Bias in retrospective reports of cohabitation among new parents
Julien O. Teitler
Nancy E. Reichman
Heather Koball
May 2004
This research was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(R01-HD-35301).
Comparison of Contemporaneous and Retrospective Reports of Cohabitation
Abstract:
Most estimates of cohabitation use retrospective survey reports. We compare
contemporaneous and retrospective reports of cohabitation and assess the implications for
studying relationship change. We find that (1) many mothers revise their reports of whether or
not they cohabited at the time of the birth of their child; (2) changes in reports are not simply due
to random measurement error, but are a function of individual characteristics and the couple’s
subsequent relationship status; and (3) estimates of cohabitation rates at birth and some analyses
of union formation and dissolution are sensitive to whether contemporaneous or retrospective
reports are used.
1
Non-marital cohabitation has increased substantially over the past several decades, as
evidenced by analyses of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), the National Survey of
Families and Households (NSFH), and the Current Population Surveys (CPS) (Bumpass and
Sweet, 1989a; Bumpass and Lu, 2000; Casper and Cohen, 2000). These nationally representative
surveys include data on living arrangements and can be used to estimate cohabitation rates of
unmarried parents at the time their children are born. However, the literature on recall bias in
surveys suggests that retrospective reports may be biased.
We use data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing – a recent national
longitudinal survey of new parents – to assess the degree to which retrospective reports of
cohabitation status with a partner one year earlier reflect individual characteristics and current
aspects of the relationship with that partner. We also assess the extent of retrospective reporting
bias and it affects analyses of union formation and dissolution. We situate our findings within the
literature on autobiographical memory. This is the first study to assess the implications of using
retrospective reports of cohabitation.
BACKGROUND
During the 1980s, only 25% of all non-marital births were to cohabiting parents
(Bumpass and Sweet, 1989a). Recent estimates indicate that 39% of unmarried parents are
cohabiting at the time their children are born, with substantial variation by race/ethnicity
(Bumpass and Lu 2000). The rates among unmarried non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics are 50
and 53%, respectively, while the rate among non-Hispanic blacks is less than half that (22%)
(Bumpass and Lu 2000). The increase in cohabitation rates since then has been greatest for non-
2
Hispanic whites (from 33% to 50%) (Bumpass and Lu, 2000). Casper and Cohen (2000) show
similar increases for the period 1977 to 1997.
Cohabitation is a difficult concept to measure for a variety of reasons. Direct and
indirect measures of cohabitation can yield different estimates (Baughman, Dickert-Conlin,
and Houser, 2002; Fields and O'Connell, 2003; Teitler and Reichman, 2001), as can
contemporaneous and retrospective reports (Teitler and Reichman, 2001). A growing body of
research suggests that it may be difficult to ascertain cohabitation status because of conceptual
ambiguities. Non-marital relationships do not fall clearly into rigid one-or-the-other categories,
but occur along a continuum (Edin and Lein, 1997; Ross, 1995; Seltzer, 2000). It is not always
clear to couples themselves when they began cohabiting (Manning and Smock, 2003) and
many cycle in and out of co-residence (Binstock and Thornton, 2003). Parents sometimes
disagree with one another about whether or not they are presently living together (Nock, 1995;
Seltzer, 2000) and whether or not they live with their child (Lin et al., forthcoming). The
meaning of cohabitation also may vary depending on the race, ethnicity, age, educational level,
and income of respondents (Manning, 1993; Smock, 2000).
The CPS collects current household roster information and asks about cohabitation, but
as Casper and Cohen (2000) point out, estimates are very sensitive to how cohabitation status
is inferred from the rosters since these ask about cohabitation in relation to the head of the
household. The NSFG and NSFH collect relationship histories (up to 5 years prior to the
interview in the NSFG and even farther back than that in the NSFH) that make it possible to
estimate cohabitation rates of unmarried parents at the time of a birth. However, a large body
of research on autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports makes it clear
3
that recall, even of important life events, is often imperfect and suggests that the estimates of
cohabitation based on retrospective reports might be biased.
The extent of bias in retrospective reports of cohabitation is not known. It is well
known, however, that recall is affected by a number factors, including the importance of the
topic or event to the respondent, how far back in time the respondent is asked to remember, the
ambiguity or complexity of the concept being asked about, the social desirability of what is
being asked about, and the attention and motivation of the respondent (see Groves 1989,
Schaeffer 1994, and Shum and Ripps 1999). When memory retrieval is difficult, the
respondent may rely on variety of reconstructive strategies, some of which may give rise to
reporting anomalies such as the seam effect in panel data (Rips, Conrad and Fricker 2003).
