Married and cohabiting parents’ well-being

Abstract

Research of personal relationships has typically linked childbearing in cohabiting (compared to married) couples to decreased well-being. Using data from 24 European countries, we show that this effect is not universal; rather, it is restricted to countries with a strong social norm that proscribes childbearing in cohabiting unions. We examine two potential mechanisms of this effect; the personal norm (cohabiting parents are worse off because their status deviates from their own expectations) and social norm (cohabiting parents are worse off because they experience external social sanctions, such as social disapproval) mechanisms. Our results provide support for the social norm mechanism. First, the detrimental effect related to a country’s social norm exists even for cohabiting parents who personally favor childbearing in cohabiting couples. Second, in countries with a strong norm against childbearing in cohabiting unions, cohabiting parents feel that they are less respected than married couples, which contributes to lower levels of life satisfaction.

Keywords

Cohabitation cross-cultural research life satisfaction marriage parenthood social norms subjective well-being

The rise of cohabitation in the last decades has been one of the most important developments in the domains of romantic relationships and family life. The phenomenon of cohabitation and its consequences for couples’ psychological adjustment, well-being, relationship quality, and stability have been intensively studied by social scientists (Brown, 2004b; Kiernan, 2000; Stafford, Kline, & Rankin, 2004). The phenomenon of childbearing in cohabiting couples has, in contrast, received much less research attention. In addition, studies investigating the cross-cultural effects of parenthood on cohabiting and married couples are rare (for an exception, see Stanca, 2012). Studies attempting to explain potential cross-cultural variations in this effect are virtually nonexistent.

In the present research, we fill this gap. Using the data from 24 European countries, we examine whether the psychological consequences of childbearing in cohabiting unions are shaped by cultural norms regarding childbearing in unmarried cohabitation.

The psychological literature highlights the importance of conformity to societal norms and expectations in one’s well-being and self-concept (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Recent cross-cultural research studies indicate that individuals whose behavior or beliefs deviate from what their society values and deems normative report reduced levels of well-being and self-esteem (Kalmijn & Uunk, 2007; Soons & Kalmijn, 2009; Stavrova, 2014; Stavrova, Fetchenhauer, & Schlösser, 2012, 2013; Stavrova, Schlösser, & Fetchenhauer, 2011). The negative consequences of nonconformity have been described in diverse personal attributes including employment status, religiosity, moral attitudes, and even personality traits (Fulmer et al., 2010; Gebauer, Sedikides, & Neberich, 2012; Stavrova et al., 2011; Stavrova, Fetchenhauer, et al., 2013). In some cultural contexts, relationship statuses such as nonmarital cohabitation, divorce, and singlehood may undermine psychological well-being (Kalmijn & Uunk, 2007; Morris, Sinclair, & DePaulo, 2007; Soons & Kalmijn, 2009).

Drawing from this literature, we tested the effect of cultural norms regarding childbearing in cohabiting unions on cohabiting and married parents’ life satisfaction. Drawing from the psychological literature on social norms (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Stavrova, 2014), we tested the effect of both descriptive (operationalized as a country level ratio of cohabiting to married parents) and injunctive (operationalized as country level average social attitudes toward childbearing in cohabiting couples) norms.

We also outlined and tested two potential mechanisms through which nonconformity to cultural norms (dominant social norms in a particular country) translates into decreased well-being: social norm and personal norm mechanisms. First, we examined whether deviance from cultural norms is detrimental for well-being when these cultural norms are internalized (i.e., incorporated in one’s value system). Violations of such internalized norms are expected to result in lower well-being (personal norm mechanism). Second, we investigated whether cohabitating parents in countries with strong norms against childbearing in cohabiting unions are subject to informal social sanctions. We studied whether these couples report being treated with less respect and therefore feel less satisfied with life than married parents or childless individuals (social norm mechanism).

Parenthood, marital status, and well-being

The increase in cohabitation represents one of the many changes in the domain of partnership and family formation, referred to as the second demographic transition, which struck Western countries in the late 1960s (Lesthaeghe, 2010; Lesthaeghe & Surkyn, 1988; Sobotka, 2008). Since its emergence, cohabitation has been linked to multiple negative outcomes for couples, including poorer relationship quality, higher dissolution rates, and reduced well-being compared to married couples. This phenomenon has been referred to as the “cohabitation gap” (Soons & Kalmijn, 2009; Soons & Liefbroer, 2008; Stafford et al., 2004; see also Musick & Bumpass, 2012).

One of the frequently mentioned explanations for the existence of the cohabitation gap is the precarious nature of this type of relationship (Kamp Dush & Amato, 2005). Multiple studies have shown that cohabiting couples have higher dissolution rates than spouses (Brown, 2000; Kamp Dush & Amato, 2005; Liefbroer & Dourleijn, 2006) and fare worse in terms of relationship quality and commitment (Marcussen, 2005; Skinner, Bahr, Crane, & Call, 2002). Recently, researchers have begun to give more consideration to the boundary conditions under which the cohabitation gap is diminished or, in contrast, exacerbated. For example, it has been suggested that the cohabitation gap is primarily limited to sociocultural contexts in which cohabitation is not normative or institutionalized (Soons & Kalmijn, 2009). Other studies have shown that a country’s gender egalitarianism and religious context largely determine whether cohabiting women are less happy than married women (Lee & Ono, 2012; Stavrova et al., 2012). A number of authors have highlighted the importance of marriage intentions for cohabitors’ well-being and relationship outcomes (Kline et al., 2004; Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2006; Stanley, Rhoades, Amato, Markman, & Johnson, 2010). For example, Willoughby, Carroll, and Busby (2012) studied a large sample of never married cohabiting American couples and found that engaged cohabitors showed higher relationship satisfaction and perceived their relationship as more stable than nonengaged cohabitors. Similarly, motives for cohabitation have been shown to play an important role; couples who mentioned “testing the relationship” as a reason for moving in together were more likely to report higher levels of attachment insecurity and poorer psychological health compared to couples who moved in together to “spend more time with each other” (Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2009). Finally, the presence of children might represent another condition determining whether the detrimental effect of cohabitation is enhanced or, inversely, alleviated.

Parenthood in cohabiting and married couples

The question of whether parenthood is beneficial for well-being in general has been a core interest in the literature on family sociology and psychology (Hansen, 2012; Twenge, Campbell, & Foster, 2003). Most cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have detected a negative relationship between parenthood and well-being; parents are more likely to suffer from depression and to report lower daily satisfaction and more mental health problems than childless individuals (Doss, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2009; Galatzer-Levy, Mazursky, Mancini, & Bonanno, 2011; Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz, & Stone, 2004; Stanca, 2012). Some studies also indicate that having children is related to increased relationship stress and decreased marital satisfaction (Tsang, 2003; Twenge et al., 2003). However, other researchers have failed to detect any negative associations between parenthood and well-being (Koropeckyj-Cox, 1998) or have argued that parenthood is related to positive well-being outcomes (Angeles, 2010; Hansen, Moum, & Shapiro, 2007; Kohler, Behrman, & Skytthe, 2005). An increasing number of researchers have highlighted moderators of the association between parenthood and well-being, with marital status as one of most frequently mentioned moderators (Aassve, Goisis, & Sironi, 2012; Galatzer-Levy et al., 2011). Studies that have reported a negative effect of parenthood on well-being have typically found this effect to be exacerbated for single parents (Evenson & Simon, 2005; Margolis & Myrskylä, 2011; Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2003), whereas studies that have reported a positive association between parenthood and well-being have found that this effect disappears or even reverses for single parents (Angeles, 2010; Nelson, Kushlev, English, Dunn, & Lyubomirsky, 2013). A comparison of married and cohabiting parents can be expected to provide more complex patterns of results.

On one hand, sharing and raising a child may strengthen the cohabiting household by allowing the relationship to enter a new, more committed, and responsible stage (Wiik, Bernhardt, & Noack, 2009). In this case, the presence of children can be expected to make a cohabiting relationship as stable and happy as similar married couples. On the other hand, pregnancy in a cohabiting union may increase the tensions surrounding formalizing the relationship, which may reduce stability and happiness in cohabiting parents compared with their married counterparts (Woo & Raley, 2005). Being unmarried may be interpreted as a signal of low relational commitment and thus increase stress related to new parenthood. Interestingly, there is published empirical support for each of these perspectives.

Most studies that are based on surveys of American households present evidence of enhanced negative effects of parenthood in cohabiting couples compared with married couples (Brown, 2000; Brown & Booth, 1996; Willetts, 2006). For example, Evenson and Simon (2005) compared American cohabiting and married parents with minor children at home and found cohabitors to be more vulnerable to depressive symptoms than married parents. Interestingly, they did not find cohabiting parents with stepchildren at home to be more depressed than married parents with stepchildren. Similar results regarding the depression levels of cohabiting families with stepchildren and biological children were reported by Brown (2000) and Brown and Booth (1996). Willetts (2006) also found that an increasing number of biological and stepchildren reduced relationship closeness (time spent together) among married and cohabiting couples to the same extent. Similarly, Australian cohabiting parents seem to fare less well in terms of life satisfaction than married parents (Shields & Wooden, 2003). Some authors have even suggested that experiencing childbirth in cohabitation may have negative consequences for subsequent marriage (Tach & Halpern-Meekin, 2009).

The results of studies in European countries, especially Scandinavian countries—countries in the forefront of the second demographic transition (Lesthaeghe, 2010; Sobotka, 2008)—paint a somewhat different, though not very consistent picture. Scandinavia is known for its particularly liberal stance on cohabitation; the formal and social status of cohabiting couples is very similar to those of their married counterparts. In this “cohabitation land” (Syltevik, 2010), childbirth in cohabiting couples is not considered as a condition that makes marriage unavoidable (Noack, 2001). In fact, approximately 50% of all first births in Norway take place in cohabiting unions (Statistics Norway, 2012). One would expect then to find no substantial differences in well-being between cohabiting and married parents. Indeed, in Norway, the presence of children was shown to affect the relationship quality of cohabitors and married parents in a similar and positive way (Hansen et al., 2007).

In summary, the extent to which the “cohabitation gap” is increased or decreased by parenting varies across cultures. We suggest that cultural differences in the social norms proscribing childbearing outside marriage represent a clue for understanding these variations.

Norms, conformity, and well-being

The concept of social norms is one of the most widespread and controversial concepts in social sciences (Horne, 2001). Although the literature does not strictly agree on what social norms are, most psychological and sociological researchers differentiate between two types of social norms: behavioral regularities (referred to as descriptive norms (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990)) and social expectations or “ought statements,” statements proscribing or prescribing certain behaviors (referred to as injunctive norms (Cialdini et al., 1990)). Descriptive norms indicate the degree to which certain behaviors are common. For example, prior research used the percentage of religious individuals in a country as an indicator of how common religiosity is in that particular country—that is, as a descriptive norm of religiosity (Stavrova, Fetchenhauer, et al., 2013). Injunctive norms, in contrast, indicate how socially desirable/undesirable or approved/disapproved certain behaviors are (Cialdini et al., 1990). For example, prior research used individuals’ approval of religious (or disapproval of nonreligious) individuals as an indicator of the injunctive norm of religiosity (Stavrova et al., 2013).

People follow social norms for various reasons. Psychologists suggest that conformity satisfies an important human need: the need to affiliate, build social relationships, bond with others, gain recognition and support, and, ultimately, build and maintain a positive sense of self (Chaiken, Giner-Sorolla, & Chen, 1996; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Additionally, in cases that social norms are internalized by an individual (completely accepted and incorporated in one’s belief system), following these norms may help to attain positive self-concepts and avoiding self-derogation, even in the absence of social approval and recognition (Campbell, 1964; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). Following prior research (Schwartz, 1977; Stavrova et al., 2011, 2012), we refer to these internalized norms as personal injunctive norms (or just personal norms). Thus, people conform to social descriptive or injunctive norms in expectation of social rewards and fear of sanctions; in contrast, people are motivated to follow personal norms to achieve consistency in their self-view or avoid internal sanctions, such as feelings of guilt.

In this research, we follow Stavrova, Schlösser, and Fetchenhauer (2011) and make use of descriptive, societal injunctive, and personal injunctive norms. We use the ratio of cohabiting to married parents in a country as a measure of the descriptive norm of childbearing in cohabiting unions; a country’s average disapproval of childbearing in cohabiting unions as an indicator of the societal injunctive norm; and each individual’s personal disapproval of childbearing in cohabiting unions as an indicator of the personal injunctive norm (see Figure 1 for an overview).

Figure 1.

Classification of norms.

Consequences of nonconformity

The detrimental effects of nonconformity to descriptive, societal injunctive, and personal injunctive norms have been well documented in the psychological and sociological literature. Survey and experimental research has shown that violations of social norms are linked to social disapproval and rejection (Fehr & Gächter, 2002; Hechter & Opp, 2001; Kruglanski & Webster, 1991; Levine, 1989; Miller & Anderson, 1979). Not surprisingly, further research has demonstrated that nonconformity is related to negative emotional reactions among normative deviants (Berns, Capra, Moore, & Noussair, 2010; Christensen, Rothgerber, Wood, & Matz, 2004). For example, students who were told that they behaved in a way that violated the norm of helping others (which is relevant to their group identity) were more likely to feel worse about themselves than individuals who discovered that they had upheld the norm (Christensen et al., 2004). The adversities resulting from nonconformity can even be observed in brain function; recent neuroimaging studies have shown that nonconformity corresponds to activation in brain regions that are associated with processing psychological arousal (the anterior insula) (Berns et al., 2010).

The consequences of violating personal injunctive norms are largely recognized in the psychological literature as well. In contrast to social (descriptive or injunctive) norms, personal norms are incorporated into individuals’ “ideal” (“the way one would like to be”) and “ought” (“the way one should be”) self and are therefore adopted as individuals’ standards against which their own personal attributes or behaviors are self-evaluated (Higgins, 1987; Wood, Christensen, Hebl, & Rothgerber, 1997). Perceived deviations from these standards are associated with higher risks of depression, anxiety, and other mental health problems (Grimmell, 1998; Grimmell & Stern, 1992; Wood et al., 1997; Yang & Chen, 2010). For example, individuals who reported higher levels of self-rated deviation from their ideal gender role traits, body image, or school achievement were more prone to experience shame, guilt, and depression (Ferguson, Hafen, & Laursen, 2010; Garcia & Hoskins, 2001; Grimmell, 1998).

Conformity to cultural norms and well-being

Recently, the role of conformity in people’s emotional well-being has been extended to cross-cultural contexts. Multiple studies have empirically shown that those who deviate from national cultural norms experience lower levels of social support, psychological adjustment, subjective well-being, and self-concept (Gebauer et al., 2012; Stavrova et al., 2012; Stavrova et al., 2013). For example, individuals are particularly negatively affected by unemployment if they live in countries or regions in which people, on average, hold a strong injunctive norm to work—that is, they believe that one should support oneself through employment (Stavrova et al., 2011; Stutzer & Lalive, 2004). In countries where religiosity represents a common (descriptive norm), socially desirable attribute (injunctive norm), nonreligious individuals report lower levels of psychological well-being compared with their religious counterparts (Stavrova et al., 2013). Further studies have shown that civic virtue (rejection of fraudulent behaviors) and interpersonal helping are related to happiness and life satisfaction in countries in which these behaviors are common (descriptive norms) and linked to social approval and recognition (injunctive norms) (Oarga, Stavrova, & Fetchenhauer, 2012; Stavrova et al., 2013).

Finally, the cultural normative context plays a role in determining the emotional consequences of different relationship arrangements. For example, Soons and Kalmjin (2009) showed that the life satisfaction of cohabiting couples is directly related to the degree of societal acceptance of nonmarital cohabitation (i.e., to the injunctive norm of cohabitation). Similarly, another research study (Stavrova et al., 2012) has demonstrated that the gap in happiness between married and cohabiting women is a function of the degree to which women are expected to follow their traditional gender role (e.g., to marry). However, none of these studies has examined the special case of parenting in different family arrangements and the respective social norms regarding childbearing in these arrangements.

The present research

In the present research, we applied the social norms approach to explain cross-cultural differences in life satisfaction in cohabiting and married parents. We used the ratio of cohabiting to married parents in a country as a measure of the descriptive norm of childbearing in cohabitation. We used a country’s average disapproval of childbearing in cohabiting unions as an indicator of the respective injunctive norm.

We assumed that in countries in which childbearing in cohabiting unions is uncommon (descriptive norm) and linked to negative social attitudes (injunctive norm), cohabiting parents are more likely to report lower levels of life satisfaction than married parents; we predicted that there would be no difference in life satisfaction between cohabiting and married parents in countries where childbearing in unmarried unions is common and generally accepted.

We outline two mechanisms that may account for the effects of nonconformity to cultural norms on well-being. First, the effect of deviation from social norms may depend on the degree to which these norms are internalized by an individual. If internalized, lower well-being that is reported by cohabiting parents may result from deviations from their “ought or ideal self” rather than any social pressure or external disapproval (personal norm mechanism). We test this mechanism by exploring an interaction between individuals’ personal injunctive norm and their country’s norm (descriptive and injunctive). The personal norm mechanism explains a negative effect of cohabitation on parents’ life satisfaction if this effect is restricted to cohabiting parents who disapprove of childbearing in cohabiting unions (i.e., violate their personal injunctive norm).

Second, violating social norms triggers social disapproval and rejection directed toward the violator; thus, norm violation leads to negative emotional outcomes. In this case, the effect of nonconformity to social norms can be expected to exist regardless of whether norm violators have internalized the respective norms. Additionally, if social disapproval underlies lower levels of well-being in cohabiting parents in countries proscribing childbearing in unmarried couples, cohabiting parents in these countries are expected to report decreased perceptions of social respect and recognition, which may mediate the effect of their marital status on well-being (social norm mechanism).

Method

The data used in the present study were collected within the European Social Survey (ESS), which is a nationally representative survey of individuals’ attitudes toward different sociopolitical, economic, and moral issues. We used the cumulative data set, which is based on four rounds of data collection occurring between 2002 and 2008 in 24 countries.¹ As our goal was to compare married and cohabiting parents and childless individuals, our final sample included only these types of respondents. This group comprised 85,654 individuals (74,670 married and 10,984 cohabiting; 45,761 parents and 39,893 childless).

To determine parenting status, we used the information on the respondent’s relationship to other members of the household (indicated in the household grid). Individuals were classified as “parents” and coded “1” if they had at least one child living in their household (including adopted, step, and foster children); individuals were defined as “childless” and coded “0” if they had no (biological, adopted, step, or foster) children in their household. There were no other questions in the study that would make it possible to differentiate between biological and stepchildren (or adopted/foster).

Participants were asked about their marital status; married individuals were coded as “1,” cohabiting (living together with a partner to whom they were not married) individuals were coded as “0.”

The dependent variable—life satisfaction—was measured using the question, “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays?” (ratings were given on an 11-point scale).

