What is the strongest predictor of getting divorced?
Men Leave: Separation And Divorce Far More Common When The Wife Is The Patient
Date: November 10, 2009 Source: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Summary: A woman is six times more likely to be separated or divorced soon after a diagnosis of cancer or multiple sclerosis than if a man in the relationship is the patient, according to a study that examined the role gender played in so-called «partner abandonment.» The study also found that the longer the marriage the more likely it would remain intact. Share:
advertisement
FULL STORY
A woman is six times more likely to be separated or divorced soon after a diagnosis of cancer or multiple sclerosis than if a man in the relationship is the patient, according to a study that examined the role gender played in so-called «partner abandonment.» The study also found that the longer the marriage the more likely it would remain intact.
The study confirmed earlier research that put the overall divorce or separation rate among cancer patients at 11.6 percent, similar to the population as a whole. However, researchers were surprised by the difference in separation and divorce rates by gender. The rate when the woman was the patient was 20.8 percent compared to 2.9 percent when the man was the patient.
«Female gender was the strongest predictor of separation or divorce in each of the patient groups we studied,» said Marc Chamberlain, M.D., a co-corresponding author and director of the neuro-oncology program at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA). Chamberlain is also a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at the University of Washington School of Medicine.
The study, «Gender Disparity in the Rate of Partner Abandonment in Patients with Serious Medical Illness,» was published in the Nov. 15 issue of the journal Cancer. The other corresponding author is Michael Glanz, M.D., of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah School of Medicine.
Why men leave a sick spouse can be partly explained by their lack of ability, compared to women, to make more rapid commitments to being caregivers to a sick partner and women’s better ability to assume the burdens of maintaining a home and family, the study authors said.
Researchers at three medical centers — the SCCA, Huntsman and Stanford University School of Medicine — enrolled a total of 515 patients in 2001 and 2002 and followed them until February 2006. The men and women were in three diagnostic groups: those with a malignant primary brain tumor (214 patients), those with a solid tumor with no central nervous system involvement (193 patients) and those with multiple sclerosis (108 patients). Almost half of the patients were women.
Chamberlain said the study was initiated because doctors noticed that in their neuro-oncology practices, divorce occurred almost exclusively when the wife was the patient. The researchers enrolled groups of patients with other cancers and with multiple sclerosis to separate the impact of oncologic versus neurological disease. The results showed a stronger gender disparity for divorce when the wife was the patient in the general oncology and multiple sclerosis groups (93 percent and 96 percent respectively, compared to 78 percent for the primary brain tumor group).
The study also found correlations between age and length of marriage and the likelihood of divorce or separation. The older the woman was the more likely her partnership would end. However, longer marriages remained more stable.
Researchers also measured some health and quality of life outcomes among the patients who separated or divorced. They found that patients used more antidepressants, participated less in clinical trials, had more frequent hospitalizations, were less likely to complete radiation therapy and more likely not to die at home, according to the study.
«We believe that our findings apply generally to patients with life-altering medical illness,» the authors wrote. «We recommend that medical providers be especially sensitive to early suggestions of marital discord in couples affected by the occurrence of a serious medical illness, especially when the woman is the affected spouse and it occurs early in the marriage. Early identification and psychosocial intervention might reduce the frequency of divorce and separation, and in turn improve quality of life and quality of care.»
- RELATED TOPICS
- Health & Medicine
- Patient Education and Counseling
- Diseases and Conditions
- Today’s Healthcare
- Multiple Sclerosis
- Gender Difference
- Relationships
- Public Health
- Bioethics
- STEM Education
- RELATED TERMS
- Histology
- Personalized medicine
- Multiple sclerosis
- Colorectal cancer
- Psychopathology
- Philosophy of mind
- Chronic pain
- Cervical cancer
The Science of Cohabitation: A Step Toward Marriage, Not a Rebellion
New research shows that the older people are when they make their first big commitment—cohabitation or marriage—the better their chances for marital success.
