Skip to main content

Second Unions Now More Stable than First? A Comparison of Separation Risks by Union Order in France

Abstract

The frequency of union dissolutions increased sharply over the past 40 years in Western Europe and North America, resulting in a rapid growth in the number of persons living with a second partner. In studies of the 1980s, primarily conducted within the context of marriage, second partnerships were generally found to be less stable than first unions, but more recent studies provide more conflicting evidence. Taking the example of France, we study whether the relationship between first and second union stability indeed reversed between the 1970s and the 2000s, and how union and individual characteristics contributed to changes over time. The analysis presented here is based on the French Generations and Gender Survey (2005). The article first provides an overview of the differences in marriage, childbearing and breakup behaviours in first and second unions. Second, a piecewise linear model for repeated events is used to compare women’s dissolution risks in first and second unions. The results show that over time, the higher instability of second compared to first unions disappeared. Further, women in second unions adopted unmarried cohabitation as a living arrangement more often across the whole period and were more likely to have stepchildren, which was associated with less stable unions. Taking into account this diversity of family situations, i.e. controlling for family form and children, second unions were more stable than first unions, even during the past. At both union orders, marriage breakup risks tended to stabilise despite a continuing increase in the prevalence of separation, which suggests that cohabitation increasingly acts as a filter for marriage.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    The French Generation and Gender Survey (French GGS) has been carried out by the Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (Insee) and the Institut national d’études démographiques (Ined) in 2005, under the name Étude des relations familiales et intergénérationnelles (ERFI).

  2. 2.

    It should be noted that the input template of the ERFI survey was designed in such a way that all past partnerships that had started before 1950 were coded as having started in 1950, but this restriction did not apply to marriage dates: 59 unions with a union date = 1950 had a marriage date <1950 and 4 had no marriage date, hence, a total of 63 first unions (i.e. 1.3 % of all first unions) were apparently miscoded. As premarital cohabitation was rare at that time (i.e. 10 % of all marriages started in 1940–1950 (French Family Survey (Insee-Ined 1999), author’s own calculations), it seemed reasonable to assume that the starting date of the partnership was identical with the marriage date in these 59 unions. An alternative would have been to drop the 63 individuals, but in order to have as many second and higher order partnerships as possible, preference was given to replacing the union starting date by the marriage date.

  3. 3.

    The question on religious practice referred to the current situation, which might have differed from that prevailing during the union. Because divorce might have changed the divorcee’s religious practice, we preferred not to take this variable into account.

  4. 4.

    After exploration of the data, the effect of age on separation risk was not linear, so using a continuous age variable was excluded. Choosing to cut at the first and last quintiles, and the median, rather than other deciles was most relevant here, theoretically and data-wise, as separation behaviours were the most different at extreme ages at union formation and very little differentiated at other ages (see also Lyngstad and Jalovaara 2010).

  5. 5.

    It should be noted that these observations are certainly subject to a period effect: This is the period where cohabitation was spreading, thus obviously the behaviour in the second union could be marked by the overall context. However, this should not affect the overall conclusions of this paragraph, because women in second unions were always much more likely to cohabit than women in first unions.

  6. 6.

    In second union, the lack of significance of the risk of separation in direct marriage is certainly due to the small numbers.

  7. 7.

    The 63 unions mentioned in footnote 1 constitute only 4.5 % of all first unions formed before 1970. Taking into account the prevalence of premarital cohabitation, only around 0.5 % of the starting dates of all first unions entered before 1970 could be erroneous, and by a few months rather than years: This should not affect the results on trends.

  8. 8.

    http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/ta/ta0371.asp.

References

  1. Aaberge, R., Kravdal, Ø., & Wennemo, T. (1989). Unobserved heterogeneity in models of marriage dissolution. Discussion paper 42. Oslo: Central Bureau of Statistics.

