Divorces by Marriage Cohort · senting data on divorces by marriage cohort (a group consisting of...
35
Data from the NATIONAL VITAL STATISTICS SYSTEM Divorces by Marriage Cohort A study of national trends in divorce by marriage cohort, a group consisting of all couples married during a given calendar year. For each year of marriage from 1922 to 1931 and from 1948 to 1974, this report presents and analyzes national estimates of the divorces that were granted between selected marriage anniversaries to the respective marriage cohort. DHEW Publication No. (PHS) 79-1912 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Public Health Service Office of Health Research, Statistics, and Technology National Center for Health Statistics Hyattsville, Md. August 1979 Series 21 Number 34
Transcript of Divorces by Marriage Cohort · senting data on divorces by marriage cohort (a group consisting of...
Data from theNATIONAL VITAL STATISTICS SYSTEM
Divorces by Marriage Cohort
A study of national trends in divorce by marriage cohort, a groupconsisting of all couples married during a given calendar year. Foreach year of marriage from 1922 to 1931 and from 1948 to 1974,this report presents and analyzes national estimates of the divorcesthat were granted between selected marriage anniversaries to therespective marriage cohort.
DHEW Publication No. (PHS) 79-1912
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFAREPublic Health Service
Office of Health Research, Statistics, and TechnologyNational Center for Health StatisticsHyattsville, Md. August 1979
Series 21Number 34
——
Libraty of Congrass Cataloging in Publication Data
Plateris, Alexander A.Divorces by marriage cohort.
(Vital and health statistics: Series 21, Data from the National Vital Statistics System,Data on natality, marriage, and divorce; no. 34) (DHEW publication; no. (PHS) 79-19 12)
1. Divorce–United States–Statistics. I. Title. II. Series: United States. National Centerfor Health Statistics. Vital and health statistics: Series 21, Data from the National VitalStatistics System, Data on natality, marriage, and divorce; no. 34. III. Series: United States.Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. DHEW publication; no. (PHS) 79-1912.HA2 11.A3 no. 34 [HQ834] 312’.1’73sISBN 0-8406 -0161-1 [301.42’84’0973] 79-607062
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS
DOROTHY P. RICE, Director
ROBERT A. ISRAEL, Deputy Director
JACOB J. FELDMAN, Ph.D., Associate Director for Amdysis
GAIL F. FISHER, Ph.D., Associate Director for the Cooperative Health S tatistics System
ROBERT A. ISRAEL, A cting Associate Director for Data Systems
JAMES T. BAIRD, JR., Ph.D., Associate Director for International Statistics
ROBERT C. HUBER, Associate Director for Management
MONROE G. SIRKEN, Ph.D., Associate Director for Mathernuti”cal Statistics
PETER L. HURLEY, Associate Director for Operations
JAMES M. ROBEY, Ph.D., Associate Director for Program Development
PAUL E. LEAVERTON, Ph.D., Associate Director for Research
ALICE HAYWOOD, Information Officer
DIVISION OF VITAL STATISTICS
JOHN E. PATTERSON, Director
ALICE M. HETZEL, Deputy Director
ALICE M. HETZEL, Chief Marriage and Divorce Statistics Branch
RITA U. HOFFMAN, Chiej Programming Branch
MABEL G. SMITH, Chiej Statistical Resources Branch
Vital and Health Statistics-Series 21-No. 34
DHEW Publication No. (PHS) 79-1912Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 79-607062
CONTENTS
Introduction ............................................... .......................... ............ .. .......... .......................................... 1
Summary of Findings .... .. .................... .......................... .......................... .......... .. .................................. 1
Data by Marriage Cohort .................................. ...... ................... ....................................... ..... ................ 2
Estimated Divorces by Marriage Cohort ..... ................................ ............................................................ 3
Cohort Percents Divorced by Duration of Mtiage ...... .................................................... ................. ..... . 5
Cumulative Percents ................................. .................. ...... .................................. .................... ................. 11
Projections of Cohort Proportions Eventually Divorced ......................... ............................................... 13
Conclusion ............ ..................................................... ........................................................................... 15
References .. ...... .......................................... .................................. .............................. ...... ...................... 15
List of Detailed Tables .............. .............. ........ ............ ........................................ ..... ............................ 16
Appendix: Technical Notes ....................... .................................................... ......................................... 23
LIST OF TEXT FIGURES
1. Maniages, divorces, and divorce rates: United States, 1922-75 ........................ ...... .............. ........... 4
2. Estimated divorces by single-yeardmation intervals: United States, selected marriage cohorts ...... 6
3. Percent of marriage cohorts divorced at selected single-year-duration intervals: United States,1940-75 marriage cohorts ................. ....... ......................... ................................................ ........... 8
4. Percent of marriage cohorts divorced at 5-yearduration intervals: United States, 1925-60 marriagecohorts .......... .................................. .................... .............. .......................................................... 9
5. Percent of marriage cohorts divorced at selected single-yemduration intervals, and crude divorcerate, by year of divor6e: United States, 1950-75 .................................... ............ ......................... 10
6. Cumulative percent of marriage cohorts divorced before specified anniversaries of marriage:United States, 1922-31 and 1948-73 marriage cohorts ..... .......................................................... . 12
LIST OF TEXT TABLES
A. Estimated divorces and percent of marriage cohorts divorced, by duration of marriage, withpercent change: United States, 1949 and 1962 maniage cohorts ................................................. 7
B. Cumulative percent of marriage cohorts divorced and ratio to 2d anniversary percent, by anniver-SEUY of marriage: United States, selected cohorts ... ............ ............... ........................ ................... 13
c. Cumulative percent of marriage cohorts divorced after the 10th anniversary of -age, b,yanniversary interval: United States, 1938-60 marriage c,!horts ........ ............ ...... .......................... 13
...Ill
SYMBOLS
Data not available—-- —-— .-.
