Volume 49 - Article 39 | Pages 1087–1116  

Marital plans and partnership transitions among German opposite-sex couples: Couple agreement and gender differences

By Dominika Perdoch Sladká

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 179–211.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Becker, G. (1985). Human capital, effort, and sex division of labor. Journal of Labor Economics 3(1): 33–58.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Blakemore, J.E.O., Lawton, C.A., and Vartanian, L.R. (2005). I can’t wait to get married: Gender differences in drive to marry. Sex Roles 53(5–6): 327–335.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Brüderl, J., Drobnič, S., Hank, K., Neyer, Franz J., Walper, S., Alt, P., Borschel, E., Bozoyan, C., Garrett, M., Geissler, S., Gonzalez Avilés, T., Gröpler, N., Hajek, K., Herzig, M., Lenke, R., Lorenz, R., Lutz, K., Peter, T., Preetz, R., and Wetzel, M. (2022). The German Family Panel (pairfam)/Beziehungs- und Familienpanel (pairfam) (13.0.0) [dataset]. GESIS.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Brüderl, J., Frister, R., Hajek, K., Herzig, M., Lenke, R., Schütze, P., and Schumann, N. (2020). Pairfam data manual, Release 11.0. Cologne: GESIS, LMU Munich Technical report. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5678 Data File Version 11.0.0.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Brüderl, J., Garrett, M., Hajek, K., Herzig, M., Lenke, R., Lorenz, R., Schütze, P., Schumann, N., and Timmermann, K. (2022). Pairfam data manual, Release 13.0. Cologne: GESIS Data Archive, LMU Munich: Technical report.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Brüderl, J., Schmiedeberg, C., Castiglioni, L., Arránz Becker, O., Buhr, P., Fuß, D., Ludwig, V., Schröder, J., and Schumann, N. (2023). The German Family Panel: Study design and cumulated field report (Waves 1 to 14).

Weblink:
Download reference:

Cherlin, A.J. (2020). Degrees of change: An assessment of the deinstitutionalization of marriage thesis. Journal of Marriage and Family 82(1): 62–80.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Cho, S.B., Cui, M., and Claridge, A.M. (2018). Cohabiting parents’ marriage plans and marriage realization: Gender differences, couple agreement, and longitudinal effects. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35(2): 137–158.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Duvander, A.Z. and Kridahl, L. (2020). Decisions on marriage? Couples’ decisions on union transition in Sweden. Genus 76(2020): 22.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Heuveline, P. and Timberlake, J.M. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family 66(5): 1214–1230.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Hiekel, N. and Fulda, B.E. (2018). Love. Break up. Repeat: The prevalence and stability of serial cohabitation among West German women and men born in the early 1970s. Demographic Research 39(30): 855–870.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Hiekel, N., Liefbroer, A.C., and Poortman, A.R. (2015). Marriage and separation risks among German cohabiters: Differences between types of cohabiter. Population Studies 69(2): 237–251.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Hofacker, D., Stoilova, R., and Riebling, J.R. (2013). The gendered division of paid and unpaid work in different institutional regimes: Comparing West Germany, East Germany and Bulgaria. European Sociological Review 29(2): 192–209.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Huinink, J., Brüderl, J., Nauck, B., Walper, S., Castiglioni, L., and Feldhaus, M. (2011). Panel analysis of intimate relationships and family dynamics (pairfam): Conceptual framework and design. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung 23(1): 77–101.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Kalmijn, M. (2013). The educational gradient in marriage: A comparison of 25 European countries. Demography 50(4): 1499–1520.

Weblink:
Download reference:

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 / Revue européenne de Démographie 27(3): 269–293.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Klesment, M. and Van Bavel, J. (2017). The reversal of the gender gap in education, motherhood, and women as main earners in Europe. European Sociological Review 33(3): 465–481.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Kuo, J.C.L. and Raley, R.K. (2016). Diverging patterns of union transition among cohabitors by race/ethnicity and education: Trends and marital intentions in the United States. Demography 53(4): 921–935.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Levinger, G. (1976). A social psychological perspective on marital dissolution. Journal of Social Issues 32(1): 21–47.

Weblink:
Download reference:

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

Weblink:
Download reference:

Manning, W.D., Smock, P.J., and Fettro, M.N. (2019). Cohabitation and marital expectations among single millennials in the U.S. Population Research and Policy Review 38(3): 327–346.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Moors, G. and Bernhardt, E. (2009). Splitting up or getting married? Competing risk analysis of transitions among cohabiting couples in Sweden. Acta Sociologica 52(3): 227–247.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Müller, B. and Castiglioni, L. (2020). Do temporary dropouts improve the composition of panel data? An analysis of ‘gap interviews’ in the German Family Panel pairfam. Sociological Methods and Research 49(1): 193–215.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Müller, B. and Castiglioni, L. (2015). Stable relationships, stable participation? The effects of partnership dissolution and changes in relationship stability on attrition in a relationship and family panel. Survey Research Methods 9(3): 205–219.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Nazio, T. (2008). Cohabitation, family and society. New York: Routledge.

Weblink:
Download reference:

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

Weblink:
Download reference:

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

Weblink:
Download reference:

Parker, E. (2021). Gender differences in the marital plans and union transitions of first cohabitations. Population Research and Policy Review 40(4): 673–694.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Perelli-Harris, B. and Gassen, N.S. (2012). How similar are cohabitation and marriage? Legal approaches to cohabitation across Western Europe. Population and Development Review 38(3): 435–467.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Perelli-Harris, B., Kreyenfeld, M., Sigle-Rushton, W., Keizer, R., Lappegård, T., Jasilioniene, A., Berghammer, C., and Giulio, P.D. (2012). Changes in union status during the transition to parenthood in eleven European countries, 1970s to early 2000s. Population Studies 66(2): 167–182.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Rabe-Hesketh, S. and Skrondal, A. (2012). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata: Volume II: Categorical responses, counts, and survival. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Download reference:

Reneflot, A. (2006). A gender perspective on preferences for marriage among cohabitating couples. Demographic Research 15(10): 311–327.

Weblink:
Download reference:

StataCorp (2021). Stata survival analysis reference manual release 17. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Download reference:

Sullivan, O., Gershuny, J., and Robinson, J.P. (2018). Stalled or uneven gender revolution? A long-term processual framework for understanding why change is slow. Journal of Family Theory and Review 10(1): 263–279.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Testa, M.R. and Bolano, D. (2021). When partners’ disagreement prevents childbearing: A couple-level analysis in Australia. Demographic Research 44(33): 811–838.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Waller, M.R. and McLanahan, S.S. (2005). His’ and ‘her’ marriage expectations: Determinants and consequences. Journal of Marriage and Family 67(1): 53–67.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Yu, W.H. and Hara, Y. (2020). Job characteristics, marital intentions, and partner-seeking actions: Longitudinal evidence from Japan. Demographic Research 43(52): 1506–1544.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Back to the article