Since relationships and living arrangements are likely to be salient to individuals, and recalling
them does not seem to be a highly complex task, one might expect retrospective reports of
cohabitation status to yield reasonably accurate data. Also, since recall of past events is
facilitated when important events can be used as markers (Loftus and Marburger, 1983), asking
about cohabitation status at the time of a child’s birth, a landmark event, may further reduce
potential recall bias. Finally, although cohabitation is an elusive concept that is subject to
individual interpretation (as discussed earlier), it is unclear whether this complexity makes it
more difficult to ascertain in retrospect; similarly, it is not clear whether perceived social
desirability would affect contemporaneous and retrospective reports of cohabitation
differentially.
Whereas the literature cited above does not necessarily indicate that retrospective
reports of cohabitation would be systematically biased, psychological studies of memory
reconstruction suggest otherwise. Ross (1989) claimed that when respondents have trouble
4
recalling events, they tend to assume consistency in states unless they have strong reasons to
assume changes would have occurred, in which case they may exaggerate reports of change.
We might expect, then, that mothers who do not recall exactly what their living arrangement
was at the time of their child’s birth would assume it was similar to the current status, unless
their perception of the father had changed substantially since that time. According to Hasher
and Griffen (1978), reports of past circumstances may be related to feelings about current
circumstances, and according to Bower (1987) and Isen (1987), they can be influenced by
current mood. Particularly relevant is a study by Holmberg and Holmes (1994) that found that
memory reconstruction of past relationships is related to current affect.
In this paper, we examine the extent, determinants, and consequences of bias in
retrospective reports of cohabitation in the context of this literature on autobiographical memory.
Lillard and Waite (1988) compared retrospective and contemporaneous reports of marriage in the
Panel Survey of Income Dynamics, and found non-trivial levels of disagreement (both over and
under-estimates) in both the number of past marriages and when those marriages occurred. Peters
(1988) also found systematic discrepancies between panel and retrospective reports of marriage.
Given the ambiguities surrounding the concept of cohabitation, we expect that retrospective
reports of cohabitation are subject to even more bias than are those of marriage.
Based on the extensive research on cohabitation and recall in surveys spanning multiple
decades, we hypothesize that mothers whose relationships have deteriorated will be more likely
to retrospectively report that they were not living together at birth and that those whose
relationships have remained stable or improved will be more likely to report having cohabited
at birth. If recall of past relationships does indeed operate this way, retrospective reports of
5
cohabitation might be biased and rates of union formation and dissolution could be
underestimated.
DATA
We use panel data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing study, which follows a
cohort of 4898 sets of new parents and their children in 20 US cities. The study was designed to
take a longitudinal look at the nature, determinants, and trajectories of relationships of new
(mostly unwed) parents. Mothers were interviewed in-person in the hospital at the time of the
birth, again by telephone when the child was 12-18 months old, and periodically every few years
thereafter. The data are representative of births in large US cities (see Reichman et al. 2001 for a
description of the Fragile Families research design). Non-marital births were oversampled (by a
factor of approximately three) by design, yielding a sample of 3712 sets of unmarried parents.
Ninety percent of eligible unmarried mothers completed baseline interviews, and 87 percent of
those mothers completed interviews at the first follow-up.
The baseline interviews elicited information about cohabitation a number of different
ways. Each mother was asked about her relationship status with the biological father of her new
baby, and those who reported that they were “romantically involved now” or involved “in an on
again, off again relationship” were asked whether they were currently living with the father. The
mother was asked for information with which the interviewer could construct a household roster
that included the mother’s relationship to each person. We use some of these questions to
construct four measures of baseline cohabitation. One is the mother’s direct report of whether
she was living with the father. Another is whether she listed the father on the household roster. In
addition, we combined these two measures to create a conservative measure of cohabitation,
6
whether the mother reported that she lives with the father and listed him on the household roster,
and a liberal measure, whether she reported that she lives with the father or listed him as a
member of her household.
Estimates using the four different measures, shown in Table 1, indicate that cohabitation
rates are fairly insensitive to the baseline measure used. Both the direct question and the
household roster result in virtually identical estimates (48% and 47%, respectively). The range is
only slightly larger when we compare the most and least restrictive measures (45 to 50%).
Therefore, in all remaining analyses we use the baseline question that is most comparable to the
follow-up question about baseline cohabitation (the direct question about whether the parents
were living together). In general, Fragile Families estimates of cohabitation at birth are higher
than those using national data sets, even when taking into consideration the age distribution and
urban nature of the sample (McLanahan et al., 2001). The discrepancy may be due to differences
in measurement, or it may reflect period effects (Fragile Families estimates are based on more
recent births).