  2. Aalen, O. O. (1988). Heterogeneity in survival analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 7, 1121–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aguirre, B., & Parr, W. (1982). Husbands’ marriage order and the stability of first and second marriages of white and black women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44(3), 605–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beaujouan, É. (2009). Les séparations au fil des unions. Répétition, apprentissage? In A. Régnier-Loilier (Ed.), Portraits de familles, l’enquête Étude des relations familiales et intergénérationnelles (pp. 113–141). Paris: Ined.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Beaujouan, É. (2011). Second-union fertility in France: Partners’ age and other factors. Population (English Edition), 66(2), 239–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Beaujouan, É. (2012). Repartnering in France: The role of gender, age and past fertility. Advances in Life Course Research, 17, 69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Beaujouan, É., & Ní Bhrolcháin, M. (2011). Cohabitation and marriage in Britain since the 1970s. Population Trends, 145, 35–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Beaujouan, É., & Solaz, A. (2013). Racing against the biological clock? Childbearing and sterility among men and women in second unions in France. European Journal of Population—Revue Européenne de Démographie, 29(1), 39–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Becker, G. S., Landes, E. M., & Michael, R. T. (1977). An economic analysis of marital instability. The Journal of Political Economy, 85(6), 1141–1187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Blayo, C., & Festy, P. (1976). Les divorces en France: Evolution récente et perspectives. Population (French Edition), 31(3), 617–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Breton, D., & Prioux, F. (2009). Observer la situation et l’histoire familiale des enfants. In A. Régnier-Loilier (Ed.), Portraits de familles, l’enquête Étude des relations familiales et intergénérationnelles (pp. 143–162). Paris: Ined.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Caradec, V. (1996). Les formes de la vie conjugale des “jeunes” couples “âgés”. Population (French Edition), 51(4–5), 897–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Castro-Martín, T., & Bumpass, L. L. (1989). Recent trends in marital disruption. Demography, 26(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cherlin, A. J. (1978). Remarriage as an incomplete institution. American Journal of Sociology, 84(3), 634–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cherlin, A. J. (2009). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cherlin, A. J., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1994). Stepfamilies in the United States: A reconsideration. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 359–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chiswick, C. U., & Lehrer, E. L. (1990). On marriage specific human capital: Its role as a determinant of remarriage. Journal of Population Economics, 3(3), 193–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Clarke, S. C., & Wilson, B. F. (1994). The relative stability of remarriages. A cohort approach using vital statistics. Family Relations, 43(5), 305–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Coleman, D. A. (1989). The contemporary pattern of remarriage in England and Wales. In E. Grebenik, C. Hohn, & R. Mackensen (Eds.), Later phases of the family cycle: Demographic aspects (pp. 83–119). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Coleman, M., Ganong, L. H., & Fine, M. A. (2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of progress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(November), 1288–1307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Coppola, L., & Di Cesare, M. (2008). How fertility and union stability interact in shaping new family patterns in Italy and Spain. Demographic Research, 18, 117–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Courgeau, D., & Lelièvre, É. (2001). L’analyse démographique des biographies. In Démographie: analyse et synthèse (pp. 503–517). Paris: Ined.

  23. Davidson, K. (2001). Late life widowhood, selfishness and new partnership choices: A gendered perspective. Ageing and Society, 21, 297–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. De Graaf, P. M., & Kalmijn, M. (2006). Change and stability in the social determinants of divorce: A comparison of marriage cohorts in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 22(5), 561–572. doi:10.1093/esr/jcl010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. De Guibert-Lantoine, C. (2002). Remise en couple après rupture de la première union. In Vivre plus longtemps, avoir moins d’enfants, quelles implications? Actes du 10e colloque international de l’AIDELF (pp. 217–229). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

  26. De Jong Gierveld, J. (2004). Remarriage, unmarried cohabitation, living apart together: Partner relationships following bereavement or divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(February), 236–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dewilde, C., & Uunk, W. (2008). Remarriage as a way to overcome the financial consequences of divorce—A test of the economic need hypothesis for European women. European Sociological Review, 24(3), 393–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Erlangsen, A., & Andersson, G. (2001). The impact of children on divorce risks in first and later marriages. MPIDR working paper. Rostock: Max-Planck-Institut für demografische Forschung.

