1. FENICs Female Employment and Family Formation in National Institutional Contexts Changing Family Formation: The Diffusion of Cohabitation Among Young Women in Europe Hans-Peter Blossfeld Tiziana Nazio Contact: hans-peter.blossfeld@sowi.uni-bamberg.de tiziana.nazio@uni-bielefeld.de

2. FENICs Female Employment and Family Formation in National Institutional Contexts Diffusion process and longitudinal approach: why? In the early 1960s cohabitation was rare everywhere in Europe. Today it is widespread (and changed its meaning) but not to the same extent everywhere: Southern Europe: still rare and practised by a minority West Germany and The Netherlands: accepted as prelude to marriage France, GB, Norway, East Germany: accepted as alternative to marriage (high rate of extramarital births) Denmark, Sweden: status normatively like marriage What drives diffusion? To which extent different institutional contexts affect the rate and form of the diffusion process? We study the process of diffusion of cohabitation across women’s successive birth cohorts, from a deviant to a widespread and accepted partnership choice

3. FENICs Female Employment and Family Formation in National Institutional Contexts Time-related dimensions of the diffusion process of pre- marital cohabitation Inflow into the risk set (“Ready for partnership formation”) Time (continuous flow of birth cohorts) Outflow from the risk set (Entry into marital/non-marital union) Age Peer group adoption Pre-cohort adoption

4. FENICs Female Employment and Family Formation in National Institutional Contexts Contextual mechanisms: Knowledge-awareness about experiences of previous cohorts (pre-cohort adoption) Every new birth cohort faces an increasing proportion of “cohabiters” among previous birth-cohorts (rising incidence). They will then experience cohabitation as less deviant (or stigmatised) and more socially accepted right from the beginning. ‘ Direct social modelling’ of peers (peer group adoption) Confirmation of attitudes/behaviours through direct experiences (vicarious trials) by similar others, who constitute concrete examples. Not only direct interpersonal contacts but also the perception of the behaviour proper to the occupants of their position (persuasion, model: structural equivalence).

5. FENICs Female Employment and Family Formation in National Institutional Contexts Peer group adoption

6. FENICs Female Employment and Family Formation in National Institutional Contexts Cumulative Peer group adoption

7. FENICs Female Employment and Family Formation in National Institutional Contexts Pre-cohort adoption

8. FENICs Female Employment and Family Formation in National Institutional Contexts Cumulative Pre-cohort adoption

9. FENICs Female Employment and Family Formation in National Institutional Contexts Hypotheses: socio-demographic factors and the influences of institutional contexts In every Country different set of incentives/obstacles in the choice between cohabitation - marriage - (single/by parents) Normative context Legal regulations of cohabitation Educational expansion Affordable housing (Rental Markets + Home Ownership) (growing uncertainty in) Labour Markets Women’s employment and changes in gender roles

10. FENICs Female Employment and Family Formation in National Institutional Contexts Constant Exponential Model (competing risks) with time varying variables Family and Fertility Surveys (FFS) Selected women born 1954-73, observed from 15 to 39 years age two transitions: out of parental home, 1 st partnership Data and models

11. FENICs Female Employment and Family Formation in National Institutional Contexts Results: transition to marriage

12. FENICs Female Employment and Family Formation in National Institutional Contexts Results: the diffusion of cohabitation

13. FENICs Female Employment and Family Formation in National Institutional Contexts Cohabitation in Italy and Spain is restricted to specific groups of the population. Diffusion process seems to be blocked. No intergenerational mechanism at play in the early stage of the diffusion process, cohabitation is rather driven by “peer” models (West, East Germany). Diffusion process begins with groups of innovators (specific interest), it spills over and accelerates after threshold. Pre-cohort influence plays a role only at a later stage of the diffusion process (France, Sweden?). Leaving home (housing market) is a crucial factor, especially in the Southern countries. Conclusions