[Table 1 here]
Next we compare retrospective and contemporaneous survey reports of cohabitation
among mothers giving birth out of wedlock. At the one year follow-up interview, in addition to
being asked about current relationship status and living arrangements, mothers were also asked
whether they lived with the father when their child was born. However, the response categories
were expanded to distinguish between living together “all or most of the time,” and “some of
the time.”1 In most analyses that follow, we address this inconsistency in response categories
1
The exact questions are as follows: At baseline, if the mother indicated that she was in a romantic relationship or
an “on again, off again” relationship with the father, she was asked “Are you and [BABY’S FATHER] living
7
by excluding the respondents who at the one-year follow-up reported living with the father
some of the time at baseline. We test the sensitivity of our findings to this assumption by
conducting supplemental analyses that include mothers who reported that they were living
together some of the time as cohabiting, and others in which this group is considered not
cohabiting.
We are interested in whether changes in reports are systematically related to the
mother’s own characteristics, attributes of the baby’s father, and the quality and duration of
their relationship since the baseline interview. Based on past literature revealing subgroup
differences in reports of cohabitation, we assess whether revisions of reports vary by
race/ethnicity, nativity, and education. Specifically, we consider whether the mother is black
non-Hispanic, Hispanic, or other non-white non-Hispanic (compared to white non-Hispanic);
whether the mother was born in the US (versus foreign born); and whether the mother had less
than a high school education or had some college at the time of the birth (compared to being a
high school graduate). We also include a measure of the number of months between the
mother’s baseline and follow-up interviews; we expect that increased time elapsed will be
associated with less accurate recall due to the direct effects of time on actual memory, or
through changes in the parents’ relationship and life circumstances that may lead the mother to
reconstruct her past.
We also consider whether the propensity to revise reports of baseline cohabitation
varies by characteristics of the baby’s father. We consider whether the father was unemployed
at the time of the follow-up interview, whether the mother reported at baseline that the father
had ever been in prison or jail, and whether the mother reported at baseline that the father has
together now?” At follow-up, if the mother indicated she was in a romantic relationship with the baby’s father when
the baby was born, she was asked “When [CHILD] was born, were you and [FATHER] living together all or most
of the time, some of the time, rarely, or never?”
8
trouble keeping a job or getting along with family and friends because of drug or alcohol
problems. The father being unemployed, having a criminal history, or having a substance abuse
problem all would reduce his attractiveness as a mate and perhaps make it more likely that the
mother will downward revise the baseline relationship.
Finally, based on the literature on autobiographical memory discussed earlier, we
expect that the path the parents’ relationship has followed since the baseline interview would
affect mothers’ retrospective reports. At the follow-up interview, mothers were asked about
their current relationship with the baby’s father—whether they were married, romantically
involved, separated/divorced, just friends, or not involved, or whether the father was not
known. If they were married or romantically involved, they were asked whether they and the
father were currently living together all or most of the time, some of the time, rarely, or never.
We categorize mothers who were unmarried at follow-up as living together all or most of the
time, some of the time, romantic but not living together, or not involved. We also consider
whether each parent became involved with a new partner between baseline and follow-up, the
quality of the parents’ relationship as characterized by the mother at follow-up (excellent or
very good, versus good, fair, or poor), and how much the mother indicated at follow-up that she
would trust the father to take care of their child for one week if she had to go away and could
not take the child with her (very much, somewhat, or not at all).2
RESULTS
We first compare mothers’ follow-up responses to direct questions about their
relationship and living arrangement with the father at the time of the birth to their baseline
reports. Table 2 presents the raw data for all 4302 mothers who completed follow-up interviews
2
The follow-up questions on relationship quality and trust were asked in 18 cities only.
9
and had non-missing data on the relationship and living arrangement questions. While most
respondents fall along the diagonal, a non-trivial number of mothers changed their reports over
time, in both directions. In the analyses that follow, we analyze the predictors of changes in
reports in each direction in order to uncover potential bias in the retrospective reports.
[Table 2 here]
The consequences of potential bias in retrospective reports for both estimates of
cohabitation and analyses of union formation and dissolution among unmarried parents depend
on the analyses that are being conducted as well as on the extent to which inconsistencies
represent random recall error. The implication for estimating cohabitation rates depends on the
net direction of bias and whether recall is related to the current relationship or other individual
characteristics. For example, if couples who break up are more likely to retrospectively revise
downward their past relationship and parents who move in with one another after the birth of the
child are more likely to retrospectively upgrade their past relationship, then rates of union
formation during the year following the birth of the child might be underestimated, even if the
rate of baseline cohabitation is not affected. Similarly, if retrospective reports are a function of
individual characteristics such as age or race/ethnicity, using them may produce biased estimates
of the effects of these characteristics on changes in relationship status.
