Divorce
Media
Part of Divorce
- Title
- Divorce
- extracted text
-
Divorce
JUHO HÄRKÖNEN
Abstract
There is by now a large literature on divorce which seeks to understand the underlying reasons behind trends in divorce rates and establish the predictors of divorce
as well as its consequences for adults and children. Early research examined divorce
over time and across societies, and developed conceptual models to understand
which factors affect partners’ decisions to divorce. Recent cutting edge research has
expanded on this literature and examined the multiple causes and consequences
of divorce, heterogeneity in causes and effects, and the role of new demographic
trends such as the increase in cohabitation. Future advances can build on (i) the use
of new data, cutting edge methods, and cross-fertilization across disciplines, (ii)
continued focus on emerging demographic realities, (iii) heterogeneity of divorces
and their consequences, (iv) the mechanisms and processes that predict divorce and
can help in understanding its effects, and (v) focus on cross-national differences and
societal contexts.
INTRODUCTION
Divorce is commonly regarded among the major events to occur during one’s
life course and increases in divorce are among the main features of the recent
decades of family change. Not surprisingly, divorce has attracted the attention of both the general public and of social scientists, and by now there exists
a large literature on divorce trends and their causes, and on the predictors of
divorce and its effects on adults and children.
I will discuss core parts of this literature and provide my views on interesting pathways for the future. Most of the literature concerns divorce, that is,
the legally recognized dissolution of a marriage. Other forms of marital and
partnership dissolution, such as separation, desertion, and annulment, have
been given less attention, despite recent interests in the dissolution of cohabiting unions. Here, I will follow the existing literature and focus mainly on
divorces, although touching upon other forms of union dissolution. Many
of the predictors and outcomes of union dissolution are generally similar
regardless of union type.
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Next, I provide a brief overview to early and foundational research on
divorce and recent research that has been particularly interesting and
important (more comprehensive discussions include Amato, 2000, 2010;
Härkönen, 2014). Then, I discuss topics that to my mind will be interesting
and important for future research (see also Amato, 2010, pp. 661–662).
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Divorce, its trends, antecedents and consequences attracted the attention of
social scientists from early on (e.g., Goode, 1956; Locke, 1951; Westermarck,
1891). Much of this early research was historical or comparative and included
other than Western societies (e.g., Ackerman, 1963; Goode, 1963). Public and
research interest in divorce rose together with divorce rates, and the latter
were commonly explained with reference to the broader social changes
occurring in conjunction with industrialization and modernization (Goode,
1963). Often these studies relied on aggregated data, but increasingly also
on censuses and surveys (cf. Kitson & Raschke, 1981). Nevertheless, many
of the patterns—such as the higher divorce risks among young couples and
those with divorced parents—which have been consistently replicated were
already established in early research (Kitson & Raschke, 1981; Lyngstad &
Jalovaara, 2010; Price-Bonham & Balswick, 1980). Other studies used qualitative techniques to analyze the experiences and processes surrounding
divorce (Weiss, 1975).
From early on, there was an interest in the consequences of divorce on
adults and children. Common concerns were then, as now, related to whether
divorce as such could be seen as producing lower levels of well-being, how
long these effects were likely to last, and which factors contribute to successful adaptation (e.g., Kitson & Raschke, 1981; Price-Bonham & Balswick,
1980). Answers to these questions varied. For example, conclusions concerning divorce and family structure effects on children varied from “harmful”
to “weak and temporary” (e.g., Herzog & Sudia, 1973) and again to “potentially important” (Cherlin, 1999; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994), partly owing
to the access to and use of better data.
The work on divorce built on multiple theoretical approaches, from
macro-sociological perspectives on the role of divorce in the family system,
to microlevel views for understanding the family processes and mechanisms
leading to divorce (cf. Kitson & Raschke, 1981). Among the latter, exchange
theory (e.g., Levinger, 1965, 1976) provided an influential framework with
its analysis of the decision to divorce as an evaluation of the costs and
benefits of the existing marriage and the alternatives outside it. A similar,
yet more formalized account, was put forward by Gary Becker and other
economists (e.g., Becker, 1981; Becker, Landes, & Michael, 1977) who became
Divorce
3
particularly known for their analysis of the role of the gendered division
of labor within households and its effects on family life (for a well-known
critique, see Oppenheimer, 1997). This provided an economic framework for
analyzing the links between the simultaneous increases in female human
capital and economic activity and family instability, and many accounts
saw the former as providing an explanation for the latter (cf. Cherlin, 1992;
Ruggles, 1997).
CUTTING EDGE RESEARCH
Recent cutting edge research on divorce has partly stemmed from new
research questions and partly from use of new data, techniques and viewpoints to answer old questions. One line of recent research built from the
acknowledgment of new demographic behaviors and the complexity of
personal relationships, living arrangements, and families. The increase in
unmarried cohabitation prompted interest into their stability (e.g., Andersson, 2002; Wu & Musick, 2008) and their role in accounting for recent
trends in divorce (Raley & Bumpass, 2003). There has also been a continuous
interest in whether premarital cohabitation affects later marital stability.
Premarital cohabitation is associated with a higher divorce risk, even though
a general conclusion is that this results from selection of those with a higher
divorce risk into cohabitation (Lyngstad & Jalovaara, 2010). However, other
scholars have argued that the experience of premarital cohabitation may
in itself lead to higher divorce risks (e.g., Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman,
2006). Another line of research has examined the stability of second and
later marriages and similarly asked whether their higher instability is as a
result of selection or causation (e.g., Poortman & Lyngstad, 2007). Finally,
the wave of legal recognition and social acceptance of same-sex couples
has increased research interest into their stability. Same-sex couples tend
to be less stable, but otherwise the demographic correlates predicting
their dissolution are similar to different-sex couples (Andersson, Noack,
Seierstad, & Weedon-Fekjaer, 2006; Lau, 2012).
Overall, many of the predictors of divorce are surprisingly stable across
countries and historical periods (Amato & James, 2010; Lyngstad & Jalovaara,
2010; Teachman, 2002). A notable exception is female education. Women with
college degrees have led the way to increasing marital stability in the United
States (Martin, 2006). Internationally, the educational gradients of divorce
have varied and in many countries, they have shifted from positive to negative ones (Härkönen & Dronkers, 2006). The reasons are not fully understood,
although many studies have begun from the hypothesis posed by William
Goode (1962) which links changing barriers to divorce with class differences
in marital dissolution.
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
There has also been continued interest in the role of female employment and
economic resources in marital instability. It was long thought that they destabilize marriages, and this thought was formalized in the economic approach
to the family, discussed above. Later research has brought more nuanced
findings and shown how any effects are contingent on marital satisfaction, for
instance, and how the causality might actually run from divorce risk to labor
supply (cf. Amato, 2010; Özcan & Breen, 2012). A related question is how
gender egalitarian practices and attitudes are related to divorce in modern
societies, in which the former are increasingly accepted and expected (Cooke,
2006).
More psychologically oriented studies analyze the interpersonal and relationship characteristics that predict divorce. Here, the focus has predominantly been on conflict and problematic behaviors, in line with common
notions of the processes leading to divorce (Fincham, Stanley, & Beach, 2007).
Recent research has however begun to focus also on positive interactions
(cf. Fincham et al., 2007) and, importantly, identified that many divorces do
not end particularly distressed marriages (e.g., Amato & Hohmann-Marriott,
2007).