Category not applicable———- — . . .
Quantity zero ——-.--—-——.
Quantiiy more than Obut less than 0.05— 0.0
Figure does not meet standards ofreliability or precision— ---—-— *
iv
DIVORCES BY MARRIAGE COHORT
Alexander Plater%, Ph. D., Division of Vital Statistics
INTRODUCTION
With the rapid rise in the divorce rate of theUnited States in recent years, there has been in-creasing interest in determining what this risemeans in terms of the proportion of marriagesdisrupted by divorce within any specified num-ber of years after marriage. Broad interest focuseson the general question of what proportion ofany selected group of marriages has alreadyended in divorce or will eventually end in di-vorce. A more specific question involves theproblem of determining whether the likelihoodof divorce has increased at all durations ofmarriage. If so, has the increase occurred rela-tively the same at all durations, or have largerincreases in proportions divorced occurred atthe shorter or longer durations of marriage?How do the relative rates of increase compare?This report investigates these questions by pre-senting data on divorces by marriage cohort(a group consisting of all couples married in thesame year).
Fluctuations in the national divorce rateduring the last 50 years demonstrate that therisk of divorce can change drastically over time(figure 1). Moreover, any change in the varietyof conditions—social, economic, cultural, demo-graphic-that may influence the overall risk ofmarital disruption at any given point in time,will affect the various groups of married couplesdifferently, according to the respective stagesin their married lives. That is, the factors affect-ing the risk of divorce might be expected to havedifferent effects at different durations of mar-riage. Because divorce data for a single givenyear provide information on many cohorts, each
at a different point in its married life, there arespecific qualifications that must be placed oninferences made from information on divorcesgranted in a single year as to the proportion ofmarriages likely to end in divorce after a givenmarriage duration. An alternative approach,utilized in this report, is to study the past dis-ruption experience of consecutive marriage co-horts, that is, to study divorces by year ofmarriage of the divorcing couples, rather than byyear in which divorce occurred. A quantitativedescription of past cohort experience can beobtained from vital statistics data by followinggroups of married couples (cohorts) throughtheir married lives and observing annual lossesdue to divorce.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In this report, annual divorce totals, pre-viously tabulated by duration of marriage, areconverted into estimates of divorces by yearof marriage. A group consisting of all couplesmarried during a given calendar year is referredto as a “marriage cohort.” For each marriagecohort, the estimated divorces occurring withinthat cohort are distributed and analyzed byduration of marriage. Some duration-specificinformation is available for each cohort from1922 to 1974, but for no marriage cohort can@formation be obtained for all intervals ofmarriage duration; in certain years little or nodivorce data are avaiIabIe. Using the duration-specific divorce estimates for each cohort,percents of losses through divorce are com-~uted for each marriage- cohortintervals of duration of marriage.
for selected
1
Percents divorced for successive marriagecohorts have increased in all intervals of mar-riage duration. In the 1957 marriage cohort,2.1 percent were divorced after the 3d butbefore the 4th anniversaries (that is, at duration3 years), compared with 4.0 percent of the 1971cohort. After the 7th but before the 8th anni-versaries (at duration 7 years), the percent di-vorced increased from 1.1 percent for the 1951cohort to 2.7 percent for the 1967 cohort. Per-cents of cohorts divorced have about doubledat the higher durations of marriage. For example,in the marriage-duration, interval 10-14 years,3.9 percent of the 1950 cohort divorced and 7.7percent of the 1960 cohort divorced; at dura-tion 25-29 years, 1.0 percent of the 1934cohort divorced and 2.0 percent of the 1945cohort divorced.
