He says, she says: Gender and cohabitation

Journal of Family Issues

Volumn 32, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 876-905

  Huang, Penelope M ^a   Smock, Pamela J ^b   Manning, Wendy D ^c   Bergstrom Lynch, Cara A ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d EASTERN CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cohabitation; Gender; Marriage; Union formation

Indexed keywords

EID: 79957633759     PISSN: 0192513X     EISSN: 15525481     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0192513X10397601     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Albrecht, T.L., Johnson, G.M., & Walther, J.B. (1993). Understanding communication processes in focus groups. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 51-64). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
2. Avellar, S., & Smock, P.J. (2005). The economic consequences of the dissolution of cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 315-327.
3. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money work sex. New York, NY: William Morrow.
4. Brines, J., & Joyner, K. (1999). The ties that bind: Commitment and stability in the modern union. American Sociological Review, 64, 333-356.
5. Brown, S.L. (2000). Union transitions among cohabitors: The significance of relationship assessments and expectations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 833-846.
6. Browne, I., & Misra, J. (2003). The intersection of gender and race in the labor market. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 487-513.
7. Bulcroft, R.A., Bulcroft, K.A., Bradley, K., & Simpson, C. (2000). The management and production of risk in romantic relationships: A postmodern paradox. Journal of Family History, 25, 63-92.
8. Bumpass, L., & Lu, H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children's family contexts. Population Studies, 54, 29-41.
9. Bumpass, L.L., Sweet, J.A., & Cherlin, A. (1991). The role of cohabitation in declining rates of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 913-927.
10. Carlson, M., McLanahan, S., & England, P. (2004). Union formation in fragile families. Demography, 41, 237-261.
11. Charmaz, K. (2001). Grounded theory. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research: Perspectives and formulations (pp. 335-353). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
12. Clarkberg, M.E., Stolzenberg, R.M., & Waite, L.J. (1995). Attitudes, values, and entrance into cohabitational versus marital unions. Social Forces, 74, 609-634.
13. Collins, P.H. (1998). It's all in the family: Intersections of gender, race, and nation. Hypatia, 13, 62-82.
14. Edin, K. (2000). What do low-income single mothers say about marriage? Social Problems, 47, 112-133.
15. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
16. Gupta, Sanjiv. 1999. "The effects of transitions in marital status transitions on men's performance of housework,"Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, p. 700.
17. Hollander, J.A. (2004). The social contexts of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33, 602-637.
18. Jarrett, R.L. (1993). Focus group interviewing with low-income minority populations: A research experience. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 184-201). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19. Jarrett, R.L. (1994). Living poor: Family life among single parent, African-American women. Social Problems, 41, 30-49.
20. Kennedy, S., & Bumpass, L. (2008). Cohabitation and children's living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research, 19, 1663-1692.
21. Kenney, C. (2004). Cohabiting couple, filing jointly? Resource pooling and U.S. poverty policies. Family Relations, 53, 237-247.
22. Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16, 103-121.
23. Knodel, J. (1993). The design and analysis of focus group studies: A practical approach. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 35-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
24. Knodel, J. (1997). A case for nonanthropological qualitative methods for demographers. Population and Development Review, 23, 847-853.
25. LaRossa, Ralph. (2005). "Grounded theory methods and qualitative research". Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4):837-857.
26. Lichter, D., McLaughlin, C., Kephart, G., & Landry, D. (1992). Race and the retreat from marriage: A shortage of marriageable men? American Sociological Review, 57, 781-799.
27. Lindsay, J.M. (2000). An ambiguous commitment: moving in to a cohabiting relationship. Journal of Family Studies, 6, 120-134.
28. Lye, D., & Waldron, I. (1997). Attitudes toward cohabitation, family, and gender roles: Relationships to values and political ideology. Sociological Perspectives, 40, 199-125.
29. Manning, W.D., & Jones, A. (2006, April). Cohabitation and marital dissolution. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Los Angeles, CA.
30. Manning, W.D., & Smock, P.J. (2005). Measuring and modeling cohabitation: New perspectives from qualitative data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 989-1002.