Research on the effects of divorce has benefited from the development and
adoption of new econometric techniques to identify and estimate causal
effects from nonexperimental data, which those used in divorce research
without exception are. These studies include genetically informed designs
(e.g., Amato & Cheadle, 2008), sibling difference methods (e.g., Björklund
& Sundström, 2006; Ermisch, Francesconi, & Pevalin, 2004; Sigle-Rushton,
Lyngstad, Andersen, & Kravdal, 2014), differences-in-differences analysis (e.g., Sanz-de-Galdeano & Vuri, 2007) and fixed-effects analysis (e.g.,
Amato & Anthony, 2014), simultaneous equations estimation (e.g., Steele,
Sigle-Rushton, & Kravdal, 2009), and other advanced techniques. Particularly commendable are approaches that seek to study divorce both as an
event and as a process (e.g., Kim, 2011). These studies have led to somewhat
conflicting conclusions. Many continue to find that divorce has causal effects,
even if they are weaker than the correlations between divorce and outcomes,
but other studies have reported that these effects are completely due to
confounding. An important question concerns whether these differences
stem from differences in methods. Studies on divorce effects have been
increasingly complemented by those looking into the effects of multiple
family transitions (instead of just divorce) to analyze whether they have
additive or different effects, thus recognizing the growing complexity of
family life courses for many adults and children (Amato, 2010; Sweeney,
2010).
Another line of research into the effects of divorce looks into heterogeneity, as all adults and children do not experience divorce in the same way.
Divorce
5
For some it provides a way out of a distressful family environment, whereas
for others it can have long-term negative outcomes (e.g., Cherlin, 1999). Not
surprisingly, the effects depend partly on the predivorce family environment
and on postdivorce conditions and resources (cf. Amato, 2000, 2010; Amato &
James, 2010).
Finally, the growing availability and use of cross-nationally comparative
data have led to an increase in research on divorce across societies. These
studies have shown similarities and differences in the predictors and effects
of divorce and the contextual circumstances which do and do not shape them.
ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
What is left to explore after decades of divorce research? Many of the topics for future research will continue from recent analyses outlined above. For
example, the complexity of living and family arrangements invites continuous focus on the stability of higher-order marriages, cohabitating couples,
step-families, and same-sex couples and on the effects of multiple family
transitions on the well-being of adults and children.
Overall, future research will continue to look into emerging demographic
and social realities. After decades of increase, divorce rates have stabilized
or maybe even decreased in a number of countries. Social science had
difficulties in explaining the increases in divorce (cf. Cherlin, 1992) and was
probably even less equipped to foresee and understand the recent plateauing
and reversals in these trends (for the United States, see Goldstein, 1999;
Heaton, 2002; however, Kennedy & Ruggles, 2014). Yet in other countries,
divorce rates began to increase more rapidly only rather recently. These
diverging trends call for sustained attention to cross-national differences
in divorce rates and trends and their underlying causes. Such research
can revitalize efforts for understanding why divorce rates increased so
dramatically (and later stabilized/decreased in some countries) and at
different time-points in different countries. These developments need to
be seen in the light of increases in nonmarital cohabitation. In this regard,
an important question concerns the extent to which cohabiting couples
can be seen as “marriage-like” unions, given the prevailing cross-national
differences in the role of cohabitation in family formation (e.g., Heuveline &
Timberlake, 2004).
Furthermore, there can be important group differences not only in divorce
and its trends (the example of education was mentioned above). Particularly,
increases in immigration to many countries calls for research that not only
describes divorce rates across groups and looks into the family experiences
and “assimilation” of minorities (e.g., Dribe & Lundh, 2012; Kalmijn, 2010;
Qureshi, Charsley, & Shaw, 2012), but also analyzes whether and how they
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
affect attitudes and behavior among the majority population. In terms of
children’s postdivorce living conditions, future research will do well in recognizing and analyzing men’s increased involvement in their children’s lives
and the increases in legal and practical shared or joint custody arrangements.
Even though these questions have been raised already decades ago (cf. Kitson & Morgan, 1990), the commonality of these arrangements has recently
increased with potentially important implications for children’s and parents’
postdivorce conditions and adjustment (e.g., Bjarnarson & Arnarsson, 2011).
The increasing adoption of cutting edge econometric techniques among
divorce researchers means that questions of causality—both in terms of the
effects of divorce predictors and of divorce itself—remain central. This development is welcome as these methods help in answering old and new questions about cause, effect, and their direction. These techniques also highlight
and remind of various methodological issues. One has to do with the “control” group. For example, in studies on the effects of divorce a core question
is whether one simply compares the divorced to those without the experience, or attempts more refined comparisons (e.g., the divorced vs those in
happy or unhappy marriages, or divorce at an earlier or later stage in the
life course). The counterfactual notion underlying the modern techniques
reminds of these questions and emphasizes their importance for the interpretation of results.
A related question concerns how the event of interest—divorce—is
specified and measured. Divorce has for a long time been seen both as an
event and as a process which begins often long before the actual divorce is
observed by the researcher, and can end well after (for a good discussion,
see Amato, 2000). This, again, has methodological implications. One has
to do with when the predictors and outcomes of divorce are measured.
There has been a long interest in how long-lasting the effects are (cf. Cherlin,
1999). It has been less clear when (time-varying) predictors of divorce—such
as employment—should be measured, and many studies resort to measurement at the time of divorce or immediately before the event. This can
be problematic, especially if partners pre-emptively adapt to the looming
divorce threat (e.g., Özcan & Breen, 2012). The question of divorce as an event
or a process is central also for many widely adopted techniques to tease out
causal effects of divorce, such as those relying on before-after measurements
and sibling difference methods (cf. Amato, 2010; Sigle-Rushton et al., 2014).
As mentioned above, some studies have attempted to incorporate analysis
of both the process and event (Kim, 2011). These developments are welcome,
but do not solve the inherent problem that we typically only observe divorce
as an event but not when the dissolution process began, which is already
conceptually hard to identify. In any case, further work on these issues will
Divorce
7
be highly relevant, and can benefit from analyzing the marital life course
more fully than is commonly done (see below).
“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its
own way.” Whether or not one wants to take the famous opening to Leo
Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina literally, it helps in reminding of the heterogeneity
of relationships that dissolve. This has implications both for understanding
the antecedents of divorce and its outcomes. Beginning from the former,
above I mentioned research which shows that a high share of divorces
involves partnerships that are not particularly unhappy or conflicting,
even briefly before the break-up (e.g., Amato & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007).
Why such partnerships end is not well understood and future research
into this question—but also, into why some unhappy and possibly violent
couples do not divorce—can shed new light into the processes surrounding
divorce. Future research could particularly take better use of longitudinal
data which include repeated questions on marital satisfaction and quality.
It is well known that average marital satisfaction declines over time (e.g.,
Umberson, Williams, Powers, Chen, & Campbell, 2005). However, different
couples may have different “thresholds” to divorce due to factors such
as commitment, values, and common children or investments. A marital
life course perspective into the development of marital satisfaction and
quality over time and their influence on divorce risk in different couples can
improve understanding of the pathways leading to divorce and also of the
differences in divorce risks between groups.
In terms of heterogeneous effects of divorce (cf. Amato, 2000; Amato &
Anthony, 2014), existing research has already documented how divorce
effects depend partly on the characteristics and quality of the previous
marriage, as mentioned above. Continued research into heterogeneous
effects of divorce and into factors that promote successful post-divorce
adaptation is needed, particularly in countries outside the United States
where it has yet been relatively limited. The question of effect heterogeneity
has also a methodological side to it, as many of the advanced econometric
techniques identify causal effects only in a limited population, meaning
that these effects cannot be generalized to the entire population (or even to
all of those experiencing divorce). More generally, there has been increasing methodological interest in the heterogeneity of causal effects (e.g.,
Heckman & Vytlacil, 1999).
