Ambivalence and Living Apart Together in Later Life: A Critical Research Proposal

Abstract

Most unattached older persons who would like an intimate partnership do not want to remarry or be in a marriage-like relationship. A growing trend is to live apart together (LAT) in an ongoing intimate relationship that does not include a common home. We address the debate about whether LAT constitutes a new form of intimate relationship in a critical assessment of research on LAT relationships that applies ambivalence and concepts from the life course perspective. We conclude that among older but not younger adults, LAT relationships are generally a stable alternative to living with a partner, negotiated in the context of current social institutions and arrangements. We propose research questions that address later life living apart together as an innovative alternative intimate relationship. We encourage comparative work on the unique challenges of later life living apart together, their implications for other family ties, and their connection to social and cultural arrangements.

Full text

This is an Accepted Manuscript of a peer-reviewed article published by Wiley in Journal of Marriage and
Family (Volume 79, Issue 5, Pages 1404–1418. https://doi.org./10.1111/jomf.12417). The article may be
used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for use of Self-Archived
Versions.
Ambivalence and Living Apart Together in Later
Life: A Critical Research Proposal
Ingrid Arnet Connidis, Western University, Canada, Klas Borell, Jönköping University,
Sweden & Sofie Ghazanfareeon Karlsson, Mid Sweden University, Sweden
Abstract. Most unattached older persons who would like an intimate partnership do not
want to remarry or be in a marriage-like relationship. A growing trend is to live apart
together (LAT) in an ongoing intimate relationship that does not include a common home.
We address the debate about whether LAT constitutes a new form of intimate relationship
in a critical assessment of research on LAT relationships that applies ambivalence and
concepts from the life course perspective. We conclude that among older but not younger
adults, LAT relationships are generally a stable alternative to living with a partner,
negotiated in the context of current social institutions and arrangements. We propose
research questions that address later life living apart together as an innovative alternative
intimate relationship. We encourage comparative work on the unique challenges of later
life living apart together, their implications for other family ties, and their connection to
social and cultural arrangements.
The intimate relationships of older persons in the Western world are characterized by
continuity and change. Marriage still dominates, and, as more individuals live longer and
healthier lives, many marriages survive well into old age. Nevertheless, notable changes
have occurred. In the past, older people were generally affected indirectly by contemporary
shifts in intimate ties, for example, by their adult children’s divorces (Cherlin &
Furstenberg, 1986; Creasey, 1993). Now, an increasing number of older persons,
especially the “young old” (65 to 74 years of age) are taking an active role in these
processes (Connidis, 2010). The young old of today were teenagers during the sexual
revolution of the 1960s and were deeply involved in the dramatic changes that characterize
family life in the West (DeLamater, 2012; Lin & Brown, 2012). They now represent what
we would describe as the graying of the family revolution. A growing number of people
either arrive at old age already divorced or divorce in later life. About a quarter of the

divorces in the United States in 2010 were among individuals older than the age of 50, and,
among the old, divorcees now outnumber widows and widowers (Brown & Lin, 2012).
Many divorcees wish to have intimate relationships, as do many widows and widowers
(Calasanti & Kiecolt, 2007; Carr, 2004; Moorman, Booth, & Fingerman, 2006), but few
are interested in remarrying. In the United States, only 0.6% of those aged older than 65
are remarried (Cruz, 2012; see also Mahay & Lewin, 2007).
These trends are reflected to some degree in current gerontological and family research;
the intimate relationships of older unattached or single persons can no longer be described
as a neglected topic of research, as was the case a quarter of a century ago (McElhany,
1992; see also Bulcroft & Bulcroft, 1991; Cooney & Dunne, 2001). Although still
relatively limited, research on intimacy in later life has expanded to include a broader range
of topics, for example, late-life romantic relationships (e.g., Malta & Farquharson, 2014),
including the experiences of older women (e.g., Dickson, Hughes, & Walker, 2005) and
older widows and widowers (e.g., Carr, 2004), the impact of aging on gay and lesbian
romantic relationships (e.g., Averett, Yoon, & Jenkins, 2011), intimacy in long-term care
(e.g., Frankowski & Clark, 2009), later life online dating (e.g., Coupland, 2000), second
couplehood (e.g., Koren & Eisikovits, 2011; Koren & Simhi, 2016), and living apart
together, that is, intimate relationships that do not involve sharing a common home.
Our aim in this critical review is to examine living apart together as an alternative
intimate relationship among older persons and to offer a conceptual framework and
research agenda that will further comparative research. Central to our discussion is the
debate on whether living apart together (LAT) is a new method of intimacy or simply a
step on the way to cohabiting or marrying. Addressing this debate requires specification of
the life stage under study. We argue that the unique situations of LAT later in life are in
keeping with LAT as a new family form. As a relatively new type of intimate partnership,
LAT faces unique challenges; couples must negotiate their relationships in social contexts
that may question the legitimacy of LAT to the point of viewing it as a deviant arrangement
in some countries. We begin by presenting ambivalence and concepts from the life course
perspective as a useful framework for studying LAT. We apply this model to a critical
assessment of the LAT literature, starting with definitional variations that hinder progress
on this topic. We conclude by proposing research questions that we believe will advance
the comparative study of living apart together in later life, what we term LLAT.
Conceptual Framework
As in many new, rapidly expanding areas of social science research, the study of LAT
is dominated by smaller exploratory studies and lacks common terminology and elabo-
rated theoretical threads. A central dynamic of all relationships is how they are negoti-
ated. Ambivalence is a particularly useful concept for exploring how the contradictions
between expected and new ways of engaging in committed intimate relationships are
negotiated. Ambivalence occurs at multiple levels, including the micro level of individuals
and relationships, the meso level of social institutions including those concerning intimate
relationships, and the macro level of structured social relations, sociolegal, economic,
political, and cultural arrangements (Connidis, 2012, 2015; Connidis & McMullin, 2002b,
2002a). The concept of ambivalence emphasizes “the coexistence of contradictory
sentiments, expectations, and forces as characteristic of family and of social life”
(Connidis, 2015, p. 77) and explores how these contradictions are and can be negotiated
by individuals and through social change. Thus, ambivalence goes beyond mixed feelings