To measure the descriptive norm of childbearing in cohabiting unions, we computed a ratio of cohabiting to married parents per country. This measure varied from .004 in Cyprus (.4% of couples with children live in cohabiting unions) to .45 in Sweden (45% of couples raising children together cohabit).

To measure societal injunctive norms against childbearing in cohabiting unions in a given country, we used respondents’ answers to the following question, which was included only in the third round of the ESS (2005–2006): “How much do you approve or disapprove if a man/woman has a child with a partner she/he lives with but is not married to?” (responses were given on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disapprove to strongly approve). This question was recoded such that higher scores indicated stronger disapproval of childbearing in cohabiting unions. Each individual’s response to this question was considered as a measure of the personal norm against childbearing by cohabiting couples. A country’s average agreement with this question was considered to be an indicator of the country’s injunctive norm against childbearing in cohabiting unions. Higher scores on this measure indicated stronger disapproval of childbearing by cohabiting couples. Country-level descriptive and injunctive norms correlated strongly; countries in which childbearing in cohabiting unions was common (such as Sweden) were less likely to have a strong injunctive norm (high average disapproval) against this family type, r(24) = −.55, p < .01.

As a measure of the perceived social recognition, we used a three-item scale adopted from prior studies (Stavrova, Fetchenhauer, & Schlösser, 2013). Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they felt that other people treat them with respect, that other people treat them unfairly (inversely coded), and whether they felt they receive appropriate amounts of recognition for what they do (6-point agree–disagree scale; Cronbach’s α = .64).

Because cohabiting adults with children may be more likely to having experienced divorce, we included the information on individuals’ divorce experience as a control variable; respondents who had experienced divorce were coded as “1” and those without a history of divorce were coded as “0.”

In addition, we included the following individual- and country-level control variables, which have been previously shown to be associated with life satisfaction (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999): age, gender, employment status, education level, personal religiosity (“Regardless of whether you belong to a particular religion, how religious would you say you are?”, 11-point scale), income (a scale ranging from “living comfortably on present income,” “coping on present income,” “finding it difficult on present income,” to “finding it very difficult on present income,” inversed coded) as individual-level attributes and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita as a country-level attribute.

Results

The descriptive statistics revealed that in some countries, cohabitation does have notable consequences for parents’ well-being, whereas in others, it does not appear to matter at all (see Table 1). For example, in Ukraine, parents who live together out of wedlock were approximately 1.2 points less satisfied than their married counterparts (cohabiting parents: M = 3.31, SD = 2.82; compared to married parents: M = 4.53, SD = 2.49; t(1,711) = −1.93, p = .05). This difference was nonsignificant among childless Ukrainian couples (cohabiting: M = 4.47, SD = 2.48, married: M = 4.12, SD = 2.46; t(1,243) = .89, p = .37).

Table 1.

Countries’ descriptive statistics.

				Life satisfaction, parents			Life satisfaction, nonparents
	N	Injunctive norm^a	Descriptive norm^b	Married	Cohabiting	t	Married	Cohabiting	t
Austria	3,414	2.65	.064	7.79	7.77	−.09	7.67	7.63	−.26
Belgium	4,116	2.25	.094	7.52	7.17	−2.26*	7.69	7.58	−.94
Bulgaria	2,199	3.02	.052	4.62	3.47	−3.45**	4.33	5.26	2.56*
Cyprus	1,399	3.33	.004	7.39	8.00	.61	7.38	7.05	−1.20
Denmark	4,086	1.66	.200	8.60	8.42	−2.33*	8.78	8.40	−5.50***
Estonia	1,847	3.12	.241	6.28	6.45	.990	5.87	6.46	3.21**
Finland	5,109	2.23	.210	8.14	8.16	.26	8.14	7.94	−3.25**
Former East Germany	2,583	2.77	.193	6.49	6.23	−1.344	6.49	6.76	1.81
Former West Germany	4,323	2.96	.053	7.23	6.62	−2.76**	7.39	7.19	−1.77
France	2,260	2.48	.306	6.49	6.41	−.46	6.43	6.53	.55
Great Britain	4,497	3.01	.141	7.31	6.91	−2.87**	7.46	7.13	−3.22**
Hungary	3,444	2.77	.071	5.48	4.82	−2.64**	5.48	5.32	−.83
Ireland	4,221	3.06	.060	7.63	7.13	−2.86**	7.90	7.26	−4.80***
Netherlands	4,563	2.17	.097	7.74	7.85	.99	7.79	7.74	−.66
Norway	4,594	1.80	.302	7.91	7.89	−.36	7.95	7.85	−1.11
Poland	4,117	2.88	.025	6.36	6.00	−1.26	6.52	7.09	2.31*
Portugal	4,621	2.64	.049	5.75	5.75	−.006	5.53	5.99	2.36*
Russia	2,228	3.28	.048	5.45	4.72	−2.29*	5.24	5.79	1.72
Slovak republic	2,688	3.25	.028	6.01	5.78	−.67	6.26	6.09	−.54
Slovenia	2,859	2.48	.041	6.73	6.59	−.49	6.82	7.21	1.69
Spain	4,306	2.52	.032	7.46	6.99	−2.41*	7.30	7.39	.64
Sweden	4,893	2.25	.446	8.01	8.01	.01	8.18	7.80	−5.88***
Switzerland	4,329	2.83	.052	8.10	8.10	.02	8.31	8.03	−3.38**
Ukraine	2,958	3.51	.009	4.53	3.31	−1.93*	4.12	4.47	.89

^aCountry’s average disapproval of childbearing in cohabiting unions.

^bRatio of cohabiting to married parents.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

The situation is very different, for instance, in Norway. Norwegian cohabiting parents (M = 7.89, SD = 1.56) did not significantly differ in life satisfaction from married parents (M = 7.91, SD = 1.51; t(2,339) = −.36, p = .72). Similarly, Norwegian married couples without children reported similar life satisfaction levels as Norwegian cohabiting couples without children (cohabiting M = 7.85, SD = 1.52, married: M = 7.95, SD = 1.63; t(2,251) = −1.11, p = .26).

To examine whether a country’s social norms against childbearing in cohabiting unions explain the cross-cultural differences in the negative effects of cohabitation on parents’ life satisfaction, we estimated a series of multilevel regression models of union type, parenthood, and a country’s descriptive and injunctive norms on life satisfaction. Using this method, we take the nested data structure into account (Hox, 2002), and we can estimate whether the effects of individual-level attributes (parenthood by partnership status interaction) vary significantly across countries as a function of the country-level normative climate.

Model 1 (Table 2) includes fixed effects of union type, parenthood, the interaction between these two variables; a random intercept and random slopes of union type, parenthood, and their interaction term. The model also includes the fixed effects of the individual- and country-level control variables listed in the measurement section. The effect of the control variables were consistent with that described in other literature (Diener et al., 1999) and are thus not discussed in detail here. The interaction term between union type and parenthood was insignificant (b = .02, n.s.), showing that, on average in Europe, the effect of marital status on life satisfaction did not depend on whether a couple had children. However, the interaction term between union type and parenthood had a significant variance component (var = .094, SD = .307, χ² (23) = 80.73, p < .001), which indicates significant cross-cultural differences in the ways parenting affects cohabiting and married couples.

Table 2.

Multilevel regressions of parenthood, union type (married vs. cohabiting), and a country’s descriptive and injunctive norm on life satisfaction, 2002–2008.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	B (SE)	β	B (SE)	β	B (SE)	β
Intercept	6.98*** (.10)		6.98*** (.10)		7.03*** (.10)
Country-level variables
Country’s descriptive norm	—	—	.84 (.74)	.06	—	—
Country’s injunctive norm	—	—	—	—	−.66 (.19)	−.15**
GDP per capita	3e−6 (6e−6)	.14***	3e−5 (6e−6)	.13*	2e−5 (8e−6)	.08*
Individual-level variables
Age	−.01 (.001)	−.06***	−.01 (.001)	−.06***	−.01 (.001)	−.06***
Gender (male = 1)	−.01 (.02)	−.003	−.01 (.02)	−.003	−.01 (.02)	−.002
Employed	−.10 (.02)	−.02***	−.10 (.02)	−.02***	−.10 (.02)	−.02***
Unemployed	−.73 (.08)	−.06***	−.73 (.08)	−.06***	−.73 (.08)	−.06***
Years of education	.01 (.004)	.01	.01 (.004)	.01	.01 (.004)	.01
Income	.86 (.06)	.32***	.86 (.06)	.32***	.86 (.06)	.32***
Personal religiosity	.06 (.01)	.07***	.06 (.01)	.07***	.06 (.01)	.07***
Parenthood (yes = 1)	−.07 (.06)	−.02	−.10 (.06)	−.02	−.07 (.06)	−.01
Union type (married = 1)	.08 (.04)	.01*	.08 (.04)	.01*	.09 (.03)	.01*
Parenthood × Union Type	.02 (.06)	.003	.04 (.06)	.01	.01 (.05)	.002
Parenthood × Country’s Descriptive Norm	—	—	1.12 (.33)	.03^***	—	—
Union Type × Country’s Descriptive Norm	—	—	.22 (.42)	.004	—	—
Parenthood × Union Type × Country’s Descriptive Norm	—	—	−1.09 (.48)	−.03^*	—	—
Parenthood × Country’s Injunctive Norm	—	—	—	—	−.27 (.13)	−.03^*
Union Type × Country’s Injunctive Norm	—	—	—	—	−.13 (.11)	−.01
Parenthood × Union Type × Country’s Injunctive Norm	—	—	—	—	.36 (.15)	.04^*
Variance components
Var (intercept)	.194*** (.441)		.205*** (.453)		.173*** (.416)
Var (parenthood)	.060*** (.246)		.031** (.176)		.053*** (.230)
Var (union type)	.044*** (.211)		.046*** (.216)		.048*** (.218)
Var (Parenthood × Union Type)	.094*** (.307)		.064*** (.254)		.074*** (.272)

Note. Reference categories: for employment status—other (housewives, military servants, and similar). Robust standard errors are reported. GDP = gross domestic product.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

To investigate whether these differences depended on a country’s descriptive and injunctive norms against childbearing in cohabiting unions, we entered the three-way interactions between parenthood, union type, and a country’s descriptive (Model 2) and injunctive (Model 3) norm and the respective two-way interactions. These models yielded significant three-way interactions: Union Type × Parenthood × Descriptive Norm (b = −1.09, p < .05, Model 2) and Union Type × Parenthood × Injunctive Norm (b = .36, p < .05, Model 3). That is, a country’s descriptive and injunctive norms related to childbearing in cohabiting unions determined whether parenthood affects married or cohabiting couples more strongly.