As discussed above, the common sociodemographic predictors of divorce
are relatively well-known and future research will likely help in understanding whether they have causal effects on divorce or not. In many
cases, the underlying mechanisms producing these effects remain less well
understood and future research can contribute to these filling these gaps,
with approaches including ones mentioned previously. One specific line
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
for continued research concerns who initiates the divorce process and
whether different factors affect “men’s” and “women’s” divorce proneness.
Numerous studies have shown that women are more likely to file for divorce
or initiate the process leading in to it. This pattern appears to be more universal than acknowledged (Mignot, 2009). Why this is so would be another
highly interesting topic for future research. Social science is generally much
better equipped to answer questions regarding variation than stability,
and ways forward regarding this question as well will be to analyze the
conditions under which wives are more likely to initiate the divorce process.
Existing research has focused on the characteristics of individual marriages
(cf. Kalmijn & Poortman, 2006; Sayer, England, Allison, & Kangas, 2011),
but future research could additionally look into cross-national and historical
variation.
The growing focus on causal effects has led to interesting associations being
dismissed if they are not found to represent causal relationships between the
two main variables of interest. However, whether the predictor in question
has a causal effect or not is just part of the story; whenever there is an association, something produced it. Dismissing spurious effects as uninteresting
can imply turning a blind eye to many important questions. For example,
whether education has a causal effect on divorce or not is a relevant question,
but a negative answer does not mean that educational gradients in divorce
are uninteresting; after all, educational levels do label people and position
them in different parts of the social structure and knowing why these different groups divorce at different rates is relevant as such. Likewise, even if
parental divorce has no causal effect on children’s well-being, knowing why
children with divorced parents on average fare worse is not uninteresting
nor policy irrelevant. Therefore, future research should not dismiss “selection” but rather embrace its potential for unpacking the different mechanisms
which produce associations between divorce and other factors.
Finally, an interesting avenue for future research is to pay more attention to
the effects of divorce rates at the level of societies on individual well-being,
that is, whether living in a high (low) divorce (risk) society has effects independently of individual experiences of divorce. A higher (lower) perceived or
actual risk of divorce alters expectations about the future and the power balance between partners (e.g., González & Özcan, 2013; Stevenson & Wolfers,
2006); additionally, if experience of divorce has negative effects on individual
well-being, these may spill over to others in the network (Pong, Dronkers, &
Hampden-Thompson, 2003).
Recent research on divorce has been increasingly multidisciplinary and
without doubt many future insights will build on cross-fertilization and
collaboration between disciplines such as sociology, economics, psychology,
and the biological sciences. Longitudinal data will remain the most useful
Divorce
9
sources for quantitative analysis on divorce. New insights are likely to come
from different sources. On the one hand, improvements in survey questions
on the processes (including psychological and subjective ones) leading to
and surrounding divorce will be useful (although an increasing concern
will be the decreases in response activity). On the other, large-scale census
and register data will improve precision of estimates, enable follow-ups
free from drop-out, and the possibilities for employing techniques for
yielding causal estimates. The merging of biological and social scientific
variables within data sets will also continue to provide interesting openings.
Finally, cross-nationally comparative longitudinal data will help to analyze
cross-national differences and the interactions between societal and individual variables. More generally, future research will benefit from continuing to
broaden its focus from the United States and a selected number of European
countries to other parts of the world. In this sense, divorce research can
benefit by going back to its roots and early studies, which commonly
included such comparisons.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank Diederik Boertien and Karin Halldén for useful advice and
the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS) for financial
assistance (grant number 2010–0831). All errors remain the responsibility of
the author.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, C. (1963). Affiliations: Structural determinants of differential divorce
rates. American Journal of Sociology, 69, 13–20. doi:10.1086/223506
Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269–1287. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x
Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing developments and new trends.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650–666. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x
Amato, P. R., & Anthony, C. J. (2014). Estimating the effects of parental divorce
and death using fixed effects models. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 370–386.
doi:10.1111/jomf.12100
Amato, P. R., & Cheadle, J. E. (2008). Parental divorce, marital conflict, and children’s
behavior problems: A comparison of adopted and biological children. Social Forces,
86, 1139–1161. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0025
Amato, P. R., & Hohmann-Marriott, B. (2007). A comparison of high and low-distress
marriages that end in divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 621–638.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00396.x
Amato, P. R., & James, S. (2010). Divorce in Europe and the United States: Commonalities and differences across nations. Family Science, 1, 2–13. doi:10.1080/
19424620903381583
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Andersson, G. (2002). Children’s risks of family disruption and family formation:
Evidence from the 16 FFS countries. Demographic Research, 7, 343–364. doi:10.4054/
DemRes.2002.7.7
Andersson, G., Noack, T., Seierstad, A., & Weedon-Fekjaer, H. (2006). The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden. Demography, 43, 79–98.
doi:10.1353/dem.2006.0001
Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Becker, G. S., Landes, E. M., & Michael, R. T. (1977). An economic analysis of marital
instability. Journal of Political Economy, 85, 1141–1187. doi:10.1086/260631
Bjarnarson, T., & Arnarsson, A. M. (2011). Joint physical custody and communication
with parents: A cross-national study of children in 36 Western countries. Journal of
Comparative Family Studies, 42, –871.
Björklund, A., & Sundström, M. (2006). Parental separation and children’s educational attainment: A sibling analysis on Swedish register data. Economica, 73,
605–624. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.2006.00529.x
Cherlin, A. J. (1992). Marriage, divorce, remarriage (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cherlin, A. J. (1999). Going to extremes: Family change, children’s well-being, and
social science. Demography, 36, 421–428. doi:10.2307/2648081
Cooke, L. P. (2006). “Doing” gender in context: Household bargaining and the risk
of divorce in Germany and the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 112,
442–472. doi:10.1086/506417
Dribe, M., & Lundh, C. (2012). Intermarriage, value context and union dissolution: Sweden 1990–2005. European Journal of Population, 28, 139–158. doi:10.1007/
s10680-011-9253-y
Ermisch, J., Francesconi, M., & Pevalin, D. J. (2004). Parental partnership and joblessness in childhood and their influence on young people’s outcomes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Association—Series A (Statistics in Society), 167, 69–101.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2004.00292.x
Fincham, F. D., Stanley, S. M., & Beach, S. R. H. (2007). Transformative processes
in marriage: An analysis of emerging trends. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69,
275–292. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00362.x
Goldstein, J. (1999). The leveling of divorce in the United States. Demography, 36,
409–414. doi:10.2307/2648063
González, L., & Özcan, B. (2013). The risk of divorce and household saving behavior.
Journal of Human Resources, 48, 404–434.
Goode, W. J. (1956). After divorce. New York, NY: Free Press.
Goode, W. J. (1962). Marital satisfaction and instability. A cross-cultural class analysis
of divorce rates. In R. Bendix & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), Class, status, and power. Social
stratification in comparative perspective (pp. 377–387). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Goode, W. J. (1963). World revolution and family patterns. New York, NY: Free Press.
Heaton, T. B. (2002). Factors contributing to increasing marital stability in the United
States. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 392–409. doi:10.1177/0192513X02023003004
Divorce
11
Heckman, J. J., & Vytlacil, E. (1999). Local instrumental variables and latent variable
models for identifying and bounding treatment effects. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 96, 4730–4734. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.8.4730
Herzog, E., & Sudia, C. (1973). Children in fatherless families. In B. Caldwell & H.
Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. III, pp. 141–232). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Heuveline, P., & Timberlake, J. M. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation:
The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66,
1214–1230. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00088.x
Härkönen, J. (2014). Divorce: trends, patterns, causes, consequences. In J. Treas, J.
Scott & M. Richards (Eds.), The Wiley-blackwell handbook of the sociology of families
(pp. 303–332). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Härkönen, J., & Dronkers, J. (2006). Stability and change in the educational gradients
of divorce: A comparison of 17 countries. European Sociological Review, 22, 501–517.
doi:10.1093/esr/jcl011
Kalmijn, M. (2010). Racial differences in the effects of parental divorce and separation
on children: Generalizing the evidence to a European case. Social Science Research,
39, 845–856. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.05.002
Kalmijn, M., & Poortman, A.-R. (2006). His or her divorce? The gendered nature
of divorce and its determinants. European Sociological Review, 22, 201–214.
doi:10.1093/esr/jci052
Kennedy, S., & Ruggles, S. (2014). Breaking up is hard to count: The rise of divorce
in the United States. Demography, 51, 587–598.
Kim, H. S. (2011). Consequences of parental divorce for child development. American
Sociological Review, 76, 487–511. doi:10.1177/0003122411407748
Kitson, G. C., & Morgan, L. A. (1990). The multiple consequences of divorce: A
decade review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 913–924. doi:10.2307/353310
Kitson, G. C., & Raschke, H. J. (1981). Divorce research: What we know; what we
need to know. Journal of Divorce, 4, 1–37. doi:10.1300/J279v04n03_01
Lau, C. Q. (2012). The stability of same-sex cohabitation, different-sex cohabitation
and same-sex marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 973–988. doi:10.1111/
j.1741-3737.2012.01000.x
Levinger, G. (1965). Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: An integrative review.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 27, 19–28. doi:10.2307/349801
Levinger, G. (1976). A social psychological perspective on marital dissolution. Journal
of Social Issues, 32, 21–47. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1976.tb02478.x
Locke, H. (1951). Predicting happiness or divorce in marriage. New York, NY: Holt.
Lyngstad, T. H., & Jalovaara, M. (2010). A review of the antecedents of union dissolution. Demographic Research, 23, 255–292. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2010.23.10
Martin, S. P. (2006). Trends in marital dissolution by women’s education in the United
States. Demographic Research, 15, 537–560.
McLanahan, S. S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts,
what helps? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mignot, J.-F. (2009). Formation et dissolution des couples en France dans la seconde moitié
du XXe siècle. Une évaluation empirique du pouvoir explicatif de la théorie du choix
rationnel. Paris, France: Sciences Po.
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Oppenheimer, V. K. (1997). Women’s employment and the gain to marriage: The specialization and trading model. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 431–453. doi:10.1146/
annurev.soc.23.1.431
Özcan, B., & Breen, R. (2012). Marital instability and female labor supply. Annual
Review of Sociology, 38, 463–481. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145457
Pong, S., Dronkers, J., & Hampden-Thompson, G. (2003). Family policies and children’s school achievement in single- versus two-parent families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65, 681–699. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00681.x
Poortman, A.-R., & Lyngstad, T. (2007). Dissolution risks in first and higher order
marital and cohabiting unions. Social Science Research, 36, 1431–1446. doi:10.1016/
j.ssresearch.2007.02.005
Price-Bonham, S., & Balswick, J. O. (1980). The noninstitutions: Divorce, desertion,
and remarriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 959–972. doi:10.2307/351835
Qureshi, K., Charsley, K., & Shaw, A. (2012). Marital instability among British Pakistanis: Transnationalities, conjugalities, and Islam. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35,
1–19. doi:10.1080/01419870.2012.720691
Raley, R. K., & Bumpass, L. L. (2003). The topography of the divorce plateau: Levels
and trends in union stability in the United States after 1980. Demographic Research,
8, 245–260. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2003.8.8
Ruggles, S. (1997). The rise of divorce and separation in the United States. Demography, 34, 455–466. doi:10.2307/3038300
Sanz-de-Galdeano, A., & Vuri, D. (2007). Parental divorce and students’ performance: Evidence from longitudinal data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,
69, 321–338. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2006.00199.x
Sayer, L. C., England, P., Allison, P., & Kangas, N. (2011). She left, he left: How
employment and satisfaction affect men’s and women’s decisions to leave marriages. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 1982–2018. doi:10.1086/658173
Sigle-Rushton, W., Lyngstad, T. H., Andersen, P. L., & Kravdal, Ø. (2014). Proceed
with caution? Parents’ union dissolution and children’s educational achievement.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 161–174. doi:10.1111/jomf.12075
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499–509.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00418.x
Steele, F., Sigle-Rushton, W., & Kravdal, O. (2009). Consequences of family disruption on children’s educational outcomes in Norway. Demography, 46, 553–574.
doi:10.1353/dem.0.0063
Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2006). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: Divorce
laws and family distress. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 267–288. doi:10.1093/
qje/121.1.267
Sweeney, M. M. (2010). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 667–684. doi:10.1111/
j.1741-3737.2010.00724.x
Teachman, J. D. (2002). Stability across cohorts in divorce risk factors. Demography,
39, 331–351. doi:10.1353/dem.2002.0019
Divorce
13
Umberson, D., Williams, K., Powers, D. A., Chen, M. D., & Campbell, A. M. (2005).
As good as it gets? A life course perspective on marital quality. Social Forces, 84,
493–511. doi:10.1353/sof.2005.0131
Weiss, R. S. (1975). Marital separation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Westermarck, E. (1891). The history of human marriage. London, England & New York,
NY: Macmillan.
Wu, L. L., & Musick, K. (2008). Stability of marital and cohabiting unions following first birth. Population Research and Policy Review, 27, 713–727. doi:10.1007/
s11113-008-9093-6
JUHO HÄRKöNEN SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Juho Härkönen is Associate Professor of sociology at Stockholm University
and visiting professor of sociology at the University of Turku. He holds an
MA from the University of Turku and a PhD from the European University
Institute. His research interests are in the life course, social stratification, and
family demography and sociology. His recent research has been published in
Demography, European Journal of Population, European Societies, European Sociological Review, Population Studies, Social Forces, Social Science and Medicine, and
Social Politics. Homepage: http://people.su.se/∼jhr/
RELATED ESSAYS
The Sexual Division of Labor (Anthropology), Rebecca Bliege Bird and Brian
F. Codding
Parenting with Digital Devices (Psychology), Pamela E. Davis-Kean and
Sandra Tang
Sexual Behavior (Anthropology), Melissa Emery Thompson
Patterns of Attachment across the Lifespan (Psychology), Robyn Fivush and
Theodore E. A. Waters
Empathy Gaps between Helpers and Help-Seekers: Implications for Cooperation (Psychology), Vanessa K. Bohns and Francis J. Flynn
Changing Family Patterns (Sociology), Kathleen Gerson and Stacy Torres
Family Relationships and Development (Psychology), Joan E. Grusec
Grandmothers and the Evolution of Human Sociality (Anthropology), Kristen
Hawkes and James Coxworth
Family Formation in Times of Labor Market Insecurities (Sociology), Johannes
Huinink
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Maternal and Paternal Employment across the Life Course (Sociology),
Michaela Kreyenfeld
14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Intergenerational Mobility: A Cross-National Comparison (Economics),
Bhashkar Mazumder
The Future of Marriage (Sociology), Elizabeth Aura McClintock
Family Income Composition (Economics), Kristin E. Smith
Social Neuroendocrine Approaches to Relationships (Anthropology), Sari M.
van Anders and Peter B. Gray
Transnational Work Careers (Sociology), Roland Verwiebe
Recent Demographic Trends and the Family (Sociology), Lawrence L. Wu
-
Divorce
JUHO HÄRKÖNEN
Abstract
There is by now a large literature on divorce which seeks to understand the underlying reasons behind trends in divorce rates and establish the predictors of divorce
as well as its consequences for adults and children. Early research examined divorce
over time and across societies, and developed conceptual models to understand
which factors affect partners’ decisions to divorce. Recent cutting edge research has
expanded on this literature and examined the multiple causes and consequences
of divorce, heterogeneity in causes and effects, and the role of new demographic
trends such as the increase in cohabitation. Future advances can build on (i) the use
of new data, cutting edge methods, and cross-fertilization across disciplines, (ii)
continued focus on emerging demographic realities, (iii) heterogeneity of divorces
and their consequences, (iv) the mechanisms and processes that predict divorce and
can help in understanding its effects, and (v) focus on cross-national differences and
societal contexts.
