1 loneliness after divorce a cohort comparison among 60-78- year old dutch people theo van tilburg...

1

Loneliness after divorce A cohort comparison among 60-78-year old Dutch people

Theo van Tilburg

Sociology, VU University Amsterdam

Marja Aartsen

Sociology, VU University Amsterdam

Suzan van der Pas EMGO+, VUmc, Amsterdam

Theo.van.Tilburg@vu.nl

3

Weakening benefits of marriage

• Advantage of marriage for well-being has been well documented• Mixed empirical evidence for ‘weakening’ thesis

– Veenhoven (1983) – happiness, suicide – no support– Haring-Hidore et al. (1985) – well-being – support– Glenn and Weaver (1988) – happiness – support– Follow-up by Adams (1999) – no support– Amato and Keith (1991) – meta-analysis – support– Mastekaasa (1993) – suicide – mixed results

• Tentative conclusion: cracks visible in institution marriageHowever, marriage continues to provide people with benefits

• What about alternatives?In particular cohabitation with supportive partner equals marriage (e.g. Musick & Bumpass, 2012)

4

Weakening benefits of marriage – Current study

• Focus on divorce: detrimental effects for well-being• Gaps in existing research

- limited in analytic approach (computed correlation between year of data collection and outcome)- old (no studies covering 1990s and 2000s)

• Purpose current study- comparison divorced – married people (60-78 yrs old)- direct test (cohort analysis 1992-2009)

5

Marital status: Two major changes

People have chosen for alternatives to marriage • Alternatives has become socially approved• Release of stigma associated with being divorced

Marriage has lost its integrating, protective and social function• Socio-economic position of non-married people has improved • Person’s relationships ‘disembedded’ from the context of marriage

6

Hypotheses

‘Traditional’ social integration thesis• Focus on social status associated with marriage• People not in marriage occupy an incompatible status• Poor social integration harms well-being

H1: legal form of marital status has lost in importance: disadvantage of being divorced compared to marriage in loneliness intensity has diminished

‘Traditional’ protection thesis • Focus on resources offered within partnership• Marriage/partnership fulfills basic human needs

H2: not having supportive partnership decreasingly lead to intense feelings of loneliness

7

Design of LASA

• LASA: Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam, since 1991N = 3805 (1992→), 1002 (2002→), >1000 (2012→)

• Focus on:- Social- Cognitive- Emotional, and- Physical functioning

• Random sample 55+, stratified according to sex and birth year

• The Netherlands, eleven municipalities, three regions

• Cooperation rate- initial observations 62%- follow-up observations 89% - 97%

• Multiple point prospective panel design

Amsterdam

Zwolle

OssGermany

North Sea

Belgium

Huisman, M., Poppelaars, J., Van der Horst, M., Beekman, A.T.F., Brug, J., Van Tilburg, T.G., & Deeg, D.J.H. (2011). Cohort profile: The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA). Journal of Epidemiology, 40, 868-876.

8

Cohorts and longitudinal observations in LASA

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

1992 1993 1996 1999 2002 2006 2009 2012 2015

1903-07

1908-12

1913-17

1918-22

1923-27

1928-32

1933-37

1938-42

1943-47

1948-52

1953-57

60-78 yrs old60-78 yrs old

9

Sample Size

Year data collection 1992 2009

Birth years 1914-1930 1931-1947

N N

Divorced 96 97

Remarried after divorce 50 68

First marriage 1226 712

10

Measurement instruments

Loneliness (Scale De Jong Gierveld)• Emotional loneliness, 6 items, range 0-6

“I experience a general sense of emptiness” • Social loneliness, 5 items (reversed coding), range 0-5

“I can call on my friends whenever I need them”

Support • Emotional: “How often did it occur in the last year that you told your

partner/spouse about your personal experiences and feelings?”• Instrumental: “… your partner/spouse helped you with daily chores in

and around the house, such as prepare meals, clean the house, transportation, small repairs, fill in forms?”

