Childless Divorce Research Paper

• How prevalent is childlessness among couples?
• Have others replicated Willcox’s findings showing an association between childlessness and divorce?
• How can we explain the association between childlessness and divorce (and/or separation)?
• When childless couples separate and/or divorce, what are their experiences like?

Childlessness

Current estimates are that nearly 20 percent of American women in their early 40s, the end of their childbearing years, are childless. Circa 1970, only one in 10 U.S. women in the 40 to 44 age range was childless. Thus, in the last 40 years, the proportion of childless women nearly doubled, with virtually all of the increase occurring prior to 2000. Although historical changes in marital childlessness and divorce rates have not paralleled each other perfectly, some scholars, including Gary Becker, have pointed to the possibility that trends in rates of childlessness and divorce have influenced each other.

Childlessness can be a voluntary choice or due to infertility. In the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s ’s 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, 7.2 percent of married women aged 15 to 44 were infertile by the definition of not having used contraception for 12 months or more and not having become pregnant. Although stating the statistic this way may imply that infertility is the wife’s responsibility, infertility is actually a couple-level problem, so the 7.2 percent statistic closely approximates the percentage of infertile couples. In as much as some husbands and wives may only infrequently have sexual intercourse, some may have been fertile at earlier times in their lives, some might conceive after a longer period of trying (the United Nations uses a two-year standard for infertility), and others might become pregnant with medical assistance, this number probably overestimates the percentage of women/couples who are infertile throughout their lives. Furthermore, couples can become parents through adoption. Thus, the vast majority of contemporary childless marriages in the United States are likely voluntary. Unfortunately, most studies of childlessness and divorce do not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary childlessness, and scholars need to make this distinction given the very likely possibility that the experiences of each group may be quite different.

Contemporary Research

In the mid-20th century, a small nucleus of social scientists challenged the early conclusion that childlessness was associated with divorce. They noted that state record keeping was not always accurate (for example, it was common to assume couples had no children if divorce petitions were missing information about children) and illuminated ways the analyses were unrefined. For example, critics claimed that most divorces occurred in the early years of marriage and therefore might be a simple consequence of childless couples’ short unions. In the years that followed, however, researchers used increasingly sophisticated research designs and statistical methodologies to arrive at more defensible conclusions.

Contemporary research shows that, even after considering various statistical controls such as the length of marriage or socioeconomic status, having a child reduces the likelihood of divorce, albeit perhaps not as much as early analyses suggested. At this point, the phenomenon has been generally replicated across historical periods and in diverse populations. For example, one cross-national study found that having a single child reduced the odds of divorce in 17 out of 18 countries. Having two children inhibited divorce even more than having just one. A statistical combination (metaanalysis) of the results of over 80 European studies showed that on average, the presence of children reduced the likelihood of divorce by 36.5 percent.

Evidence is also available to support the following additional conclusions:

• Having children within marriage is most strongly associated with marital stability when the couple’s children are young (under six), as some studies have found that divorce rates are modestly higher when teenage children live in the household.
• Some studies show the divorce rate trends upward in large families of four or more children to levels higher than that found in small families, but not as high as in childless families.
• The birth of a child while spouses are in a second marriage is associated with a lower divorce rate.
• Partners who enter first marriages as well as subsequent marriages without bringing any children are less prone to divorce. Having children from a previous relationship is one of the reasons why the divorce rate is higher in stepfamilies than in first-marriage families.
• Conception of a child within cohabiting relationships decreases the odds of the cohabiting partners separating.

Currently, there is no available evidence regarding the effects of children on the stability of samesex couples, although the legislative trend toward more states allowing same-sex couples to adopt and marry will likely lead to greater opportunities for researchers to study how children affect divorce rates in gay and lesbian couples.

A provocative, widely cited study published in 1988 reported that not only did the presence of children within marriage reduce the probability of divorce but that the presence of boys (at least one male child) also reduced the probability more so than did the presence of girls. The original authors acknowledged that this sex difference was small in magnitude. Subsequent evidence on this point has been mixed; European researchers have been unable to consistently replicate the sex difference effect and have challenged it. A different sex difference has, however, been found in recent research: namely, the presence of children does more to inhibit fathers than mothers from seeking a divorce, perhaps because men are more likely than women to suffer a loss due to diminished contact with their children if they were to divorce.