We look at how retrospective reporting varies by sociodemographic characteristics, father
attributes, and characteristics of the relationship, as well as the amount of time elapsed between
the baseline and follow-up interviews. We limit the sample to respondents who reported at both
waves that they were unmarried at baseline. We exclude from most analyses the 290 respondents
10
who reported at follow-up that they were cohabiting with the father some of the time at baseline
(corresponding to an effective sample reduction of 277 observations because of missing data on
covariates).3 We classify respondents as revising upward (reporting at baseline that they were not
cohabiting, but at follow-up that they had been), revising downward (reporting at baseline that
they were cohabiting, but at follow-up that they had not), and not revising.4
In Table 3, we present the bivariate associations between parent characteristics and
changes in the mothers’ reports of cohabitation, excluding respondents who reported at followup that they cohabited with the father some of the time at baseline. The change in reports is nonnegligible, with 16 percent of unmarried mothers revising their reports of baseline cohabitation
status between the first and second waves. Three quarters of those who revised did so in the
upward direction (12%, compared to 4% revising downward). This upward drift has implications
for the estimation of cohabitation rates and analyses of union formation and dissolution (we
return to this later).
[Table 3 here]
From the bivariate associations, it appears that instability in reports is associated with
both sociodemographic attributes of the mother and the quality of the parental relationship. In
particular, non-Hispanic white mothers are less likely to revise reports than are non-Hispanic
black, Hispanic, and other non-white non-Hispanic mothers; foreign-born mothers are less likely
to revise than are US-born mothers; and more educated mothers are less likely to revise than
3
Of these 277 cases, 86 reported at baseline that they were living with the father and 191 reported that they were
not.
4
It is important to note that this characterization reflects living arrangements and not necessarily the quality of
relationships.
11
mothers with less education. Similarly, young mothers (less than 18) are more likely to revise
reports than older mothers, although the relationship is not statistically significant. Consistent
with the literature on memory recall, the length of time between interviews increases the
likelihood of inconsistent reports.
Instability in reports is not associated with father attributes, including whether the father
was unemployed, whether he was ever in prison or jail, and whether he had problems related to
drugs or alcohol. However, it is strongly associated with relationship status at follow-up.
Mothers who were cohabiting all or most of the time with the father at follow-up were more than
twice as likely to revise their reports upward, and six times less likely to revise their reports
downward, as mothers who were not romantically involved with the father at follow-up. The
pattern is clear: Whether consciously or not, mothers tend to reconstruct their past relationships
based on current relationship status. This tendency is also evident for other measures of
attachment, including whether mothers or fathers have new romantic partners and whether the
mother trusts the father with the child, but not for self-assessment of overall relationship quality.
The bivariate associations are sustained in multivariate analyses of upward revision and
downward revision of baseline relationship status (Tables 4 and 5). Due to collinearity of
presence of new partners with parents’ relationship status at follow-up, and missing data on
relationship quality and trust from 2 cities (see footnote 2), we excluded these measures from the
regression models. In both Tables 4 and 5, Model 1 controls only for sociodemographic variables
and number of months between interviews, Model 2 adds father attributes, Model 3 includes
sociodemographic measures plus follow-up relationship status, and the last model includes the
entire set of covariates. All models exclude respondents who reported at follow-up that they
12
lived with the father some of the time at baseline or had missing values on any of the analysis
variables.
The effect of race/ethnicity on revising upward is relatively consistent across
specifications, as are the effects of nativity and education (Table 4). White mothers and more
highly educated mothers are less likely to revise reports upward than are their non-white and less
educated counterparts. The effects of nativity and length of time between interviews actually
increase slightly when measures of parent relationship are included (Model 3). Father attributes
are not significantly associated with revising upward. Finally, follow-up non-cohabitors,
particularly those who are no longer involved with the father, are less likely than follow-up
cohabitors to revise upward. The magnitudes of these effects are large: Non-Hispanic blacks are
over 3 times as likely (e1.14) as whites, foreign-born mothers are 44% as likely as US-born
mothers, and mothers who were not cohabiting with the father at follow-up were 30 and 45%
(for romantically involved and not involved, respectively) as likely as cohabiting mothers, to
revise upward.
