Female Perception of Cohabitation and Marriage in Metropolitan Arequipa
Abstract
Background: During the last decades in Peru there have been greater demographic changes, like the remarkable increase in the number of cohabitating couples and the decrease of married ones. Therefore, this study aims to describe the perception of cohabitation and marriage between women in the city of Arequipa, Peru. Methods: 764 women between 18 and 66 years of age were randomly selected according to their socioeconomic level and they were surveyed with a questionnaire about cohabitation and marriage perception. The results indicated that the majority of evaluated women considered marriage important (82.5) because it is the most appropriate way to start living as a couple (35.2%) and it is a legally recognized institution (31.3%), among other reasons. Furthermore, the majority of women do not consider cohabitation as more convenient than getting married (65.8%) and mostly reported that cohabitation is a type of relationship in which members mutually support each other (97.5%), that is exclusive between two people (97%) and in which expenses and duties are shared (95.9%). Conclusion: For a great percentage of cohabiters and single women from the sample, marriage is important. The majority of women do not consider cohabitation more convenient than getting married. The women that considered cohabitation more convenient, pointed two main reasons: knowing if the couple is getting along and knowing the couple well. Less than the 10% of these women believe that cohabitation is a step prior to marriage. Regarding the perception of marriage compared to cohabitation, for the vast majority of women, the perception of cohabitation is similar to the characteristics of marriage.
Downloads
References
Bumpass, L. & Lu, H. (2000). Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children's Family Contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54(1), 29-41. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713779060
Brown, S. L. (2000). Union transitions among cohabitors: The significance of relationship assessments and expectations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 833-846.
Canales, C. (2016). Matrimonio: Invalidez, separación y divorcio [Marriage: Invalidity, separation and divorce]. Gaceta Jurídica.
Castro, R.J., Cerellino, L. & Rivera, R. (2017). Risk factors of violence against women in Peru. Journal of family violence, 32, 807-815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-017-9929-0
Chaney, C., Mitchell, K. S., & Barker, K. A. (2014). Does engagement matter? Marital intentions and relationship quality among cohabiting African Americans. Marriage & Family Review, 50(7), 561-576.
Cherlin, A. (2004). The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 848-861. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00058.x
Código Civil Peruano [Peruvian Civil Code] (proposed June 02, 1936). Diario oficial El Peruano. http://blog.pucp.edu.pe/blog/wp-content/uploads/sites/76/2014/08/codigo_civil_de_1936.pdf
Código Civil Peruano [Peruvian Civil Code] (proposed July 25, 1984). Diario oficial El Peruano. http://spijlibre.minjus.gob.pe/normativa_libre/main.asp
Constitución Política del Perú. Artículo 4. [Peruvian Political Constitution] (proposed December 30, 1993). Diario oficial El Peruano. http://spijlibre.minjus.gob.pe/normativa_libre/main.asp
Decreto Supremo No 014-2016-TR, que actualiza el Texto Único Ordenado del seguro social de Salud- ESSALUD [Supreme Decree No. 014-2016-TR, which updates the Single Ordered Text of the Social Health Insurance- ESSALUD] (proposed December 04, 2016). Diario oficial el Peruano. http://www.essalud.gob.pe/transparencia/pdf/tupa/DS_014_2016_TR_TUPA_ESSALUD.pdf
DeRose, L., Lyons-Amos, M., Wilcox W. B. & Huarcaya, G. (2017). The Cohabitation-Go-Round: Cohabitation and Family Instability across the Globe. New York: Social Trends Institute/ Institute for Family Studies. http://www.socialtrendsinstitute.org/upload/2017_WorldFamilyMap_SocialTrendsInstitute_english.pdf
Domínguez-Hidalgo, C., Rivera, D. & Hidalgo, C.G. (2013). Políticas Públicas para fortalecer el matrimonio. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, 25(1). 125-136. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=349852058010
Ferrando, D. & Aramburú, G. (1991, April 3-6). La transición de la fecundidad en el Perú [Paper presentation]. Seminar on Fertility Transition in Latin America, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Hernández, R., Fernández, C., & Baptista, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación. México DF: McGraw Hill.
Hohmann‐Marriott, B. E. (2006). Shared beliefs and the union stability of married and cohabiting couples. Journal of marriage and family, 68(4), 1015-1028.
Huang, P. M., Smock, P. J., Manning, W. D., & Bergstrom-Lynch, C. A. (2011). He says, she says: Gender and cohabitation. Journal of family issues, 32(7), 876-905
INEI (2017). INEI difunde Base de Datos de los Censos Nacionales 2017 y el Perfil Sociodemográfico del Perú [INEI publishes the 2017 National Census Database and the Sociodemographic Profile of Peru]. http://m.inei.gob.pe/prensa/noticias/inei-difunde-base-de-datos-de-los-censos-nacionales-2017-y-el-perfil-sociodemografico-del-peru-10935/
Kefalas, M. J., Furstenberg, F. F., Carr, P. J. & Napolitano, L. (2011). Marriage is more than Being Together: The Meaning of Marriage for Young Adults. Journal of Family Issues, 32(7), 845–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X10397277.
Kuzembayeva, A. (2020). Marriage among US International Students: Meanings and Aspirations. Marriage & Family Review, 56(8), 689-714.
Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and development review, 36(2), 211-251.
Ley del matrimonio civil para los no católicos [Civil marriage law for non-Catholics] (proposed 1897). Diario oficial El Peruano.
Ley No 30007. Ley que modifica los artículos 326, 724, 816 y 2030 del Código Civil, el inciso 4 del artículo 425 y el artículo 831 del Código Procesal Civil y los artículos 35, 38 y el inciso 4 del artículo 39 de la Ley 26662, a fin de reconocer derechos sucesorios entre los miembros de uniones de hecho [Law No. 30007. Law that modifies articles 326, 724, 816 and 2030 of the Civil Code, subsection 4 of article 425 and article 831 of the Civil Procedure Code and articles 35, 38 and subsection 4 of article 39 of the Law 26662, in order to recognize inheritance rights between members of de facto unions] (proposed 04/ 17 2013). Diario oficial el Peruano. https://busquedas.elperuano.pe/normaslegales/ley-que-modifica-los-articulos-326-724-816-y-2030-del-codi-ley-n-30007-925847-1/
Ley No 30311, Ley que permite la adopción de menores de edad declarados judicialmente en abandono por parte de las parejas que conforman una unión de hecho [Law No 30311, Law that allows the adoption of minors judicially declared in abandonment by couples that make up a de facto union] (proposed March 15, 2015). Diario oficial el Peruano. https://elperuano.pe/normaselperuano/2015/03/18/1213133-1.html
López, D. & Montoro, C. (2009). Demografía. Lecciones en torno al matrimonio y a la familia [Demography. Lessons about Marriage and Family]. Tirant lo Blanch.
López-Gay, A., Esteve, A., López-Colás, J., Permanyer, I., Turu, A., Kennedy, S., Laplante, B., & Lesthaeghe, R. (2014). A Geography of Unmarried Cohabitation in the Americas. Demographic research, 30, 1621–1638. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.59
Manning, W. D. & Smock, P. (2005). Measuring and modeling cohabitation: New perspectives from qualitative data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 989-1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00189.x
Manting, D. (1996). The changing meaning of cohabitation and marriage. European Sociological Review, 12(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a018177
Merino, C. & Livia, J. (2009). Intervalos de confianza asimétricos para el índice la validez de contenido: Un programa Visual Basic para la V de Aiken [Confidence intervals for the content validity: A Visual Basic computer program for the Aiken’s V]. Anales de Psicología, 25(1), 169-171.
Ojeda, N. (2017). Práctica y percepciones acerca de la unión libre entre las mexicanas jóvenes: un estudio de caso [Practice and perceptions about free union among young Mexicans: a case study]. Tla-melaua, 11(42), 208-221. https://doi.org/10.32399/rtla.11.42.288
Ojeda, N. (2009). Matrimonio y unión libre en la percepción de adolescentes mexicanos radicados en Tijuana [Marriage and cohabitation in the perception of Mexican adolescents living in Tijuana]. Papeles de población, 15(60), 41-64.
Parker, E. (2021). Gender Differences in the Marital Plans and Union Transitions of First Cohabitations. Population Research and Policy Review, 40(4), 673-694.
Perelli-Harris, B. & Bernardi, L. (2015). Exploring social norms around cohabitation: The life course, individualization, and culture. Demographic Research, 33, 701–732. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2015.33.25
Perelli-Harris, B., Mynarska, M., Berrington, A., Berghammer, C., Evans, A., Isupova, O., Keizer, R., Klärner, A., Lappegård, T. & Vignoli, D. (2014). Towards a new understanding of cohabitation: Insights from focus group research across Europe and Australia. Demographic Research, 31, 1043-1078. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.31.34
Perelli-Harris, B. & Sánchez, N. (2012). How similar are cohabitation and marriage? Legal approaches to cohabitation across Western Europe. Population and Development Review, 38(3), 435–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00511.x
Plácido, A. (2013). El modelo de familia garantizado en la Constitución de 1993 [The family model guaranteed in the Constitution of 1993]. Derecho PUCP, 71, 77-108. https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.201302.004
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(2), 233-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X08324388
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M. & Markman, H. J. (2011). A Longitudinal Investigation of Commitment Dynamics in Cohabiting Relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 33(3), 369–390. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0192513X11420940
Rivera, R. & Castro, R. (2019). VI Barómetro: Estado y opinión de las mujeres en Arequipa [VI Barometer: Status and opinion of women in Arequipa]. https://ucsp.edu.pe/imf/barometro/barometro-de-la-familia-informe-2019/
Rodríguez, R. (1990). Historia y Sociología de la Familia peruana [History and Sociology of Peruvian Family]. In F. de Trazegnies, R. Rodríguez, C. Cárdenas & J. A. Garibaldi (Eds.), La Familia en el Derecho Peruano (pp. 43-64). Fondo Editorial Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú.
Sánchez Aguilar, A. (2017). Migraciones internas en el Perú. Organización Internacional para las Migraciones. https://repositoryoim.org/handle/20.500.11788/1490
Sanchez-Cordero, A. (1981). Cohabitation without marriage in mexico. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 29(2), 279-284.
Seltzer, J. (2000). Families Formed outside of Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1247-1268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01247.x
Vásquez de Prada, M. (2008). Historia de la Familia Contemporánea [History of Contemporary Family]. Ediciones Rialp.
Tang, C. Y., Curran, M., & Arroyo, A. (2014). Cohabitors’ reasons for living together, satisfaction with sacrifices, and relationship quality. Marriage & Family Review, 50(7), 598-620.
Viladrich, P. J. (2010). La agonía del matrimonio legal [The agony of legal marriage]. EUNSA.
Wilcox, W. B & DeRose, L. (2017). World Family Map 2017: Mapping Family Change and Child Well-being Outcomes. Social Trends Institute.
Zuta, E. (2018). La unión de hecho en el Perú, los derechos de sus integrantes y desafíos pendientes [De facto union in Peru, the rights of its members and pending challenges]. Revistas Ius et Veritas, 56, 186-198. https://doi.org/10.18800/iusetveritas.201801.011
Copyright (c) 2023 Interacciones
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors retain the copyright and give the journal the right of the first publication and that they can edit it, reproduce it, distribute it, exhibit it and communicate it in the country and abroad through printed and digital media.
The digital version of the journal is registered under a Creative Commons license (Under Creative Commons License): Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Therefore, this work can be reproduced, distributed and publicly communicated in digital format, provided that the names of the authors and Interacciones.
Therefore, it is established that authors can make other independent and additional behavioural agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the article published in this journal (eg, include it in institutional repositories or publish it in a book) as long as it is clearly indicated that the work was published for the first time in this journal.
