2002b). The state of European Unions: An analysis of partnership formation and dissolution. In M. Macura & G. Beets (Eds.), Dynamics of fertility and partnership in Europe: Insights and lessons from comparative research (Vol. 1, pp. 57–76). New York: UN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiernan, K. (2004). Unmarried cohabitation and parenthood in Britain and Europe. Law and Policy, 26(1), 33–55. doi:10.1111/j.0265-8240.2004.00162.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klijzing, E. (1992). ‘Weeding’ in the Netherlands: First union disruption among men and women born between 1928 and 1965. European Sociological Review, 8(1), 53–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, H.-P., Billari, F. C., & Ortega, J. A. (2002). The emergence of lowest-low fertility in Europe during the 1990s. Population and Development Review, 28(4), 641–680. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2002.00641.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotycheva, E., & Philipov, D. (2008). Bulgaria: Ethnic differentials in rapidly declining fertility. Demographic Research, 19(13), 361–402. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kravdal, O. (1997). Wanting a child without a firm commitment to the partner: Interpretations and implications of a common behaviour pattern among Norwegian cohabitants. European Journal of Population, 13, 269–298. doi:10.1023/A:1005943724645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kravdal, O. (1999). Does marriage require a stronger economic underpinning than informal cohabitation? Population Studies, 53(1), 63–80. doi:10.1080/00324720308067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesthaeghe, R., & van de Kaa, D. J. (1986). Twee demografische transities? (Two demographic transitions?). In D. J. van de Kaa & R. Lesthaeghe (Eds.), Bevolking: Groei en Krimp (Population: Growth and Decline) (pp. 9–24). Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A. C., & Billari, F. C. (2009). Bringing norms back in: A theoretical and empirical discussion of their importance for understanding demographic behaviour. Population, Space and Place, 16, 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A. C., & Dourleijn, E. (2006). Unmarried cohabitation and union stability: Testing the role of diffusion using data from 16 European Countries. Demography, 43(2), 203–221. doi:10.1353/dem.2006.0018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A. C., Gerritsen, L., & De Jong Gierveld, J. (1994). The influence of intentions and life course factors on union formation behavior of young adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56(1), 193–203. doi:10.2307/352713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2002). First comes cohabitation and then comes marriage? A research note. Journal of Family Issues, 23(8), 1065–1087. doi:10.1177/019251302237303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manting, D. (1996). The changing meaning of cohabitation and marriage. European Sociological Review, 12(1), 53–65. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a018177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C., & Théry, I. (2001). The PACS and marriage and cohabitation in France. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 15, 135–158. doi:10.1093/lawfam/15.1.135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ni Bhrolcháin, M., & Beaujouan, E. (2013). Education and cohabitation in Britain: A return to traditional patterns? Population and Development Review, 39(3), 441–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American Journal of Sociology, 94(3), 563–591. doi:10.1086/229030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, V. K. (2003). Cohabiting and marriage during young men’s career-development process. Demography, 40(1), 127–149. doi:10.2307/3180815.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelli-Harris, B., Kreyenfeld, M., Sigle-Rushton, W., Keizer, R., Lappegard, T., Jasilioniene, A., et al. (2012). Changes in union status during the transition to parenthood in eleven European countries, 1970s to early 2000s. Population Studies, 66(2), 167–182. doi:10.1080/00324728.2012.673004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perelli-Harris, B., & Sánchez Gassen, N. (2012). How similar are cohabitation and marriage? Legal approaches to cohabitation across Western Europe. Population and Development Review, 38, 435–467. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00511.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perelli-Harris, B., Sigle-Rushton, W., Kreyenfeld, M., Lappegard, T., Keizer, R., & Berghammer, C. (2010). The educational gradient of childbearing within cohabitation in Europe. Population and Development Review, 36(4), 775–801. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00357.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philipov, D., Speder, Z., & Billari, F. C. (2006). Soon, later, or ever? The impact of anomie and social capital on fertility intentions in Bulgaria (2002) and Hungary (2001). Population Studies, 60(3), 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potancokova, M., Vano, B., Pilinská, V., & Jurcova, D. (2008). Slovakia: Fertility between tradition and modernity. Demographic Research, 19(25), 973–1018. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, C. (1995). Cohabiting, married or single: Portraying, analyzing and modeling new living arrangements in the changing societies of Europe. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindfuss, R. R., & Vandenheuvel, A. (1990). Cohabitation—A precursor to marriage or an alternative to being single. Population and Development Review, 16(4), 703–726. doi:10.2307/1972963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seltzer, J. A. (2004). Cohabitation in the United States and Britain: Demography, kinship, and the future. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 921–928. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00062.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobotka, T. (2003). Re-emerging diversity: Rapid fertility changes in Central and Eastern Europe after the collapse of the communist regimes. Population and Development Review, 58(4–5), 451–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobotka, T., & Toulemon, L. (2008). Changing family and partnership behaviour: Common trends and persistent diversity across Europe. Demographic Research, 19, 85–138. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soons, J. P. M., & Kalmijn, M. (2009). Is marriage more than cohabitation? Well-being differences in 30 European countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(5), 1141–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spéder, Z., & Kamarás, F. (2008). Hungary: Secular fertility decline with distinct period effects. Demographic Research, 19(18), 599–664. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, S. M., Whitton, S. W., & Markman, H. J. (2004). Maybe I do: Interpersonal commitment and premarital or nonmarital cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 25(4), 496–519. doi:10.1177/0192513X03257797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surkyn, J. J., & Lesthaeghe, R. (2004). Value orientation and the second demographic transition (SDT) in Northern, Western and Southern Europe: An update. Demographic Research, 2(3), 47–86. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2004.S3.3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Théry, I. (1998). Couple, filiation et parenté aujourd’hui. Paris: Odile Jacob et La Documentation Francaise.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, A. (2005). Reading history sideways: The fallacy and enduring impact of the developmental paradigm on family life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, A., Axinn, W. G., & Xie, Y. (2007). Marriage and cohabitation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, A., & Philipov, D. (2009). Sweeping changes in marriage, cohabitation, and childbearing in Central and Eastern Europe: New insights from the Developmental Idealism framework. European Journal of Population, 25(2), 123–156. doi:10.1007/s10680-009-9181-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(4), 1009–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trost, J. (1978). Renewed social institution—Nonmarital cohabitation. Acta Sociologica, 21(4), 303–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Kaa, D. J. (1987). Europe’s Second Demographic Transition. Population Bulletin, 42(1), 1–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Kaa, D. J. (2001). Postmodern fertility preferences: From changing value orientation to new behavior. Population and Development Review, 27, 290–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vikat, A., Spéder, Z., Beets, G., Billari, F. C., Bühler, C., Désesquelles, A., et al. (2007). Generation and Gender Survey: Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demographic Research, 17, 389–440. doi:10.4054/DemRes.17.14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villeneuve-Gokalp, C. (1991). From marriage to informal union: Recent changes in the behavior of French couples. Population, 3, 81–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiik, K. A. (2009). You’d better wait. Socio-economic background and timing of first marriage versus first cohabitation. European Sociological Review, 25(2), 139–153. doi:10.1093/esr/jcn045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiik, K. A., Bernhardt, E., & Noack, T. (2009). A study of commitment and relationship quality in Sweden and Norway. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(3), 465–477. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00613.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiik, K. A., Bernhardt, E., & Noack, T. (2010). Love or money? Marriage intentions among young cohabitors in Norway and Sweden. Acta Sociologica, 53(3), 269–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willoughby, B. J., Carroll, J. S., & Busby, D. M. (2012). The different effects of “living together”: Determining and comparing types of cohabiting couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(3), 397–419. doi:10.1177/0265407511431184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI), University of Groningen (RUG), Lange Houtstraat 19, 2518 CV, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Nicole Hiekel & Aart C. Liefbroer

  2. Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute / University Medical Center Groningen and VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Aart C. Liefbroer

  3. Department of Sociology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, Padualaan 14, 3584 CH, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Anne-Rigt Poortman

Authors
  1. Nicole Hiekel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aart C. Liefbroer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne-Rigt Poortman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole Hiekel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hiekel, N., Liefbroer, A.C. & Poortman, AR. Understanding Diversity in the Meaning of Cohabitation Across Europe. Eur J Population 30, 391–410 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-014-9321-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-014-9321-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation