Marriage Duration and Divorce: The Seven-Year Itch or a Lifelong Itch?
- 1.4k Downloads
Previous studies have shown that the risk of divorce is low during the first months of marriage; it then increases, reaches a maximum, and thereafter begins to decline. Some researchers consider this pattern consistent with the notion of a “seven-year itch,” while others argue that the rising-falling pattern of divorce risk is a consequence of misspecification of longitudinal models because of omitted covariates or unobserved heterogeneity. The aim of this study is to investigate the causes of the rising-falling pattern of divorce risk. Using register data from Finland and applying multilevel hazard models, the analysis supports the rising-falling pattern of divorce by marriage duration: the risk of marital dissolution increases, reaches its peak, and then gradually declines. This pattern persists when I control for the sociodemographic characteristics of women and their partners. The inclusion of unobserved heterogeneity in the model leads to some changes in the shape of the baseline risk; however, the rising-falling pattern of the divorce risk persists.
KeywordsDivorce Marriage Multilevel hazard models Finland
The author is grateful to three anonymous referees and former Editor Stewart Tolnay for valuable comments and suggestions on a previous version of this article. The author also thanks Statistics Finland for providing the register data used in this study, as well as Mrs. Marianne Johnson for valuable suggestions when preparing the data order. The analyses made in this study are based on the Statistics Finland Register Data at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (TK-53-1662-05).
- Andersson, G., & Philipov, D. (2002). Life-table representations of family dynamics in Sweden, Hungary and 14 other FFS countries: A project of description of demographic behaviour. Demographic Research, 7(article 4), 67–144. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2002.7.4
- Blossfeld, H.-P., & Rohwer, G. (1995). Techniques of event history modeling: New approaches to causal analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Chan, T. W., & Halpin, B. (2003). Union dissolution in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Sociology, 32, 76–93.Google Scholar
- Diekmann, A., & Mitter, P. (1984). A comparison of the “sickle function” with alternative stochastic models of divorce rates. In A. Diekmann & P. Mitter (Eds.), Stochastic models of social processes (pp. 123–153). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Erlangsen, A., & Andersson, G. (2001). The impact of children on divorce risks in first and later marriages (MPIDR Working Paper WP-2001-033). Rostock, Germany: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.Google Scholar
- Galler, H. P., & Poetter, U. (1990). Unobserved heterogeneity in models of unemployment duration. In K. U. Mayer & N. B. Tuma (Eds.), Event history analysis in life course research (pp. 226–240). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
- Hoem, B., & Hoem, J. M. (1992). The disruption of marital and non-marital unions in contemporary Sweden. In J. Trussell, R. Hankinson, & J. Tilton (Eds.), Demographic applications of event history analysis (pp. 61–93). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Hoem, J. M. (1993). Classical demographic models of analysis and modern event-history techniques. In IUSSP: 22nd International Population Conference, Montreal, Canada (Vol. 3, pp. 281–291). Paris, France: IUSSP.Google Scholar
- Jalovaara, M. (2013). Socioeconomic resources and the dissolution of cohabitations and marriages. European Journal of Population, 29, 167–193.Google Scholar
- Kiernan, K. (1999). Cohabitation in Western Europe. Population Trends, 96, 25–32.Google Scholar
- Kulu, H., & Boyle, P. J. (2010). Premarital cohabitation and divorce: Support for the “trial marriage” theory? Demographic Research, 23(article 31), 879–904.Google Scholar
- Levinger, G. (1983). Development and change. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 315–359). New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
- Lillard, L. A., & Panis, C. W. A. (2003). aML: Multilevel multiprocess statistical software, version 2.0. Los Angeles, CA: EconWare.Google Scholar
- Lindgren, J., Ritamies, M., & Miettinen, A. (1992). Consensual unions and their dissolution among Finnish women born in 1938–1969. Yearbook of Population Research in Finland, 30, 33–43.Google Scholar
- Lyngstad, T. H. (2011). Does community context have an important impact on divorce risk? A fixed-effects study of twenty Norwegian first-marriage cohorts. European Journal of Population, 27, 57–77.Google Scholar
- Lyngstad, T. H., & Jalovaara, M. (2010). A review of the antecedents of union dissolution. Demographic Research, 23(article 10), 257–292. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2010.23.10
- Vaupel, J. W., & Yashin, A. I. (1985). Heterogeneity’s ruses: Some surprising effects of selection on population dynamics. The American Statistician, 39, 176–185.Google Scholar
- Vikat, A. (2004). Women’s labor force attachment and childbearing in Finland. Demographic Research, Special Collection 3(article 8), 177–212. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.0.S8.3