, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 151–167 | Cite as

Union Transitions and Fertility Within First Premarital Cohabitations in Canada: Diverging Patterns by Education?

  • Laura WrightEmail author


Cohabitation has become increasingly accepted and normalized as part of the family system in Canada and has become the most common way to form a first union. The changing role of cohabitation in the family system is often understood as being driven by the ideational changes associated with the second demographic transition, but increasing international evidence indicates that this explanation is incomplete. Using nationally representative retrospective data from Canadians born between 1940 and 1979 from the 2011 General Social Survey, this study examines transitions out of first premarital cohabitation and fertility within these unions as two measures of the changing role of cohabitation. Across birth cohorts, Canadians are increasingly likely to use cohabitation as an alternative to marriage and less likely to use cohabitation as a short-lived prelude to marriage. These overall trends support the second demographic transition perspective. However, this study also finds that Canadians without a bachelor’s degree are far more likely to experience a birth within cohabitation and that their likelihood of transitioning to marriage has declined steeply across birth cohorts. This educational gradient in childbearing in cohabitation and the increasing educational differences in union transitions over time provide support for the diverging destinies thesis in Canada.


Cohabitation Marriage Fertility Education Canada 



I thank Rachel Margolis, three anonymous reviewers, and the editors for their insightful comments and suggestions at various stages of this manuscript. A previous version of this manuscript was presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the Population Association of America.

Supplementary material

13524_2018_741_MOESM1_ESM.docx (108 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 108 kb)