INTRODUCTION
Divorce is commonly regarded among the major events to occur during one’s
life course and increases in divorce are among the main features of the recent
decades of family change. Not surprisingly, divorce has attracted the attention of both the general public and of social scientists, and by now there exists
a large literature on divorce trends and their causes, and on the predictors of
divorce and its effects on adults and children.
I will discuss core parts of this literature and provide my views on interesting pathways for the future. Most of the literature concerns divorce, that is,
the legally recognized dissolution of a marriage. Other forms of marital and
partnership dissolution, such as separation, desertion, and annulment, have
been given less attention, despite recent interests in the dissolution of cohabiting unions. Here, I will follow the existing literature and focus mainly on
divorces, although touching upon other forms of union dissolution. Many
of the predictors and outcomes of union dissolution are generally similar
regardless of union type.
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Next, I provide a brief overview to early and foundational research on
divorce and recent research that has been particularly interesting and
important (more comprehensive discussions include Amato, 2000, 2010;
Härkönen, 2014). Then, I discuss topics that to my mind will be interesting
and important for future research (see also Amato, 2010, pp. 661–662).
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Divorce, its trends, antecedents and consequences attracted the attention of
social scientists from early on (e.g., Goode, 1956; Locke, 1951; Westermarck,
1891). Much of this early research was historical or comparative and included
other than Western societies (e.g., Ackerman, 1963; Goode, 1963). Public and
research interest in divorce rose together with divorce rates, and the latter
were commonly explained with reference to the broader social changes
occurring in conjunction with industrialization and modernization (Goode,
1963). Often these studies relied on aggregated data, but increasingly also
on censuses and surveys (cf. Kitson & Raschke, 1981). Nevertheless, many
of the patterns—such as the higher divorce risks among young couples and
those with divorced parents—which have been consistently replicated were
already established in early research (Kitson & Raschke, 1981; Lyngstad &
Jalovaara, 2010; Price-Bonham & Balswick, 1980). Other studies used qualitative techniques to analyze the experiences and processes surrounding
divorce (Weiss, 1975).
From early on, there was an interest in the consequences of divorce on
adults and children. Common concerns were then, as now, related to whether
divorce as such could be seen as producing lower levels of well-being, how
long these effects were likely to last, and which factors contribute to successful adaptation (e.g., Kitson & Raschke, 1981; Price-Bonham & Balswick,
1980). Answers to these questions varied. For example, conclusions concerning divorce and family structure effects on children varied from “harmful”
to “weak and temporary” (e.g., Herzog & Sudia, 1973) and again to “potentially important” (Cherlin, 1999; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994), partly owing
to the access to and use of better data.
The work on divorce built on multiple theoretical approaches, from
macro-sociological perspectives on the role of divorce in the family system,
to microlevel views for understanding the family processes and mechanisms
leading to divorce (cf. Kitson & Raschke, 1981). Among the latter, exchange
theory (e.g., Levinger, 1965, 1976) provided an influential framework with
its analysis of the decision to divorce as an evaluation of the costs and
benefits of the existing marriage and the alternatives outside it. A similar,
yet more formalized account, was put forward by Gary Becker and other
economists (e.g., Becker, 1981; Becker, Landes, & Michael, 1977) who became
Divorce
3
particularly known for their analysis of the role of the gendered division
of labor within households and its effects on family life (for a well-known
critique, see Oppenheimer, 1997). This provided an economic framework for
analyzing the links between the simultaneous increases in female human
capital and economic activity and family instability, and many accounts
saw the former as providing an explanation for the latter (cf. Cherlin, 1992;
Ruggles, 1997).
CUTTING EDGE RESEARCH
Recent cutting edge research on divorce has partly stemmed from new
research questions and partly from use of new data, techniques and viewpoints to answer old questions. One line of recent research built from the
acknowledgment of new demographic behaviors and the complexity of
personal relationships, living arrangements, and families. The increase in
unmarried cohabitation prompted interest into their stability (e.g., Andersson, 2002; Wu & Musick, 2008) and their role in accounting for recent
trends in divorce (Raley & Bumpass, 2003). There has also been a continuous
interest in whether premarital cohabitation affects later marital stability.
Premarital cohabitation is associated with a higher divorce risk, even though
a general conclusion is that this results from selection of those with a higher
divorce risk into cohabitation (Lyngstad & Jalovaara, 2010). However, other
scholars have argued that the experience of premarital cohabitation may
in itself lead to higher divorce risks (e.g., Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman,
2006). Another line of research has examined the stability of second and
later marriages and similarly asked whether their higher instability is as a
result of selection or causation (e.g., Poortman & Lyngstad, 2007). Finally,
the wave of legal recognition and social acceptance of same-sex couples
has increased research interest into their stability. Same-sex couples tend
to be less stable, but otherwise the demographic correlates predicting
their dissolution are similar to different-sex couples (Andersson, Noack,
Seierstad, & Weedon-Fekjaer, 2006; Lau, 2012).
Overall, many of the predictors of divorce are surprisingly stable across
countries and historical periods (Amato & James, 2010; Lyngstad & Jalovaara,
2010; Teachman, 2002). A notable exception is female education. Women with
college degrees have led the way to increasing marital stability in the United
States (Martin, 2006). Internationally, the educational gradients of divorce
have varied and in many countries, they have shifted from positive to negative ones (Härkönen & Dronkers, 2006). The reasons are not fully understood,
although many studies have begun from the hypothesis posed by William
Goode (1962) which links changing barriers to divorce with class differences
in marital dissolution.
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
There has also been continued interest in the role of female employment and
economic resources in marital instability. It was long thought that they destabilize marriages, and this thought was formalized in the economic approach
to the family, discussed above. Later research has brought more nuanced
findings and shown how any effects are contingent on marital satisfaction, for
instance, and how the causality might actually run from divorce risk to labor
supply (cf. Amato, 2010; Özcan & Breen, 2012). A related question is how
gender egalitarian practices and attitudes are related to divorce in modern
societies, in which the former are increasingly accepted and expected (Cooke,
2006).
More psychologically oriented studies analyze the interpersonal and relationship characteristics that predict divorce. Here, the focus has predominantly been on conflict and problematic behaviors, in line with common
notions of the processes leading to divorce (Fincham, Stanley, & Beach, 2007).
Recent research has however begun to focus also on positive interactions
(cf. Fincham et al., 2007) and, importantly, identified that many divorces do
not end particularly distressed marriages (e.g., Amato & Hohmann-Marriott,
2007).