March 20, 2014
ShareAs more and more American couples choose to share the bills and a bed without a marriage license, a major question looms. In playing house and stocking up on premarital Ikea furniture are we all heightening our risk for divorce?
A new study from the nonpartisan Council on Contemporary Families says no. Moving in before marriage doesn’t automatically make you a divorce statistic. Choosing a partner too early, however, just might.
The study, which will appear in the in the April issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family, could redefine how researchers look at cohabitation, but the science shouldn’t change the way couples think about living together. Experts warn it’s hardly something to be taken lightly.
Arielle Kuperberg was a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania when something in her sociology textbooks caught her eye. In research on marriage longevity, Kuperberg observed that the age a couple said “I do” was among the strongest predictors of divorce.
All of the literature explained that the reason people who married younger were more likely to divorce was because they were not mature enough to pick appropriate partners, she says.
That’s when a lightbulb went off for Kuperberg. If younger married couples were more likely to divorce, did that mean that couples who moved in together at earlier ages were also at increased risk for broken marriages?
The longer couples waited to make that first serious commitment, the better their chances for marital success.
Other researchers who had been exploring the link between cohabitation and divorce failed to take into account the age at which couples took that plunge. Kuperberg wondered if once she controlled for age, the link between cohabitation and divorce might disappear.
Using data from the U.S. governments’ 1995, 2002, and 2006 National Surveys of Family and Growth, Kuperberg analyzed more than 7,000 individuals who had been married. Some of the people she studied were still with their spouse. Others were divorced. Then, instead of studying just the correlation between cohabitation and divorce, Kuperberg looked at how old each individual was when he or she made his or her first major commitment to a partner—whether that step was marriage or cohabitation.
Moving in together without a diamond ring involved didn’t, on its own, lead to divorce. Instead, she found that the longer couples waited to make that first serious commitment, the better their chances for marital success.
So how old should couples be when they commit? The research shows that at 23—the age when many people graduate from college, settle into adult life and begin becoming financially independent—the correlation with divorce dramatically drops off.
Kuperberg found that individuals who committed to cohabitation or marriage at the age of 18 saw a 60 percent rate of divorce. Whereas individuals who waited until 23 to commit saw a divorce rate that hovered more around 30 percent.
“For so long, the link between cohabitation and divorce was one of these great mysteries in research,” Kuperberg says. “What I found was that it was the age you settled down with someone, not whether you had a marriage license, that was the biggest indicator of a relationship’s future success.”
Cohabitation has become so common that it’s almost odd not to test drive a partner before marriage. It’s worthy of a People magazine headline now when a celebrity couple “waits until marriage” to shack up. Bachelor Sean Lowe (of ABC’s The Bachelor) and his wife Catherine Giudici were all over the tabloids when they announced they would not move in together until after their televised wedding.
Cohabitation has increased by nearly 900 percent over the last 50 years. More and more, couples are testing the waters before diving into marriage. Census data from 2012 shows that 7.8 million couples are living together without walking down the aisle, compared to 2.9 million in 1996. And two-thirds of couples married in 2012 shared a home together for more than two years before they ever waltzed down an aisle.
Today, discussing cohabitation is about as salacious as watching grass grow. A 2007 USA Today/Gallup poll found that just 27 percent of Americans disapproved of it. The number of painful discussions I personally endured two years ago when I moved in with my own boyfriend can be counted on one hand. My fridge is littered with wedding announcements from couples who are engaged and lived together for years.
Yet the science of cohabitation has largely carried a “toxic for marriage” warning label. From Annie Hall to Friends to Girls, it seems everybody has been moving in with their significant others, but science told us it was hardly a good idea.
Since the 1970’s, study after study found that living together before marriage could undercut a couple’s future happiness and ultimately lead to divorce. On average, researchers concluded that couples who lived together before they tied the knot saw a 33 percent higher rate of divorce than those who waited to live together until after they were married.
Part of the problem was that cohabitors, studies suggested, “slid into” marriage without much consideration. Instead of making a conscious decision to share an entire life together, couples who shared a dog, a dresser, a blender, were picking marriage over the inconvenience of a break up. Meg Jay, a clinical psychologist, outlined the “cohabitation effect” in a widely-circulated New York Times op-ed in 2012.