[Table 4 here]
[Table 5 here]
The results in Table 5, which show the effects of parent and relationship characteristics
on the likelihood of revising downward, are similar to those in Table 4. However,
sociodemographic factors generally have weaker effects on revising downward than upward,
while the effect of follow-up relationship status is stronger for revising downward. Being nonHispanic black (versus non-Hispanic white) and foreign-born (versus US-born) are insignificant
13
predictors of revising downward, whereas they are strong predictors of revising upward. The
effects of education are different for revising upward and downward: Having more than a high
school education has a smaller negative effect on revising downward than it does on revising
upward, but having less than a high school degree (compared to just a high school degree) is
significantly negative only for revising downward. The effect of time elapsed between interviews
is similar for both outcomes.
The strongest predictor of downward revision is the follow-up relationship status.
Relative to mothers who were cohabiting with the father at the time of the follow-up interview,
mothers in a romantic relationship with the father at follow-up (but not cohabiting with him)
were about 10 times (e2.35) more likely to revise their baseline cohabitation reports downward.
Those who were no longer involved with the father were almost 7 times more likely to revise
downward. Mothers who reported cohabiting with the father some of the time were 5 times more
likely to revise downward.5
Our finding that retrospective reports of cohabitation at birth differ systematically from
contemporaneous reports only one to two years earlier raises the question of whether aggregate
rates of cohabitation, union formation, and union dissolution based on retrospective reports are
biased. As reported earlier, a limitation of the Fragile Families data is that the measure of
baseline cohabitation is not exactly the same in the first and second waves. Simply excluding
respondents who retrospectively reported living together some of the time at birth could
potentially lead to biased results. We therefore provide a range of estimates that treat this group
5
We ran alternative models that, instead of using the sample of mothers who reported at both time points that they
were unmarried at baseline, included only mothers who reported cohabitating at baseline at either interview (results
not shown). This alternative sample captures revisions of reports to and from marriage in addition to revisions in
cohabitation status, but is not representative of unmarried parents. By restricting the sample in this manner, the rates
of revision are much higher than those we present, but the predictors of instability in reports of cohabitation are very
similar.
14
alternatively as cohabiting, non-cohabiting, excluded from the sample, and apportioned into the
two statuses based on cohabitation reports at baseline among these respondents. We consider the
last, which assumes that 31% would have reported cohabiting and 69% would have reported not
cohabiting had they not been offered the some of the time response category, to be our “best
estimate.”6
We present these different retrospective rates in Table 6, along with the cohabitation rate
based on the mothers’ contemporaneous baseline reports. Although varying treatment of the
some of the time group results in different retrospective estimates, they are uniformly higher than
the estimate using contemporaneous reports. Baseline reports yield an estimate of 47.6%
unmarried parents cohabiting at the time of the birth, compared to 55% using our best
retrospective estimate—that which apportions the some of the time group into cohabiting and
non-cohabiting based on the distribution of their baseline contemporaneous reports.7
[Table 6 here]
[Table 7 here]
Discrepancies between retrospective and contemporaneous reports are even more
consequential when estimating rates of union formation (into cohabiting or marital unions), but
appear to matter little for estimating rates of union dissolution (Table 7). The analyses of union
formation are restricted to mothers who reported not cohabiting at baseline, and those of
dissolution are restricted to mothers who reported cohabiting at baseline. The contemporaneous
estimates use mothers’ baseline reports of baseline cohabitation status and their follow-up reports
6
Of the respondents who retrospectively reported they were living with the father some of the time, 31% reported at
baseline that they were currently living with the father and 69% reported that they were not.
7
These figures, as well as all others we present, are based on unweighted data.
15
of their living arrangement at that time. The retrospective estimates use follow-up reports of both
baseline and follow-up cohabitation with the father. The ranges in estimates reflect the different
treatments of the some of the time cohabitor group.
The estimates of union formation derived from retrospective reports are approximately
half those based on contemporaneous reports (10 to 12.6%, compared to 22.5 to 28%). The
difference is due to the tendency for mothers who form unions to retrospectively report that they
were cohabiting at baseline, which excludes them from the calculations of rates of union
formation using retrospective reports. Dissolution rates are somewhat higher using
contemporaneous reports, but the differences in rates are much smaller than for union formation
because few mothers reporting cohabitation at baseline retrospectively revised their reports
downward and calculations are therefore based on very similar samples. Furthermore, those who
reported not living together at the time of the follow-up interview were as likely to
retrospectively revise baseline cohabitation rates upward as downward.
Finally, we estimated multivariate models of union formation and dissolution to assess
the sensitivity of the coefficients of race/ethnicity, age, education, and other covariates to
whether retrospective or contemporaneous reports of cohabitation are used. We found that the
magnitudes of the coefficients of race/ethnicity were particularly sensitive to choice of report.