Research on the effects of divorce has benefited from the development and
adoption of new econometric techniques to identify and estimate causal
effects from nonexperimental data, which those used in divorce research
without exception are. These studies include genetically informed designs
(e.g., Amato & Cheadle, 2008), sibling difference methods (e.g., Björklund
& Sundström, 2006; Ermisch, Francesconi, & Pevalin, 2004; Sigle-Rushton,
Lyngstad, Andersen, & Kravdal, 2014), differences-in-differences analysis (e.g., Sanz-de-Galdeano & Vuri, 2007) and fixed-effects analysis (e.g.,
Amato & Anthony, 2014), simultaneous equations estimation (e.g., Steele,
Sigle-Rushton, & Kravdal, 2009), and other advanced techniques. Particularly commendable are approaches that seek to study divorce both as an
event and as a process (e.g., Kim, 2011). These studies have led to somewhat
conflicting conclusions. Many continue to find that divorce has causal effects,
even if they are weaker than the correlations between divorce and outcomes,
but other studies have reported that these effects are completely due to
confounding. An important question concerns whether these differences
stem from differences in methods. Studies on divorce effects have been
increasingly complemented by those looking into the effects of multiple
family transitions (instead of just divorce) to analyze whether they have
additive or different effects, thus recognizing the growing complexity of
family life courses for many adults and children (Amato, 2010; Sweeney,
2010).
Another line of research into the effects of divorce looks into heterogeneity, as all adults and children do not experience divorce in the same way.
Divorce
5
For some it provides a way out of a distressful family environment, whereas
for others it can have long-term negative outcomes (e.g., Cherlin, 1999). Not
surprisingly, the effects depend partly on the predivorce family environment
and on postdivorce conditions and resources (cf. Amato, 2000, 2010; Amato &
James, 2010).
Finally, the growing availability and use of cross-nationally comparative
data have led to an increase in research on divorce across societies. These
studies have shown similarities and differences in the predictors and effects
of divorce and the contextual circumstances which do and do not shape them.
ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
What is left to explore after decades of divorce research? Many of the topics for future research will continue from recent analyses outlined above. For
example, the complexity of living and family arrangements invites continuous focus on the stability of higher-order marriages, cohabitating couples,
step-families, and same-sex couples and on the effects of multiple family
transitions on the well-being of adults and children.
Overall, future research will continue to look into emerging demographic
and social realities. After decades of increase, divorce rates have stabilized
or maybe even decreased in a number of countries. Social science had
difficulties in explaining the increases in divorce (cf. Cherlin, 1992) and was
probably even less equipped to foresee and understand the recent plateauing
and reversals in these trends (for the United States, see Goldstein, 1999;
Heaton, 2002; however, Kennedy & Ruggles, 2014). Yet in other countries,
divorce rates began to increase more rapidly only rather recently. These
diverging trends call for sustained attention to cross-national differences
in divorce rates and trends and their underlying causes. Such research
can revitalize efforts for understanding why divorce rates increased so
dramatically (and later stabilized/decreased in some countries) and at
different time-points in different countries. These developments need to
be seen in the light of increases in nonmarital cohabitation. In this regard,
an important question concerns the extent to which cohabiting couples
can be seen as “marriage-like” unions, given the prevailing cross-national
differences in the role of cohabitation in family formation (e.g., Heuveline &
Timberlake, 2004).
Furthermore, there can be important group differences not only in divorce
and its trends (the example of education was mentioned above). Particularly,
increases in immigration to many countries calls for research that not only
describes divorce rates across groups and looks into the family experiences
and “assimilation” of minorities (e.g., Dribe & Lundh, 2012; Kalmijn, 2010;
Qureshi, Charsley, & Shaw, 2012), but also analyzes whether and how they
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
affect attitudes and behavior among the majority population. In terms of
children’s postdivorce living conditions, future research will do well in recognizing and analyzing men’s increased involvement in their children’s lives
and the increases in legal and practical shared or joint custody arrangements.
Even though these questions have been raised already decades ago (cf. Kitson & Morgan, 1990), the commonality of these arrangements has recently
increased with potentially important implications for children’s and parents’
postdivorce conditions and adjustment (e.g., Bjarnarson & Arnarsson, 2011).
The increasing adoption of cutting edge econometric techniques among
divorce researchers means that questions of causality—both in terms of the
effects of divorce predictors and of divorce itself—remain central. This development is welcome as these methods help in answering old and new questions about cause, effect, and their direction. These techniques also highlight
and remind of various methodological issues. One has to do with the “control” group. For example, in studies on the effects of divorce a core question
is whether one simply compares the divorced to those without the experience, or attempts more refined comparisons (e.g., the divorced vs those in
happy or unhappy marriages, or divorce at an earlier or later stage in the
life course). The counterfactual notion underlying the modern techniques
reminds of these questions and emphasizes their importance for the interpretation of results.
A related question concerns how the event of interest—divorce—is
specified and measured. Divorce has for a long time been seen both as an
event and as a process which begins often long before the actual divorce is
observed by the researcher, and can end well after (for a good discussion,
see Amato, 2000). This, again, has methodological implications. One has
to do with when the predictors and outcomes of divorce are measured.
There has been a long interest in how long-lasting the effects are (cf. Cherlin,
1999). It has been less clear when (time-varying) predictors of divorce—such
as employment—should be measured, and many studies resort to measurement at the time of divorce or immediately before the event. This can
be problematic, especially if partners pre-emptively adapt to the looming
divorce threat (e.g., Özcan & Breen, 2012). The question of divorce as an event
or a process is central also for many widely adopted techniques to tease out
causal effects of divorce, such as those relying on before-after measurements
and sibling difference methods (cf. Amato, 2010; Sigle-Rushton et al., 2014).
As mentioned above, some studies have attempted to incorporate analysis
of both the process and event (Kim, 2011). These developments are welcome,
but do not solve the inherent problem that we typically only observe divorce
as an event but not when the dissolution process began, which is already
conceptually hard to identify. In any case, further work on these issues will
Divorce
7
be highly relevant, and can benefit from analyzing the marital life course
more fully than is commonly done (see below).
“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its
own way.” Whether or not one wants to take the famous opening to Leo
Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina literally, it helps in reminding of the heterogeneity
of relationships that dissolve. This has implications both for understanding
the antecedents of divorce and its outcomes. Beginning from the former,
above I mentioned research which shows that a high share of divorces
involves partnerships that are not particularly unhappy or conflicting,
even briefly before the break-up (e.g., Amato & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007).
Why such partnerships end is not well understood and future research
into this question—but also, into why some unhappy and possibly violent
couples do not divorce—can shed new light into the processes surrounding
divorce. Future research could particularly take better use of longitudinal
data which include repeated questions on marital satisfaction and quality.
It is well known that average marital satisfaction declines over time (e.g.,
Umberson, Williams, Powers, Chen, & Campbell, 2005). However, different
couples may have different “thresholds” to divorce due to factors such
as commitment, values, and common children or investments. A marital
life course perspective into the development of marital satisfaction and
quality over time and their influence on divorce risk in different couples can
improve understanding of the pathways leading to divorce and also of the
differences in divorce risks between groups.
In terms of heterogeneous effects of divorce (cf. Amato, 2000; Amato &
Anthony, 2014), existing research has already documented how divorce
effects depend partly on the characteristics and quality of the previous
marriage, as mentioned above. Continued research into heterogeneous
effects of divorce and into factors that promote successful post-divorce
adaptation is needed, particularly in countries outside the United States
where it has yet been relatively limited. The question of effect heterogeneity
has also a methodological side to it, as many of the advanced econometric
techniques identify causal effects only in a limited population, meaning
that these effects cannot be generalized to the entire population (or even to
all of those experiencing divorce). More generally, there has been increasing methodological interest in the heterogeneity of causal effects (e.g.,
Heckman & Vytlacil, 1999).