«In the 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s, cohabitation was a more unconventional way of getting together.»
“Couples who cohabit before marriage (and especially before an engagement or an otherwise clear commitment) tend to be less satisfied with their marriages—and more likely to divorce—than couples who do not,” she wrote.
Others blamed the types of individuals who were moving in together as the reasons so many of those unions resulted in divorce.
“Back in the 1960’s, the 70’s, and the 80’s, cohabitation was a more unconventional way of getting together. The types of people who were cohabiting were less likely to conform to the traditional standards of marriage such as responsibility, fidelity, and commitment,” says Bradford Wilcox, the director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.
In the 1960’s, television and movie storylines steered clear of cohabitation. Everywhere women were warned that “giving the milk away for free” could result in lifetime of spinsterhood when nobody wanted to “buy the cow.” According to the National Marriage Project fewer than 500,000 unmarried couples were living together in the U.S. in the early 1960’s. In her 2013 book Not Just Roommates, Elizabeth Pleck explored how many states kept laws on the books to prohibit cohabitation in the 20th century and even keep interracial couples apart. It took a more free-thinking individual to violate the moral standards depicted in shows like Leave it To Beaver and The Brady Bunch. It took a risk taker to sit down at the kitchen and tell their parents that they were moving in with their girlfriend or boyfriend. Researchers believed that the types of couples who chose to live together before marriage were rebels who held “less conventional” views about the sanctity of the institution.
Now, Wilcox argues that cohabitors represent a broader swath of the public. Many more couples view cohabitation as a step toward marriage, not a rebellion against it.
A Pew Research study in 2011 found that more than 60 percent of Americans who had ever lived with a partner before marriage saw their living situation as a precursor, not an alternative, to wedded bliss.
It’s still true that cohabitation isn’t without its risks. Experts warn that waiting for an appropriate age to commit to someone is still no substitute for communication.
Jay, who has also written a book about Millennials called The Defining Decade:Why Your Twenties Matter- And How to Make the Most of Them warns that the most recent cohabitation study still does not prove that couples understand the gravity of moving in together, nor does it show that cohabitation is a “silver bullet” to stop divorce.
“Living together doesn’t charm or doom you; it is not whether you live with your partner as much as how you live with your partner,” Jay said. “I am not against living together, but I am for young adults being more aware that it is an arrangement that has upsides and downsides.”
«Once you buy dishes, share a lease, and get a dog, it can be difficult to cut your losses and accept that the relationship isn’t working.»
Couples who live together before marriage enjoy a companion and a teammate, but sometimes, Jay warns, couples stay in relationships longer than they should because once they live with someone, it can be harder to find the escape hatch.
“I have clients who say ‘I spent years of my 20s living with someone who I wouldn’t have dated a year if we had not been living together,’” she says, adding, “Once you buy dishes, share a lease, have a routine, and get a dog, it can be difficult to cut your losses and accept that the relationship isn’t working.”
The risks of unplanned pregnancy are also increased for women who chose to live with their partners before marriage. In a 2013 report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 20 percent of women cohabiting for the first time became pregnant and had a baby within one year of moving in with a boyfriend. That number was up 5 percentage points from 15 percent in 1995.
“Cohabitation fosters enough intimacy to facilitate childbearing but not enough commitment to make people deliberate about their choices to become parents,” Wilcox says. “The result, an unplanned birth, can pose real problems to their relationship and to their future odds of successfully marrying.”
The latest research should give older couples a sense of relief. The science is beginning to show that peeking behind the curtain before choosing to settle into a lifetime of marriage isn’t in and of itself a mistake, but there are still risk factors. It might be important today for all of us to know whether our partner handles the dirty dishes, but cohabitation can still be a mess for those who don’t proceed with caution.
This One Thing is the Biggest Predictor of Divorce
If a couple can revive their fondness and admiration for each other, they are more likely to approach conflict resolution as a team.