Cumulative percents divorced indicate theproportion of the original marriages in a cohort‘that were dissolved by divorce before any speci-fied anniversary. A cumulative percent is ob-tained by first summing the duration-specificnumbers of divorces for a cohort over the period’beginning at marriage and ending at a specifiedanniversary of marriage. This sum is then dividedby the original number of marriages in the co-hort. For example, of the 1,546,000 marriagesin the 1953 cohort, 10.0 percent had ended indivorce by the 5th anniversary, 16.3 percent bythe 10th anniversary, and 25.1 percent by the2 Oth anniversary.
More recent cohorts have reached a givenpercent divorced at earlier anniversaries. Forexample, 27.3 percent of the 1955 cohorthad divorced by the 20th anniversary, and the1960 cohort reached 27.0 percent divorced by ~the 15th anniversary. A divorce level of about25 percent was reached by the 1950 cohort atthe 25th anniversary, by the 1952 cohort atthe 20th anniversary, by the 1958 cohort atthe 15th anniversary, and by the 1965 cohortat the 10th anniversary.
The duration of marriage up to the 25thanniversary is the longest interval for whichavailable data permit a direct estimate of thecumulative percent divorced. Such an estimatecould be made for only three cohorts. Divorcedata available through 1975 indicate that about1 out of 4 marriages contracted in 1948, 1949,
and 1950 had ended in divorce before the 25thanniversary. In order to estimate the ultimateproportion divorced in any cohort, an appro-priate procedure would involve adding to thecurrent known proportion divorced for a givencohort a further proportion of marriages thatare projected to end in divorce in the future.Although no projections are made in the presentanalysis, such projections have been made byother authors and some of these are discussed.Preston and McDonaldl have projected the pro-portion of marriages that will ever end in divorce(based on 1969 divorce and death rates) at 27.1percent for the 1950 marriage cohort and at35.7 percent for the 1964 cohort. Accordingto the U.S. Bureau of the Census, projectionsbased on the June 1975 Current PopulationSurvey indicate that 34 percent of ever-marriedwomen born in 1940-44 will eventually endtheir first marriage in divorce, and that 40 per-cent of women born in 1940-44, who havebeen married twice, will eventually end theirsecond marriage in redivorce.
DATA BY MARRIAGE COHORT
Each year a number of marriages in eachcohort are broken by judicial decree or dis-solved by death of husband or wife. Due todeath and divorce, a marriage cohort eventuallydisappears, but this process takes many decades.Indeed, individual cases of divorce have beenreported to occur after more than 60 years ofmarriage. Statistical data on duration of mar-riage at death of husband or wife are not avail-able, and consequently the investigation ofmarital dissolution for marriage cohorts mustbe limited to divorces, with the understandingthat W marriages not disrupted by judicialdecree eventually will be broken by death.
Because the number of divorces becomesnegligible after 30 years of marriage, a veryclose approximation to the final number of di-vorces in a marriage cohort can be determinedif uninterrupted annual divorce statistics byduration of marriage are available for a period of30 years following the year of marriage. Forrecent cohorts, the proportion of marriagesending in divorce can be determined only for,.
.
limited periods of duration, and their lengthsvary for individual marriage cohorts, dependingon the available data.
Divorce statistics by duration of marriage areavailable for two comparatively recent periods,1922-32 and 1948-75. Statistics for 1922-32and for 1960 are national; those for 1948-59and 1961-75 are limited to the reporting States.Since 1961, the reporting States have comprisedthe divorce-registration area (DIM). Durationof marriage has been better reported than anyother variable used in tabulations of divorcedata for the DRA: The “duration not stated”category usually comprises less than 3 percentof all divorces granted in the reporting States.For the years for which national data are notavailable, national estimates have been preparedon the assumption that the percent distributionof divorces by duration of marriage (table 1) wasthe same in the United States as in the reportingStates combined.
The appendix to the present report describesin detail the method used for converting na-tional divorce data, tabulated by duration ofmarriage and by year of decree, into duration-specific divorce estimates by year of marriage.The method was originally described in NCHS’Technical Information Notes. 2 A similar ap-proach has been used by Ferriss for selectedintervak.s The present report offers cohortdivorce experience for consecutive single-yearintervals through duration 9 years and then for5-year-duration intervak through duration 29years,
Generally the method proceeds by recogniz-ing that divorces, granted during a calendar yearand tabulated by single-year-duration intervals,include couples married during 2 calendar years.For the individual duration intervals of 1 through9 years, the number of divorces granted is di-vided into two equal parts, which are assignedto the two marriage cohorts. A slightly differentratio is used to divide the interval of less than1 year.