  29. Esping-Andersen, G., & Billari, F. C. (2015). Re-theorizing family demographics. Population and Development Review, 41(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Furstenberg, F. F., & Spanier, G. B. (1984). The risk of dissolution in remarriage: An examination of Cherlin’s hypothesis of incomplete institutionalization. Family Relations, 33(3), 433–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gelissen, J. (2004). Assortative mating after divorce: A test of two competing hypotheses using marginal models. Social Science Research, 33(3), 361–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Haskey, J. (1992). Patterns of marriage divorce and cohabitation in the different countries of Europe. Population Trends, 69, 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Haskey, J. (1995). Trends in marriage and cohabitation: The decline in marriage and the changing pattern of living in partnerships. Population Trends, 80, 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 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(5), 1214–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hewitt, B., & De Vaus, D. (2009). Change in the association between premarital cohabitation and separation, Australia 1945–2000. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(2), 353–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hiekel, N., Liefbroer, A. C., & Poortman, A.-R. (2014). Understanding diversity in the meaning of cohabitation across Europe. European Journal of Population—Revue Européenne de Démographie, 30(4), 391–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hiekel, N., Liefbroer, A. C., & Poortman, A.-R. (2015). Marriage and separation risks among German cohabiters: Differences between types of cohabiters. Population Studies, 69(2), 237–251. doi:10.1080/00324728.2015.1037334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ivanova, K., Kalmijn, M., & Uunk, W. (2013). The effect of children on men’s and women’s chances of re-partnering in a European context. European Journal of Population—Revue Européenne de Démographie, 29(4), 417–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jalovaara, M. (2013). Socioeconomic resources and the dissolution of cohabitations and marriages. European Journal of Population—Revue européenne de Démographie, 29(2), 167–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jamieson, L., Wasoff, F., & Simpson, R. (2009). Solo-living, demographic and family change: The need to know more about men. Sociological Research Online, 14(2–3). http://socresonline.org.uk/14/2/5.html.

  41. Kalmijn, M., De Graaf, P. M., & Janssen, J. P. G. (2005). Intermarriage and the risk of divorce in the Netherlands: The effects of differences in religion and nationality, 1974–94. Population Studies, 59(1), 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kennedy, S., & Ruggles, S. (2014). Breaking up is hard to count: The rise of divorce in the United States, 1980–2010. Demography, 51, 587–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kiernan, K. E. (2001). The rise of cohabitation and childbearing outside marriage in Europe. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 15(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kulu, H. (2014). Marriage duration and divorce: The seven-year itch or a lifelong itch? Demography, 51(3), 881–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Le Gall, D., & Martin, C. (1993). Transitions familiales, logiques de recomposition et modes de régulation conjugale. In Les recompositions familiales aujourd’hui (pp. 137–158). Paris: Nathan.

