Re: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/fentons-hypothesis
@They Call Me Tom
"I would venture to guess though, if the statistics could be found, because women in groups tend to behave as herds socially (NAWALT, etc. I know), I would imagine that somewhere above half of all divorces are by women who have one or more divorced friends."
Well, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:"
"The first author (working with Jenessa Shapiro) hit upon a promising device to elucidate these issues. Reasoning that popular magazines both reflected and galvanized distinctive cultural views, Braver and Shapiro speculated that subscription rates to certain of these magazines across times and locales could provide an empirical window onto these trends. They thus obtained state-by-state, year-by-year subscription data for the following four magazines: Lady’s Home Journal (read almost entirely by women with fairly traditional values and interests); Playboy (glorifying male hedonism); Cosmopolitan (representing lifestyle advice for “fun, fearless females” seeking empowerment, self improvement, and sexual fulfillment); and Ms. (representing the feminist ideology closely associated with the Women’s Movement). Arraying these subscription rates in a multi-level model against the year-by-year, state-by-state (crude) divorce rates, Braver and Shapiro found (in results not previously published) that changes in divorce rates at the state level were well matched by the state’s trends in subscriptions to Ms. Magazine , and were opposite (though not significantly) to its trends in subscriptions to Lady’s Home Journal. Importantly, they found virtually no association between the state’s divorce rate and its subscriptions to Playboy or Cosmopolitan . Taken together, these data provocatively suggest that some, but not all, value changes are associated with changes in divorce rates. Changing levels of interest in the aspects of self fulfillment and self-empowerment captured in feminist ideology and its antithesis seemed important, whereas changes in the emphasis on either male specialized or female-specific self-fulfillment and hedonism were unrelated to divorce trends. Strengthening this interpretation, since around 1970, about 2 in 3 divorces have been sought by wives (Ahrons & Rodgers, 1987 ; Braver, Whitley, & Ng, 1993 ; Pettit & Bloom, 1984 ) , whereas previously, “most divorces were the man’s idea” (DeWitt, 1992 , p. 54). In addition, findings show that the more that an individual woman agrees with the precepts of the Woman’s Movement, the more likely she is to divorce (Finlay, Starnes, & Alvarez, 1985)."
Braver, Sanford L., and Michael E. Lamb. "Marital Dissolution." Handbook of Marriage and the Family (2013): 487-516.
"With respect to normative integration, the finding appears to be uncomplicated. When one's reference group includes siblings or friends who have divorced, the individual is more likely to divorce. Whether having divorced peers simply releases inhibition and reduces pressure to remain in an unhappy marriage or actually encourages individuals to seek out more attractive partners cannot be discerned from our data."
"The percent obtaining a divorce who also had a divorced friend or sibling (or both) was calculated using the procedure described in Table 5. Only 9% of those having no one divorced in their reference group obtained a divorce in the eight-year period. Those having a friend or a sibling divorce had a 12% chance of divorce. Whether it was one's friend or sibling who divorced did not make a substantial difference in the probability of divorcing. When both a friend and a sibling obtained a divorce, the dissolution rate increased to 16%. When the norms for one's reference group permit divorce, marital dissolution is more likely to occur than when they do not."
Booth, Alan, John N. Edwards, and David R. Johnson. "Social integration and divorce." Social Forces 70.1 (1991): 207-224.
"Following a Durkheimian definition (Durkheim, 1897/1951; Stark, 2006), social integration involves high consensus on rules of behavior (norms) and effective means to ensure that most people conform to the norms most of the time. Hence, the more they are socially integrated in any group, the more likely they are to comply with the norms of this group (Booth, Edwards, & Johnson, 1991). We assume that, in the perspective of the couple, important norms with respect to divorce might be derived from the patterns of behavior prevalent in the couple’s network. Thus, if divorce is a frequent occurrence in the couple’s network, the couple is expected to divorce more easily, because common rules tolerate it, even if one is initially less open for divorce (Stalder, 2011). On the other hand, if divorce is not very frequent in the couple’s network, the couple is expected to stay together because divorce is, possibly, less accepted. For these couples, the social costs of divorcing will impede them to do so (e.g., Fenelon, 1971; Shelton, 1987)."
"Previous research has shown that the occurrence of a parental divorce (e.g., Amato, 1996; Amato & DeBoer, 2001; Wolfinger, 1999), the divorce of siblings (Dronkers & Hox, 2006), the divorce of a close friend (Booth et al., 1991), and divorce in the network (McDermott, Fowler, & Christakis, 2009) indeed increase the likelihood of divorce. Our first hypothesis, therefore, reads: the higher the prevalence of divorce in the couple’s network, the greater the likelihood that the couple will dissolve their long-term romantic relationship. Different from the previous empirical work cited above, this study will, for the first time, simultaneously examine the influence of parental divorce, the divorce of siblings, the divorce of a close friend, as well as the divorce rate in the municipality in which the couple lives, allowing an examination of their relative influence on the likelihood to dissolve long-term romantic relationships."
"As expected, the experience of a parental divorce, having divorced siblings, and living in a municipality with a high divorce rate, predicted the likelihood with which couples dissolve their relationship. However, having a close friend who was divorced was not significantly related to the likelihood of dissolving a long-term romantic relationship. Respondents who had no siblings or reported to have no close friend did not significantly differ from those with siblings or a close friend with respect to the likelihood to dissolve their relationship. Additional analyses in which the respondents with either no siblings or no close friend were omitted from the analyses did not alter the results presented here. Adding interaction terms with relationship type to explore possible differences between married and unmarried cohabiting couples regarding the association between the occurrence of divorce in the network and relationship dissolution revealed no differences (non significant results are not printed in Model 2). We conclude that the first hypothesis regarding the association between the prevalence of divorce in the couple’s network and the likelihood of dissolving the relationship was supported by the findings, with the exception of divorce of a close friend, which was not related to relationship dissolution."
Hogerbrugge, Martijn JA, Aafke E. Komter, and Peer Scheepers. "Dissolving long-term romantic relationships Assessing the role of the social context." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30.3 (2013): 320-342.
"To study the possibility of person-to-person effects, we examined the direct ties and individual-level determinants of ego divorce status. In the models we present in Table 8, we control for several factors as noted earlier, and report the association between “Ego Currently Divorced” and “Alter Previously Divorced” in the first row. People who have a friend who has previously gotten divorced are 270% (95% C.I. 60% to 650%) more likely to get divorced themselves by the time they come to their next exam. Among friends, we can distinguish additional possibilities."
McDermott, Rose, James Fowler, and Nicholas Christakis. "Breaking up is hard to do, unless everyone else is doing it too: social network effects on divorce in a longitudinal sample followed for 32 years." Unless Everyone Else is Doing it Too: Social Network Effects on Divorce in a Longitudinal Sample Followed for 32 (2009).
"For marital status, as Table 5 shows, married respondents were very likely to have married close friends. Separated or divorced respondents most likely had married friends, but they also had a high percentage of separated or divorced friends. This trend was significant."
[Table 5: 35.3% vs 13.4% - that is, % of friends who are sep./div.]
Goward, Eleanor L. "The closest friendships of adult women: a family life cycle approach." (1991).
"Following the divorce, most women report increased independence. In addition, almost all report an increase in assertive behaviours as divorced females. Half have divorced friends who may have encouraged the development of autonomy and self-esteem."
Langelier, Régis, and Pamela Deckert. "Divorce counseling guidelines for the late divorced female." Journal of Divorce 3.4 (1980): 403-411.
"Research on the risk of divorce has attracted a great deal of interest over the past several decades, mostly due to a very rapid increase in divorce rates in most western societies. In the USA, for example, although there are considerable variations in divorce rates by race, education, and age at marriage, on average about half of all marriages end in divorce (see Raley and Bumpass 2003). We have a fairly detailed picture of the many characteristics of individuals and couples that influence the risk of divorce, such as number of children, education, income, age at marriage, and ethnicity (see White 1990). We know much less about how the characteristics of those with whom the individuals interact influence the stability of their marriages.
A large body of sociological and social-psychological research shows that individuals' actions are often influenced by the people with whom they interact (see e.g. Cialdini and Trost 1998), and this is also a recurrent theme throughout this book. The actions of significant others have been shown to be important for explaining a vast array of phenomena, including involvement in social movements (see e.g. McAdam and Paulsen 1993), virginity pledges (see e.g. Bearman and Bruckner 2001), lynching (see e.g. Tolnay, Deane, and Beck 1996), sexual behavior (see e.g. Billy, Brewster, and Grady 1994), contraceptive use (see e.g. Brewster 1994; Rosero Bixby and Casterline 1994), and suicide (see e.g. Phillips 1974; Bearn1an and Moody 2004; Hedstrom, Liu, and Nordvik 2008).
Demographers have also paid some attention to social interactions and the contagious processes they may give rise to. An early study focusing on social interaction effects on divorce was that of Dean and Bresnahan ( 1969). They mapped the spatial patterning of divorce in a mid-sized city in the state of Ohio, and found that it resembled a 'measles pattern'; that is, that divorce was spatially clustered. The pattern they found was suggestive and indicated that divorce may be contagious, but they did not have access to the type of data needed to test whether this was indeed the case. A more recent study, partially in the same tradition, is that of South and Lloyd (1995). They found that the risk of divorce for young people was substantially influenced by contextual factors. Most importantly, they found the sex ratio among singles residing in the same geographic area as the respondent to be important. This finding suggests that the supply of spousal alternatives in the local marriage market significantly influences the risk of marital dissolution.
Social interactions have also been the focus of some of the research on the 'inheritance' of divorce. As McLanahan and Bumpass (1988), Wolfinger (1999), and others have shown, children of divorce are more likely to divorce than comparable others. As noted by Diekmann and Engelhardt ( 1999), this is a potentially important factor contributing to the upward trend in marriage dissolution rates during the post-World War II period. Other recent examples include Kohler's analysis of fertility (2001) and Nazio and Blossfeld's analysis of cohabitation (2003). On the whole, these are noteworthy and interesting exceptions, however. Most demographic researchers pay little or no attention to the role of social interactions and the endogenous processes they can give rise to.
The analyses presented in this chapter suggest that interactions with others are crucial when it comes to explaining divorce; the marital status of those with whom individuals interact at work strongly influences their divorce risks. These results are based on data from a unique Swedish longitudinal database including all employees at approximately 1,500 randomly selected workplaces. The database allows for detailed analyses of how the sex, age, and marital status of a person's coworkers influence his or her risk of divorce, when one controls for other known risk factors. The core finding is that divorce is contagious, but that the patterns of influence differ significantly between men and women."
--
"For an action to take place, the individual must have an opportunity to perform the act; that is, the conditions must be such that the action is pan of the individual's opportunity set. Strictly speaking, all married persons in most western countries have the opportunity to divorce, although there may be legally imposed delays. In this section I will therefore not focus on the opportunities to divorce as such, but on how variations in other aspects of an individual's opportunity structure may influence how desirable a divorce is likely to appear. One such opportunity is the opportunity to meet a new partner.
The probability of becoming involved with a new partner before a divorce and the prospect of finding a new partner in the future are probably greater the larger the proportion of persons in the individual's local context who are of the opposite sex and of relevant age. (For bisexual and homosexual persons the spousal alternatives may obviously be of the same sex.) Some previous research indeed strongly suggests that the availability of spousal alternatives increases the risk of marital disruption. Udry (1981), for example, found that wives' perceptions of how easily their husbands could be replaced with a man of comparable qua lily increased the risk of divorce independently of marital happiness. As mentioned above, South and Lloyd (1995) showed that the risk of divorce for young people is higher when there is an unbalanced sex ratio among singles residing in their residential area."