about a partner or about LAT to considering how the contradictions of LAT itself are
constructed and negotiated in a multilevel context.
Applying ambivalence to LAT relationships helps to bridge various efforts to explore
LAT and LAT-like relationships such as dating and to connect LAT to other family
relations and to social institutions and arrangements. Cultural variations in the degree to
which marriage is entrenched as the acceptable form of intimate relationship make
ambivalence a useful concept for comparative research on LAT later in life. Striking a
balance between having a committed relationship and maintaining autonomy (Karlsson &
Borell, 2005; Upton-Davis, 2012) — a central contradiction of LAT — is a source of
ambivalence negotiated by individuals and couples in the context of social arrangements
that promote marriage and, more recently, cohabitation. Contradictions at the level of
structured social relations also underscore the differential appeal and accessibility of LAT
as an option, for example, based on gender and class. Recent treatments of agency that
emphasize its connection to social constraints are central to the concept of ambivalence
(Connidis, 2012, 2015) and to the life course perspective (Settersten, 2003). Placing LAT
relationships in a life course perspective helps to clarify the unique features of LLAT. The
concepts of life stage and linked lives (Heinz, 2001) are especially relevant to studying
LAT across the life course. Circumstances and reasons for forming unions at different life
stages vary markedly (Upton-Davis, 2012). Among younger adults, many still aim for
forging a secure economic future and having children, goals that make cohabitation and
marriage more probable objectives. At this life stage, the primary family links of single
persons are to parents and siblings, ties that in most cases are either sources of support
(parents) or resource neutral (siblings). Consequently, for many at this life stage today,
LAT is regarded as a temporary arrangement either because couples are still determining
whether they are committed enough to move in together or because they are living with
parents while working toward financial independence and being able to live together.
In contrast, among older single persons, most have already had a long-term union,
usually marriage, that ended either in the death of a partner or dissolution of the
relationship. The majority of these unions resulted in children and grandchildren who
remain the primary family links for older parents. Building financial security and having
more children are rarely the goals of having an intimate relationship. Indeed, some state-
sponsored income programs for seniors penalize recipients who marry. Instead, the desire
for companionship and intimacy are primary motivators. Unlike younger adults, the
primary family link of single older adults—children—involves ongoing responsibility.
Older parents typically continue to offer support and protect their resources for the current
and eventual use of their children. Some of the young old also have parents, but by this
stage of life, their very old parents are more likely to be receiving than giving support.
In sum, ambivalence and concepts from the life course perspective encourage
connections between multiple levels of analysis and attention to the dynamics of
relationships beyond individuals and dyads. The concept of ambivalence focuses our
attention on the dynamics of LLAT relationships, their impact on extended family
dynamics, and their connection to social and cultural arrangements. Life stage and linked
lives create quite different circumstances across age cohorts that are pivotal to
understanding varying approaches to intimate relationships, including LAT, across the life
course. Yet, as we shall see, studies of LAT relationships often fail to differentiate among
age cohorts and the degree to which LAT is considered an alternative intimate tie or a
temporary situation.

What Is LAT?
Notable cultural differences in the extent to which LAT is an identified and accepted inti-
mate relationship is reflected in linguistic variations that inhibit a common focus and
research agenda. In the United States, expressions used to describe long-term intimate
relationships between older singles are often borrowed from teenage culture. When older
U.S. respondents in Talbott’s (1998) study of romantic relationships used expressions such
as “dating” or “going steady,” they often qualified them with reservations about their
inappropriateness. “It sounds nuts,” said one of Talbott’s respondents (1998, p. 446) “for
an old lady to have a boyfriend” (see also Benson, 2013; Benson & Coleman, 2016a;
Brothers, 2015; Carr, 2004; for Great Britain, see Coulter & Hu, 2015; Haskey, 2005).
Similarly, LAT partners in a qualitative Canadian study (Kobayashi, Funk, & Khan, 2016)
struggled to find a good term for their partner, disliking the
terms boyfriend or girlfriend because of their failure to reflect the strength of their
relationship.
In contrast, LAT relationships have an ontological status in Sweden, Norway, the
Netherlands, and Belgium. In Norway and Sweden, the expression sarbo or särbo,
meaning “to live apart” have been in common use for some time and describe long-term
intimate relationships that do not include a shared home. The term LAT was first used in
the late 1970s by a Dutch journalist referring to a movie in which two people shared a
common relationship but not a common home. Besides being an acronym, the word lat in
Dutch also means stick (Levin, 2004). In Belgium and the Netherlands, LAT has become
generally accepted in everyday use. When the language provides us with a typified
meaning of this relationship, LAT becomes part of accepted, commonsense knowledge
(see Schutz, 1972) and can be discussed, considered, and assessed as a realistic alternative
to other forms of intimate ties (Borell & Karlsson, 2003). Against this backdrop, it is not
surprising that such a large proportion of the research on older LAT couples is from
Belgium (e.g., Lyssens-Danneboom & Mortelmans, 2015), the Netherlands (e.g., de Jong
Gierveld, 2004), Norway (e.g., Levin, 2004), and Sweden (e.g., Karlsson & Borell, 2002).
Only recently have researchers in Australia (Upton-Davis, 2012, 2015), Canada (Funk &
Kobayashi, 2016; Kobayashi et al., 2016; Turcotte, 2013), and the United States (Benson,
2013; Benson & Coleman, 2016a, 2016b; Brothers, 2015) considered LAT a category of
intimate relationship in later life worthy of study.
Differences in defining LAT reflect diverse cultural, period, and age-based assumptions
about what constitutes both intimacy and commitment. An important challenge to
researchers is to develop a definition of LAT that facilitates the study of such relationships
regardless of differences in everyday understanding. We favor a definition of LAT that
separates LAT as a unique intimate tie considered an end in itself from LAT as a temporary
arrangement, ideally on the way to marriage or cohabitation. This follows earlier calls for
distinguishing between LAT as a substitute partnership rather than a stepping stone to an
established form of partnership (Ermisch & Siedler, 2008; Upton-Davis, 2012). We
define LAT as a chosen, intimate relationship between partners who are committed to LAT
and to each other for the long term and who live in separate homes (see Benson & Coleman,
2016b; de Jong Gierveld, 2002; de Jong Gierveld & Peeters, 2003; Levin, 2004; Upton-
Davis, 2012). Some include the additional provisos that such LAT relationships are
sexually active and publicly known (Levin, 2004; Stevens, 2004) and monogamous (de
Jong Gierveld, 2002). In our view, the realities versus ideals of sexual activity and
monogamy in intimate relationships are subjects to be studied rather than assumed as
defining features of them. For example, marriages that are not sexually active or in which

partners are sexually active with others are still considered marriages, even if they violate
assumptions about ideal marriages.
LAT and Life Stage
Incidence of LAT
Variations in which criteria are deemed necessary to qualify as LAT result in different
sample populations (Duncan & Phillips, 2011). Statistics about families and intimate
relationships are often based on households, so the distribution of LAT relationships has
not generally been included in national population surveys (Borell & Karlsson, 2003;
Strohm, Seltzer, Cochran, & Mays, 2009). Even in the few cases in which LAT
relationships have been included in such surveys or have been studied in other statistically
representative samples, different definitions and measures hinder international
comparisons.
Estimates of the incidence of LAT relationships in Australia, North America, and West
European countries lie in the range of 7% to 10% of the population (e.g., Reimondos,
Evans, & Gray, 2011 [Australia]; Duncan & Phillips, 2011 [Britain]; Milan & Peters, 2003
[Canada]; Levin, 2004 [Norway]; Strohm et al., 2009 [United States]). Young adults,
typically defined as between 20 and 24 years of age, often constitute the largest group
categorized as LAT partners in these surveys. In Australia (Reimondos et al., 2011), France
(Régnier-Loilier, 2015; Régnier-Loilier, Beaujouan, & Villeneuve-Gohalp, 2009), and
Southern Europe (Billari, Rosina, Ranaldi & Romano, 2008), half or more of the LAT
population is estimated to be younger adults.
Although more common now (see Asendorpf, 2008), LAT relationships among older
persons still involve relatively few individuals in mid- and later life. In Canada, 2.3% of
those older than 60 years of age were LAT partners (Turcotte, 2013), and 4.3% of those
aged 50 to 64 years in the Netherlands (de Jong Gierveld, 2015) and 5% of those older
than 60 years of age in Sweden were LAT partners (Bildtgård & Öberg, 2015). In a
statistically representative sample of unmarried, noncohabiting U.S. adults aged 57 to 85,
18% of those aged 57 to 64, 14% of those aged 57 to 85, and 11% of those aged 75 to 85
years agreed that they “currently have a romantic, intimate, or sexual partner” (Brown &
Shinohara, 2013, p. 4). Similar to most surveys, this study does not determine how many
of those who have an intimate relationship see it as a long-term arrangement or their
subjective definition and view of the relationship.
LAT relationships among older people are far more significant than nominal data may
imply. Studies from Germany (Asendorpf, 2008), the Netherlands (de Jong Gierveld,
2015), and Sweden (Bildtgård & Öberg, 2015) indicated that LAT was especially relevant
to those who started a new relationship in their old age. In Sweden (Bildtgård & Öberg,
2015), of those who had started a new intimate relationship after their 60th birthday, 7 of
10 were LAT partners and fewer than 3 of 10 were cohabitants, leaving a very small
number who had chosen marriage (for similar results in the Netherlands, see de Jong
Gierveld, 2004).
LAT: New Family Form or Stepping Stone?
In some of the literature, LAT relationships are seen as one of the defining aspects of
contemporary differentiation of intimacy and family life. This is particularly evident in the
work of the pioneer researchers of LAT. As a research concept, LAT was originally
launched with a claim to describe “a historically new family form” (Levin, 2004, p. 223;