The effect on union dissolution of being non-Hispanic black (relative to being non-Hispanic
white) was almost 5 times greater when baseline reports of cohabitation were used than when
retrospective reports were used, and the effect of being Hispanic was over three times larger
16
when using retrospective reports compared to baseline reports.8 We also found differences in
effect sizes of race/ethnicity when estimating union formation (in the opposite directions).
DISCUSSION
Despite the relatively short time span between baseline and follow-up interviews in the
Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, respondents’ reports of cohabitation sometimes
change over time. These changes in reports do not appear to be due entirely to random recall
error. Rather, changes in reports over time are associated with individual factors and
characteristics of the relationship at follow-up. They may also be a function of changes in
interview mode between waves.
Due to the shift in mode, it is difficult to tell from these data whether baseline reports of
cohabitation are more or less accurate than retrospective reports. Generally, obtaining
information about the present is considered more reliable than obtaining information about the
past. However, conducting the baseline interviews in-person in the hospital, an institutional
setting (versus at home over the telephone at follow-up), may have caused mothers to
underreport cohabitation for fear of adverse repercussions. This possible scenario is consistent
with anecdotal reports by Fragile Families interviewers that some mothers feared exposing
fathers to immigration authorities or the criminal justice system. It is also possible that mothers
underreported cohabitation because they thought that this information might affect their
eligibility for welfare. Nevertheless, since all study participants were exposed to the same
interviewing modes at each wave, the mode effect is unlikely to account for the systematic
8
Using baseline reports, effects (and standard errors) of being non-Hispanic black and Hispanic on union dissolution
were .273 (.180) and -.091 (.199), respectively, compared to .059 (.180) and -.354 (.206) when using follow-up
reports of baseline cohabitation status (full regression results not shown).
17
associations between changes in reports of cohabitation and both socioeconomic attributes and
relationships characteristics. That is, we find evidence of systematic bias in retrospective reports
that is not an artifact of the design of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing study.
Our findings are consistent with theories of Ross (1989), that individuals project current
status onto the past, and of Holmberg and Holmes (1994), that current affect toward an
individual (the father in this case) affects memory of past relationships. This should raise
concerns about retrospective reports of cohabitation in surveys as well as in qualitative studies,
as both may be subject to similar physical, social, and psychological forces shaping memory
reconstruction.
Although we have characterized differences between baseline and follow-up reports as
problematic, they may be less consequential for measuring trends in cohabitation and they may
be valuable data in their own right. For example, downward revision of baseline cohabitation
(from cohabiting to not cohabiting) might be suggestive of the nature of the relationship between
the parents at follow-up, which might help to predict future relationship trajectories. Also, the
complications associated with reconciling multiple sources of data should not overshadow the
benefits of having more information. By including both contemporaneous and retrospective
reports of cohabitation as well as indirect measures of cohabitation, surveys can provide
researchers with information to more fully characterize family circumstances and dynamics.
18
Table 1. Percent of unmarried mothers cohabiting at baseline,
using various measures from baseline reports
Living with father
Father on household roster
Living with father OR father on
household roster
Living with father AND father on
household roster
N
48
47
50
45
3632
19
Table 2. Retrospective reports (at 1-year follow-up) by contemporaneous reports of baseline relationship status
Baseline Report
Not
Father
Follow-up report:
Married
Cohabiting cohabiting
unknown
TOTAL
Cohabiting most or all of the time
20
1290
333
3
1646
Cohabiting some of the time
0
88
201
1
290
Not cohabiting
3
105
1062
13
1183
Father unknown
0
0
13
22
Divorced
11
6
30
0
47
TOTAL
1070
1546
1660
26
4302
20