Figures 2 and 3 plot these three-way interactions. They show the estimated life satisfaction scores of parents and nonparents who are either married or cohabiting in countries with weak (1 SD below the mean) or strong (1 SD above the mean) descriptive (Figure 2) and injunctive (Figure 3) norms related to childbearing in cohabiting unions.

Figure 2.

The effects of partnership, parenthood status, and a country’s descriptive norm on life satisfaction. Life satisfaction scores of parents and childless individuals who are either married or cohabiting with their partner in countries with a high descriptive norm (+1 SD) versus a low descriptive norm (−1 SD) of childbearing in cohabiting unions, ESS (2002–2008). The descriptive norm reflects the ratio of cohabiting to married parents; the higher it is, the more widespread is childbearing in cohabiting unions. ESS: European Social Survey.

Figure 3.

The effects of partnership, parenthood status, and a country’s injunctive norm on life satisfaction. Life satisfaction scores of parents and childless individuals who are either married or cohabiting with their partner in countries with a strong injunctive norm (+1 SD) versus a weak injunctive norm (−1 SD) against childbearing in cohabiting unions, ESS (2002–2008). The injunctive norm reflects countries’ average disapproval of childbearing in cohabiting unions; the stronger it is, the more disapproved is childbearing in cohabiting unions. ESS: European Social Survey.

Figure 2 shows that in countries where childbearing among cohabiting couples is rare (such as Cyprus; low descriptive norm), living together out of wedlock has a substantial negative effect on the life satisfaction of parents (b _married = .21, p < .01) but not childless couples, who are equally satisfied regardless of whether they are married (b _married = .05, n.s.). In contrast, in countries in which childbearing in cohabitation is common (such as Norway; high descriptive norm), cohabiting status has no significant effect on either parents (b _married = .02, n.s.) or childless individuals (b _married = .10, p = .09).

Next, we consider the effects of the injunctive norm (Figure 3). In countries where childbearing among cohabiting couples is frowned upon (strong injunctive norm against childbearing in cohabiting unions), living together out of wedlock has a substantial negative effect on the life satisfaction of parents (b _married = .21, p < .05), but not on childless couples who are equally satisfied regardless of whether they are married (b _married = .03, n.s.). In contrast, in countries with a weak norm proscribing childbearing out of wedlock, cohabiting parents do not differ from married parents in life satisfaction (b _married = .01, n.s.). Surprisingly, in countries with a weak injunctive norm against childbearing in cohabiting unions, childless individuals are somewhat more satisfied when they are married than when they simply live together as an unwed couple (b _married = .15, p < .01).

Additional analyses

One of the limitations of these analyses is that they do not differentiate between biological and stepfamilies. Parents with stepchildren might differ in life satisfaction from parents living together with their biological children. Unfortunately, the data did not provide such detailed family information or histories. The only proxy variable available was divorce experience, but this was only measured in one of the four waves of the data (Wave 3, administered in 2006). Stepfamilies are more likely to consist of parents with a divorce experience than families with biological children. Hence, controlling for individuals’ divorce experience might alleviate the problem of confounding biological children and stepchildren.

The goal of the following analyses is twofold. First, we replicate the results of the main analyses presented above using only the data from 2006 and an important control variable: individuals’ divorce experience. Second, using the (individual level) measure of the personal injunctive norm pertaining to childbearing in cohabiting unions and a measure of social recognition, we test the personal and social norm mechanisms outlined in the introduction.²

The results of the multilevel regression analyses involving the interaction Union Type × Parenthood × Country’s Norms are shown in Model 1 (for the descriptive norm) and Model 2 (for the injunctive norm; Table 3). In accordance with the results of the main analyses, these models yielded significant three-way interactions: Union Type × Parenthood × Descriptive Norm (b = −1.58, p < .05, Model 1) and Union Type × Parenthood × Injunctive Norm (b = .57, p < .05, Model 2). Overall, both descriptive (how uncommon is childbearing in cohabitation) and injunctive (how disapproved is childbearing in cohabitation) norms measured at the country level affect the life satisfaction of cohabiting parents, even when controlling for individuals’ divorce experience.

Table 3.

Multilevel regressions of parenthood, union type (married vs. cohabiting), a country’s descriptive and injunctive norms, and a personal injunctive norm related to childbearing in cohabiting unions on life satisfaction, ESS (2006).

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	B (SE)	β	B (SE)	β	B (SE)	β	B (SE)	β
Intercept	6.99*** (.11)		6.97*** (.11)		6.95*** (.12)		6.94*** (.12)
Country-level variables
Country’s descriptive norm	−.17 (.86)	.02	—	—	.001 (1.10)	.02	—	—
Country’s injunctive norm	—	—	−.25 (.30)	−.08	—	—	−.27 (.29)	−.08
GDP per capita	4 × 10⁻³ (8 × 10⁻⁵)	.19**	4 × 10⁻⁴ (1 × 10⁻⁵)	.18***	1 × 10⁻³ (1 × 10⁻⁵)	.18**	4 × 10⁻⁴ (1 × 10⁻⁵)	.16***
Individual-level variables
Age	−.01 (.001)	−.06***	−.01 (.001)	−.06***	−.01 (.001)	−.06***	−.01 (.001)	−.06***
Gender (male = 1)	.05 (.03)	.01	.04 (.03)	.01	.05 (.03)	.01	.05 (.03)	.01
Employed	−.10 (.03)	−.02**	−.10 (.03)	−.02**	−.10 (.03)	−.02**	−.10 (.03)	−.02**
Unemployed	−.64 (.07)	−.05***	−.64 (.07)	−.05***	−.64 (.07)	−.05***	−.64 (.07)	−.05***
Years of education	.01 (.003)	.03*	.01 (.003)	.03*	.01 (.003)	.03*	.01 (.003)	.03*
Divorce history (yes = 1)	−.08 (.04)	−.01	−.08 (.04)	−.01	−.08 (.04)	−.01	−.08 (.04)	−.01
Income	.85 (.02)	.32***	.85 (.02)	.32***	.85 (.02)	.32***	.85 (.02)	.32***
Personal religiosity	.06 (.004)	.07***	.06 (.004)	.07***	.06 (.004)	.07***	.06 (.004)	.07***
Parenthood (yes = 1)	−.20 (.10)	−.04*	−.16 (.09)	−.03	−.30 (.12)	−.06*	−.24 (.12)	−.05*
Union type (married = 1)	.01 (.08)	.001	.03 (.07)	.004	.05 (.11)	.01	.08 (.10)	.01
Parenthood × Union Type	.19 (.12)	.04	.14 (.10)	.03	.28 (.14)	.06	.22 (.13)	.05
Parenthood × Country’s Descriptive Norm	1.69 (.52)	.04^**	—	—	2.06 (.84)	.05*	—	—
Union Type × Country’s Descriptive Norm	.46 (.55)	.01	—	—	.43 (.82)	.01	—	—
Parenthood × Union Type × Descriptive Country’s Norm	−1.58 (.72)	−.04^*	—	—	−1.99 (1.02)	-.05	—	—
Parenthood × Country’s Injunctive Norm	—	—	−.41 (.22)	−.04	—	—	−.52 (.23)	.07*
Union Type × Country’s Injunctive Norm	—	—	−.23 (.16)	−.02	—	—	−.23 (.19)	−.02
Parenthood × Union Type × Country’s Injunctive Norm	—	—	.57 (.23)	.06*	—	—	.68 (.25)	.07*
Personal norm	—	—	—	—	−.09 (.09)	−.04	−.10 (.09)	−.04
Personal norm × Parenthood	—	—	—	—	−.11 (.13)	−.03	−.09 (.12)	−.03
Personal norm × Union Type	—	—	—	—	.08 (.09)	.03	.10 (.09)	.04
Personal Norm × Parenthood × Union Type	—	—	—	—	.06 (.13)	.02	.04 (.12)	.01
Personal Norm × Country’s Descriptive Norm	—	—	—	—	.08 (.68)	.01	—	—
Union Type × Country’s Descriptive Norm × Personal Norm	—	—	—	—	−.36 (.71)	−.02	—	—
Parenthood × Country’s Descriptive Norm × Personal Norm	—	—	—	—	.40 (.90)	.02	—	—
Parenthood × Union Type × Personal Norm × Country’s Descriptive Norm	—	—	—	—	−.68 (.96)	−.03	—	—
Personal Norm × Country’s Injunctive Norm	—	—	—	—	—	—	.01 (.18)	.01
Union Type × Country’s Injunctive Norm × Personal Norm	—	—	—	—	—	—	.04 (.18)	.001
Parenthood × Country’s Injunctive Norm × Personal Norm	—	—	—	—	—	—	−.11 (.25)	−.02
Parenthood × Union Type × Personal Norm × Country’s Injunctive Norm	—	—	—	—	—	—	.13 (.26)	.02
Variance components
Var (Intercept)	.201*** (.448)		.279*** (.423)		.253*** (.503)		.222*** (.472)
Var (Parenthood)	.044 (.209)		.053 (.230)		.069 (.264)		.074 (.272)
Var (Union type)	.089*** (.198)		.068*** (.261)		.131*** (.362)		.103*** (.322)
Var (Personal norm)	—		—		.078** (.279)		.073*** (.270)
Var (Parenthood × Union Type)	.130* (.361)		.074 (.272)		.151 (.389)		.088 (.297)
Var (Union Type × Personal Norm)	—		—		.080** (.283)		.078** (.280)
Var (Parenthood × Personal Norm)	—		—		.107 (.328)		.100 (.316)
Var (Parenthood × Union Type × Personal Norm)	—		—		.120 (.346)		.117 (.342)