see also Levin & Trost, 1999). Does a critical review of subsequent empirical research
support such a universal claim? Following a life course perspective, we expect LAT
relationships to be characterized by a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of subjective
meaning, function, and durability that relate in part to life stage (see Benson & Coleman,
2016b; Coulter & Hu, 2015).
Qualitative and quantitative studies combine various versions of LAT and multiple age
cohorts, making it difficult to focus on LAT as a committed alternative relationship related
to life stage. Studies that are ostensibly about LAT are often about LAT as a stepping stone
to marriage or cohabiting. For example, in a British study of LAT relationships, defined as
“currently in a relationship with someone you are not living with here” (Carter, Duncan,
Stoilova, & Phillips, 2015, p. 579), only 6 of the 50 respondents would fit our definition
of LAT because they were the only ones who considered LAT a preferred and committed
relationship.
Young adults who LAT usually intend to establish a common home, but cannot do so at
present because of practical barriers such as a housing shortage, unemployment, or differ-
ent locations for work or school (Reimondos et al., 2011 [Australia]; Liefbroer, Poortman,
& Seltzer, 2015 [France and Germany]; Dommermuth, Noack, & Wiik, 2009 [Norway]).
Recurring recessions have meant that young adults who cannot establish themselves in the
labor or housing markets are often obliged to return to their parents’ home instead of setting
up a household with their partner (Connidis, 2014). Those who intend to live with their
partner once current impediments are resolved or because they are uncertain about their
relationship are more accurately viewed as being in a testing period or passing phase than
in a long-term committed relationship. As Duncan and Phillips (2011) concluded, steady
girlfriend and boyfriend relationships among younger adults who did not live together and
commuter relationships when jobs in different locations forced couples apart, are not new.
Many LAT relationships among those with coresident, dependent children are also
temporary and involuntary. In this case, consideration of a third party is the impetus for
LAT. Single parents, in practice often mothers, choose not to share their home with their
partner to preserve the boundary of the family home and to provide continuity for and
avoid conflict with their coresident children (de Jong Gierveld & Merz, 2013). Single
parents may also be concerned about the reaction of others such as parents or former part-
ners who may consider it inappropriate to have a live-in partner or view it as grounds to
withdraw financial support. Another third party—a parent who requires care—leads some
adult children, in practice often adult daughters, to delay living with a new partner while
looking after their elderly parent (see Régnier-Loilier et al., 2009; Reimondos, 2011). With
longer lives, these children may be old themselves.
Waiting to cohabit while in a LAT relationship creates its own contradictions, and
couples must negotiate the ambivalence of their goal to live together with their current
realities. Older persons too may be reluctant to engage openly in nonnormative romantic
relationships such as LAT, but they are more likely to keep them secret or provide
justifications for them (Koren & Eisikovits, 2011; Kobayashi et al., 2016) than to be
deterred from LAT altogether. Here, the ambivalence created by engaging in a relation-
ship that is not socially accepted is managed through accounts and secrecy.
Regarding durability, although LAT relationships between young to middle-aged
partners are often transitional, the LAT relationships of older couples are typically long

term. In Canada (Turcotte, 2013), young adults (20–29 years) averaged 2.3 years together,
whereas older adults (older than 60 years) averaged 7.5 years. In a Swedish study, all 116
LAT partners aged 60 to 90 years described their relationship as long term, with a median
length of 7 years and a range from 1 to 28 years (Karlsson & Borell, 2002). Differences in
relationship duration are even more marked in longitudinal studies. In a study in France
(Régnier-Loilier, 2015), only one in 10 of the young couples was still LAT 3 years after
the first interview, and virtually none 3 years later. The majority had either moved to a
common household (36% with the same person) or separated. In contrast, only 7% of
seniors had moved in with their partner, more than half of them were still in their original
LAT relationship after 3 years, and about a third after 6 years; the balance experienced the
death of or separation from their LAT partner.
Choosing to LAT: Later Life LAT Relationships as a New Family Form
The greater durability of older couples’ LAT relationships reflects their preference for this
type of intimate tie. At this life stage, LAT is neither primarily a practical necessity nor a
step toward establishing a common home. A British study of LAT that identified one
category of participants who both preferred and were committed to LAT (Carter et al.,
2015) suggests that commitment has two elements: commitment to LAT as a form of
intimate relationship and commitment to one’s LAT partner. In an Australian study
(Reimondos et al., 2011), more than 70% of older LAT partners had chosen to LAT over
any other type of relationship. A British study that distinguished between partner LAT
couples and dating LAT couples found that those aged 65 to 97 years fell entirely in the
partner LAT category, and those aged 55 to 64 years were twice as likely to be partners
rather than daters (Duncan & Phillips, 2011).
Committed or intrinsic LAT partners in Belgium have features that parallel normative
views of marriage as involving a strong sense of being in a couple with a deep emotional
investment in commitment, loyalty, being together, and mutual respect (Lyssens-
Danneboom & Mortelmans, 2015). For most of the 116 older LAT partners in a Swedish
study, the overwhelming motive for LAT was the intimacy of the relationship; LAT
partners regarded their relationships as deeply intimate, marked by mutual trust,
understanding, and the sharing of confidences (Borell & Karlsson, 2003). Almost all of the
LAT partners had daily contact with one another via telephone, more than one third (36%)
met almost daily, and another half met a couple of times a week (Karlsson & Borell, 2002).
Most of the older LAT couples in a British study (Coulter & Hu, 2015) lived within an
hour of each other, with two thirds less than 30 minutes apart, and saw each other at least
once a week, with two thirds seeing their partner daily or several times a week.
Variations in the terminology that British LAT partners who view themselves as cou-
ples use to describe their relationship suggest greater commitment among older couples;
they more often used the terms partner or husband or wife, and younger persons more
often used girlfriend or boyfriend (Duncan, Carter, Phillips, Roseneil, & Stoilova, 2014).
In Swedish (Karlsson & Borell, 2002) and Belgian (Lyssens-Danneboom & Mortelmans,
2015) studies of LAT, fidelity was generally seen as a prerequisite for the relationship, a
view also supported by a survey of LAT partners in Britain in which 87% thought it would
be wrong if a LAT partner had sex with someone else (Duncan et al., 2014; see also Carter
et al., 2015). In a U.S. study (Brothers, 2015) even sexually active older LAT couples
viewed sex as a less significant component of their relationship than they did when in
marriages earlier in their lives. The assumption of greater freedom coupled with

monogamy between couples who do not live together requires an added degree of trust—
another paradoxical element of LAT (Kobayashi et al., 2016).
Cohort differences in LAT echo earlier U.S. research on dating that found almost half of
respondents aged 55 to 75 years and older described their dating relationship as “steady”
and only a small number considered it a step toward marriage, leading the authors to
conclude that “dating is taken seriously by older adults but not as a means to marriage,”
especially by women (Bulcroft & Bulcroft, 1991, p. 258; see also Bulcroft & O’Connor,
1986). Watson and Stelle (2011) found that “young old” women did not see dating as a
step toward remarrying, even in cases when dating developed into a steady, long-term
relationship; a steady, long-term relationship, not marriage, was their goal. Older adults in
the United States seriously pursue romantic partners (Stephure, Boon, MacKinnon, &
Deveau, 2009), and, when compared with the personal ads and dating profiles of younger
adults, they are less future oriented and more focused on present concerns (Alterovitz &
Mendelsohn, 2013).
Counter to normative assumptions about marriage, older Belgian LAT couples also
valued autonomy, time on their own, economic independence, and maintaining territorial
boundaries (Lyssens-Danneboom & Mortelmans, 2015). Older Swedish couples also
emphasized autonomy as a prime motivator for LAT (Borell & Karlsson, 2003). Similar
to LAT couples, later life dating women “prided themselves on their independence and did
not want to give it up” (Dickson et al., 2005, p. 73). Analyses of personal online ads
generally confirm that older women are seldom prepared to compromise their independent
lifestyle with a new marriage (e.g., Levesque & Caron, 2004; McWilliams & Barrett,
2014).
The low level of organization of LAT relationships and the absence of many of the com-
mitments and ties that characterize marriage (Yodanis & Lauer, 2014) put the focus on the
emotional side of the relationship (Borell & Karlsson, 2003). In theory at least, LAT
simultaneously gives both partners autonomous access to their resources and home along
with access to strong mutual commitment and intimacy. Partners defined as being in
intrinsic LAT relationships in a Belgian study (Lyssens-Danneboom & Mortelmans, 2015,
p. 19) “operate as two autonomous individuals with their own objectives (maintaining
autonomy and freedom) and cooperated . . . to achieve a common goal (the mutual
provision of intimacy, companionship and support).” LLAT relationships exemplify one
of the features of Giddens’ (1991) ideal type of “pure” relationship; to a relatively high
degree they depend on “satisfactions or rewards generic to that relationship itself” (p. 224).
Among older persons, priorities shift as the responsibilities of raising children and paid
work diminish. A limited future increases a preference for affectively rich relationships
(Carstensen, 1995). LLAT is well suited to this psychological process. Emotional content
is brought to the fore, and, in contrast to marriage, the automatic development of increasing
commitments and responsibilities is not assumed (de Jong Gierveld, 2004; Karlsson &
Borell, 2002). At the same time, among Swedish LLAT partners, reciprocal emotional
support was accompanied with almost daily practical support (Karlsson & Borell, 2002),
and they received more support from their LLAT partner than from any other person in
their network, including children and grandchildren (Karlsson, Johansson, Gerdner, &
Borell, 2007).

Most older persons who LAT are previously married parents (Karlsson & Borell, 2002;
Karlsson et al., 2007; see also de Jong Gierveld & Merz, 2013). Unlike younger adults,
LAT is chosen for its good fit with their current life stage and their links to adult children.
Participants in a qualitative U.S. study of 59- to 89-year-olds in LLAT relationships
(Brothers, 2015) viewed marriage as a relationship associated with the life stage of having
children. A 65-year-old widowed mother of two observed the following:
I think that if you are raising children . . . it makes good sense to have a committed
relationship that works together to raise these kids. But outside of that, I don’t really
see where marriage has a reason. (Brothers, 2015, p. 64)
Brothers (2015) concluded that older persons in LLAT relationships were engaged in a
new family form that contrasted with the focus on gendered family formation and child
rearing in their earlier marriages.
A multilevel conception of ambivalence encourages us to link agency to structure and
emphasizes variations in opportunities for exercising particular choices. LAT relationships
among older couples reflect class-based differences that make the capacity to run two
homes more likely among those with more resources. Among younger couples, LAT often
occurs because a couple cannot afford their own home and, therefore, lives with others
(often parents) until they can (Coulter & Hu, 2015). In cases where coresidence in old age
means forfeiting public funding, then those with fewer resources may be more likely to
choose to LLAT.
Gender also shapes the appeal of LAT later in life. The pull of linked lives and
responsibilities to others is gendered, with women more likely to experience consequent
limits on agency in the types of intimate relationships that are compatible with these
commitments (de Jong Gierveld & Merz, 2013; Upton-Davis, 2015). Women who can
afford to maintain a separate home appear to be more motivated than men to be in LLAT
relationships as a way of avoiding the gendered arrangements that they experienced in
earlier marriages (Brothers, 2015; Upton-Davis, 2012). Swedish research (Karlsson &
Borell, 2002) showed that women were significantly more motivated to choose LAT to
secure independence and avoid a traditional gendered division of labor. Whether women
regarded their previous marriage as “happy” or “unhappy,” they often saw their shared
home as representing responsibility rather than freedom and work rather than relaxation.
Among repartnered adults aged 50 and older in the Netherlands (de Jong Gierveld &
Merz, 2013), women, older participants, and parents were more likely to LAT than to
remarry or cohabit. Women were also motivated to LAT as a way of protecting their
financial assets (de Jong Gierveld, 2002). A Canadian qualitative study of LAT couples
involving mostly divorced partners (Funk & Kobayahsi, 2016) also found that women saw
LAT as a way to avoid gendered household tasks and partner nurturing and to protect
autonomous decision making about finances and the home. Men did not make parallel
observations. Australian work by Upton-Davis (2015) involving women 45 years of age
and older showed the appeal of LAT as a transformative option that allowed for a more
egalitarian intimate relationship marked by independence and a positive view of oneself.
The role of women in establishing LAT relationships can be seen as a result of the influ-
ence that earlier experiences have on choices made in later life (Elder, 1994). If their previ-
ous marital households were a constitutive force in the reproduction of traditional gendered

relations, their own household today is a resource base from which they may avoid an
asymmetrical distribution of household labor and unequal demands of caring for a partner
(Borell & Karlsson, 2003; Brothers, 2015). The ambivalence of enjoying a committed
intimate relationship that threatens egalitarianism in household labor is resolved by LAT.
LAT relationships can also be a method of resolving ambivalent views about cohabiting
(Roseneil, 2006) and competing desires to both stay in a preferred neighborhood and
engage in an intimate relationship (Coulter & Hu, 2015).
Social policies that rest on the assumption that couples have their own safety net—each
other—are motivators to LAT, especially among women. In this case, institutionalized
policy tends to reinforce gender and class relations. For example, in Sweden, decreased
access to public social services has made it increasingly difficult for couples who live
together to get assistance. Accordingly, Swedish women who LAT tend to see a home of
their own as a protection against potential societal demands that partners provide the care
that would otherwise be the responsibility of local welfare services. For those who cannot
afford to forfeit public funding, there is also a push toward LAT.
Proposed Research Agenda
Our critical review establishes that LAT in older age is characteristically different from
LAT at earlier life stages, making LAT more in keeping with a new family form than a
transitory coping mechanism in later life. Research on dating in the United States shows
parallel life stage differences. Although younger adults generally view and experience
LAT as a temporary situation, older ones typically seek it out as an end in itself and aim to
negotiate long-term, stable LAT relationships. For this reason, we propose the
acronym LLAT to emphasize the unique features of LAT in later life.
Does the fact that LAT is usually a durable relationship for older couples but a flexible
arrangement for younger ones (Coulter & Hu, 2015) mean that older couples in LLAT
relationships never marry? Not necessarily, but just as marriage is considered marriage
even though it might end in divorce or widowhood later on, so a committed LLAT
relationship is a LLAT relationship even if it might result in marriage later on. In the
meantime, for both LLAT and marriage, the accepted definition of the situation at the time
has consequences for the partners in the relationship and for those in their social networks.
The possibility of change does not deny the power of currently living apart together or
being married if the couples involved consider their relationship a long-term arrangement.
Our focus has been on LLAT relationships in which both partners have chosen to be in a
committed relationship that protects autonomy and limits obligations. Choice or agency
refers to acting on one’s own behalf in the context of available alternatives, that is, agency-
within-structure (Connidis, 2012, 2015; Settersten, 2003). LAT partners who defend their
choice to LAT rather than marry because of their emotional commitment or financial,
parental, or legal situations were described in a Canadian study as displaying interpretive
agency (Kobayashi et al., 2016). Unveiling the fact that some women enter into LAT
relationships because they feel constrained or vulnerable rather than doing so as a
consequence of reflexive and strategic choices (Duncan, 2015) does not negate the fact
that they have chosen to LAT as their best available alternative. Seeing such vulnerability
or constraint as motivators unique to LAT also ignores the reality that many women (and
men) enter marriage for similar reasons. The unique contradictions of choosing to LAT
when another form of relationship is preferred, and their negotiation are topics for further
research.

LLAT can be viewed as a way of resolving the ambivalence that older persons may have
about both cohabiting and marrying, but LLAT has its own contradictions that require
negotiation. The term itself suggests the contradiction inherent in negotiating a committed,
intimate relationship (togetherness) without coresiding (apartness) in cultures where
coresidence has been a defining feature of intimate ties (Stoilova, Roseneil, Crowhurst, &
Santos, 2014). As is true of all families of choice, LAT relationships involve ambivalence
in the tensions between critique and transformation and between belonging and exclusion
(Pidduck, 2009).
Among couples that include one partner who prefers to LAT and another who would
rather live together (see, e.g., Duncan et al., 2014), the ambivalence of negotiating a
committed relationship in separate households is compounded by contradictory goals
between partners. For LAT couples in which both partners want to LAT because they value
a committed intimate relationship combined with autonomy and limited obligation, the
ongoing challenge is to negotiate this paradox.
As is often true of applications of ambivalence to family ties, reference to ambivalence
in LLAT relationships is usually at the micro level of mixed feelings. Some LLAT partners
and couples experience ambivalence about the appropriateness of LAT (Benson &
Coleman, 2016b) and about care exchanges (de Jong Gierveld, 2015). Such ambivalence
is focused on the micro level of psychological feelings but can be related to
institutionalized expectations regarding what constitutes a committed relationship and to
broader structural issues such as gender and class.
Ambivalence about LLAT is likely to vary based on the degree to which a culture and
society view marriage as the proper or ideal intimate relationship. In Great Britain,
marriage remains the overwhelming favorite (Duncan et al., 2014). Negotiating LLAT in
the context of established understandings of what comprises a real and socially accepted
committed relationship creates ambivalence for some individuals who LAT, particularly
in countries where LAT is a relatively new alternative. In a U.S. qualitative study of 25
LAT partners (Benson & Coleman, 2016b), those who are still coming to terms with
merging LAT with normative views of what constitutes a romantic relationship are
characterized as ambivalent. The absence of an accepted term for LAT in the United States
noted by partners trying to find appropriate titles for one another (Benson & Coleman,
2016a; Brothers, 2015) reflects cultural variations in the extent to which LAT is a
recognized and accepted intimate tie and in the likelihood of institutionalizing LAT,
comparative topics that warrant further study. These variations in turn help to account for
different levels of ambivalence associated with LAT.
Explorations of alternative intimate relationships that lapse into traditional ideas of
“good partnerships” as those in which partners feel obliged to care for one another (see,
e.g., de Jong Gierveld, 2015) highlight the socially constructed ambivalence that couples
who LLAT must negotiate. The assumption that being a good partner includes the
obligation to provide extensive care challenges the legitimacy of intimate ties where this
is not a premise. Yet if partners choose LAT in part because they prefer not to assume care
obligations, then they are being the kind of good partners they had agreed to become by
not expecting to either give or accept care. What is the experience of LLAT partners when
the need for care arises?

At the heart of LAT is the contradictory aim of having a long-term, committed, intimate
relationship while preserving autonomy and minimizing obligations to give and receive
care. Circumstances that threaten the balance of intimacy and independence, such as the
declining health of a partner, are likely to heighten ambivalence in LLAT relationships
(see Connidis, 2015). Indeed, LAT partners themselves express ambivalence about the
impact that future care needs may have on their relationship (Kobayashi et al., 2016). What
happens if a partner’s situation changes and more extensive support is needed? How do
couples negotiate this contradiction and how are other family members implicated in this
negotiation?
There are no longitudinal studies that can show the actual extent of care commitments
between LLAT partners over time. Studies in Sweden (Karlsson et al., 2007) and the
Netherlands (de Jong Gierveld, 2015) were more or less hypothetical, as the respondents
had generally not been faced with the challenge of a seriously ill partner. When asked to
envisage a future scenario in which their partner is seriously ill, respondents had higher
expectations of receiving care from their LLAT partner than from their relatives, and none
of them would consider ending their LLAT relationship because their partner became ill
(Karlsson & Borell, 2002; Karlsson et al., 2007). Most, however, envisaged caring for an
ill LAT partner a few days a week or a few hours a day, not full-time.
Belgian data (Lyssens-Danneboom & Mortelmans, 2015) showed that LAT partners
considered their partners as providers of emotional support and care, but there were signs
of ambivalence about the ability to meet future care needs. A British study (Duncan et al.,
2014) that relied on hypothetical views of future care provision found that slightly more
than one quarter of those in chosen LAT relationships believed that their partner would
care for them were they “ill in bed.” Men were more likely than women to believe this and,
unlike the Swedish study, both men and women were more likely to say that a family
member would provide such care. In practice, some LLAT partners had received extensive
support when ill.
Research in the Netherlands suggests that the attitudes held by LLAT couples about care
exchanges are not matched by their behavior in the face of actual illness (de Jong Gierveld,
2015). LAT partners who had not yet faced the situation of a seriously ill partner often
expressed reservations about providing unlimited care, but those who actually had a very
ill partner usually provided the same degree of care as would married spouses. This
suggests that for some LLAT couples, the resolution of ambivalence is found in favoring
the commitment of the relationship over the autonomy of not providing care.
Comparative research should explore variations in how the ambivalence of autonomy
and intimacy are resolved when the need for care arises, a transition that is a revealing site
for studying ambivalence (Connidis, 2015). The link between policy and LLAT and its
impact on negotiating caregiving is an important component of this topic. As Upton-Davis
(2012) observed, LLAT also has policy implications for housing if more old people
continue to live alone even when in an intimate relationship and for health care
arrangements given that one cannot assume that having a partner means receiving care. To
date, LLAT among heterosexuals tends to be more common among those with more
resources (Upton-Davis, 2015). Given that LLAT appears to be a positive experience for
substantial numbers of older persons, particularly women, structural barriers to this option
must be explored.

There is a great need for a broader network perspective on the implications of LLAT
relationships for the larger constellation of family ties — the issue of linked lives. The
desire to protect the inheritance of one’s children by not living with an intimate partner
often motivates LLAT. Adult children can be influential in decisions to LAT rather than
live with a partner (de Jong Gierveld & Merz, 2013). One’s own or a partner’s children
can sabotage plans to live together and may decrease contact with parents when children
hold negative views of their parents engaging in LLAT relationships. Comparisons with
continuously married partners found that repartnered couples, especially those who cohabit
or LLAT have weaker ties with their children (de Jong Gierveld & Peeters, 2003). The risk
of greater conflict that repartnering in a cohabiting relationship poses (Schenk & Dykstra,
2012) leads some parents to LAT as a way to resolve the ambivalent goals of engaging in
an intimate tie and maintaining closeness with children.
The ambivalence of LLAT relationships reverberates across family ties, raising
questions about the boundaries and expectations of others regarding the LLAT partner of
a family member. Key assumptions made by LLAT partners in qualitative studies (e.g.,
Brothers, 2015; de Jong Gierveld, 2015) are that they have made the necessary
arrangements for health care, that their children will take care of them if needed, and that
their partner’s children will care for their partner. From the standpoint of adult children,
the fact that a parent is LLAT cannot be assumed to mean future care for their parent if
needed. What are the implications of this assumption for negotiating a relationship with a
parent’s LLAT partner? Is there an effort to develop an emotional bond in the absence of
assuming an instrumental one? Does the expansion of networks that LAT potentially
allows increase the number of potential care providers (Cherlin, 2010), or is there
ambivalence among adult children about offering care to their parent’s LLAT partner? Is
a LLAT partner “part of the family” or “my parent’s partner”? Variations in the response
are likely to parallel those among step ties — much will depend on the duration of the
relationship, the extent of shared activity, and the degree of emotional attachment that
develops over time (Connidis, 2010). A qualitative British study (Stoilova, Roseneil,
Carter, Duncan, & Phillips, 2017) suggested that strong emotional attachment and the view
of a LLAT relationship as ongoing enhanced viewing a LLAT partner as part of the family,
which often extended to the LLAT partner’s family members. In cases where LLAT
partners do eventually provide care despite a starting assumption that this would not occur,
are the family members, especially children, expected or likely to support their parents’
caregiving efforts? Given that some ex-wives care for their ex-husbands, primarily as an
expression of their commitment to helping their children (Cooney, Proulx, Snyder-Rivas,
& Benson, 2014), perhaps children of parents who LLAT become implicated in caregiving
chains that contradict expectations of filial obligation. How is such ambivalence resolved?
The paradoxical concern about public and legal status in relationships that are sought
after for their autonomy and limited obligation is a source of structured ambivalence as
LAT couples negotiate committed relationships that lack legal standing (Duncan, Carter,
Phillips, Roseneil, & Stoilova, 2012; Lyssens-Danneboom, Eggermont, & Mortelmans,
2013; Lyssens-Danneboom & Mortelmans, 2015). Lyssens-Danneboom and Mortelmans
(2015) found legal insecurity among LLAT partners who were concerned about not having
a public identity as a couple and about whether they would have access to their partner
should there be a medical problem or accident. At the same time, LLAT partners generally
accepted that, upon their partner’s death, it would be their partner’s family members and
not themselves who would be responsible for making subsequent arrangements. The
potential cost of legal exclusion is exemplified by a man who was sole care provider to his

LLAT partner up to her death but was then denied partner status by her children (de Jong
Gierveld & Merz, 2013).
Legal status issues parallel long-held paradoxes in committed same-sex relationships in
past and present jurisdictions where marriage is not a legal option for sanctioning the
relationship. The ambivalence of their social standing as couples may reverberate across
the family network when other family members make efforts to claim the legitimacy of a
family member’s gay or lesbian relationship (Connidis, 2003). Recent research identified
mid-life gay and lesbian couples’ perceptions of the ambivalent views and actions of other
family members regarding their sexual identity and same-sex relationship (Reczek, 2016).
Exploring both the actual ambivalence experienced by family members of LLAT partners
and LLAT partners’ perceptions of ambivalence on behalf of family members would help
us to better understand the relational character of ambivalence. As well, ambivalence
would be situated in family networks and broader social arrangements rather than in the
feeling states of individuals.
As is true of today’s LLAT relationships, significant numbers of cohabiting same- and
opposite-sex couples once preferred their unofficial relationships precisely because they
wanted to avoid both the ideological and practical trappings of marriage. The
institutionalization of cohabitating and same-sex relationships in many countries may
foreshadow similar changes regarding the legal status of LAT, another potential source of
ambivalence. An asset of applying ambivalence to LLAT relationships is to highlight the
complexity of choices to LAT and to link the choices that individuals make to the larger
social and cultural structures that influence, constrain, or facilitate their choices (Connidis,
2015). If living with a partner did not have legal implications for the subsequent property
and resource rights of that partner, a couple might choose to cohabit. Alternatively, if
LLAT were more socially accepted, more individuals might choose this option. Ideally, if
LLAT becomes more institutionalized, it will not lose its potential as a force for social
change, including more egalitarian gender relations (Upton-Davis, 2015).
We are not arguing that ambivalence applies only to LLAT but, rather, that LLAT has
some unique ambivalent features. Comparing LAT with marriage, Lyssens-Danneboom
and Mortelmans (2015, pp. 19–20) concluded that, unlike marital spouses who are bound
to behave “as expected” because they have agreed on “a set of cultural and behavioural
guidelines,” LAT partners are at risk that they “will enter the relationship with different
intentions and expectations.” Current divorce rates seem evidence enough that many
individuals also begin marriage with intentions and expectations that are a poor fit with
those of their spouse. Clearly, LLAT partners have a greater burden of proof to be
recognized as a couple based on the content of their relationship, but marital partners too
must negotiate contradictory expectations of their relationship.
Regarding methods, future explorations of gender and LLAT will benefit from studies
that include men and women. Dyadic studies (see Benson & Coleman, 2016b) that focus
on the interaction between LLAT partners would help to address how gender plays out in
LAT relationships and whether differing perspectives on LAT are a unique source of
ambivalence or a challenge to resolving it. Family constellation studies that include a
LLAT couple’s extended family, particularly children, would broaden our understanding
of family relationship dynamics and the implications of LLAT beyond the couple. To truly
explore a life course perspective and the negotiation of ambivalence in LAT relationships
over time and in response to life transitions, longitudinal studies are needed. Studies on

LLAT should relate the experience of partners, couples, and families to larger social and
cultural contexts that enhance a comparative understanding of this intimate tie. Both
qualitative and quantitative research shed valuable light on this topic.
Conclusion
Isolating LAT relationships in later life for focused study will enhance our understanding
of this intimate tie as a new family form, its challenges, and its implications for family ties,
communities, and social change. Living in LAT relationships means different things at
different stages of the life course. We conclude that among older but not younger adults,
LAT is generally a stable alternative to living with a partner, not a stepping stone to
establishing a common home.
Applying ambivalence and life course concepts encourages a multilevel approach to
research that links the negotiation of LLAT relationships to the family networks, social
institutions, structured social relations, and cultural environments in which they are chosen
and worked out. As a new form of intimate tie, LLAT challenges institutionalized intimate
relationships and is more open to an uncluttered exploration of how intimate relationships
are negotiated. We believe that pursuing our proposed research agenda will extend our
understanding of all intimate ties, including marriage, as we study the realities of
relationships rather than assumptions made about them as ideal types.
References
Alterovitz, S-R., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (2013). Relationship goals of middle-aged, young-
old, and old-old internet daters: An analysis of online personal ads. Journal of Aging
Studies, 27, 159–165.
Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Living Apart Together: Age- and cohort-dependence of a
heterogeneous life style (Living Apart Together: Alters—und Kohor tenabhängigkeit einer
heterogenen Lebensform). Kölner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie and Sozialpsychologie,
60, 749–764.
Averett, P., Yoon, I., & Jenkins, C. L. (2011). Older lesbians: Experiences of aging,
discrimination and resilience. Journal of Women and Aging, 23, 16–32.
Benson, J. J. (2013). From living apart, to living-apart-together: Older adults developing a
preference for LAT (Doctoral dissertation).
Benson, J. J., & Coleman, M. (2016a). Older adult descriptions of living apart
together. Family Relations, 65, 439–449.
Benson, J. J., & Coleman, M. (2016b). Older adults developing a preference for living apart
together. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78, 797–812.
Bildtgård, T., & Öberg, P. (2015). Changing forms of intimacy among older people in late
modern society (Förändrade imtimitetsformer bland äldre i det senmoderna
samhället). Sociologisk Forskning, 51, 5–32.
Billari, F. C., Rosina, A., Ranaldi, R., & Romano, C. (2008). Young adults living apart and
together (LAT) with parents: A three-level analysis of the Italian case. Regional Studies,
42, 625–639.
Borell, K., & Karlsson, S. G. (2003). Reconceptualising intimacy and ageing. Living apart
together. In: S. Arber, K. Davidson, & J. Ginns (Eds.), Gender and ageing: Changing roles
and relationships (pp. 47–62). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Brothers, D. (2015). “Doing” LAT: Redoing gender and family in living apart together
relationships in later life (Doctoral dissertation).
Brown, S. L., & Lin, I. F. (2012). The gray divorce revolution: Rising divorce among middle-
aged and older-adults, 1990–2010. Journals of Gerontology, Psychological Sciences and
Social Sciences, 67, 731–741.
Brown, S. L., & Shinohara, S. K. (2013). Dating relationships in older adulthood: A national
portrait. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 1194–1202.
Bulcroft, K., & O’Connor, M. (1986). The importance of dating relationships on quality of
life for older persons. Family Relations, 35, 397–401.
Bulcroft, R. A., & Bulcroft, K. A. (1991). The nature and functions of dating in later
life. Research on Aging, 13, 244–260.
Calasanti, T., & Kiecolt, K. J. (2007). Diversity among late-life couples. Generations, 3, 10–
17.
Carr, D. (2004). The desire to date and remarry among older widows and widowers. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 66, 1051–1068.
Carstensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence from a life-span theory of socioemotional
selectivity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 151–156.
Carter, J., Duncan, S., Stoilova, M., & Phillips, M. (2015). Sex, love and security: Accounts
of distance and commitment in living apart together relationships. Sociology, 50, 576–593.
Cherlin, A. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the
2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 403–419.
Cherlin, A. J., & Furstenberg, F. (1986). The new American grandparent. New York: Basic
Books.
Connidis, I. A. (2010). Family ties & aging. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Pine Forge.
Connidis, I. A. (2012). Theoretical directions for studying family ties and aging. In R.
Blieszner & V. H. Bedford (Eds.), Handbook of families and aging (2nd ed.; pp. 35–60).
Denver, CO: Praeger.
Connidis, I. A. (2014). Age relations and family ties over the life course: Spanning the
macro–micro divide. Research in Human Development, 11, 291–308.
Connidis, I. A. (2015). Exploring ambivalence in family ties: Progress and prospects. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 77, 77–95.
Connidis, I. A., & McMullin, J. A. (2002a). Ambivalence, family ties, and doing sociology
Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 594–601.
Connidis, I. A., & McMullin, J. A. (2002b). Sociological ambivalence and family ties: A
critical perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 558–567.
Cooney, T. M., & Dunne, K. (2001). Intimate relationships in later life. Current realities,
future prospects. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 838–858.
Cooney, T. M., Proulx, C. M., Snyder-Rivas, L. A., & Benson, J. J. (2014). Role ambiguity
among women providing care for ex-husbands. Journal of Women and Aging, 26, 84–104.
Coulter, R., & Hu, Y. (2015). Living apart together and cohabitation intentions in Great
Britain. Journal of Family Issues. Advance online publication.
Coupland, J. (2000). Past the “perfect kind of age”? Styling selves and relationships in over-
50s dating advertisements. Journal of Communication, 50, 9–30.
Creasey, G. L. (1993). The association between divorce and late adolescent grandchildren’s
relations with grandparents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, 513–529.
Cruz, J. (2012). Remarriage rate in the U.S., 2010 (Family Profile no. FP-12-14). Bowling
Green, OH: National Center for Family & Marriage Research.
de Jong Gierveld, J. (2002). The dilemma of repartnering: Considerations of older men and
women entering new intimate relationships in later life. Ageing International, 27, 61–78.