• Spouse provided emotional and instrumental support often (versus never, seldom, sometimes for one or both support types)

11

Procedure

• Legal form: Comparison of- people in first marriage- divorced people, and - people remarried after divorceReported in interview; corrected from data population register

• Comparison of people- with supportive partnership - without such relationshipReported in interview

Logistic ordinal regression of emotional and social loneliness• Pooled sample; interaction effects with survey year• Controlled for gender, age, years in current marital status, other

supportive relationship, personal network size, educational level, religious affiliation, ADL capacity, functional limitations, self-perceived health

12

Results – Composition of marital status categories

Gender, age, years in current marital status, other supportive relationship, religious affiliation, ADL capacity, functional limitations: No changes 1992-2009

For all categories increase in:• Personal network size (e.g. divorced: from M = 10.8 to 14.9)• Educational level (e.g. divorced: from M = 9.5 to 10.6 yrs)

Further, increased subjective health among divorced

13

Table 1. Respondent Characteristics by Marital Status

Currently divorced

Divorced, remarried

Married for the first time

1992 2009 1992 2009 1992 2009N 96 97 50 68 1226 712Female 0.58 0.62 0.32 0.44 0.43 0.47Age 69.11 67.30 ** 69.63 66.89 ** 69.42 68.51 ***Years in marital status 18.10 19.74 23.93 20.62 42.53 43.40 **Partnership 0.30 0.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Supportive partnership 0.10 0.20 0.60 0.66 0.56 0.60Other supp. relationship 0.29 0.22 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.13Network size 10.84 14.86 *** 11.36 15.13 * 14.14 17.22 ***Educational level 9.48 10.59 * 9.66 11.12 * 8.73 10.36 ***Religious affiliation 0.40 0.38 0.18 0.34 0.63 0.60ADL capacity 18.88 18.77 18.96 18.37 19.27 19.19Functional limitations 1.56 1.55 1.50 1.57 1.40 1.41Self-perceived health 3.41 3.69 * 3.68 3.57 3.73 3.75

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

14

Table 2. Loneliness Scores by Marital Status

Currently divorced

Divorced, remarried

Married for the first time

1992 2009 1992 2009 1992 2009

% % % % % %

Emotional loneliness *

Score 0 45 59 58 71 69 74

Score 1 14 13 12 10 14 12

Score 2 10 4 8 3 7 6

Score ≥3 31 24 22 16 10 8

Social loneliness * **

Score 0 40 58 34 54 57 58

Score 1 21 16 12 16 19 22

Score 2 14 8 22 16 11 10

Score ≥3 26 18 32 13 13 10

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001Note. Test of significance is assessed by ordinal logistic regression of emotional and social loneliness and concerns differences between the survey years within categories of marital status.

15

Results - Regression of Loneliness

• Hypothesis 1: support found for social loneliness• Hypothesis 2: support found for emotional loneliness

• Presentation of estimated probabilities

16

Table 3. Ordinal Logistic Regression of Emotional and Social Loneliness (OR)

Emotional SocialSurvey year 0.78 ** 0.81 *Female 1.29 * 0.76 **Age 1.01 1.02 *Divorced 1.67 *** 1.47 **Remarried 0.77 1.43Divorced * Survey Year 0.82 0.53 **Remarried * Survey Year 0.77 0.72Supportive partnership 0.65 *** 0.63 ***Supportive partnership * Survey year 1.49 * 1.13Years in current marital status 0.99 0.98 *Other supportive relationship 1.12 0.59 ***Network size 0.96 *** 0.94 ***Educational level 1.00 1.00Religious affiliation 0.98 0.81 *ADL capacity 0.97 0.97Functional limitations 1.36 *** 1.18 *Self-perceived health 0.82 ** 0.87 *

17

Social Loneliness

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Ever Divorced First Marriage

19922009

Includes:- without partner- with non-supportive partner- with supportive partner

Includes:- with non-supportive spouse- with supportive spouse

18

Social Loneliness

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Ever Divorced First Marriage

19922009

-18%

-2%

Includes:- without partner- with non-supportive partner- with supportive partner

Includes:- with non-supportive spouse- with supportive spouse

19

Emotional Loneliness

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

No (supportive) partner Supportive Partner

19922009

20

Emotional Loneliness

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

No (supportive) partner Supportive Partner

19922009

-7%

21

Discussion

• No weakening benefits of marriageFits Cherlin (2004): “practical importance of marriage has declined, its symbolic significance has remained high” (see also Lauer)

• No sign of diminishing attractiveness of partnership(but: Increasing personal networks)

• Disadvantage of divorce & being without supportive partner disappeared

• Contradicts- results of old studies on detrimental effects of divorce- ideas of individualizing society /w more people lonely

• Reflection of processes in society- new cohorts entering late life (e.g. Baby Boomers)- more risks, but equipped to cope with uncertainties and to navigate in complex situations

22

Thank you !

Contact: Theo.van.Tilburg@vu.nl

Google search: theo van tilburg