Divorces granted during a calendar year andtabuIated by 5-year-duration intervals (10-14through 25-29 years) include couples marriedin 6 calendar years. Divorces in such an intervalare divided into 10 equal parts; then 1 part eachis assigned to the chronologically earliest and
latest of the 6 marriage cohorts, and 2 partseach are assigned to the remaining 4 cohorts.
Divorces were assigned to marriage cohortswithout regard to the numerical size of thesecohorts. In the overwhelming majority of cases,this method wiIl provide the same or nearlythe same restit as that which would be pro-duced by allocation according to relative sizesof adjacent cohorts (proportiomil allocation).This is due to the fact that the annual number ofmarriages performed generally vaxies compara-tively little from year to year.
Because divorce estimates by duration ofmarriage for marriage cohorts have been pre-pared from annual divorce data, the durationintervals for which such estimates could be madevary from year to year, depending on the avail-ability of the relevant divorce statistics for eachyear. In particular, divorce statistics by dura-tion were not collected on a national basis forthe years 1933-47. Thus for some cohorts onlyshort-duration and long-duration intervals can beobtained (with a gap in between); for othersonly middle-duration intervals are avadable. Noestimates could be prepared for the open-endedinterval of 30 years or more, as discussed in theappendix. In spite of the limitations, someinformation is presented for each marriage co-hort from 1922 through 1974, but for no cohortis information available for all duration inter-vals (table 2).
Duration-specific divorce estimates assignedto a marriage cohort were used for computingpercents of that cohort disrupted by divorce,according to the duration of marriage of thedivorcing couples (table 3). Whenever possible,cumulative percents were ako prepared, begin-ning with the percents for divorces granted lessthan 1 year after marriage (table 4). Thesecumulative percents tell us what proportion ofeach cohort was broken by divorce within acertain number of years after marriage.
ESTIMATED DIVORCES BYMARRIAGE COHORT
During the 54-year period under study,1922 through 1975, annual divorce and mar-riage totals have fluctuated several times, includ-ing a decline during the Depression, an increase
and subsequent decline in the 1940’s and 19 50’s (both increased or both declined), although for
with a peak in 1946, and another increase in the 8 years during this period, marriages decIined
1960’s and early 1970’s (table 5 and figure 1). whiIe divorces increased. During all periods of
For most of the time, the direction of the trend increase the percent change was usually higher
was the same for marriages and for divorces for divorces than for marriages, and the differ-
3,000
— Marriages (Iefi scale)2,500
-. —.-.. Dwme rate (right scale)
2,000
: ~ d~ ,,,/’
,t
,/700 - ,6”
. ,’
/n\ ,ff
500 ,: ‘! ,’
: ,*”:’ ., ,/
●,*
4W -~,--.’
,.-,.. . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,?
/’ ..’
.’300 ,’
.“-“
,1.“---
200 . . . .. .. _ ,*J’,.. . -. ,+ ,/
,, ‘!$ ~ /,,.
,,.’ ,....i’j
./”
150 -,,
ji/
./’
/ i, ../
i \.\
/’ /’
I ‘t
/“/
100 . -%/../“ /’
“%-.”,w.~.~”/“
/ -----.*.
.0”- ,. ,/”._. - \,
/ ,!
‘d
h
20.0
10 I I I I I I I 1 I 1.01920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1975
YEAR
aa<
i--
Figure 1. Marriages, divorces, and divorce rates: United States, 1922-75
4
ence was particularly pronounced in the years1963-73 when marriages increased 38.1 percentbut divorces 113.8 percent. The cumulative re-suh of these differences was that during theentire 1922-75 period annual marriage totalsincreased 90 percent, from 1,134,151 to2,152,662, and divorce totals grew almost 600percent, from 148,815 to 1,036,000.
Reflecting this result, cohort divorce esti-mates based on divorces granted in 1948 andlater years are in all durations much Iarger thancomparable estimates based on 1922-32 data,and the highest divorce estimate prepared from1922-32 figures was much less than the lowestestimate for the same duration interval basedon 1948-75 divorces (table 2).
During the recent increase in divorce begin-ning with the 1962 marriage cohort, the esti-mated number of divorces in a given man-iage-duration interval for each cohort was higherthan that for the same interval of the precedingcohort and lower than that for the succeedingcohort. Indeed, the latest available divorceestimate for. each duration interval has repre-sented an all-time high.
