By

Dav is Daumler

an d

Cé lineLe Bourdais

A p r i l 1 4 , 2 016

LIVING APART TOGETHERUSING RETROSPECTIVE RELATIONSHIP

HISTORIES TO PREDICT ENTRY INTO RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL PARTNERSHIPS AFTER

EXPERIENCING A DISSOLUTION

9 TH QICSS NEW RESEARCHERS CONFERENCE

WHAT IS LIVING APART TOGETHER?

¡ Defin i tion of l i v ing apar t together (LAT) rela t ionships:

“Committed couples who(a) are not married, and(b) maintain two separate households.”

¡ Also refer red to as nonresidential pa r tnerships

¡ Not to be confused wi th :§ Cohabiting unions§ Commuter marriages§ Dating couples

D A U M L E R & L E B O U R D A I S | 2

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT LAT COUPLES?

¡ LAT rela t ionships f i r st ga ined recognition a f ter Levin and Trostwrote about the phenomenon in 1999

¡ Since then, much of the l i terature has focused on examin ing :§ The prevalence of LAT relationships (e.g. Australia: Reimondos et al. , 2011;

Canada: Milan & Peters, 2003; UK: Haskey, 2005; US: Strohm et al. , 2009)

§ Typologies and motivations for entering into a LAT relationship(e.g. Levin, 2004; Duncan et al. , 2013; Funk & Kobayashi, 2014; Roseneil, 2006)

§ Characteristics of individuals in LAT relationships (e.g. Duncan & Peters, 2010; Evans, 2015; Régnier -Loilier & V ignoli, 2014; Tai et al. , 2014; Turcotte, 2013)

¡ However, few stud ies have investigated the actua l transit ions into nonresidential pa r tnerships

D A U M L E R & L E B O U R D A I S | 3

- RESEARCH QUESTIONS -

¡ Context:§ Dear th of research that uses a longitudinal perspective§ Many studies have focused on younger respondents (below 30)

and older respondents (over 55)§ Little is known about the effect of children on LAT relationships

¡ Research questions for the present study:

1. What individual-level factors predict entry into a nonresidential relationship, as opposed to a residential relationship, after experiencing a dissolution?

2. How do these predictors differ for men and women?

D A U M L E R & L E B O U R D A I S | 4

- DATA -SURVEY USED AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

¡ 2011 Canadian General Socia l Sur vey (GSS) on Fami lies§ Cross-sectional, nationally representative survey of Canadians in all ten

provinces, aged 15 and over (N = 22,435)§ Includes a detailed relationship history of respondents’ previous unions§ Added key questions per taining to LAT relationships in the 2011 survey

¡ Methodolog ical cha l lenges:§ Limitations of retrospective longitudinal data§ Difficulties with measuring nonresidential par tnerships§ Restrictions with the temporal data in the GSS:

§ Only have time variables for current LAT couples (i .e. only have star t date)§ Do not know when respondents terminate a LAT relationship§ Do not have information on previous LAT relationships

D A U M L E R & L E B O U R D A I S | 5

- METHODS -

¡ Cr i teria for inclusion in the ana lyt ical sample:(i) Respondent has experienced at least one dissolution(ii) Respondent is between the ages of 30 and 69 years old

¡ Ana l ytical sample: (N = 5 ,588)§ After their most recent dissolution, respondents entered into a.. .

LAT relationship Marriage Cohabiting union No relationship

N = 654 N = 580 N = 1,967 N = 2,387

D A U M L E R & L E B O U R D A I S | 6

- DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS -TOTAL RESPONDENTS IN A RELATIONSHIP, BY AGE AND GENDER

(1) Marriage(2) Cohabiting union(3) LAT relat ionship

(1)

(2)

(3)

- METHODS -

¡ Cr i teria for inclusion in the ana lyt ical sample:(i) Respondent has experienced at least one dissolution(ii) Respondent is between the ages of 30 and 69 years old

¡ Ana l ytical sample: (N = 5 ,588)§ After their most recent dissolution, respondents entered into a.. .

¡ Ana l ytical stra tegy:§ Constructed event-history data with retrospective relationship histories

§ Interval begins at the time of dissolution§ Interval ends at the time of entry into a subsequent relationship

§ Conducted a survival analysis using a semiparametric propor tional hazards model, as proposed by Fine and Gray (1999)

§ The three relationship types were treated as competing events

LAT relationship Marriage Cohabiting union No relationship

N = 654 N = 580 N = 1,967 N = 2,387

D A U M L E R & L E B O U R D A I S | 8

- RESULTS -MEN, AGED 30-69, WHO EXPERIENCED A DISSOLUTION

Predictors LAT Marriage Cohabitation

Have at least one child (ref: no children) 0.50** –0.37* –0.06

Age at most recent dissolution (ref: 30-39)

Under 30 –1.41*** 0.29 0.30**

40 to 49 0.88*** –0.52* –0.09

50 to 59 1.58*** –0.91* –0.06

60 to 69 1.57*** –0.30 0.09

Birth cohort at time of survey (ref: 30-39)