If a couple can revive their fondness and admiration for each other, they are more likely to approach conflict resolution as a team. If a couple can revive their fondness and admiration for each other, they are more likely to approach conflict resolution as a team.
This one thing is the biggest predictor of divorce. You may know Dr. John Gottman as “the guy that can predict divorce with over 90% accuracy.” His life’s work on marital stability and divorce prediction is world-renowned—featured in the #1 bestseller Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. After watching thousands of couples argue in his lab, he was able to identify specific negative communication patterns that predict divorce. He called them The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and they are criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. Contempt is the most destructive of The Four Horsemen because it conveys, “I’m better than you. I don’t respect you.” It’s so destructive, in fact, that couples who are contemptuous of each other are more likely to suffer from infectious illness than couples who are not contemptuous of each other. The target of contempt is made to feel despised and worthless. Treating others with disrespect and mocking them with sarcasm are forms of contempt. So are hostile humor, name-calling, mimicking, and/or body language such as eye-rolling and sneering. In his book Why Marriages Succeed or Fail, Dr. John Gottman notes:
When contempt begins to overwhelm your relationship you tend to forget entirely your partner’s positive qualities, at least while you’re feeling upset. You can’t remember a single positive quality or act. This immediate decay of admiration is an important reason why contempt ought to be banned from marital interactions.
Contempt erodes the bond that holds a couple securely together. It’s impossible to build connection when your relationship is deprived of respect. The existence of contempt is the biggest predictor of divorce.
What does contempt look like?
Let me introduce you to a couple from my practice. After five years together, Chris and Mark (names changed for anonymity) find their marriage in a tailspin. Chris feels dismissed, shamed, and blamed by Mark. “I can’t believe you think it’s okay to speak to me the way you do. The things you say to me make me feel awful. It’s like you constantly think I’m a dumbass,” Chris says in my office. “What? I’m just stating facts,” justifies Mark while rolling his eyes. “Well, the things you say are hurtful. What’s the point?” asks Chris. “I’m constantly disappointed by things you say and do. Your logic doesn’t make sense to me,” says Mark. His unwillingness to be influenced or take responsibility for himself is unshakeable. “If I spoke to you in the same way, you would lose your mind,” says Chris. “Whatever,” Mark mumbles. Chris has stopped being affectionate towards Mark, and Mark mostly ignores his complaints at this point. Contempt has totally taken over their relationship.
The antidote to contempt
Here’s the good news. Dr. Gottman’s ability to predict divorce is contingent on behaviors not changing over time. You can reverse a pattern of contempt in your relationship before it’s too late. The antidote lies in building fondness and admiration. Dr. Gottman discovered that the best way to measure fondness and admiration is to ask couples about their past. How did they meet? What were their first impressions of each other? If a relationship is in crisis, partners are unlikely to elicit much praise by talking about the current state of affairs. Talking about the happy events of the past, however, helps many couples reconnect. If a couple can revive their fondness and admiration for each other, they are more likely to approach conflict resolution as a team, and the growth of their sense of “we-ness” will keep them as connected as they felt when they first met. I witness a glimmer of hope when I ask couples how they fell in love. Partners talk about how attractive they thought their partner was. How funny they were. How nervous and excited they felt around each other. Despite all the pain and negative feelings that have accumulated over years, there is still an ember of friendship. The key is to fan that ember back into flames, and the best way to do this is by creating a culture of appreciation and respect in the relationship. Dr. Gottman teaches couples to look at their partner through rose-colored glasses. Instead of trying to catch them doing something wrong, catch them doing something right and appreciate them for it. Even the little things. I like how you did your hair today. Thank you for getting my favorite ice cream. I appreciate you vacuuming without me asking you to. Identifying contempt is the first step towards getting your relationship back on track. If you and your partner need a little extra help, you may benefit from couples counseling. If want to build a deeply meaningful relationship full of trust and intimacy, then subscribe below to receive our blog posts directly to your inbox:
- Health & Medicine