The comparison of divorce estimates forvarious duration intervals of the same marriagecohort (table 2) shows a change in the modaIcohort estimate: For most cohorts of the 1948-55 period, the largest estimates were found inthe interval of 1 year; for the 1956-63 cohortsthe interval of 2 years had the largest estimates,and the Iargest estimates for 1964 and lateryears were found” in the duration interval of 3years (figure 2).
The composition of the recent rise in thedivorce rate, relative to cohort differentials byduration of marriage, can be illustrated by com-paring the experience of the 1949 and 1962marriage cohorts (table A). These two cohortswere selected because their sizes are very similar:1,579,798 marriages were performed in 1949and 1,577,000 marriages in 1962. During the1949-59 period, annual divorce totals showedno discernible trend and varied only between368,000 in 1958 and 397,000 in 1949. Annualdivorce totals increased rapidly during the years1962-72, and doubled from 413,000 in 1962to 845,000 in 1972. As a result, divorce totalsfor the two 1 l-year periods were 4,227,000 and6,341,000, respectively, representing an increase
of 50.0 percent. All eke equal, duration-specificdivorce estimates for the 1962 cohort might beexpected to be about 50 percent higher thanthose for 1949. However, table A indicates thatthis was not generally the case, and that differ-ences between divorce estimates varied consid-erably by duration interval.
The estimated number of divorces grantedto the 1962 cohort less than 1 year after mar-riage was 10.4 percent below the correspondingestimate for the 1949 cohort, even though therewas an increase in the divorce totals, from whichthese estimates were prepared, from 782,000in the 1949-50 biennium to 841,000 in the1962-63 biennium. The lower number of divorcesgranted to the 1962 cohort (as compared withthe 1949 cohort) less than 1 year after marriagereflects the 21.2-percent decrease in the pro-portion of divorces granted less than 1 year aftermarriage (from 6.3 percent of all divorces grantedin 1949 and 1950 to about 5.2 percent of alldivorces granted in 1962 and 1963).
The remaining estimates for the 1962 cohortwere higher than those for 1949, and the differ-ence between the two figures increased from 6.7percent for the interval of 1 year to about 109percent for the interval of 9 years (table A andfigure 2). This striking increase in the differencebetween cohorts with respect to the number ofdivorces by duration of marriage follows theconcurrent rise in the divorce rate since 1962.Although the 1949 and 1962 cohorts started outhaving about the same number of divorces, therecent increase in the period risk of divorce hasresulted in an ever-widening gap between the1949 and 1962 cohorts in the number of divorcesat successive durations of marriage. This widen-ing gap appears to be due to a change in thenumbers of divorces, rather than a change in thedistribution by duration.
COHORT PERCENTS DIVORCEDBY DURATION OF MARRIAGE
Insight into the composition of the recentrise in the divorce rate can be obtained by com-paring relative changes in the percent divorced atduration intervals for individual marriage co-horts. For this purpose, table 3 presents for eachcohort the percent of cohort marriages brokenby divorce at single-year duration intervals up
5
80,0W
70,000
30,000
20,000
10.s00
o
I
— 1970
—- 1968
. . . . . . . . 1965
---- 1962
---- 1949
--- 1922
‘\ \\ \
“\
/
1I/II
.....................“ . ...... I...
/
...........
L.......
I ‘“””””’””””-”......../!
....“...
. . . . . . . . .
l!............
/,/...%..----------
/ ‘-”--- \;, “\.
! i,r-----, \‘*.
ii’ .- -..-.ii’
“-.‘. -------- ._ ._.
. \; /} I ‘\‘. ‘\
‘. .‘.
1. ‘.
---p- ..+
------------- ----~+----- -. 1-
---/- ‘-.‘* -----/’
-,/’ -- --/ %------
I ! I I 1Less 1 2 3 4 5
than 16 7 8 9
DURATION OF MARRIAGE (IN YEARS)
Figure 2. Estimated divorces by single-y earduration intervals: United States, selected marriage cohorts
6
Table A. Estimated divorces and percent of marriage cohorts divorced, by duration of marriage, with percent change: United States,
Duration of marriage
Less than 10 years . .... . . .... . .. ... .. . ...