  1. Allison, P. D. (1984). Event history analysis: Regression for longitudinal event data (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series No. 07-046). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Beaujot, R., Du, C. J., & Ravanera, Z. (2013). Family policies in Québec and the rest of Canada: Implications for fertility, child-care, women’s paid work, and child development indicators. Canadian Public Policy, 39, 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berlin, G., Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., & Waters, M. C. (2010). Introducing the issue. Future of Children, 20(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
  4. Boothby, D., & Drewes, T. (2006). Post-secondary education in Canada: Returns to university, college and trades education. Canadian Public Policy, 32, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Jones, B. S. (2004). Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States (Vital Health Statistics Report, Series 23, No. 22). Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  7. Bumpass, L. L. (1990). What’s happening to the family? Interaction between demographic and institutional change. Demography, 27, 483–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bumpass, L. L., & Lu, H. H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burch, T. K., & Madan, A. K. (1986). Union formation and dissolution: Results from the 1984 Family History Survey (Catalogue No. 99–963). Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
  10. Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cherlin, A. J. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Danziger, S., & Ratner, D. (2010). Labor market outcomes and the transition to adulthood. Future of Children, 20(1), 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fussell, E., Gauthier, A. H., & Evans, A. (2007). Heterogeneity in the transition to adulthood: The cases of Australia, Canada, and the United States. European Journal of Population, 23, 389–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldstein, J. R., & Kenny, C. T. (2001). Marriage delayed or marriage forgone? New cohort forecasts of first marriage for U.S. women. American Sociological Review, 66, 506–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodwin, P. Y., Mosher, W. D., & Chandra, A. (2010). Marriage and cohabitation in the United States: A statistical portrait based on Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth (Vital Health Statistics Report, Series 23, No. 28). Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  16. Guzzo, K. B. (2009). Marital intentions and the stability of first cohabitations. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 179–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guzzo, K. B. (2014). Trends in cohabitation outcomes: Compositional changes and engagement among never-married young adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 826–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamplova, D., Le Bourdais, C., & Lapierre-Adamcyk, E. (2014). Is the cohabitation-marriage gap in money pooling universal? Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 983–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayford, S. H., & Morgan, S. P. (2008). The quality of retrospective data on cohabitation. Demography, 45, 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heuveline, P., & Timberlake, J. M. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1214–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jenkins, S. P. (2005). Survival analysis with Stata [Data set]. Essex, UK: Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex. Retrieved from
  22. Kennedy, S., & Bumpass, L. L. (2008). Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research, 19(article 47), 1663–1692. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kerr, D., Moyser, M., & Beaujot, R. (2006). Marriage and cohabitation: Demographic and socioeconomic differences in Québec and Canada. Canadian Studies in Population, 33, 83–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuo, J. C.-L., & 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, 921–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laplante, B., & Fostik, A. L. (2015). Disentangling the Québec fertility paradox: The recent evolution of fertility within marriage and consensual union in Québec and Ontario. Canadian Studies in Population, 42, 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Le Bourdais, C., & Lapierre-Adamcyk, E. (2004). Changes in conjugal life in Canada: Is cohabitation progressively replacing marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 929–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Le Bourdais, C., & Marcil-Gratton, N. (1996). Family transformations across the Canadian/American border: When the laggard becomes the leader. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 27, 415–436.Google Scholar
  29. Lesthaeghe, R. (1995). The second demographic transition in western countries: An interpretation. In K. O. Mason & A.-M. Jensen (Eds.), Gender and family change in industrialized countries (pp. 17–62). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 36, 211–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lesthaeghe, R. (2014). The second demographic transition: A concise overview of its development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 18112–18115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lesthaeghe, R., & Surkyn, J. R. (2002). New forms of household formation in Central and Eastern Europe: Are they related to newly emerging value orientations? In UNECE (Ed.), Economic Survey of Europe, 2002 (Vol. 1, pp. 197–216). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Commission for Europe.Google Scholar
  33. Lesthaeghe, R. J., & Neidert, L. (2006). The second demographic transition in the United States: Exception or textbook example? Population and Development Review, 34, 669–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lesthaeghe, R. J., & van de Kaa, D. (1986). Twee demografische transities? [Two demographic transitions?]. In R. Lesthaeghe & D. J. van de Kaa (Eds.), Mens en maatschappij: Groei of krimp [People and Society: Growth or shrinkage] (pp. 9–24). Deventer, the Netherlands: Van Loghum-Slaterus.Google Scholar
  35. Lichter, D. T., & Qian, Z. (2008). Serial cohabitation and the marital life course. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 861–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lichter, D. T., Qian, Z., & Mellott, L. M. (2006). Marriage or dissolution? Union transitions among poor cohabiting women. Demography, 43, 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lichter, D. T., Sassler, S., & Turner, R. N. (2014). Cohabitation, post-conception unions, and the rise in nonmarital fertility. Social Science Research, 47, 134–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Manning, W. D. (1993). Marriage and cohabitation following premarital conception. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 839–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manning, W. D. (2004). Children and the stability of cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 674–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Manning, W. D., Brown, S. L., & Payne, K. K. (2014). Two decades of stability and change in age at first union formation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2007). The changing institution of marriage: Adolescents’ expectations to cohabit and to marry. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 559–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McLanahan, S. (2004). Diverging destinies: How children are faring under the second demographic transition. Demography, 41, 607–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mills, M. (2004). Stability and change: The structuration of partnership histories in Canada, the Netherlands and the Russian Federation. European Journal of Population, 20, 141–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Musick, K. (2007). Cohabitation, nonmarital childbearing, and the marriage process. Demographic Research, 16(article 9), 249–286. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nock, S. L. (1995). A comparison of marriages and cohabiting relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Perelli-Harris, B., Sigle-Rushton, W., Kreyenfeld, M., Lappegård, T., Keizer, R., & Berghammer, C. (2010). The educational gradient of childbearing within cohabitation in Europe. Population and Development Review, 36, 775–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pollard, M. S., & Wu, Z. (1998). Divergence of marriage patterns in Québec and elsewhere in Canada. Population and Development Review, 24, 329–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Raley, R. K. (2001). Increasing fertility in cohabiting unions: Evidence for the second demographic transition in the United States. Demography, 38, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rindfuss, R. R., & VandenHeuvel, A. (1990). Cohabitation: A precursor to marriage or an alternative to being single? Population and Development Review, 16, 703–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sassler, S., & Goldscheider, F. K. (2004). Revisiting Jane Austen’s theory of marriage timing: Changes in union formation among American men in the late 20th century. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 139–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seltzer, J. A. (2000). Families formed outside of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1247–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Settersten, R. A., & Ray, B. (2010). What’s going on with young people today? The long and twisting path to adulthood. Future of Children, 20(1), 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smock, P. J. (2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smock, P. J., & Gupta, S. (2002). Cohabitation in contemporary North America. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Just living together: Implications for children, families, and public policy (pp. 53–84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. Smock, P. J., Manning, W. D., & Porter, M. (2005). “Everything’s there except money”: How money shapes decisions to marry among cohabitors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 680–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sweeney, M. M. (2002). Two decades of family change: The shifting economic foundations of marriage. American Sociological Review, 67, 132–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Turcotte, P., & Belanger, A. (1997). The dynamics of formation and dissolution of first common-law unions in Canada. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
  58. Turcotte, P., & Goldschieder, F. (1998). Evolution of factors influencing first union formation in Canada. Canadian Studies in Population, 25, 145–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van de Kaa, D. (1987). Europe’s second demographic transition. Population Bulletin, 42(1), 1–59.Google Scholar
  60. Weakliem, D. L. (2002). The effects of education on political opinions: An international study. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14, 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wright, L. (2016). Type and timing of first union formation in Québec and the rest of Canada: Continuity and change across the 1930–1979 birth cohorts. Canadian Studies in Population, 43, 234–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wu, H. (2017). Trends in births to single and cohabiting mothers, 1980–2014 (Family Profiles, No. FP-17-04). Bowling Green, OH: National Center for Family & Marriage Research.Google Scholar
  63. Wu, Z., & Balakrishnan, T. R. (1995). Dissolution of premarital cohabitation in Canada. Demography, 32, 521–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wu, Z., & Pollard, M. S. (2000). Economic circumstances and the stability of nonmarital cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations