Why were there three? Determinants of the presence of an intimate partner during face-to-face interviews
Abstract: This study analyses determinants of the presence of an intimate partner during face-to-face interviews. Based on theoretical assumptions about opportunity structure, social control, social support, and companionship, we investigated partner presence using data from the first wave of the German Family Panel (pairfam). Descriptive results revealed that an intimate partner was present in every seventh interview. Multivariate results using separate logistic regression models for the presence of the female (n = 3,272) and the male partner (n = 2,348) revealed that the opportunity structure, such as the couple’s living arrangements or their employment status, had the greatest influence on the presence of both female and male partners. Gender differences existed for social control, social support and companionship. The results suggest that partner presence could most easily be prevented by taking into account the opportunity structure
- Location
-
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Frankfurt am Main
- Extent
-
Online-Ressource
- Language
-
Englisch
- Notes
-
Veröffentlichungsversion
begutachtet (peer reviewed)
In: Survey Methods: Insights from the Field (2017) ; 17
- Event
-
Veröffentlichung
- (where)
-
Mannheim
- (when)
-
2017
- DOI
-
10.13094/SMIF-2017-00007
- URN
-
urn:nbn:de:101:1-2019051617280748764388
- Rights
-
Open Access; Open Access; Der Zugriff auf das Objekt ist unbeschränkt möglich.
- Last update
-
25.03.2025, 1:51 PM CET
Data provider
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. If you have any questions about the object, please contact the data provider.
Time of origin
- 2017
Other Objects (12)
Why were there three? Determinants of the presence of an intimate partner during face-to-face interviews
Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 2.0)
Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 2.0)
Face-to-face : Perceived personal relevance amplifies face processing
Documentation of Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 1.0)
Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior
Gender Differences in Face-to-Face Deceptive Behavior
Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior
Befragungsmethoden reviewed: face-to-face, telefonisch oder postalisch?
Befragungsmethoden reviewed: face-to-face, telefonisch oder postalisch?
Group mixing drives inequality in face-to-face gatherings
Group mixing drives inequality in face-to-face gatherings
Why were there three? Determinants of the presence of an intimate partner during face-to-face interviews
Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 2.0)
Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 2.0)
Face-to-face : Perceived personal relevance amplifies face processing
Documentation of Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 1.0)
Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior
Gender Differences in Face-to-Face Deceptive Behavior
Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior
Befragungsmethoden reviewed: face-to-face, telefonisch oder postalisch?
Befragungsmethoden reviewed: face-to-face, telefonisch oder postalisch?
Group mixing drives inequality in face-to-face gatherings
Group mixing drives inequality in face-to-face gatherings
Why were there three? Determinants of the presence of an intimate partner during face-to-face interviews
Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 2.0)
Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 2.0)
Face-to-face : Perceived personal relevance amplifies face processing
Documentation of Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 1.0)
Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior
Gender Differences in Face-to-Face Deceptive Behavior
Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior
Befragungsmethoden reviewed: face-to-face, telefonisch oder postalisch?
Befragungsmethoden reviewed: face-to-face, telefonisch oder postalisch?
Group mixing drives inequality in face-to-face gatherings