Less than 1 year .. ..... . .. ... . . ..... . .. ... . . .... .. . .. .. . ....1 year .. .. ... .... .. . ..... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. . ..... . . ... .. . ... ... . ...2 years .. .. ... .... .. . ..... . . .... .. .. .. .. . .... . .. .... . .. ... .. .. ..3 years . ... ... ... .. .. .... .. . .... . ... ... . .. ... . .. .... . .... ... .. ..4 years . .. ... .... ... ..... . .. .... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. . .... . .. .. .. . ....5 years . ... ... .. .. .. ..... . .. ... .. . .. .. . .. ... .. .. ... . .. ... . .. ....6 years . .. .. .. ... .. .. .... . .. ... .. .. .. ... . .... . .. ... . . .... .. .. ...7 years .. ... .. ... .. .. .... .. . ... . ... ... .. . ... .. .. ... . .. ... . ... .. .8 years . ... .. ..... . .. ... .. . .... .. .. .. ... . ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. . ....9 years . ... ... .... . .. ... .. .. ... . ... .. .. .. ... .. . .... . .. .... .. ....
1949 and 1962 marriage cohorts
1949 marriage cohort
Year ofdivorce
1949-59
1949-501950-511951-521952-531953-541954-551955-561956-571957-581958-59
Estimated divorces
Number ] Percent
246,377 I 15.6
24,292 1.5
35,818 2.334,595 2.2
32,063 2.0
27,684 1.823,247 1.520,493 1.318,122 1.115,736 1.014,327 0.9
1962 marriage cohort
Year of
divorce
1962-72
1962-631963-641964-651965-661966-671967-681968-691969-701970-711971-72
Estimated divorces
Number
332,871
21.75438,20439,49738,62135,26033,21033,31332,71730,361288934
Percent
21.1
1.42.42.52.42.22.12.12.11.91.9
Percent change,1949-62
Number
+ 35.1
-10.4+6.7
+14.2+20.5+27.4
+42.9+62.6+80.5
+92.9+108.9
Percent
+35.3
-6.7+4.3
+13.6+X).(J
+22.2+40.0+61 .5
+90.9+80.0
+111.1
to 9 years’ duration of marriage, and then at and by the percent for the interval of 7 years in5-year intervals up to 25-29 years of marriage.Certain data are not available, as previouslynoted. All percents are based on the initial num-ber of marriages in the respective cohorts.
To facilitate the discussion, figure 3 has beenprepared showing percent divorced for mar-riage cohorts at the odd-numbered, single-yeardurations only. Figure 4 shows similar data forall 5-year-duration intervals. It is clear thatdramatic changes in percent of cohorts divorcedhave occurred not only in absolute terms, butalso in relative terms.
In the cohorts of 1960 and earlier years,percents for each of the five seletted single-year-duration intervals show that, despite consider-able fluctuation, the rank order of the intervalsremained stable from one cohort to the next.In figure 3, the percent for the l-year-durationinterval was always the largest and the percentsdeclined consistently with increasing durationto a minimum for the interval of 9 years. Table3 shows that percents for marriage duration ofless than 1 year were consistently below thosefor the l-year interval. Recent rapid increases----in percents divorced have considerably alteredthis picture. The percent for the durationinterval of 1 year was equaled or exceededby the percents for the intervals of 2 and 3 yearsof marriage in the 1961 cohort, by the percentfor the interval of 5 years in the 1964 cohort,
the 1966 cohort.Although the rankings of the intervals of 3,
5, 7, and 9 years remained the same in 1961and later cohorts, the relative sizes of percentsdivorced have changed considerably. For ex-ample, as shown in table 3, the percent divorcedat marriage duration 1 year was 1.4 percentagepoints greater than that at duration 9 yearsfor the 1951 cohort, but ordy 0.4 percentagepoint greater for the same durations in the 1965cohort. Similarly, the percent divorced at mar-riage duration 3 years was 0.9 percentage pointgreater than that at duration 7 years for the1951 cohort, but only 0.6 percentage pointgreater for the 1967 cohort at the same dura-tions of marriage. Thus the upward trend inpercent divorced for each marriage durationhas resuIted in a reduction of the differencesbetween the percents divorced at various mar-riage durations.
The curves for the 5-year-duration intervalsin figure 4 show that similar trends are occurringat later durations. For example, the percentof the 1950 cohort divorced fell from 3.9 per-cent in the 10-14-year interval to 3.3 percent inthe 20-24-year interval. This represented a sizablechange from the experience of the 1940 cohort,in which 3.1 percent divorced in the 10-14-yearinterval but only 1.7 percent divorced in the 20-24-year interwd. It is apparent that successive
7
4.0
3.0
2,0
1.0
n
fDuration l.tewal
— 1 yeart
,/----3 ye.m
----5 yean ,’
.. . . . . ...7 ~eam#
- —9 years4’
:
84 it’ /’4’ /“t’
4’
‘ l;t’8
i .;,,I ...”’
t i ...””.””,t 4-> #’1 ‘.”.” /
1 ~
Q ,A ,. ,+’ ~---’,# ‘. * -.. ,+ ~{ /!8 --G*
Q t’-. ,~ ~f /\ v\ t’ ,F---*/,/u ,--.’ /:,* ,----
/,/i “ ,/’ !; 1
~ i --- // ..”.””Y— ,-. / ;, /’ .“”./,R /’\. / ----- ...........”
\.,. \ ,“ /
...; ‘$ “ .....”..---...””...””.~...”....” : /% ....” ——%. ....”. :/% :..,. ..”. .“””+_ .....”. . .
........................ ~,
-, ,/ ~;’A\/_l/—
..- ---- ---- ----19.” lYW 1960 lY/u 19/!)
MARRIAGE COHORT
Figure 3. Percent of marriage cohorts divorced at selected single-yearduration intervals: Unitad States, 1940-75 marriage cohorts
cohorts have been experiencing greater percents doubled at most duration intervals over periodsdivorced at each duration interval. involving roughly 10 to 15 marriage cohorts.
Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate that rapid in- To describe graphically the extent to whichcreases in percents divorced have occurred at all percents in each duration interval have partici-duration intervals. The percent divorced has pated in the recent rise of the divorce rate, the
8
8.0Duration interval— 10.14 years---- 15-19 yearn---- 2@24 yOa~. . . . . ...2529 years
7.0
6.0
5.0
fig0~0 4.0g
:
E
3.0
4.8\.\b.- . : /
-G- ,~ -- . 8’ /-J .2!0
/“p”\ a---.%“<.,.~--” “\. 0 -----
\ .---” /---- /
.. . .. ......... . /....”...””
.. .. ...... ....../ ..... .... .. .. . .
1.0 , # ......... .. .... ...... .. ... ....
o1925 1930 1s25 1940 le45 Ieeo 1955 IWO
MARRIAGE COHORT
Figure 4. Percent of marriage cohorts divorced et 5-yeerduration intervals: United States, 1925-60 marriage cohotis
Figure 5 shows the odd-year duration curves hort ~ercent(based on the same data used to construct two divorce
cohort percents at selected single-year intervals figure 3) plotted by year of divorce (rather thanhave been plotted according to the year of by year of marriage), with the period divorcedivorce for each cohort-duration combination. rate Plotted for comparison. Because each co-
divorced is estimated from data fortotals, the cohort data have been
9
4
3
2
1
01’
— Dworce rate per 1.000population (right scale)
Durat,on ,nte~al (left scale)--- 1 war--- 3vear5
---- 5 “ears. . . . . . . 7 years—— 9 vears
\ ~T,.-3
,,,.
,-t /’
t’It
tt
1’/1
,f’ //’,/
,’ ,4’ R#t ,/ i
,4 / /“,4 / ,*”
* / / 2,/
,64./
/’~.t
/~ .,./”
----.+O# ,
,/+\ ,/’%
‘\--
\/’ -\\
\\ //’
“#’”---
##-- ,,’
;::<::::::l”’’’..:~*;
~000: ,
-c ----
,* --, /.,----- . ...”---~
0----”...”.
./. . . ...” ,’‘\ /
./-- ”-.. ..”
;,. . . . .
/’.,. -.-.-./..,.
\ ./’’%0.’”’.,./
. . . . . . . . . . ./
.,,//.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .../.. .. . . . . . .. . . . ,. /y
. . . . . .. . . ..-. ——-.. . . . .... . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /
;/\ //“\~ 0
\ —/ \/\4~—
/ ‘
/ H
I 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975
YEAR OF OWORCE
Figure 5. Percent of marriage cohorts divorced at selected single-y earduration intervals, and crude divorce rate, by year of divorce:
United States, 1950-75
plotted midway between the 2 years used toestimate each percent divorced.
For the most part, percents divorced in thevarious marriage-duration intervals followed thetrend of the divorce rate (figure 5). Between1950 and 1958, the divorce rate declined some-what and then rose gradualIy between 1958and 1967. The rate rose very rapidly between1967 and 1975. Only the duration intervals of1 year and 2 years reflected the decline in thedivorce rate between 1950 and 1958; all otherdurations remained fairly constant. Between1958 and 1967 all duration percents increasedslightly (as did the divorce rate), and then allincreased much more rapidly between 1967and 1975.