Childlessness and Divorce: Associations

Many ideas have been offered to explain the various associations between the presence of children and divorce. One notion is that marital problems and worries about divorce inhibit couples from having children, such that partners in unstable marriages may conclude that it is not a good idea to bring children into a family that may soon be disrupted. Another is that some third factor such as the partners’ willingness to work and sacrifice leads to both having children and staying together. In general, however, discussions of children and divorce have focused on how having or not having children leads to divorce, suggesting that having children actually causes a decrease in the divorce rate. There is a sociological, an economic, and a social-psychological explanation of how children might reduce the odds of divorce.

Tracing back to Émile Durkheim’s proposition that the sexual division of labor contributes to what he called “conjugal solidarity,” sociologists have argued that parenthood can lead to a more traditionally gender-based division of labor, which in turn reduces marital disruption. This view easily explains the general effect of having children on decreased divorce and fits well with the especially pronounced impact of having young children on the divorce rate. That the divorce rate drops most for the first few children who enter the family may reflect that this is where gender specialization of household labor is most dramatically increased. Explaining some of the other nuances of children and divorce (e.g., why stepchildren elevate the probability of divorce) is less obvious from this perspective.

Nobel Laureate economist Gary Becker addressed the issue of childlessness and divorce as part of his rational choice approach. According to his view, people stay married when the “expected utility” (i.e., the favorability of outcomes) of staying married exceeds that of being single. Becker refers to such concepts as the cost of searching for a partner, the success of the sorting process in terms of achieving valued outcomes, expected outcomes, the certainty of expected outcomes, “marital-specific” capital, and the like. Marital-specific capital consists of assets (including children) that would not be as valuable if the partners were not together. It is the potential loss of the marital-specific value of children that is a key factor in parents staying together. Other factors can also influence the favorability of outcomes and thereby influence the probability of divorce. For example, Becker postulates that outcomes that match expectations are typically valued more than unexpected outcomes. He sees searching for a partner as a cost that diminishes the value of a marriage.

Becker’s model can account for variations in the extent to which childlessness leads to divorce. For example, he explains the detrimental effect of premarital conception on the stability of marriages in terms of the mate selection process being shortened and leading to less suitable partnerships. He posits that older children have less impact in fostering marital cohesion because of their deteriorating value as marital-specific capital. He explains the rise in divorce rates found in large families as often the result of unexpected outcomes (i.e., children resulting from poor family planning) that diminish rather than enhance the value of marriages.

Social psychologists George Levinger and Caryl Rusbult have addressed the issue of whether couples stay together (e.g., marital stability) in terms of three classes of forces: how attracted partners are to one another, the barriers partners would have to overcome (or investments they would have to give up) to leave the relationship, and alternative attractions (e.g., other potential relationships or simply being not married). Attraction to one’s partner and barriers to leaving the relationship reduce the odds of divorce; alternative attractions increase the chances of divorce. All three of these forces can operate vis-à-vis childlessness and divorce, with barrier forces being especially important. To the extent that children are rewarding to a couple’s relationship, they are an attraction helping the relationship to persist. From this viewpoint, children can serve as a barrier to separation. In discussing how children serve as barriers, Levinger highlighted that many parents feel obligated to stay together for the sake of their children. He argued that if parents believe divorce would hurt the development of their children, they will be less likely to divorce.

There are obviously other pressures against getting divorced that are often associated with the presence of children, such as their tendency to make the process of getting divorced more difficult or their ability to intensify the social pressure against divorcing brought to bear on couples. Turning to the third factor in this model, having children may make the process of courtship for remarriage more difficult and thus decrease the appeal of the alternatives to remaining married.