40 to 49 –1.00*** 0.43 –0.21

50 to 59 –1.45*** 0.45 –0.25*

60 to 69 –1.63*** 0.57* –0.33*

Relationship history variables

Previous union was a marriage (ref: cohabitation) –0.62** 0.83*** 0.03

Previous union ended due to a death (ref: separation) –0.29 0.51 –0.55*

Two or more dissolutions (ref: one dissolution) –0.31 –0.38 0.05

Controls: education, religious attendance, Quebec residence Yes Yes Yes

Number of events/competing events 266 / 1,132 276 / 1,122 856 / 542

N 2,159 2,159 2,159

¡ P rop or tional h azards mod el f or t h e t i mi ng of en t ry i n to a su b sequ en t re l at ionship

- RESULTS -WOMEN, AGED 30-69, WHO EXPERIENCED A DISSOLUTION

Predictors LAT Marriage Cohabitation

Have at least one child (ref: no children) 0.10 –0.43** –0.13

Age at most recent dissolution (ref: 30-39)

Under 30 –1.26*** 0.61*** 0.32***

40 to 49 0.58** –0.47* 0.04

50 to 59 1.46*** –1.14** 0.44

60 to 69 2.11*** –0.97 –0.71

Birth cohort at time of survey (ref: 30-39)

40 to 49 –0.78*** 0.23 –0.14

50 to 59 –1.53*** 0.55* –0.31**

60 to 69 –2.52*** 0.77** –0.71***

Relationship history variables

Previous union was a marriage (ref: cohabitation) –0.17 0.64*** –0.38

Previous union ended due to a death (ref: separation) –0.12 0.25 –0.43*

Two or more dissolutions (ref: one dissolution) 0.19 –0.31 –0.19*

Controls: education, religious attendance, Quebec residence Yes Yes Yes

Number of events/competing events 337 / 1,248 277 / 1,308 971 / 614

N 3,166 3,166 3,166

¡ P rop or tional h azards mod el f or t h e t i mi ng of en t ry i n to a su b sequ en t re l at ionship

- RESULTS -COMPARING WOMEN AND MEN: SIGNIFICANCE

Predictors LAT Marriage Cohabitation

Have at least one child (ref: no children) 0.10 –0.43** –0.13

Age at most recent dissolution (ref: 30-39)

Under 30 –1.26*** 0.61*** 0.32***

40 to 49 0.58** –0.47* 0.04

50 to 59 1.46*** –1.14** 0.44

60 to 69 2.11*** –0.97 –0.71

Birth cohort at time of survey (ref: 30-39)

40 to 49 –0.78*** 0.23 –0.14

50 to 59 –1.53*** 0.55* –0.31**

60 to 69 –2.52*** 0.77** –0.71***

Relationship history variables

Previous union was a marriage (ref: cohabitation) –0.17 0.64*** –0.38

Previous union ended due to a death (ref: separation) –0.12 0.25 –0.43*

Two or more dissolutions (ref: one dissolution) 0.19 –0.31 –0.19*

Controls: education, religious attendance, Quebec residence Yes Yes Yes

Number of events/competing events 337 / 1,248 277 / 1,308 971 / 614

N 3,166 3,166 3,166

¡ P rop or tional h azards mod el f or t h e t i mi ng of en t ry i n to a su b sequ en t re l at ionship

- RESULTS -COMPARING WOMEN AND MEN: EFFECT SIZE

Predictors LAT Marriage Cohabitation

Have at least one child (ref: no children) 0.10 –0.43** –0.13

Age at most recent dissolution (ref: 30-39)

Under 30 –1.26*** 0.61*** 0.32***

40 to 49 0.58** –0.47* 0.04

50 to 59 1.46*** –1.14** 0.44

60 to 69 2.11*** –0.97 –0.71

Birth cohort at time of survey (ref: 30-39)

40 to 49 –0.78*** 0.23 –0.14

50 to 59 –1.53*** 0.55* –0.31**

60 to 69 –2.52*** 0.77** –0.71***

Relationship history variables

Previous union was a marriage (ref: cohabitation) –0.17 0.64*** –0.38

Previous union ended due to a death (ref: separation) –0.12 0.25 –0.43*

Two or more dissolutions (ref: one dissolution) 0.19 –0.31 –0.19*

Controls: education, religious attendance, Quebec residence Yes Yes Yes

Number of events/competing events 337 / 1,248 277 / 1,308 971 / 614

N 3,166 3,166 3,166

¡ P rop or tional h azards mod el f or t h e t i mi ng of en t ry i n to a su b sequ en t re l at ionship

- MOVING FORWARD -CONCLUSIONS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF DETAILED MICRODATA

¡ Conclusions § Prominence of LAT relationships among middle-aged individuals§ Role that age and children may play in the decision to form a LAT couple§ Evidence that these predictors may vary for men and women

¡ L imi tat ions and future research§ Omitted variables that ought to be included§ Incorporate nonresidential par tnerships in future surveys§ Evaluate how we ask questions and the effects of survey design

¡ Why deta i led microdata is necessary§ Creative solutions to methodological challenges§ The power of longitudinal data, par ticularly when collected prospectively§ New answers to old questions; new questions we never thought to ask§ Provides insight into our social reality, inequalit ies, policy/legal contexts

D A U M L E R & L E B O U R D A I S | 1 3

By

Dav is Daumler

an d

Cé lineLe Bourdais

A p r i l 1 4 , 2 016

LIVING APART TOGETHERUSING RETROSPECTIVE RELATIONSHIP

HISTORIES TO PREDICT ENTRY INTO RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL PARTNERSHIPS AFTER

EXPERIENCING A DISSOLUTION

9 TH QICSS NEW RESEARCHERS CONFERENCE