--
"The decision to divorce is a decision taken under conditions of imperfect information. As much experimental social-psychological research has shown, it is in uncertain decision situations that a decision maker's beliefs are likely to be particularly influenced by other people (e.g. Cialdini and Trost 1998). A married person cannot know exactly what his or her life will be like after a marital disruption. One way to reduce this uncertainty is to gather information from divorced friends and acquaintances. If they seem to manage well after their divorces, they are likely to influence the individual's beliefs in such a way that the likelihood that the individual will initiate a divorce will increase. On the other hand, if they seem to be unhappy in their new status, they are likely to influence the individual's beliefs in the opposite direction and thereby serve as deterrents. Much research has found that the majority of divorcees view their divorces favorably, especially a few years after the divorce (Pettit and Bloom 1984; Wadsby and Svedin 1992). It is therefore likely that divorcees more often serve as positive reinforcers than as negative deterrents. A married person with many divorced friends is therefore likely to be more optimistic about life as a divorcee than is a person with few divorced friends, even if the actual quality of life after divorce will be the same. Thus, all else being equal, the more divorcees a person encounters, the more like!)• it is that he or she will divorce."
Åberg, Yvonne. "The contagiousness of divorce." The Oxford handbook of analytical sociology (2009).
They Call Me Tom: "I venture to guess though, that abuse leading to divorce is probably even less prevalent than loss of income leading to divorce."
Well, this is important to think about as a starting point:
"Income
This is a very complex area where much research has been undertaken. Clark, Frijters, and Shields (2007) provide a comprehensive review of the relationship between income and SWB, and so we provide only a brief overview here. The results generally suggest positive but diminishing returns to income. Some of this positive association is likely to be due to reverse causation, as indicated by studies which show higher well-being leading to higher future incomes (Diener et al., 2002, Graham et al., 2004, Marks and Flemming, 1999 and Schyns, 2001), and some is likely to be due to unobserved individual characteristics, such as personality factors, as indicated by studies which find a reduced income effect after controlling for individual effects (Ferrer-i-Carbonell and Frijters, 2004 and Luttmer, 2005).
Studies that have included relative income (defined in a range of different ways with a range of different reference groups) suggest well-being is strongly affected by relativities (Dorn et al., 2007, Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2005, Luttmer, 2005 and Weinzierl, 2005). This suggests that additional income may not increase well-being if those in the relevant comparison group also gain a similar increase in income. However, increases in income that result in increases in tax yield, which could be used to fund public services that may themselves enhance well-being. For a given income level, having high aspirations and expectations have a negative effect on SWB (Macdonald and Douthitt, 1992 and Stutzer, 2004). Aspirations themselves appear to be driven in part by past incomes, implying adaptation to higher levels of income (Stutzer, 2004; Di Tella, Haisken-De New, & MacCulloch, 2005). The importance of aspirations reinforces findings that the perceptions of financial status have stronger predictive power than actual income (Haller and Hadler, 2006, Johnson and Krueger, 2006 and Wildman and Jones, 2002). These findings imply that additional income for those who are not at low levels of income is unlikely to increase SWB in the long run if the additional income serves to increase expectations of necessary income.
As noted by Easterlin (1995), if the relative income effect dominates the absolute income effect, this would explain why cross section data show that wealthier individuals within a society are happier, but that average SWB levels remain constant as all members become wealthier. However, positive correlations between average SWB and national income found in international cross section data, particularly in lower income country samples (Di Tella et al., 2003, Fahey and Smyth, 2004, Helliwell, 2003 and Rehdanz and Maddison, 2005), requires either that comparisons of relative position are made across nations, or that an absolute income effect operates in many countries. Evidence on international relative income effects is limited. Fahey and Smyth (2004) argue that the significance of GDP quartile when holding income constant suggests that relatives between countries matters. Graham and Felton (2006) analyse Latin American responses in which people are asked to place themselves on a ladder where one stands for the poorest level of society and ten the richest and found that average country wealth increases responses suggesting individuals compare themselves to a society external to their own country and “people in part judge themselves by their place in the international sphere”."
Dolan, Paul, Tessa Peasgood, and Mathew White. "Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being." Journal of Economic Psychology 29.1 (2008): 94-122.
[I know SWB is linked with divorce - I don't have any references for that at the moment, though.]
------------
Another study:
Network dynamics in the long-term period after divorce, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships December 2004 21: 719-738
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments will be received, but will not be published.