Note. Reference categories: for employment status—other (housewives, military servants, and similar). Robust standard errors are reported. Continuous variables involved in cross-level interactions are group mean centered. ESS: European Social Survey; GDP = gross domestic product.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Next, we tested two potential mechanisms underlying the country’s social norm effect, outlined in the introduction: the personal and the social norms mechanisms.

Personal norm mechanism

According to the personal norm mechanism, the negative effect of nonconformity depends on whether a country’s norm is internalized by an individual. That is, in countries with a strong norm against childbearing in cohabiting unions, cohabiting parents should report less life satisfaction than married parents only or especially if they share this norm themselves.

To test this explanation, we estimated four-way interactions between parenthood, union type, personal norm, and a country’s descriptive (or injunctive) norm (Table 3). Neither the four-way interaction including a country’s descriptive norm nor the four-way interaction including a country’s injunctive norm turned to be significant (b = −.68, p = .49 and b = .13, p = .22, respectively), suggesting that the effect of nonconformity to a country’s norm exists regardless of individuals’ personal injunctive norm. Hence, in countries with a strong norm against childbearing in cohabiting unions, cohabiting parents were worse off than married parents or childless individuals, even if they personally favored childbearing in cohabiting couples. The results of this analysis do not support the personal norm mechanism.

Social norm mechanism

According to the social norm mechanism, the differences in social recognition and respect that cohabiting and married parents receive in countries with strong and weak norms are responsible for differences in their levels of life satisfaction.

To test this mechanism, we used a multilevel moderated mediation framework (Figure 4). We proposed that the indirect effect of union type on life satisfaction through social recognition is conditional upon a country’s norm (descriptive and injunctive) against childbearing in cohabiting couples. To avoid complexity, this analysis was restricted to parents, using life satisfaction as a dependent variable, union type (married vs. cohabiting) as an independent variable, social recognition, and a country’s norm (descriptive and injunctive) as moderator variables and all individual- and country-level control variables (only main effects). We closely followed the recommendations of Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007) concerning moderated mediation in general, and specifically, those of Bauer, Preacher, and Gil (2006), concerning moderated mediation in multilevel data structures.

Figure 4.

A moderated mediation model of the effect of union type through social recognition on life satisfaction.

The analysis proceeded in several steps. First, we tested whether a country’s norm (descriptive and injunctive) moderated the effect of union type on social recognition (the mediator variable). Second, we examined whether social recognition mediated the effect of union type on life satisfaction. Finally, we tested whether the indirect effect (of union type through social recognition on life satisfaction) depends on a country’s norm—the degree to which childbearing in cohabiting couples is common and socially accepted in a specific country.

Model 1 (Table 4) shows the effects of union type, a country’s descriptive norms and their interactions on the mediator variable, social recognition. The interaction between a country’s descriptive norm and union type is insignificant (b = −.36, p = .25), suggesting that in contrast to life satisfaction, the degree to which childbearing in cohabiting unions is common does not affect the perceived social recognition of cohabiting parents. Given this insignificant interaction, we did not test the moderated mediation model with the descriptive norm and proceeded to examine the effect of the injunctive norm on cohabiting and married parents.

Table 4.

Unstandardized multilevel regression coefficients of the moderated mediation model.

	Mediator variable model: social recognition
	Model 1		Model 2
Predictor	B	SE	B	SE
Constant	2.77***	.08	2.90***	.08
Union type (1 = married)	.09*	.04	.09*	.04
Country’s descriptive norm	.80	.51	—	—
Union Type × Country’s Descriptive Norm	−.36	.30	—	—
Country’s Injunctive Norm	—	—	−.33**	.10
Union Type × Country’s Injunctive Norm	—	—	.18*	.07
Var (Union type)	.010 (.099)		.002 (.047)
	Dependent variable model: life satisfaction
	B		SE
Constant	2.85***		.18
Union type (1 = married)	.12		.07
Country’s injunctive norm	−.37		.30
Union Type × Country’s Injunctive Norm	.25		.14
Social recognition	.51***		.03
Var (Union type)	.018 (.133)
Var (Social recognition)	.009 (.094)

Note. All control variables at the individual and country level were included (the same as in Table 3).

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Model 2 (Table 4) tests the effects of union type, a country’s injunctive norms, and their interactions on social recognition. The results yielded a significant main effect of union type (b = .09, p < .05), suggesting that married parents, on average, feel that they are more respected than cohabiting parents do. In addition, a significant main effect of country’s injunctive norm (b = −.33, p < .01) was found, indicating that parents in countries with more conservative attitudes toward childbearing out of wedlock tend to feel less respected in general than parents in countries with more liberal attitudes. Importantly, we detected a significant interaction between union type and a country’s injunctive norm (b = .18, p < .05). This interaction is depicted in Figure 5. As predicted, in countries with a strong injunctive norm (1 SD above the mean), married parents reported feeling more respected than cohabiting parents do (b = .17, p < .01), whereas in countries with a weak injunctive norm (1 SD below the mean), this difference did not exist (b = .002, p = .96).

Figure 5.

The effects of partnership, parenthood status, and a country’s injunctive norm on perceived social recognition. Perceived social recognition scores of married and cohabiting parents in countries with a strong injunctive norm (+1 SD) versus a weak injunctive norm (−1 SD) against childbearing in cohabiting unions, ESS (2006). The injunctive norm reflects countries’ average disapproval of childbearing in cohabiting unions; the stronger it is, the more disapproved is childbearing in cohabiting unions. ESS: European Social Survey.

Next, we explored whether social recognition mediated the effect of union type on life satisfaction and whether the indirect effect varied depending on a country’s injunctive norm. Table 4 shows that the effect of union type (b = .12, p = .13) as well as the interaction between union type and a country’s injunctive norm on life satisfaction (b = .25, p = .10) became nonsignificant when the mediator (social recognition) was entered into the model. Social recognition, in contrast, had a strong positive effect on life satisfaction (b = .51, p < .001).

Following the recommendations by Bauer and colleagues (2006), we computed an average indirect effect of .05 (95% confidence interval (CI) [.01, .09]). The CIs did not include 0; thus, the indirect effect can be considered as significant at α of 5%. This indicates that on average across countries, the effect of cohabitation on parents’ life satisfaction is mediated by differences in social recognition perceived by cohabiting and married parents.

To explore the pattern of variations of the indirect effect across countries, we estimated the indirect effect at different values of the moderator (a country’s injunctive norm). The significance of these indirect effects was assessed using normal test theory (Bauer, Preacher, & Gil, 2006). Our results showed that in countries with a weak injunctive norm (1 SD below the mean), the conditional indirect effect was very small and nonsignificant, .005 (SE = .02, 95% CI [−.03, .05]. In contrast, in countries with a strong injunctive norm (1 SD above the mean), the conditional indirect effect was substantially larger and significant, .09 (SE = .03, 95% CI [.01, .32]). This suggests that in countries with a strong injunctive norm proscribing childbearing in cohabitating couples, cohabiting parents are psychologically worse off than married parents because they feel that they are treated with less respect and recognition. In countries where childbearing in cohabiting households is socially accepted, cohabiting parents did not differ from married parents in their perceived social recognition and respect. This explains why, in these countries, these two groups do not differ in terms of life satisfaction. Overall, this analysis supports the social norm mechanism.

General discussion

Childbearing in cohabiting couples is increasingly common in Europe (OECD, 2012). However, considerable cultural differences remain in the degree to which childbearing in cohabiting unions is widespread and in social attitudes toward it. For example, in some European countries, such as Finland and the Netherlands, marriage is not regarded as a condition that should be met before a couple has a child, and childbearing in cohabiting unions is approved (and in some cases, strongly approved) by the majority of the population. In contrast, in countries such as Cyprus or Bulgaria, childbearing is strictly confined to married couples and up to half of the population disapproves or strongly disapproves of childbearing in cohabiting unions; this makes cohabiting parents deviants from the dominant norms of family arrangement.