As discussed above, the common sociodemographic predictors of divorce
are relatively well-known and future research will likely help in understanding whether they have causal effects on divorce or not. In many
cases, the underlying mechanisms producing these effects remain less well
understood and future research can contribute to these filling these gaps,
with approaches including ones mentioned previously. One specific line
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
for continued research concerns who initiates the divorce process and
whether different factors affect “men’s” and “women’s” divorce proneness.
Numerous studies have shown that women are more likely to file for divorce
or initiate the process leading in to it. This pattern appears to be more universal than acknowledged (Mignot, 2009). Why this is so would be another
highly interesting topic for future research. Social science is generally much
better equipped to answer questions regarding variation than stability,
and ways forward regarding this question as well will be to analyze the
conditions under which wives are more likely to initiate the divorce process.
Existing research has focused on the characteristics of individual marriages
(cf. Kalmijn & Poortman, 2006; Sayer, England, Allison, & Kangas, 2011),
but future research could additionally look into cross-national and historical
variation.
The growing focus on causal effects has led to interesting associations being
dismissed if they are not found to represent causal relationships between the
two main variables of interest. However, whether the predictor in question
has a causal effect or not is just part of the story; whenever there is an association, something produced it. Dismissing spurious effects as uninteresting
can imply turning a blind eye to many important questions. For example,
whether education has a causal effect on divorce or not is a relevant question,
but a negative answer does not mean that educational gradients in divorce
are uninteresting; after all, educational levels do label people and position
them in different parts of the social structure and knowing why these different groups divorce at different rates is relevant as such. Likewise, even if
parental divorce has no causal effect on children’s well-being, knowing why
children with divorced parents on average fare worse is not uninteresting
nor policy irrelevant. Therefore, future research should not dismiss “selection” but rather embrace its potential for unpacking the different mechanisms
which produce associations between divorce and other factors.
Finally, an interesting avenue for future research is to pay more attention to
the effects of divorce rates at the level of societies on individual well-being,
that is, whether living in a high (low) divorce (risk) society has effects independently of individual experiences of divorce. A higher (lower) perceived or
actual risk of divorce alters expectations about the future and the power balance between partners (e.g., González & Özcan, 2013; Stevenson & Wolfers,
2006); additionally, if experience of divorce has negative effects on individual
well-being, these may spill over to others in the network (Pong, Dronkers, &
Hampden-Thompson, 2003).
Recent research on divorce has been increasingly multidisciplinary and
without doubt many future insights will build on cross-fertilization and
collaboration between disciplines such as sociology, economics, psychology,
and the biological sciences. Longitudinal data will remain the most useful
Divorce
9
sources for quantitative analysis on divorce. New insights are likely to come
from different sources. On the one hand, improvements in survey questions
on the processes (including psychological and subjective ones) leading to
and surrounding divorce will be useful (although an increasing concern
will be the decreases in response activity). On the other, large-scale census
and register data will improve precision of estimates, enable follow-ups
free from drop-out, and the possibilities for employing techniques for
yielding causal estimates. The merging of biological and social scientific
variables within data sets will also continue to provide interesting openings.
Finally, cross-nationally comparative longitudinal data will help to analyze
cross-national differences and the interactions between societal and individual variables. More generally, future research will benefit from continuing to
broaden its focus from the United States and a selected number of European
countries to other parts of the world. In this sense, divorce research can
benefit by going back to its roots and early studies, which commonly
included such comparisons.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank Diederik Boertien and Karin Halldén for useful advice and
the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS) for financial
assistance (grant number 2010–0831). All errors remain the responsibility of
the author.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, C. (1963). Affiliations: Structural determinants of differential divorce
rates. American Journal of Sociology, 69, 13–20. doi:10.1086/223506
Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269–1287. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x
Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing developments and new trends.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650–666. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x
Amato, P. R., & Anthony, C. J. (2014). Estimating the effects of parental divorce
and death using fixed effects models. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 370–386.
doi:10.1111/jomf.12100
Amato, P. R., & Cheadle, J. E. (2008). Parental divorce, marital conflict, and children’s
behavior problems: A comparison of adopted and biological children. Social Forces,
86, 1139–1161. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0025
Amato, P. R., & Hohmann-Marriott, B. (2007). A comparison of high and low-distress
marriages that end in divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 621–638.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00396.x
Amato, P. R., & James, S. (2010). Divorce in Europe and the United States: Commonalities and differences across nations. Family Science, 1, 2–13. doi:10.1080/
19424620903381583
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Andersson, G. (2002). Children’s risks of family disruption and family formation:
Evidence from the 16 FFS countries. Demographic Research, 7, 343–364. doi:10.4054/
DemRes.2002.7.7
Andersson, G., Noack, T., Seierstad, A., & Weedon-Fekjaer, H. (2006). The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden. Demography, 43, 79–98.
doi:10.1353/dem.2006.0001
Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Becker, G. S., Landes, E. M., & Michael, R. T. (1977). An economic analysis of marital
instability. Journal of Political Economy, 85, 1141–1187. doi:10.1086/260631
Bjarnarson, T., & Arnarsson, A. M. (2011). Joint physical custody and communication
with parents: A cross-national study of children in 36 Western countries. Journal of
Comparative Family Studies, 42, –871.
Björklund, A., & Sundström, M. (2006). Parental separation and children’s educational attainment: A sibling analysis on Swedish register data. Economica, 73,
605–624. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.2006.00529.x
Cherlin, A. J. (1992). Marriage, divorce, remarriage (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cherlin, A. J. (1999). Going to extremes: Family change, children’s well-being, and
social science. Demography, 36, 421–428. doi:10.2307/2648081
Cooke, L. P. (2006). “Doing” gender in context: Household bargaining and the risk
of divorce in Germany and the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 112,
442–472. doi:10.1086/506417
Dribe, M., & Lundh, C. (2012). Intermarriage, value context and union dissolution: Sweden 1990–2005. European Journal of Population, 28, 139–158. doi:10.1007/
s10680-011-9253-y
Ermisch, J., Francesconi, M., & Pevalin, D. J. (2004). Parental partnership and joblessness in childhood and their influence on young people’s outcomes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Association—Series A (Statistics in Society), 167, 69–101.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2004.00292.x
Fincham, F. D., Stanley, S. M., & Beach, S. R. H. (2007). Transformative processes
in marriage: An analysis of emerging trends. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69,
275–292. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00362.x
Goldstein, J. (1999). The leveling of divorce in the United States. Demography, 36,
409–414. doi:10.2307/2648063
González, L., & Özcan, B. (2013). The risk of divorce and household saving behavior.
Journal of Human Resources, 48, 404–434.
Goode, W. J. (1956). After divorce. New York, NY: Free Press.
Goode, W. J. (1962). Marital satisfaction and instability. A cross-cultural class analysis
of divorce rates. In R. Bendix & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), Class, status, and power. Social
stratification in comparative perspective (pp. 377–387). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Goode, W. J. (1963). World revolution and family patterns. New York, NY: Free Press.
Heaton, T. B. (2002). Factors contributing to increasing marital stability in the United
States. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 392–409. doi:10.1177/0192513X02023003004
Divorce
11
Heckman, J. J., & Vytlacil, E. (1999). Local instrumental variables and latent variable
models for identifying and bounding treatment effects. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 96, 4730–4734. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.8.4730
Herzog, E., & Sudia, C. (1973). Children in fatherless families. In B. Caldwell & H.
Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. III, pp. 141–232). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Heuveline, P., & Timberlake, J. M. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation:
The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66,
1214–1230. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00088.x
Härkönen, J. (2014). Divorce: trends, patterns, causes, consequences. In J. Treas, J.