31. Miller, A., & Sassler, S. (2006, August). Waiting to be asked: The gendered aspects of relationship progression among cohabiting couples. Roundtable discussion at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
32. Morgan, D.L. (1993). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
33. Morgan, D.L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129-152.
34. Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
35. Morgan, D.L. (1998). The focus group guidebook (Focus Group Kit, Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
36. Oppenheimer, V. (2003). Cohabiting and marriage during young men's career development process. Demography, 40, 127-149.
37. Patton, M.Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38. Phillips, J.A., & Sweeney, M.M. (2005). Premarital cohabitation and marital disruption among White, Black, and Mexican American women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 271-285.
39. Popenoe, D., & Whitehead, B.D. (2000). The state of our union (2000): The social health of marriage in America. Retrieved fromhttp://www.stateofourunions.org/pdfs/SOOU2000.pdf.
40. Raley, K., & Bumpass, L. (2003). The topography of the divorce plateau: Levels and trends in union stability in the United States after 1980. Demographic Research, 8, 245-259.
41. Reneflot, A. (2006). A gender perspective on preferences for marriage among cohabiting couples. Demographic Research, 15, 311-328.
42. Rhoades, G.K., Stanley, S.M., & Markman, H.J. (2006). Pre-engagement cohabitation and gender asymmetry in marital commitment. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 553-560.
43. Rhoades, G.K., Stanley, S.M., & Markman, H.J. (2009). Couples' reasons for cohabitation: Associations with individual well-being and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 233-258.
44. Rindfuss, R., & Vandenheuvel, A. (1990). Cohabitation: A precursor to marriage or an alternative to being single? Population and Development Review, 16, 703-726.
45. Sanchez, L.S., Manning, W.D., & Smock, P.J. (1998). Sex: specialized or collaborative mate selection? Union transitions among cohabitors. Social Science Research, 27, 280-304.
46. Sassler, S. (2004). The process of entering into cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 491-505.
47. Sassler, S., & Cunningham, A. (2008). How cohabitors view childbearing. Sociological Perspectives, 51, 3-29.
48. Sassler, S., & McNally, J. (2003). Cohabiting couple's economic circumstances and union transitions: A re-examination using multiple imputation techniques. Social Science Research, 32, 553-578.
49. Smock, P.J. (2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1-20.
50. Smock, P.J., & Manning, W.D. (1997). Cohabiting partners' economic circumstances and marriage. Demography, 34, 331-341.
51. Smock, P.J., Manning, W.D., & Porter, M. (2005). Everything's there but the money: How money shapes decisions to marry among cohabitors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 680-696.
52. South, S.J., & Spitze, G. (1994). Housework in marital and nonmarital households. American Sociological Review, 59, 327-347.
53. Stanley, S.M., Rhoades, G.K., & Markman, H.J. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499-509.
54. Strauss, A.M., & Corbin, J.M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
55. Sussman, S., Burton, D., Dent, C.W., Stacy, A., & Flay, B.R. (1991). Use of focus groups in developing an adolescent tobacco cessation program: Collective norm effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1772-1782.
56. Sweeney, M. (2002). Two decades of family change: The shifting economic foundations of marriage. American Sociological Review, 67, 132-147.
57. Sweet, J.A., & Bumpass, L.L. (1992). Young adults' view of marriage, cohabitation, and family. In S. J. South & S. E. Tolnay (Eds.), The changing American family: Sociological & demographic perspectives (pp. 143-170). Boulder, CO: Westview.
58. Teachman, J.D. (2003). Premarital sex, premarital cohabitation, and the risk of subsequent marital dissolution among women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 444-455.
59. Thornton, A., Axinn, W., & Xie, Y. (2007). Marriage and cohabitation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
60. Umana-Taylor, A., & Bamaca, M.Y. (2004). Conducting focus groups with Latino populations: Lessons from the field. Family Relations, 53, 262-272.
61. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). Fertility, family planning, & the health of U.S. women: Data from the (2002) National Survey of Family Growth, Series 23-25. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
62. Weber, L. (1998). A conceptual framework for understanding race, class, gender and sexuality. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 13-32.
63. Winkler, A. (1997). Economic decision-making by cohabitors: Findings regarding income pooling. Applied Economics, 29, 1079-1090.
64. Wu, Zheng and Michael S. Pollard. 2000. "Economic Circumstances and the Stability of Nonmarital Cohabitation", Journal of Family Issues, 21, 303-356.
65. Xie, Y., Raymo, J., Goyette, K., & Thornton, A. (2003). Economic potential and entry into marriage and cohabitation. Demography, 40, 351-367.