Table 3. Percent revising baseline relationship status, by parent attributes and follow-up relationship status
Revised
Revised
Did not
upward
downward
revise
N
MOTHER SOCIODEMOGRAPHICS
Age
< 18
18
3
78
93
18 – 29
12
4
84
2177
30 +
11
4
86
387
Race/ethnicity***
Non-Hispanic white
5
2
93
427
Non-Hispanic black
15
4
81
1452
Hispanic
10
4
87
717
Other
11
8
80
61
Nativity**
US-born
13
6
83
2333
Foreign-born
4
3
91
324
Education**
Less than high school
13
3
84
1031
High school or GED
14
5
82
909
More than high school
9
4
88
717
# MONTHS BETWEEN INTERVIEWS*
<12
8
3
89
274
12 – 17
12
4
85
1755
>17
15
5
81
628
FATHER ATTRIBUTES
Employed at follow-up
Yes
12
3
85
1789
No
13
5
82
712
Ever jailed
Yes
12
4
84
933
No
12
4
84
1582
Drug problems before child’s birth
Yes
11
2
86
162
No
12
4
84
2495
MOTHER/FATHER RELATIONSHIP
Relationship status at follow-up***
Married
11
1
87
210
Cohabiting most of time
16
1
83
1065
Cohabiting some of time
22
5
73
83
Romantic non-cohabiting
10
9
81
208
Not romantically involved
7
6
87
1090
Relationship quality at follow-up (18 cities)
Excellent or very good
15
4
82
1070
Good, fair, or poor
12
4
84
1083
Mother has new partner*
Yes
7
4
88
393
No
13
4
84
2251
Father has new partner***
Yes
4
4
92
233
No
13
3
83
2272
Trusts father with child (18 cities)***
Very much
16
3
81
1582
Somewhat
9
5
86
288
Not at all
5
5
90
220
TOTAL
12
4
84
2657
*p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
21
Table 4. Effects of mother, father, and relationship characteristics on upward revision of baseline relationship status,
among mothers who were unmarried at time of birth (logit coefficients)
MOTHER ATTRIBUTES
Age
<18
30+
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic black
Hispanic
Other
Nativity
Foreign-born
Education
Less than high school
More than high school
# MONTHS BETWEEN INTERVIEWS
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
0.33
-0.01
0.32
-0.02
0.50
-0.02
0.49
-0.01
1.02***
0.77**
1.02*
1.02***
0.77**
1.02*
1.14***
0.76**
1.14*
-0.74**
-0.77**
-0.84**
-0.82**
-0.03
-0.44**
-0.02
-0.45**
0.03
-0.44**
0.03
-0.43*
0.03
FATHER ATTRIBUTES
Employment
Unemployed at follow-up
Incarceration
Ever jailed
Drug
Drug problems before child’s birth
0.03
2657
0.05**
0.05**
-0.00
0.16
-0.14
-0.01
-0.02
0.20
FOLLOW-UP RELATIONSHIP STATUS
Married
Cohabiting some of the time
Romantically involved
Not involved
N
*p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
1.16***
0.77**
1.17*
2657
-0.27
0.10
-0.76**
-1.16***
-0.26
0.10
-0.80**
-1.19***
2657
2657
22
Table 5. Effects of mother, father, and relationship characteristics on downward revision of baseline relationship
status, among mothers who were unmarried at time of birth (logit coefficients)
MOTHER ATTRIBUTES
Age
<18
30+
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic black
Hispanic
Other
Nativity
Foreign-born
Education
Less than high school
More than high school
# MONTHS BETWEEN INTERVIEWS
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
-0.11
-0.05
-0.13
-0.03
-0.35
-0.05
-0.34
-0.06
0.70
0.85*
1.66**
0.63
0.81
1.60**
0.38
0.84*
1.41*
-0.45
-0.43
-0.28
-0.35
-0.46
-0.24
-0.48
-0.22
-0.53*
-0.27
-0.52*
-0.29
0.05
0.04
0.06*
FATHER ATTRIBUTES
Employment
Unemployed at follow-up
Incarceration
Ever jailed
Drugs
Drug problems before child’s birth
0.06*
0.34
0.08
-0.07
-0.22
-0.45
-0.67
FOLLOW-UP RELATIONSHIP STATUS
Married
Cohabiting some of the time
Romantically involved
Not involved
N
*p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
0.44
0.87*
1.45*
2657
2657
0.43
1.66**
2.33***
1.89***
0.42
1.65**
2.35***
1.94***
2657
2657
23
Table 6. Estimates of cohabitation at birth using mothers’ baseline and follow up reports
Percent cohabit
Baseline reports
Follow up reports:
Including “some of the time” as cohabitors
Including “some of the time” as non cohabitors
Excluding “some of the time”
Apportioning “some of the time” 31/69*
* Represents best estimate from follow-up reports
47.6
61.4
52.1
57.5
55.0
24
Table 7. Rates of union formation and dissolution, using mothers’ contemporaneous and retrospective reports
Union formation
(among baseline non cohabitors)
Union dissolution
(among baseline cohabitors)
Contemporaneous
22.5 to 28.9
25.4 to 29.7
Retrospective
10.0 to 12.6
23.1 to 26.4
25
REFERENCES
Baughman, R., Dickert-Conlin, S. and Houser, S. 2002. How well can we track cohabitation
using the SIPP? A consideration of direct and inferred measures. Demography, 39(3):
455-65.
Binstock, G. and Thornton, A. 2003. Separations, reconciliations, and living apart in cohabiting
and marital unions. Journal of Marriage and Family. 65(2):432-443.
Bower, G.H. 1987. Commentary on mood and memory. Behavior Research and Therapy, 25,
443-456.
Bumpass, L. and Lu, H. 2000. Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family
contexts in the U.S. Population Studies, 54: 29-41.
Bumpass, L. and Raley, K. 2003. Measuring divorce and separation: Issues, and comparability of
estimates across data sources. Paper presented at the conference on Measurement Issues
in Family Demography in Bethesda, MD, November 13-14.
Bumpass, L. and Sweet, J. 1989a. National estimates of cohabitation: cohort levels and union
stability. Demography, 26: 615-625.
Bumpass, L. and Sweet, J. 1989b. Children’s experience in single-parent families: Implications
of cohabitation and marital transitions. Family Planning Perspectives, 21(6): 256-61.
Casper, L.M. Cohen, P.N. 2000. How Does POSSLQ measure up? Historical estimates of
cohabitation. Demography, 37: 237-245.
Edin, K. and Lein, L. 1997. Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and LowWage Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Groves, R. 1989. Survey Errors and Survey Costs. New York: Wiley.
Fields, Jason and Martin T. O'Connell. 2003. Direct and indirect measures of cohabitation in
census bureau data: Who's just sharing rents? Paper presented at the 2003 meeting of the
Population Association of America.
Hasher, L., and Griffin, M. 1978. Reconstructive and reproductive processes in memory. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4: 318-330.
Holmberg, D., and Holmes, J. G. 1994. Reconstruction of relationship memories: A mental
models approach. In N. Schwarz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Autobiographical memory and the
validity of retrospective reports. New York: Springer-Verlag.
26
Isen, A.M. 1987. “Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior,” In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 20:203-253). San Diego,CA:
Academic Press.
Lillard, L. and Waite, L. 1988. Panel versus retrospective data on marital histories: Lessons
from the PSID. Paper presented at the Social Science Research Council Conference in
Annapolis, Maryland, "Individuals and Families in Transition: Understanding Change
Through Longitudinal Data." Compiled by Hazel V. Beaton, Debra A. Ganni, and Delma
T. Frankel. US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Lin, I., Schaeffer, N.C., Seltzer, J. and Tuschen, K. (forthcoming) Divorced parents’ qualitative
and quantitative reports of children’s living arrangements. Journal of Marriage and
Family.
Loftus, E.L. and Marburger, W. 1983. Since the eruption of Mount St. Helene’s, has anyone
beaten you up? Improving the accuracy of retrospective reports with landmark events.
Memory and Cognition, 11:114-20.
Manning, W.D. 1993. Marriage and cohabitation following premarital conception. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 55: 839-851.
Manning, W.D. and Smock, P.J. 2003. Measuring and modeling cohabitation: New perspectives
from qualitative data. CFDR Working Paper 2003-10.
McLanahan, S., Garfinkel, I., Reichman, N., Teitler, J. 2001. Unwed parents or fragile families?
Implications for welfare and child support policy. In Lawrence Wu and Barbara Wolfe
(eds.), Out of Wedlock: Causes and Consequences of Non-Marital Fertility. Russell Sage
Foundation.
Nock, S. L. 1995. A comparison of marriages and cohabiting relationships. Journal of Family
Issues, 16: 53-76
Peters, E. 1988. Retrospective Versus Panel Data in Analyzing Lifecycle Events. Journal of
Human Resources, 23(4): 488-513.
Reichman N., Teitler J., Garfinkel I., McLanahan, S. 2001. Fragile Families: Sample and design.
Children and Youth Services Review, 23(4): 303-326.
Rips, L., Conrad F. and Fricker, S. 2003. Seam effect in panel surveys. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 67(4): 522-554.
Ross, C.E. 1995. Re-conceptualizing marital status as a continuum of social attachment. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 57: 129.
Ross, M. 1989. Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories.
Psychological Review, 96: 341-357.
27
Schaeffer, N.C. 1995. Errors of experience: Response errors in reports about child support and
their implications for questionnaire design. Schwartz, N. and Sudman, S. (eds.)
Autobiographical Memory and the Validity of Retrospective Reports. Springer-Verlag.
New York.
Seltzer, J.A. 2000. Families formed outside of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
62: 1247–1268.
Shum, M. and Ripps, L. 1999. The respondent’s confession: Autobiographical memory in the
context of surveys. In Cognition and Survey Research, ed. Serkin, M., Herrmann, D.,
Schechter, S., Schwarz, N., Tanur, J., and Tourangeau, R., pp. 95-109. New York: Wiley.
Smock, P.J. 2000. Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings,
and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 1-20.
Teitler, J. and Reichman, N. 2001. Cohabitation: An elusive concept. Social Indicators Survey Center
Working Paper #01-4 and Center for Research on Child Wellbeing Working Paper #2001-07.
28