Our analyses revealed that a country’s normative climate determines differences in life satisfaction between married and cohabiting parents. Following the literature on social norms, we differentiated between descriptive (the ratio of cohabiting to married parents) and injunctive (national average disapproval of childbearing in cohabitation) norms. Our results suggest that in countries where childbearing in cohabitation is common, it is also socially approved (i.e., societal descriptive and injunctive norms are strongly related). We also found that both country-level descriptive and injunctive norms moderated the association between parenthood, union type, and life satisfaction. In countries where childbearing in cohabiting couples is a rare and disapproved phenomenon, cohabiting parents are less satisfied with life than married parents. In countries where childbearing in cohabiting unions is common and normatively acceptable, the life satisfaction gap between married and cohabiting parents is nonexistent. This effect is independent of countries’ GDP and individuals’ sociodemographic characteristics, including gender, age, socioeconomic status, religiosity, and divorce history.

Using the theoretical distinction between societal injunctive and personal injunctive norms, we proposed and tested two mechanisms that may account for our findings. First, we assumed that cohabiting parents living in countries with a strong injunctive norm proscribing childbearing in cohabiting unions may have internalized this norm so that their family arrangement makes them deviate from their personal self-standards (their “ought self”), which might result in a lower well-being. However, this explanation was not empirically supported; our analyses indicated that even cohabiting parents who personally favor childbearing in cohabiting unions (i.e., they hold a personal injunctive norm in support of childbearing in cohabitation) were less satisfied with life than married parents if their co-citizens disapproved of it. This finding is consistent with prior research comparing the effects of social and personal norms (Stavrova et al., 2011). For example, Stavrova, Fetchenhauer, and Schlösser (2012) examined gender differences in the cohabitation gap and showed that in countries in which gender role norms prescribe women to marry, cohabiting women were less happy than married women, regardless of women’s personal gender role norms.

We can speculate that individuals whose “cohabiting parent” status deviates from their self-standards (or their ought self) might engage in dissonance reduction strategies (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959; Holland, Meertens, & van Vugt, 2002) to eventually equalize well-being. For example, these individuals might disapprove of childbearing in cohabiting unions in general and with respect to other people but find numerous excuses and justifications for their own situation. Engaging in this kind of reasoning, they can reach the well-being level of cohabiting parents whose personal norm allows childbearing in cohabitation.

Most importantly, our results showed that cohabiting parents, who personally approve of childbearing in cohabitation but live in a country where their status violates the established social norm, are worse off than their counterparts in more liberal countries. That is, exposure to external social sanctions and pressures such as disapproval or rejection appear to explain the effect of cultural norms on cohabiting parents’ well-being (social norm mechanism). Indeed, our analyses revealed that the difference in experienced social recognition and respect was associated with the differences in well-being observed between cohabiting and married parents in countries proscribing childbearing in cohabiting couples. In other words, in countries where childbearing outside marriage is perceived to be morally wrong (strong societal injunctive norm, examples are Bulgaria or Cyprus), cohabiting parents are more likely to feel that they are less respected and recognized than married parents and, as a result, are more likely to report a lower life satisfaction. In countries where parents are free of the moral obligation to marry in case of pregnancy (weak societal injunctive norm, examples are Norway or the Netherlands), however, parents who live together unwed no longer feel less respected or report less life satisfaction than married parents.

Interestingly, although the country-level descriptive norm affected the life satisfaction of cohabiting parents, its effect on their perceived social recognition did not reach significance. In other words, low levels of childbearing in cohabiting unions (descriptive norm) are sufficient for cohabiting parents to feel less satisfied with life but are not sufficient for them to feel less social recognition and respect compared with married parents. In contrast, high levels of disapproval directed at cohabiting parents (societal injunctive norm) are sufficient for them to feel less respected and, as a result, less satisfied with life than married parents. This pattern of results is consistent with the experimental research on nonconformity that has shown that violating an injunctive norm is associated with stronger negative consequences for one’s emotional well-being and self-concept than violating a descriptive norm (Christensen et al., 2004).

Unexpectedly, in countries where childbearing in cohabiting unions is generally accepted, cohabiting couples were slightly less satisfied than married couples if they had no children. We speculate that in countries where childbirth to cohabiting couples has become an injunctive norm, the transition to parenting may be a new indicator of relationship commitment. Similar to marriage, childbirth may be viewed as a milestone in the relationship that marks a transition to a new, more committed, and “serious” stage. In other words, in countries with a liberal stance on childbearing in cohabitation, marriage or pregnancy may represent equally important milestones that strengthen the relational commitment in cohabiting couples.

Limitations and directions for future research

While extending our analysis to a relatively large number of countries, we had to compromise on the specificity of measurement. More specifically, because ESS does not include detailed information regarding family constellation and partnership history, we could not differentiate between two biological parent cohabiting families and cohabiting stepfamilies. We hoped using a variety of control variables, such as age, education level, religiosity, or divorce history, could partially account for this (e.g., cohabiting stepfamilies might be more likely to be composed of divorced individuals than two biological parent families). Still, we believe that this issue is particularly important because there is evidence that stepfamilies fare worse in terms of marital quality (Coleman, Ganong, & Fine, 2000; also see Ganong & Coleman, 2004), breakup probabilities (Wiik et al., 2009), and family boundary ambiguity (Stewart, 2005) than families with biological children. For these compositional differences to interfere with our conclusions, the ratio of stepchildren in cohabiting to married couples should be higher in countries where cohabitation is not common and not accepted than in countries with more liberal family norms. To our knowledge, there are no systematic studies that provide such statistics for all countries in our sample. However, some tentative conclusions can be drawn from the recent analyses of the Generations and Gender Survey, which includes data from France, Germany, and Russia (Kreyenfeld & Martin, 2011). In France, a country with a relatively high approval of childbearing in cohabiting unions, and in Russia, a country that ranks third in disapproval of childbearing in cohabiting unions in our sample, approximately half (56% and 49%, respectively) of families with stepchildren consist of cohabitors. In Western Germany, which scores in the middle range on the norm of childbearing in cohabiting couples, only 16% of families with stepchildren include cohabitors (Kreyenfeld & Martin, 2011). This three-country comparison is certainly not enough to draw definitive conclusions, but it suggests that, at least at first glance, there is no systematic covariation of the norm of childbearing in cohabitation and the composition of cohabiting families. We encourage future research to conduct more finely grained analyses of the social norm effect, for example, by conducting more detailed surveys in several selected countries with divergent normative climates.

Some scholars question the existence of a causal relationship between cohabitation and well-being by suggesting that couples with low relationship quality may be more likely to cohabit than marry and thus self-select into cohabitation (for a discussion, see Soons & Kalmijn, 2009). As our analysis does not focus on the main effect of cohabitation but rather on its interaction with the normative climate and parenting, we believe that this alternative explanation is rather unlikely. Moreover, most longitudinal studies comparing married and cohabiting couples’ distress and satisfaction before and after union formation failed to support the selection effect (Lamb, Lee, & DeMaris, 2003; Marcussen, 2005).

Nevertheless, if cohabiting partners hold different attitudes toward cohabitation and marriage, couples’ relationship quality and satisfaction may indeed represent a potential confounding variable in our analysis. In this case, one partner’s unwillingness to marry may be considered as a sign of a low commitment by the other partner and substantially undermine his or her relationship satisfaction and, consequently, well-being. For this explanation to intervene with the social norms account, such divergent attitudes toward cohabitation within a partnership are expected to be more likely to occur in countries with stronger norms against childbearing in cohabitation. To examine this possibility, we computed the correlation between a country’s mean disapproval of childbearing in cohabitation (the social norm) and a country’s heterogeneity in this attitude (measured in standard deviations). The correlation was r(24) = .03, n.s., indicating that there is no association between the strength of the norm and its homogeneity; thus this alternative explanation is rather unlikely. However, we believe in the importance of couples’ relationship quality and satisfaction in their judgments of well-being and encourage future research to investigate relationship satisfaction in married and cohabiting parents in countries with diverse normative climates (for an impressive start, see Wiik, Keizer, & Lappegård, 2012).

Another important possibility is selection on the basis of social status differences. Specifically, in countries where cohabitation is less common and less accepted, low-status parents might be more likely to cohabit (or low-status cohabitors might be more likely to become pregnant and postpone or avoid marriage) than in countries where cohabitation is widespread. In our analyses, we controlled for a number of sociodemographic characteristics (including income and education), and our results were unaffected by these controls. Nevertheless, we encourage future research to examine whether the associations between socioeconomic status and the probabilities of parenting in cohabitation depend on cross-cultural differences in the social norm of childbearing in cohabitation. Additionally, applying a longitudinal design to our research question would settle the discussion of the selection issue.

The effect sizes we report (see the β coefficients in Tables 2 and 3) may seem small, but they are substantial when considered in light of subjective well-being research in general. Researchers of well-being recognize that individual differences in sociodemographic characteristics jointly explain approximately 10% of variance in happiness and life satisfaction (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005). Figure 3, which presents the average life satisfaction scores of cohabiting and married parents in countries with different levels of disapproval of childbearing in cohabitation, provides a better estimate of the strength of the effect we report and its importance for research on subjective well-being. A comparison of the upper and the lower panels of the figure shows that cohabiting parents living in a country with a relatively strong (1 SD above the mean across all countries) disapproval of childbearing in cohabitation reach life satisfaction of approximately 6.5 (on a scale from 0 to 11), on average, whereas their counterparts living in a country with a relatively weak norm (1 SD below the mean) are approximately .6 points more satisfied with life. To put this difference in a broader context, it approximately equates to the difference in life satisfaction between employed and unemployed individuals or the difference between individuals reporting the lowest level of religiosity and those reporting the highest level in our sample—variables recognized to be among the most important factors affecting well-being among sociodemographic variables (Diener et al., 1999). Last, it should be noted that the figures we report are adjusted for individuals’ differences in these sociodemographic variables.