Scott & M. Richards (Eds.), The Wiley-blackwell handbook of the sociology of families
(pp. 303–332). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Härkönen, J., & Dronkers, J. (2006). Stability and change in the educational gradients
of divorce: A comparison of 17 countries. European Sociological Review, 22, 501–517.
doi:10.1093/esr/jcl011
Kalmijn, M. (2010). Racial differences in the effects of parental divorce and separation
on children: Generalizing the evidence to a European case. Social Science Research,
39, 845–856. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.05.002
Kalmijn, M., & Poortman, A.-R. (2006). His or her divorce? The gendered nature
of divorce and its determinants. European Sociological Review, 22, 201–214.
doi:10.1093/esr/jci052
Kennedy, S., & Ruggles, S. (2014). Breaking up is hard to count: The rise of divorce
in the United States. Demography, 51, 587–598.
Kim, H. S. (2011). Consequences of parental divorce for child development. American
Sociological Review, 76, 487–511. doi:10.1177/0003122411407748
Kitson, G. C., & Morgan, L. A. (1990). The multiple consequences of divorce: A
decade review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 913–924. doi:10.2307/353310
Kitson, G. C., & Raschke, H. J. (1981). Divorce research: What we know; what we
need to know. Journal of Divorce, 4, 1–37. doi:10.1300/J279v04n03_01
Lau, C. Q. (2012). The stability of same-sex cohabitation, different-sex cohabitation
and same-sex marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 973–988. doi:10.1111/
j.1741-3737.2012.01000.x
Levinger, G. (1965). Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: An integrative review.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 27, 19–28. doi:10.2307/349801
Levinger, G. (1976). A social psychological perspective on marital dissolution. Journal
of Social Issues, 32, 21–47. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1976.tb02478.x
Locke, H. (1951). Predicting happiness or divorce in marriage. New York, NY: Holt.
Lyngstad, T. H., & Jalovaara, M. (2010). A review of the antecedents of union dissolution. Demographic Research, 23, 255–292. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2010.23.10
Martin, S. P. (2006). Trends in marital dissolution by women’s education in the United
States. Demographic Research, 15, 537–560.
McLanahan, S. S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts,
what helps? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mignot, J.-F. (2009). Formation et dissolution des couples en France dans la seconde moitié
du XXe siècle. Une évaluation empirique du pouvoir explicatif de la théorie du choix
rationnel. Paris, France: Sciences Po.
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Oppenheimer, V. K. (1997). Women’s employment and the gain to marriage: The specialization and trading model. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 431–453. doi:10.1146/
annurev.soc.23.1.431
Özcan, B., & Breen, R. (2012). Marital instability and female labor supply. Annual
Review of Sociology, 38, 463–481. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145457
Pong, S., Dronkers, J., & Hampden-Thompson, G. (2003). Family policies and children’s school achievement in single- versus two-parent families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65, 681–699. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00681.x
Poortman, A.-R., & Lyngstad, T. (2007). Dissolution risks in first and higher order
marital and cohabiting unions. Social Science Research, 36, 1431–1446. doi:10.1016/
j.ssresearch.2007.02.005
Price-Bonham, S., & Balswick, J. O. (1980). The noninstitutions: Divorce, desertion,
and remarriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 959–972. doi:10.2307/351835
Qureshi, K., Charsley, K., & Shaw, A. (2012). Marital instability among British Pakistanis: Transnationalities, conjugalities, and Islam. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35,
1–19. doi:10.1080/01419870.2012.720691
Raley, R. K., & Bumpass, L. L. (2003). The topography of the divorce plateau: Levels
and trends in union stability in the United States after 1980. Demographic Research,
8, 245–260. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2003.8.8
Ruggles, S. (1997). The rise of divorce and separation in the United States. Demography, 34, 455–466. doi:10.2307/3038300
Sanz-de-Galdeano, A., & Vuri, D. (2007). Parental divorce and students’ performance: Evidence from longitudinal data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,
69, 321–338. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2006.00199.x
Sayer, L. C., England, P., Allison, P., & Kangas, N. (2011). She left, he left: How
employment and satisfaction affect men’s and women’s decisions to leave marriages. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 1982–2018. doi:10.1086/658173
Sigle-Rushton, W., Lyngstad, T. H., Andersen, P. L., & Kravdal, Ø. (2014). Proceed
with caution? Parents’ union dissolution and children’s educational achievement.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 161–174. doi:10.1111/jomf.12075
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499–509.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00418.x
Steele, F., Sigle-Rushton, W., & Kravdal, O. (2009). Consequences of family disruption on children’s educational outcomes in Norway. Demography, 46, 553–574.
doi:10.1353/dem.0.0063
Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2006). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: Divorce
laws and family distress. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 267–288. doi:10.1093/
qje/121.1.267
Sweeney, M. M. (2010). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 667–684. doi:10.1111/
j.1741-3737.2010.00724.x
Teachman, J. D. (2002). Stability across cohorts in divorce risk factors. Demography,
39, 331–351. doi:10.1353/dem.2002.0019
Divorce
13
Umberson, D., Williams, K., Powers, D. A., Chen, M. D., & Campbell, A. M. (2005).
As good as it gets? A life course perspective on marital quality. Social Forces, 84,
493–511. doi:10.1353/sof.2005.0131
Weiss, R. S. (1975). Marital separation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Westermarck, E. (1891). The history of human marriage. London, England & New York,
NY: Macmillan.
Wu, L. L., & Musick, K. (2008). Stability of marital and cohabiting unions following first birth. Population Research and Policy Review, 27, 713–727. doi:10.1007/
s11113-008-9093-6
JUHO HÄRKöNEN SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Juho Härkönen is Associate Professor of sociology at Stockholm University
and visiting professor of sociology at the University of Turku. He holds an
MA from the University of Turku and a PhD from the European University
Institute. His research interests are in the life course, social stratification, and
family demography and sociology. His recent research has been published in
Demography, European Journal of Population, European Societies, European Sociological Review, Population Studies, Social Forces, Social Science and Medicine, and
Social Politics. Homepage: http://people.su.se/∼jhr/
RELATED ESSAYS
The Sexual Division of Labor (Anthropology), Rebecca Bliege Bird and Brian
F. Codding
Parenting with Digital Devices (Psychology), Pamela E. Davis-Kean and
Sandra Tang
Sexual Behavior (Anthropology), Melissa Emery Thompson
Patterns of Attachment across the Lifespan (Psychology), Robyn Fivush and
Theodore E. A. Waters
Empathy Gaps between Helpers and Help-Seekers: Implications for Cooperation (Psychology), Vanessa K. Bohns and Francis J. Flynn
Changing Family Patterns (Sociology), Kathleen Gerson and Stacy Torres
Family Relationships and Development (Psychology), Joan E. Grusec
Grandmothers and the Evolution of Human Sociality (Anthropology), Kristen
Hawkes and James Coxworth
Family Formation in Times of Labor Market Insecurities (Sociology), Johannes
Huinink
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Maternal and Paternal Employment across the Life Course (Sociology),
Michaela Kreyenfeld
14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Intergenerational Mobility: A Cross-National Comparison (Economics),
Bhashkar Mazumder
The Future of Marriage (Sociology), Elizabeth Aura McClintock
Family Income Composition (Economics), Kristin E. Smith
Social Neuroendocrine Approaches to Relationships (Anthropology), Sari M.
van Anders and Peter B. Gray
Transnational Work Careers (Sociology), Roland Verwiebe
Recent Demographic Trends and the Family (Sociology), Lawrence L. Wu