DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Are spouses more satisfied
than cohabitors?
An exploration over the last 20 years in Italy
Elena Pirani & Daniele Vignoli
Dipartimento di Statistica, Informatica, Applicazioni (DiSIA)
Università di Firenze
Qualità della vita in Italia:
venti anni di studi attraverso
l’indagine Multiscopo dell’Istat
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
The emergence of cohabitation
•
In the social landscape of Europe, unmarried cohabitation has
become an increasingly popular living arrangement
(Kiernan, 2002; Perelli-Harris et al., 2010, 2012, 2014; Vignoli et al. 2014 ).
•
The emergence of unmarried cohabitation has provided stimuli for
new research (Perelli-Harris et al. 2010, 2012, 2014).
•
A central path of inquiry focuses on the link between partnership
status and the subjective well-being of individuals.
The question is whether this new form of partnership brings
about a “cohabitation gap” (Soons & Kalmijn 2009).
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Marriage, cohabitation and SWB
•
Mutual rights and obligations of cohabitors are not as well
defined by law as they are in the case of spouses (e.g., property
laws and divorce laws).
•
The marriage (and its institutionalization) determines a
legitimization of the union vis-à-vis the community, and
normative standards with respect to appropriate behaviors.
This legitimization enhances social support of family,
friends and the local community, whereas deviations from
these norms may not be recognized.
•
Marriage can reduce uncertainty regarding the future
duration of the relationship more than cohabitation does.
•
Selection effects
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Marriage, cohabitation and wellbeing
•
Previous studies (mostly American) have found that cohabitors
are less committed to and less satisfied with their
partnerships than individuals who are married (e.g., Nock 1995;
Brown & Booth 1996; Stanley et al. 2004; Wiik et al. 2009).
•
In addition, there are country variations in the degree to
which relationship assessments differ across union types…
…mainly because of country differences in institutionalization
and in the prevalence of unmarried cohabitation (Soons &
Kalmijn 2009; Wiik et al. 2012).
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
A temporal perspective
•
We study Italy, a setting where the diffusion of cohabitation is
still less widespread than elsewhere.
•
Using the 2002 European Social Survey for Italy, Soon and Kalmijn
(2009) found that Italian cohabitors are less happy than their
married counterparts.
•
We know nothing about the link between family satisfaction
and type of union for more recent years, when cohabitation
started to become a more popular choice.
•
If family satisfaction of cohabitors and spouses varies according to
the level of institutionalization and the diffusion of unmarried
cohabitation…
… we expect this relationship to vary, within the country,
across time.
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Diffusion of cohabitation in Italy (proportion of
cohabitations over the number of couples)
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1994 1995 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
North
Centre
South & Islands
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Research questions
1. Are there significant differences between spouses and
cohabitors in family life satisfaction assessment in a country
like Italy where cohabitation is less widespread than elsewhere
in Europe?
2. Are these differences blocked across years, or do they
vary over time as cohabitation becomes a more popular
choice?
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Data and Variables
•
Data
18 repeated cross-section harmonized dataset: Istat survey
«Aspects of daily-life» 1994-2012, carried out continuatively by
the Italian Statistical Office
Sample: Men and women aged 18-49
•
Key variables
Dependent variable: Family life satisfaction assessment –
satisfied (very satisfied and quite satisfied) vs. not satisfied (not
very or not at all satisfied)
Independent variable: Cohabitation vs. marriage
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Proportion of people declaring
to be unsatisfied with their family life
10.0
9.0
marriage
cohabitation
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1994 1995 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Method
•
Multilevel framework – a three-level hierarchical model with
random intercepts
1. individuals (the first level units)
2. as nested in couples (the second level units),
3. which are nested in geographical regions combined with
years (the third level units).
•
N: 252,732 men and women nested in 126,366 couples, nested in
342 third level units (namely region times year).
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Hierarchical structure of data
Reg. 1
in 1994
couple
1
…
F
F
M
Reg. 19
in 1994
…
F
Reg. 1
in 2012
M
1° level:
I individuals
Reg. 19
in 2012
…
2° level:
J couples
couple
j
M
3° level:
H RegionXyear
couple
J
…
F
M
F
M
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Variables
•
First-level covariates – Individual socio-demographic variables
Gender, age, education, occupational status.
•
Second-level covariates – Couple-level variables
Household size, presence of young children, self-assessment of
economic resources.
•
Third-level covariates – Contextual variables (time-series)
Demography of cohabitation: Deviation of the regional incidence of
cohabitation from the national level, per year; national level of
cohabitation per year.
Secularization process: Deviation of the regional incidence of
people who do not go to Church regularly (=less than once per
month) from the national level, per year; national incidence of
people who do not go to Church regularly, per year.
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Family dissatisfaction in cohabitation
compared to marriage 1994-2012 (OR)
OR
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
Significant at 0.05 level
NOT significant at 0.05 level
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Family dissatisfaction in cohabitation
compared to marriage 1994-2012 (OR)
OR
3.5
Diffusion of
cohabitation
14.0
12.0
10.0
2.5
8.0
6.0
1.5
4.0
2.0
0.5
0.0
Significant at 0.05 level
NOT significant at 0.05 level
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
To conclude
•
Thanks to an original and harmonized dataset, we showed that:
in the second half of ‘90s, cohabitors illustrated a risk to be
unsatisfied with their family life significantly higher than
married people.
in the second decade of two-thousands, the association between
union type and family life satisfaction is no longer significant,
suggesting that cohabitors are not less satisfied than
spouses anymore.
•
As cohabitation becomes a popular phenomenon, marriage and
cohabitation are becoming increasingly equal in individuals’
perceptions, e.g. assessment of family satisfaction.
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
To conclude
•
Even in a country of familistic-oriented welfare state and relative
small diffusion of cohabitations, the slow but continuing propagation
of cohabitations leads to an increase in the approval and
legitimization of cohabitors.
•
However, if on a day-to-day basis there may be little to distinguish
between the two types of union, Italian cohabitors suffer from a
series of legal disadvantages compared to spouses (Vignoli &
Salvini 2014).
•
A clear divergence exists in Italy between the way in which
consensual unions are seen and addressed at an institutional and
legislative level, and the diffusion and perception of cohabitation on
an individual basis.
•
Cohabitation still appears as an incomplete institution in Italy
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Thank you
[email protected]
[email protected]
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Stepwise presentation
1. Model 1 only included the union type – cohabitation vs.
marriage – per year of the survey, where the reference
category is represented by marriage;
2. Model 2 we added individual and couple-level sociodemographic variables;
3. Model 3 we also included aggregate-level variables that
account for the degree of institutionalization and secularization
within regions and over time.
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Multilevel regression findings
Model 1
Union type
by year
(ref.: married)
†p ≤ .10.
*p ≤ .05.
cohabitation in 1994
cohabitation in 1995
cohabitation in 1996
cohabitation in 1997
cohabitation in 1998
cohabitation in 1999
cohabitation in 2000
cohabitation in 2001
cohabitation in 2002
cohabitation in 2003
cohabitation in 2005
cohabitation in 2006
cohabitation in 2007
cohabitation in 2008
cohabitation in 2009
cohabitation in 2010
cohabitation in 2011
cohabitation in 2012
**p ≤ .01.
***p ≤ .001.
Model 2
Model 3
OR
sig.
OR sig.
OR sig.
3.48
3.54
2.59
2.05
3.68
2.33
2.05
3.49
2.88
2.38
3.00
4.04
2.69
2.55
2.62
1.85
2.58
1.49
***
***
2.66
2.51
1.97
1.58
2.84
1.63
2.15
3.57
2.14
1.61
2.86
3.20
2.57
1.85
2.08
1.43
1.76
1.49
2.39
3.27
2.32
1.95
3.00
2.30
1.95
2.34
2.27
1.94
2.71
2.90
2.25
1.99
1.84
1.25
1.35
0.94
*
***
***
*
***
***
***
***
***
**
***
***
***
***
†
***
***
†
***
*
*
***
*
†
***
***
***
*
***
*
*
***
***
***
*
***
**
*
***
**
***
***
***
***
***
*
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Robustness checks
•
First, we acknowledge that it is important to account for individual
religiosity. This information was available for all progressive data
sets, except for 2012. We replicated the model estimation including
individual religiosity (and excluding the year 2012).
•
Second, our sample includes all couples, regardless of the presence of
children or other members in the household. We estimated multilevel
models limited to people living alone as a couple.
•
Third, we estimated multilevel models restricting the sample to
people living with at least one child.
•
Finally, our model accounts for children in pre-school age. Results
proved to be robust if we consider children aged up to 13 years.
•
… AND we added to the analysis the 2013 provisional data, and
the difference between the satisfaction of cohabitors and spouses
proved to be not significant (not yet in the paper).
DiSIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI STATISTICA,
INFORMATICA, APPLICAZIONI
"GIUSEPPE PARENTI"
Data-related caveats
•
We could not distinguish between cohabitation and premarital cohabitation nor we could explore marriage plans
of cohabitors.
•
We could not control our estimates for the duration of the
relationship.
•
Our analysis is cross-sectional by nature, and thus it has
limited power in informing us about causal mechanisms.