We also acknowledge the importance of considering cross-national differences in the legal status of cohabitation. Countries differ in terms of the rights and obligations of married and cohabiting couples regarding social security, income tax rebates, inheritance law and, most importantly for the present article, paternity and custody rights (Perelli-Harris & Sanchez Gassen, 2012). We hope that such policy data will soon become available for a larger number of countries to allow for increased understanding of the interplay between legal regulations and social norms and their impact on cohabiting parents’ well-being.

Another interesting question for future research addresses children raised in cohabiting households. Having long been preoccupied by the well-being of children of divorce (for a meta-analysis, see Amato, 2001), researchers’ attention has recently shifted to children of cohabiting parents. Several scholars and policy makers were sounding an alarm regarding the multiple risks to which children of cohabiting unions are exposed (Brown, 2004a, 2010). Studies conducted in the U.S. have suggested that such children are more likely to be exposed to a variety of risks ranging from reduced academic achievement to greater rates of delinquency (Bulanda & Manning, 2008; Dunifon & Kowaleski–Jones, 2002; Fagan, 2013; Manning & Lamb, 2003). Our results demonstrate that considering countries’ differences in the societal acceptance of childbearing in cohabiting unions alleviated the situation of cohabiting parents. An interesting endeavor for future research would be to examine cross-cultural differences in the effects of being raised in cohabiting families on children’s outcomes. This might seem to be a leap, but a large body of literature demonstrates that parental stress and depression is related to children’s and adolescents’ emotional and behavioral problems, ranging from language development problems in infants to attention-deficit disorder diagnosis in adolescents (Mustillo, Dorsey, Conover, & Burns, 2011; Turney, 2011; Zajicek-Farber, 2010). These effects are present even in adoption samples (Laurent et al., 2013). We do not claim that the liberalization of childbearing in cohabitation has a direct effect on children’s outcomes. Rather, we encourage researchers linking parents’ marital status to children’s outcomes to take cultural factors into consideration.

Conclusions

Overall, in the present research, we showed that nationwide social norms play a crucial role in determining cohabiting parents’ well-being. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explain the differences in well-being observed between cohabiting and married parents using characteristics of the cultural contexts in which they live. Most importantly, this research presents a systematic analysis of the mechanisms underlying the social norms effect; it allows us to conclude that social (rather than personal) sanctions directed toward cohabiting parents in countries with strong norms against childbearing in cohabiting unions are most likely to account for lower levels of well-being reported by these parents. Certainly, our analysis could not unravel all of the complexities related to the relationship between childbearing, relationship arrangements, normative climates, and well-being. Therefore, we hope that this work may inform future research that will use more sophisticated measures and study designs to increase understanding of the causal mechanisms outlined in this report.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Aassve

Goisis

Sironi

(2012). Happiness and childbearing across Europe. Social Indicators Research, 108, 65–86. doi: http://www.springerlink.com/content/0303-8300/

Amato

P. R.

(2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355–370. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.355

Angeles

(2010). Children and life satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 523–538. doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9168-z

Bauer

D. J.

Preacher

K. J.

Gil

K. M.

(2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142–163. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.142

Berns

G. S.

Capra

Moore

Noussair

(2010). Neural mechanisms of the influence of popularity on adolescent ratings of music. Neuroimage, 49, 2687–2696. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.070

Brown

S. L.

(2000). The effect of union type on physiological well-being: Depression among cohabitors versus marrieds. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 41, 241–255. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2676319

Brown

S. L.

(2004a). Family structure and child well-being: The significance of parental cohabitation. Journal of Marriage & Family, 66, 351–367. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00025.x

Brown

S. L.

(2004b). Moving from cohabitation to marriage: Effects on relationship quality. Social Science Research, 33, 1–19. doi:10.1016/S0049-089X(03)00036-X

Brown

S. L.

(2010). Marriage and child well-being: Research and policy perspectives. Journal of Marriage & Family, 72, 1059–1077. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00750.x

10.

Brown

S. L.

Booth

(1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship quality. Journal of Marriage & Family, 58, 668–678. doi:10.2307/353727

11.

Bulanda

R. E.

Manning

W. D.

(2008). Parental cohabitation experiences and adolescent behavioral outcomes. Population Research and Policy Review, 27, 593–618. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s11113-008-9083-8

12.

Campbell

E. Q.

(1964). The internalization of moral norms. Sociometry, 27, 391–412. doi:10.2307/2785655

13.

Chaiken

Giner-Sorolla

Chen

(1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In Gollwitzer

Bargh

J. A.

(Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 553–578). New York, NY: Guilford.

14.

Christensen

P. N.

Rothgerber

Wood

Matz

D. C.

(2004). Social norms and identity relevance: A motivational approach to normative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1295–1309. doi:10.1177/0146167204264480

15.

Cialdini

Goldstein

N. J.

(2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–622. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015

16.

Cialdini

Reno

R. R.

Kallgren

C. A.

(1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015

17.

Coleman

Ganong

Fine

(2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of progress. Journal of Marriage & Family, 62, 1288–1307. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01288.x

18.

Deutsch

Gerard

H. B.

(1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 51, 629–636. doi:10.1037/h0046408

19.

Diener

Suh

Lucas

Smith

(1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276

20.

Doss

B. D.

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2009). The effect of the transition to parenthood on relationship quality: An 8-year prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 601–619. doi:10.1037/a0013969

21.

Dunifon

Kowaleski-Jones

(2002). Who’s in the house? Race differences in cohabitation, single parenthood, and child development. Child Development, 73, 1249–1264. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00470

22.

Evenson

R. J.

Simon

R. W.

(2005). Clarifying the relationship between parenthood and depression. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 46, 341–358. doi:10.1177/002214650504600403

23.

Fagan

(2013). Effects of divorce and cohabitation dissolution on preschoolers’ literacy. Journal of Family Issues, 34, 460–483. doi:10.1177/0192513X12445164

24.

Fehr

Gächter

(2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137–140. doi:10.1038/415137a

25.

Ferguson

Hafen

Laursen

(2010). Adolescent psychological and academic adjustment as a function of discrepancies between actual and ideal self-perceptions. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 39, 1485–1497. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9461-5

26.

Festinger

Carlsmith

J. M.

(1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203–211. doi:10.1037/h0041593

27.

Fulmer

C. A.

Gelfand

M. J.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Kim-Prieto

Diener

Pierro

Higgins

E. T.

(2010). On “feeling right” in cultural contexts. Psychological Science, 21, 1563–1569. doi:10.1177/0956797610384742

28.

Galatzer-Levy

I. R.

Mazursky

Mancini

A. D.

Bonanno

G. A.

(2011). What we don’t expect when expecting: Evidence for heterogeneity in subjective well-being in response to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 384–392. doi:10.1037/a0023759

29.

Ganong

L. H.

Coleman

(2004). Stepfamily relationships. Development, dynamics, and interventions. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

30.

Garcia

L. T.

Hoskins

(2001). Actual ideal self discrepancy and sexual esteem and depression. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 13, 49–61. Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/toc/wzph20/12/4#

31.

Gebauer

J. E.

Sedikides

Neberich

(2012). Religiosity, social self-esteem, and psychological adjustment. Psychological Science, 23, 158–160. doi:10.1177/0956797611427045

32.

Grimmell

(1998). Effects of gender role self-discrepancy on depressed mood. Sex Roles, 39, 203–214. doi:10.1023/A:1018898320768

33.

Grimmell

Stern

G. S.

(1992). The relationship between gender role ideals and psychological well-being. Sex Roles, 27, 487–497. doi:10.1007/BF00290005

34.

Hansen

(2012). Parenthood and happiness: A review of folk theories versus empirical evidence. Social Indicators Research, 108, 29–64. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9865-y

35.

Hansen

Moum

Shapiro

(2007). Relational and individual well-being among cohabitors and married individuals in midlife: Recent trends from Norway. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 910–933. doi:10.1177/0192513X07299610

36.

Hechter

Opp

K.-D.

(2001). Social norms. New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.

37.

Higgins

E. T.

(1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.3.319

38.

Holland

R. W.

Meertens

R. M.

van Vugt

(2002). Dissonance on the road: Self-esteem as a moderator of internal and external self-justification strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1713–1724. doi:10.1177/014616702237652

39.

Horne

(2001). Sociological perspectives on the emergence of social norms. In Hechter

Opp

K.-D.

(Eds.), Social norms (pp. 3–35). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

40.

Hox

(2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New Jersey, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

41.

Kalmijn

Uunk

(2007). Regional value differences in Europe and the social consequences of divorce: A test of the stigmatization hypothesis. Social Science Research, 36, 447–468. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.06.001

42.

Kahneman

Krueger

A. B.

Schkade

D. A.

Schwarz

Stone

A. A.

(2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 306, 1776–1780. doi:10.1126/science.1103572.

43.

Kamp Dush

C. M.

Amato

P. R.

(2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 607–627. doi:10.1177/0265407505056438

44.

Kiernan

(2000). European perspectives on union formation. In Waite

L. J.

(Ed.), The ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 40–58). New York, NY: Aldine Gruyter.

45.

Kline

G. H.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

Olmos-Gallo

P. A.

Peters

M. S.

Whitton

S. W.

Prado

L. M.

(2004). Timing is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased risk for poor marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 311–318. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.311

46.

Kohler

H.-P.

Behrman

J. R.

Skytthe

(2005). Partner + children = happiness? The effects of partnerships and fertility on well-being. Population & Development Review, 31, 407–445. doi:http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp? ref=0098-7921

47.