  46. Lehrer, E. L., & Chen, Y. (2013). Delayed entry into first marriage and marital stability. Demographic Research, 29, 521–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lesthaeghe, R. J. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 36(2), 211–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lichter, D. T., & Qian, Z. (2008). Serial cohabitation and the marital life course. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 70(4), 861–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Liefbroer, A. C., & Dourleijn, E. (2006). Unmarried cohabitation and union stability: Testing the role of diffusion using data from 16 European countries. Demography, 43(2), 203–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Liefbroer, A. C., Poortman, A.-R., & Seltzer, J. A. (2015). Why do intimate partners live apart? Evidence on LAT relationships across Europe. Demographic Research, 32(8), 251–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lillard, L. A., Brien, M. J., & Waite, L. J. (1995). Premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital dissolution: A matter of self-selection? Demography, 32(3), 437–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lyngstad, T. H., & Jalovaara, M. (2010). A review of the antecedents of union dissolution. Demographic Research, 23, 257–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Manting, D. (1996). The changing meaning of cohabitation and marriage. European Sociological Review, 12(1), 53–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Martin, V., Le Bourdais, C., & Lapierre-Adamcyk, E. (2011). Stepfamily instability in Canada—The impact of family composition and union type. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 23(2), 196–218.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Martin, C., & Théry, I. (2001). The PACS and marriage and cohabitation in France. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 14(3), 135–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Matysiak, A., Styrc, M., & Vignoli, D. (2013). The educational gradient in marital disruption: A meta-analysis of European research findings. Population Studies, 68(2), 197–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Mazuy, M., Barbieri, M., & D’Albis, H. (2014). Recent demographic trends in France: The number of marriages continues to decrease. Population (English Edition), 69(3), 313–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. McCarthy, J. (1978). A comparison of the probability of the dissolution of first and second marriages. Demography, 15(3), 345–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Milewski, N., & Kulu, H. (2014). Mixed marriages in Germany: A high risk of divorce for immigrant-native couples. European Journal of Population—Revue européenne de Démographie, 30(1), 89–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Neels, K., Vermant, G., & De Winter, T. (2011). Quality of demographic data in GGS Wave 1. In GGP user conference. Budapest.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Parisi, L. (2009). The hazards of partnership dissolution in Britain: A comparison of second and first marriages. Spring Meeting of young economists, Istanbul.

  63. Poortman, A.-R., & Lyngstad, T. H. (2007). Dissolution risks in first and higher order marital and cohabiting unions. Social Science Research, 36(4), 1431–1446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Prioux, F. (2006). Cohabitation, marriage and separation: contrasts in Europe. Population and Societies, 422.

  65. Prioux, F. (2009). Les couples non mariés en 2005: Quelles différences avec les couples mariés ? Politiques Sociales et Familiales, 96, 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Prioux, F., & Barbieri, M. (2012). Recent demographic developments in France: Relatively low mortality at advanced ages. Population, 67(4), 493–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Rault, W., & Régnier-Loilier, A. (2015). First cohabiting relationships: Recent trends in France. Population & Societies, 521.

  68. Régnier-Loilier, A. (2006). Présentation, questionnaire et documentation de l’ “Etude des relations familiales et intergénérationnelles” (ERFI): Version française de l’enquête “Generations and gender survey” (GGS). Documents de travail de l’Ined, 133.

  69. Régnier-Loilier, A., Beaujouan, É., & Villeneuve-Gokalp, C. (2009). Neither single, nor in a couple. A study of living apart together in France. Demographic Research, 21, 75–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Régnier-Loilier, A., & Prioux, F. (2009). Comportements familiaux et pratique religieuse en France. In A. Régnier-Loilier (Ed.), Portraits de familles, l’enquête Étude des relations familiales et intergénérationnelles (pp. 397–421). Paris: Ined.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Reinhold, S. (2010). Reassessing the link between premarital cohabitation and marital instability. Demography, 47(3), 719–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Safi, M. (2008). Intermarriage and assimilation: Disparities in levels of exogamy among immigrants in France. Population (English Edition), 63(2), 239–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Sardon, J.-P. (2005). L’évolution du divorce en France. In La population de la France: évolutions démographiques depuis 1946 (Vol. 2, pp. 217–252). Pessac: CUDEP.

  75. Sardon, J.-P. (2006). Évolution Démographique Récente Des Pays Développés. Population, 61(3), 227–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Schaller, J. (2013). For richer, if not for poorer? Marriage and divorce over the business cycle. Journal of Population Economics, 26(3), 1007–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Schnor, C. (2015). Does waiting pay off for couples? Demographic Research, 33(September), 611–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Schoen, R. (1992). First unions and the stability of first marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(2), 281–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Sobotka, T., & Toulemon, L. (2008). Changing family and partnership behaviour: Common trends and persistent diversity across Europe. Demographic Research, 19(Special Collection 7), 85–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Solaz, A. (2001). Formation, devenir et organisation des couples confronteś au chômage. Doctoral dissertation. University Paris 10.