Social psychologists can explain variations in how greatly childlessness impacts the divorce rate by considering various combinations of attractions, barriers, and alternatives. For example, to explain why young children prevent divorce more effectively than older children, social psychologists might argue that parents of young children feel more obligated to stay married for the sake of their children than do parents of older children because younger children are perceived as being more vulnerable to parental and marital disruption.

Some scholars have argued that children foster marital satisfaction, and this in turn enhances marital stability. While marital satisfaction is indeed linked to marital stability, research evidence does not support the notion that children lead to an increase in marital satisfaction. By contrast, being a parent decreases, rather than increases, marital satisfaction. Thus, one needs to explain the paradox of children undermining marital happiness yet promoting marital stability. From the socialpsychological perspective, this can be explained by the notion that some martially dissatisfied spouses do not seek divorce because they may face significant barriers to dissolving their relationship and lack attractive alternatives.

Separation Among Childless Couples

Although gay and lesbian couples are not typically legally married (as of 2012), their separation experiences provide some insights into how divorce is likely to affect couples without children. Research that has directly compared heterosexual, childless gay, and childless lesbian couples who separate suggests that there are numerous similarities in their experiences. For example, in 1997, Lawrence Kurdek found that gay, lesbian, and heterosexual partners provided similar reasons why the relationship ended and had similar levels of distress following the end of the relationship. For all three types of couples, the most common reasons cited for the separation were individual characteristics of either partner (e.g., drug or alcohol abuse, irritating personality characteristics), the performance of relationship roles (e.g., not being comfortable in the role of spouse), and (a lack of) relational cohesion (e.g., not sharing the same interests). Further, partners across the three types of couples reported similar levels of separation distress. Across all three couple types, partners who mentioned problems with relationship cohesion as a reason for separation were less likely to report separation distress, whereas those who identified problems with relationship regulation (e.g., communication behavior) were more likely to report separation distress.

By using Rusbult’s social-psychological investment model approach, Kurdek also found that it is possible to predict whether or not a couple will separate by knowing such preseparation factors as the partners’ level of relationship satisfaction, the extent to which the partners believe that they have attractive relationship alternatives, and their level of relationship commitment. By contrast, these preseparation variables do not predict how well partners will adjust to separation. In other words, it appears that the processes involved in determining relationship stability/separation are distinct from those involved in how well each individual partner copes with separation. This effect seems to apply equally well to heterosexual and homosexual couples without children.

Conclusion

Since World War II in the United States and likely elsewhere, childlessness within marriage and divorce have both increased. Although each undoubtedly has many causes, at least to some extent they appear to influence one another at not only the societal level but also at the level of couples’ marriages. Research has primarily focused on examining and explaining why childless married couples are more prone to divorce than are couples with children. More recent comparisons have been more refined, such as comparing divorce rates in couples with children of differing ages.

In the last 10 to 15 years, more attention has been focused on cohabiting couples, including gay and lesbian couples, and the aftermath of childless separation. Some scholars have argued that theories of and research findings pertaining to marital stability should be applicable to cohabiting couples. However, there is not yet enough data to conclude that the experiences and outcomes of separation among cohabiting couples are similar to those of married couples or to firmly address the long-term outcomes associated with childless divorce. Hopefully, as more data are gathered, there will be firmer answers in the future. Such answers are relevant to everyone: the interlacing of couple relationships and childbearing/parenting careers are among society’s most important and challenging tasks.

Bibliography:

1. Becker, Gary S., Elisabeth M. Landes, and Robert T. Michael. “An Economic Analysis of Marital Instability.” Journal of Political  Economy, v.85/6 (1977).
2. Diekman, Andreas and Kurt Schmidheiny. “Do Parents of Girls Have a Higher Risk of Divorce? An Eighteen-Country Study.” Journal of            Marriage and Family, v.66/3 (2004).
3. Kurdek, Lawrence A. “Relationship Outcomes and Their Predictors: Longitudinal Evidence From Heterosexual Married, Gay Cohabiting, and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60/3 (1998).
4. Todesco, Lorenzo. “A Matter of Number, Age, or Marriage? Children and Marital Dissolution in Italy.” Population Research and Policy Review, v.30/2 (2011).