de Jong Gierveld, J. (2004). Remarriage, unmarried cohabitation, living apart together:
Partner relationship following bereavement or divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family,
66, 236–243.
de Jong Gierveld, J. (2015). Intra-couple caregiving of older adults living apart together:
Commitment and independence. Canadian Journal on Aging, 347, 356–365.
de Jong Gierveld, J., & Merz, E. (2013). Parents’ partnership decision making after divorce
or widowhood: The role of stepchildren. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 1098–1113.
de Jong Gierveld, J., & Peeters, A. (2003). The interweaving of repartnered older adults’
lives with their children and siblings. Ageing & Society, 23, 187–205.
DeLamater, J. (2012). Sexual expression in later life: A review and synthesis. Journal of Sex
Research, 49, 125–141.
Dickson, F. C., Hughes, P. C., & Walker, K. L. (2005). An exploratory investigation into
dating among later-life women. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 67–82.
Dommermuth, L., Noack, T., & Wiik, K. A. (2009). Samlivsetablering–nye og vedvarende
mønstre: Gift, samboer eller bare kjærester?” [Union formation–new and constant pattern:
married, cohabiting or just boyfriend/girlfriend?]. Samfunnsspeilet, 23, 13–19.
Duncan, S. (2015). Women’s agency in living apart together: Constraint, strategy and
vulnerability. The Sociological Review, 63, 589–607.
Duncan, S., Carter, J., Phillips, M., Roseneil, S., & Stoilova, M. (2012). Legal rights for
people who “live apart together”? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 34, 443–
558.
Duncan, S., Carter, J., Phillips, M., Roseneil, S., & Stoilova, M. (2014). Practices and
perceptions of living apart together. Family Science, 5, 1–10.
Duncan, S., & Phillips, M. (2011). People who live apart together (LATs): New family form
or just a stage? International Review of Sociology, 21, 513–532.
Elder, G. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life
course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 4–15.
Ermisch, J., & Siedler, T. (2008). Living apart together. In M. Brynin & J. Ermisch
(Eds.), Changing relationships (pp. 29–43). Hoboken, NJ: Routledge.
Frankowski, A. C., & Clark, L. J. (2009). Sexuality and intimacy in assisted living:
Residents’ perspectives and experiences. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 6, 25–37.
Funk, L. M., & Kobayashi, K. M. (2016). From motivations to accounts: An interpretive
analysis of “living apart together” relationships in mid- to later-life couples. Journal of
Family Issues, 37, 1101–1122.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and identity in late modern
age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Haskey, J. (2005). Living arrangements in contemporary Britain: Having a partner who
usually lives elsewhere and living apart together (LAT). Population Trends, 122, 35–45.
Heinz, W. (2001). Work and the life course: A cosmopolitan-local perspective. In V. W.
Marshall,W. R. Heinz, H. Kruger, & A. Verma (Eds.), Restructuring work and the life
course (pp. 3–22). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Karlsson, S. G., & Borell, K. (2002). Intimacy and autonomy, gender and ageing. Ageing
International, 27, 11–26.
Karlsson, S. G., & Borell, K. (2005). A home of their own: Women’s boundary work in LAT-
relationships. Journal of Aging Studies, 19, 73–84.
Karlsson, S. G., Johansson, S., Gerdner, A., & Borell, K. (2007). Caring while living
part. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 49, 3–27.
Kobayashi, K. M., Funk, L., & Khan, M. M. (2016). Constructing a sense of commitment in
‘living apart together’ (LAT) relationships: Interpretive agency and
individualization. Current Sociology. Advance online publication.

Koren, C., & Eisikovits, Z. (2011). Life beyond the planned script: Accounts and secrecy of
older persons in second couplehood in old age in a society in transition. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 28, 44–63.
Koren, C., & Simhi, S. (2016). “As long as it’s good”: An intergenerational family
perspective of bridging gaps between reality and ideality of second couplehood as a
problem and as a solution. Ageing & Society, 36, 716–740.
Levesque, L. M., & Caron, S. L. (2004). Dating preferences of women born between 1945
and 1960. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 833–846.
Levin, I. (2004). Living Apart Together: A new family form. Current Sociology, 52, 223–
240.
Levin, I., & Trost, J. (1999). Living Apart Together. Community, Work and Family, 2, 279–
293.
Liefbroer, A. C., Poortman, A., & Seltzer, J. A. (2015). Why do intimate partners live apart?
Evidence on LAT relationships across Europe. Demographic Research, 32, 251–286.
Lin, I-F. & Brown, S. L. (2012). Unmarried Boomers confront old age: A national
portrait. The Gerontologist, 52, 153–165.
Lyssens-Danneboom, V., Eggermont, S., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). Living apart together
(LAT) and law: Exploring legal expectations among LAT individuals in Belgium. Social
& Legal Studies, 22, 357–376.
Lyssens-Danneboom, V., & Mortelmans, D. (2015). Living apart together: Longing for the
couple, enjoying being single. Family Science, 6, 11–22.
Mahay, J., & Lewin, A. C. (2007). Age and desire to marry. Journal of Family Issues, 28,
706–723.
Malta, S., & Farquharson, K. (2014). The initiation and progression of late-lite romantic
relationships. Journal of Sociology, 50, 237–251.
McElhany, L. J. (1992). Dating and courtship in later years: A neglected topic of
research. Generations, 16, 21–23.
McWilliams, S., & Barrett, A. E. (2014). Online dating in middle and later life: Gendered
expectations and experiences. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 411–436.
Milan, A., & Peters, A. (2003). Couples living apart. Canadian Social Trends, Summer, 2–
6.
Moorman, S. M., Booth, A., & Fingerman, K. (2006). Women’s romantic relationships after
widowhood. Journal of Family Studies, 27, 1281–1304.
Pidduck, H. (2009). Queer kinship and ambivalence: Video autoethnographies by Jean
Carlomusto and Richard Fung. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 15, 441–468.
Reczek, C. (2016). Ambivalence in gay and lesbian family relationships. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 78, 644–659.
Régnier-Loilier, A. (2015). Neither single nor in a couple in France: What became of them
three and six years later? In D. Mortelmans, I. Pasteels, A. Régnier-Loilier, D. Vignoli, &
S. Mazzuco (Eds.), Analysis of determinants and prevalence of LAT (pp. 29–53). Rostock,
Germany: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.
Régnier-Loilier, A., Beaujouan, É., & Villeneuve- Gohalp, C. (2009). Neither single, nor in
a couple: A study of living apart together in France. Demographic Research, 21, 75–108.
Reimondos, A., Evans, E., & Gray, E. (2011). Living-apart-together (LAT) relationships in
Australia. Family Matters, 87, 43–55.
Roseneil, S. (2006). On not living with a partner: Unpicking coupledom and
cohabitation. Sociological Research Online, 11, 1–24.
Schenk, N., & Dykstra, P. A. (2012). Continuity and change in intergenerational family
relationships: An examination of shifts in relationship type over a three-year
period. Advances in Life Course Research, 17, 121–132.

Schutz, A. (1972). The phenomenology of the social world. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Setttersten, R. A., Jr. (2003). Propositions and controversies in life-course scholarship. In R.
A. Settersten Jr. (Ed.), Invitation to the life course: Toward new understandings of later
life (pp. 15–45). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
Stephure, R. J., Boon, S. D., MacKinnon, S. L., & Deveau, V. L. (2009). Internet initiated
relationships: Associations between age and involvement in online dating. Journal of
Commuter-Mediated Communication, 14, 658–681.
Stevens, N. (2004). Re-engaging: New partnerships in late-life widowhood. In K. Davidson
& G. Fennell (Eds.), Intimacy in later life (pp. 47–64). London, UK: Transaction
Publishers.
Stoilova, M., Roseneil, S., Carter, J., Duncan, S., & Phillips, M. (2017). Constructions,
reconstructions and deconstructions of “family” amongst people who live apart together
(LATs). The British Journal of Sociology, 68, 78–96.
Stoilova, M., Roseneil, S., Crowhurst, I., & Santos, A. C. (2014). Living apart relationships
in contemporary Europe: Accounts of togetherness and apartness. Sociology, 48, 1075–
1091.
Strohm, C. Q., Seltzer, J. A., Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (2009). Living apart together
relationships in the United States. Demographic Research, 13, 177–214.
Talbott, M. M. (1998). Older women’s attitudes towards men and remarriage. Journal of
Aging Studies, 12, 429–449.
Turcotte, M. (2013). Living apart together. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Upton-Davis, K. (2012). Living apart together relationships (LAT): Severing intimacy from
obligation. Gender Issues, 29, 25–38.
Upton-Davis, K. (2015). Subverting gendered norms of cohabitation: Living apart together
for women over 45. Journal of Gender Studies, 24, 104–116.
Watson, W. K., & Stelle, C. (2011). Dating for older women: Experiences and meaning of
dating in later life. Journal of Women & Aging, 23, 263–275.
Yodanis, C., & Lauer, S. (2014). Is marriage individualized? What couples actually
do. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6, 184–197.