  81. Spanier, G. B., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1982). Remarriage after divorce: A longitudinal analysis of well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 44(3), 709–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Steele, F., Kallis, C., & Joshi, H. (2006). The formation and outcomes of cohabiting and marital partnerships in early adulthood: The role of previous partnership experience. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 169(4), 757–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Teachman, J. D. (2008). Complex life course patterns and the risk of divorce in second marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 70(2), 294–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Theunis, L., Pasteels, I., & Bavel, J. Van. (2015). Educational assortative mating after divorce. Persistence or divergence from patterns in first marriages? Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 27, 183–202.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Thomson, E., Winkler-Dworak, M., Spielauer, M., & Prskawetz, A. (2012). Union instability as an engine of fertility? A microsimulation model for France. Demography, 49(1), 175–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Toulemon, L. (1995). The place of children in the history of couples. Population an English Selection, 7, 163–186.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Toulemon, L. (1997). Cohabitation is here to stay. Population an English Selection, 9, 11–46.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Van Bavel, J. (2012). The reversal of gender inequality in education, union formation and fertility in Europe. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 10, 127–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Van Bavel, J., Jansen, M., & Wijckmans, B. (2012). Has divorce become a pro-natal force in Europe at the turn of the 21st century? Population Research and Policy Review, 31(5), 751–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Vanassche, S., Corijn, M., & Matthijs, K. (2015). Post-divorce family trajectories of men and women in Flanders. Demographic Research, 32(May), 859–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Vaupel, J. W., & Yashin, A. I. (1985). Heterogeneity’s ruses: Some surprising effects of selection on population dynamics. The American Statistician, 39(3), 176–185.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Vermunt, J. K. (1996). Log-linear event history analysis: A general approach with missing data, latent variables, and unobserved heterogeneity. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Vikat, A., Spéder, Z., Beets, G., Billari, F. C., Bühler, C., Désesquelles, A., et al. (2007). Generations and Gender Survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demographic Research, 17, 389–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Vikat, A., Thomson, E., & Hoem, J. M. (1999). Stepfamily fertility in contemporary Sweden: The impact of childbearing before the current union. Population Studies, 53(2), 211–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Villeneuve-Gokalp, C. (1991). Du premier au deuxième couple: les différences de comportement conjugal entre hommes et femmes. In La nuptialité: évolution récente en France et dans les pays développés. Actes du IXe Colloque National de Démographie (pp. 181–192). Paris.

  96. Wagner, M., & Weiss, B. (2006). On the variation of divorce risks in Europe: Findings from a meta-analysis of European Longitudinal Studies. European Sociological Review, 22(5), 483–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. White, L., & Booth, A. (1985). The quality and stability of remarriages: The role of stepchildren. American Sociological Review, 50(5), 689–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the French “Institut national d’études démographiques”/Ined that provided support for this research through a 3-year Ph.D. scholarship. This research was also supported by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC Grant Agreement No. 284238 (EURREP). The author is especially grateful to France Prioux and Laurent Toulemon for their supervision and advice, and to Zuzanna Brzozowska for her careful reading and comments of the text.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Éva Beaujouan.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 6.

Table 6 Frequency and distribution of the variables related to the study, women aged 25+, first and second partnerships

Appendix 2

Table 7 shows the coefficients presented in Fig. 2 and the associated standard errors.

Table 7 Women’s union dissolution: risk in second as compared to first unions, with and without unobserved heterogeneity, by type of controls

Appendix 3: General Factors of Separation

Table 8 shows the remaining variables of the model presented in Table 3.

Table 8 Women’s separation risk, all partnerships, remaining variables of the model presented in Table 3 (interaction with first- and second-order unions of all family events variables)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beaujouan, É. Second Unions Now More Stable than First? A Comparison of Separation Risks by Union Order in France. Eur J Population 32, 293–321 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9376-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Separation
  • Divorce
  • Partnerships
  • Marriage
  • Stepchildren
  • Second unions