Koropeckyj-Cox

(1998). Loneliness and depression in middle and old age: Are the childless more vulnerable? The Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53B, 303–312. doi:10.1093/geronb/53B.6.S303

48.

Kreyenfeld

Martin

(2011). Economic conditions of stepfamilies from a cross-national perspective. Zeitschrift Für Familienforschung – Journal of Family Research, 23, 128–153. Retrieved from http://www.zeitschrift-fuer-familienforschung.de/pdf/2011-2-kreyenfeld_martin.pdf

49.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Webster

D. M.

(1991). Group members’ reactions to opinion deviates and conformists at varying degrees of proximity to decision deadline and of environmental noise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 212–225. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.212

50.

Lamb

K. A.

Lee

G. R.

DeMaris

(2003). Union formation and depression: Selection and relationship effects. Journal of Marriage & Family, 65, 953–962. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00953.x

51.

Laurent

H. K.

Leve

L. D.

Neiderhiser

J. M.

Natsuaki

M. N.

Shaw

D. S.

Fisher

P. A.

… Reiss

(2013). Effects of parental depressive symptoms on child adjustment moderated by hypothalamic pituitary adrenal activity: Within- and between-family risk. Child Development, 84, 528–542. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01859.x

52.

Lee

K. S.

Ono

(2012). Marriage, cohabitation, and happiness: A cross-national analysis of 27 countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 953–972. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01001.x

53.

Lesthaeghe

(2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 36, 211–251. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00328.x

54.

Lesthaeghe

Surkyn

(1988). Cultural dynamics and economic theories of fertility change. Population and Development Review, 14, 1–45. doi:10.2307/1972499

55.

Liefbroer

A. C.

Dourleijn

(2006). Unmarried cohabitation and union stability: Testing the role of diffusion using data from 16 European countries Demography, 43, 203–211. doi:10.1353/dem.2006.0018

56.

Levine

J. M.

(1989). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. In Paulus

P. B.

(Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 187–231). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

57.

Lyubomirsky

Sheldon

K. M.

Schkade

(2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111–131. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111

58.

Manning

W. D.

Lamb

K. A.

(2003). Adolescent well-being in cohabiting, married, and single-parent families. Journal of Marriage & Family, 65, 876–893. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00876.x

59.

Marcussen

(2005). Explaining difference in mental health between married and cohabiting individuals. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 239–257. doi:10.1177/019027250506800304

60.

Margolis

Myrskylä

(2011). A global perspective on happiness and fertility. Population and Development Review, 37, 29–56. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00389.x

61.

Miller

C. E.

Anderson

P. D.

(1979). Group decision rules and the rejection of deviates. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 354–363. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3033805

62.

Morris

W. L.

Sinclair

DePaulo

B. M.

(2007). No shelter for singles: The perceived legitimacy of marital status discrimination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 457–470. doi:10.1177/1368430207081535

63.

Musick

Bumpass

(2012). Reexamining the case for marriage: Union formation and changes in well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00873.x

64.

Mustillo

S. A.

Dorsey

Conover

Burns

B. J.

(2011). Parental depression and child outcomes: The mediating effects of abuse and neglect. Journal of Marriage & Family, 73, 164–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00796.x

65.

Nelson

S. K.

Kushlev

English

Dunn

E. W.

Lyubomirsky

(2013). In defense of parenthood: Children are associated with more joy than misery. Psychological Science, 24, 3–10. doi:10.1177/0956797612447798

66.

Noack

(2001). Cohabitation in Norway: An accepted and gradually more regulated way of living. International Journal of Law, Policy & the Family, 15, 102–117. doi:10.1093/lawfam/15.1.102

67.

Nomaguchi

K. M.

Milkie

M. A.

(2003). Costs and rewards of children: The effects of becoming a parent on adults' lives. Journal of Marriage & Family, 65, 356–374. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00356.x

68.

Oarga

Stavrova

Fetchenhauer

(2012). Does helping others bring happiness all around the world? The impact of the pro-social normative climate across countries. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society, St. Andrews, Scotland, UK, August 21-23, 2012.

69.

OECD. (2012). OECD family database. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from www.oecd.org/social/family/database.

70.

Perelli-Harris

Sanchez Gassen

(2012). How similar are cohabitation and marriage? Legal approaches to cohabitation across Western Europe. Population and Development Review, 38, 435–467. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00511.x

71.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316

72.

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. doi:10.1177/0192513X08324388

73.

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. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.553

74.

Shields

Wooden

(2003). Marriage, children and subjective well-being. Paper presented at the Eighth Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference—“Step Forward for Families: Research, Practice and Policy”.

75.

Skinner

K. B.

Bahr

S. J.

Crane

D. R.

Call

V. R.

(2002). Cohabitation, marriage, and remarriage: A comparison of relationship quality over time. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 74–90. doi:10.1177/0192513X02023001004

76.

Sobotka

(2008). Overview chapter 6: The diverse faces of the second demographic transition in Europe. Demographic Research, 19, 171–224. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.8

77.

Soons

Kalmijn

(2009). Is marriage more than cohabitation? Well-being differences in 30 European countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 1141–1157. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00660.x

78.

Soons

Liefbroer

(2008). Effects of relationship status and resources on young adults’ well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 603–624. doi:10.1177/0265407508093789

79.

Stafford

Kline

S. L.

Rankin

C. T.

(2004). Married individuals, cohabitors, and cohabitors who marry: A longitudinal study of relational and individual well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 231–248. doi:10.1177/0265407504041385

80.

Stanca

(2012). Suffer the little children: Measuring the effects of parenthood on well-being worldwide. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81, 742–750. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jebo.2010.12.019

81.

Stanley

S. M.

Rhoades

G. K.

Amato

P. R.

Markman

H. J.

Johnson

C. A.

(2010). The timing of cohabitation and engagement: Impact on first and second marriages. Journal of Marriage & Family, 72, 906–918. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00738.x

82.

Statistics Norway. (2012). Births, 2012. Retrieved May 19, 2013, from http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/02/10/fodte_en/.

83.

Stavrova

(2014). Fitting in and getting happy: How conformity to societal norms affects subjective well-being. Frankfurt/New York: Campus.

84.

Stavrova

Fetchenhauer

Schlösser

(2012). Cohabitation, gender, and happiness: A cross-cultural study in thirty countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 1063–1081. doi:10.1177/0022022111419030

85.

Stavrova

Fetchenhauer

Schlösser

(2013). Why are religious people happy? The effect of the social norm of religiosity across countries. Social Science Research, 42, 90–105. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.07.002

86.

Stavrova

Schlösser

Fetchenhauer

(2011). Are the unemployed equally unhappy all around the world? The role of the social norms to work and welfare state provision in 28 OECD countries. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 159–171. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.joep.2010.11.002

87.

Stavrova

Schlösser

Fetchenhauer

(2013). Are virtuous people happy all around the world? Civic virtue, antisocial punishment, and subjective well-being across cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 927–942. doi:10.1177/0146167213485902

88.

Stewart

S. D.

(2005). Boundary ambiguity in stepfamilies. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 1002–1029. doi:10.1177/0192513X04273591

89.

Stutzer

Lalive

(2004). The role of social work norms in job searching and subjective well-being. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2, 696–719. doi:10.1162/1542476041423331

90.

Syltevik

L. J.

(2010). Sense and sensibility: Cohabitation in ‘cohabitation land'. The Sociological Review, 58, 444–462. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2010.01932.x

91.

Tach

Halpern-Meekin

(2009). How does premarital cohabitation affect trajectories of marital quality? Journal of Marriage & Family, 71, 298–317. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00600.x

92.

Tsang

L. L. W.

(2003). The effects of children, dual earner status, sex role traditionalism, and marital structure on marital happiness over time. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 24, 5–26. doi:10.1023/A:1022478919443

93.

Turney

(2011). Maternal depression and childhood health inequalities. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 52, 314–332. doi:10.1177/0022146511408096

94.

Twenge

J. M.

Campbell

W. K.

Foster

C. A.

(2003). Parenthood and marital satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 574–583. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00574.x

95.

Wiik

K. A.

Bernhardt

Noack

(2009). A study of commitment and relationship quality in Sweden and Norway. Journal of Marriage & Family, 71, 465–477. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00613.x

96.

Wiik

K. A.

Keizer

Lappegård

(2012). Relationship quality in marital and cohabiting unions across Europe. Journal of Marriage & Family, 74, 389–398. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00967.x

97.

Willetts

M. C.

(2006). Union quality comparisons between long-term heterosexual cohabitation and legal marriage. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 110–127. doi:10.1177/0192513X05279986

98.

Willoughby

B. J.

Carroll

J. S.

Busby

D. M.

(2012). The different effects of “living together”: Determining and comparing types of cohabiting couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 397–419. doi:10.1177/0265407511431184

99.

Woo

Raley

R. K.

(2005). A small extension to “costs and rewards of children: The effects of becoming a parent on adults’ lives”. Journal of Marriage & Family, 67, 216–221. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00016.x

100.

Wood

Christensen

P. N.

Hebl

M. R.

Rothgerber

(1997). Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 523–535. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.523

101.

Yang

R.-H.

Chen

Z.-Y.

(2010). The relationship between actual-ideal discrepancy and self-efficacy, self-actualization, self-identity and mental symptoms. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18, 507–508. Retrieved from http://caod.oriprobe.com/articles/25429343/The_Relationship_Between_Actual_ideal_Discrepancy_and_Self_efficacy_Se.htm

102.

Zajicek-Farber

(2010). The contributions of parenting and postnatal depression on emergent language of children in low-income families. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 19, 257–269. doi:10.1007/s10826-009-9293-7