The crude divorce rate (per 1,000 popula-tion) doubled in the 1l-year period between1964 and 1975. Between 1950 and 1975, thepercent divorced doubled at all intervals exceptthose of less than 1 year and 1 year (table 3).The percent divorced doubled in 15 years atmarriage duration 3 years, in 13 years at mar-riage duration 5 years, in 11 years at marriagedurations 8 and 9 years, and in 8-12 years at thehigher 5-year marriage-duration intervals. Itappears that somewhat steeper increases haveoccurred at successively higher duration-of-marriage intervals. The recent rise in the divorcerate thus seems to be a phenomenon associatedwith marriages of alI durations. Proportions di-vorcing have been increasing very fast at all dura-tions, indeed, perhaps a little faster at the longerdurations than at the shorter. “
CUMULATIVE PERCENTS
Because all divorce percents for any givenmarriage cohort (table 3) are calculated on thebasis of the initial number of marriages in thecohort, it is possible to calculate the percentsdivorced from the interval of less than 1 year upto any specified anniversary of marriage. Thecumulative percent so obtained indicates theproportion of the original marriages in thatcohort dissolved by divorce within the periodbeginning at marriage and ending at the speci-fied anniversary. Table 4 presents cumulative
percents of marriages ended by divorce, bymarriage anniversary, for the cohorts of 1922through 1931 and 1948 through 1974. Insuf-ficient (or unavailable) data prevented the calcu-lation of cumulative percents for other cohorts.
For purposes of comparison, figure 6 hasbeen prepared showing percents cumulated foranniversaries that correspond to the end of theduration intervals shown in figures 3 and 4. Forexample, the interval of duration 1 year endswith the 2d anniversary, duration 3 years endswith the 4th anniversary, and so forth.
The differences among cohorts described inthe previous section tend to become quite pro-nounced when the individual duration percentsare cumuIated. As figure 6 shows, the largestcumulative percent since marriage for the 1922-31 cohort was in aU cases much less than thesmallest comparable percent for the same intervalfor cohorts of 1948 and all following years.Cumulative percents for cohorts married after1956 show a particularly rapid increase at allanniversaries after the second; there were fewdeclines in cumulative percents at these anni-versaries.
Table B presents data for selected cohortsand anniversaries that help to highlight themajor trends in cohort disruption. For the co-horts of 1950-1973, the percent divorced by the2d anniversary was about double that for thecohorts of 1924 to 1930. For all cohorts, thepercent divorced at least doubled between the2d and 4th anniversaries with more recent co-horts increasing by a factor of more than 2.5in this interval. At the 8th anniversary, the per-cent divorced increased by factors 3.6, 4.0,and 5.3 over the percent at the 2d anniversaryfor the 1950, 1960, and 1967 cohorts, re-spectively. Finally, the percent divorced by the2d anniversary had increased by a factor ofapproximately 7 at the 25th, 20th, and 15thanniversties of the 1950, 1955, and 1960 co-horts, respectively. In fact, the ratios at the 2d,4th, and 8th anniversaries (table B) are verysimilar for the 1950, 1955, and 1960 cohorts,rmd differences between these cohorts are mostpronounced at the 15th anniversary.
Percents for the longest interval, 25-29 yearsof duration of m@age, were available for 23
11
— Before25thanniversary
---- Before 20th wmverwy-—- Before 15th m. Ivwwy,.... -. Before 10th mnivma~-— Before 8th anmerwy---- Before 8th mnivemry
4’
‘-- Before 4rh annwersaw
1’
t’ /
. . . . . . . . Before 2d annl.wsa~ 4’
,- -’ /
t’ // :
4’
~. ~,1.~ J
t,1
~/
/~ O
‘K ,/- “ /
/4 “.: /
.. 1 ./’
. . . “.: /. . . . . . . .
. ..,.. . . . “.” / :’
.. .
/ //“
.... .../’
/’
,/’
/--..-
/.--O..-
;. :“”? ::% :.O’”r
----
..”--
./””
/.” --
,#--------1%~
~--’. ../
-.””---
~---.--”
---/
---/e --- /
.- . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /“...
.“.. . . . %--------- %. . . . . . ----- ---------
--------
-----. . . . ---------- ----
.. . . ..-
Noto, Broke. ha md,ca,, M, no, ad. b!.
,0.m .-.. ----,..” ,..” t VW 1960 1970 1
MARRIAGE COHORT
I
Figure 6. Cumulative percent of marriage cohorts divorced before specified anniversaries of marriage: United States, 1922-31 and
1948-73 marriage cohorts
cohorts, 1923-45, as shown in table 3. However, anniversary could not be computed for 20 ofthey could not be included in cumulative per- these cohorts. In order to obtain some informa-cents since marriage, because in all cases there tion about cumulative changes of long-durationwas no information about one or more intervals intervals, cumulative percents divorced afterof shorter duration. Percents for the interval of the 10th anniversary were prepared for thle20-24 years were available for 23 cohorts, cohorts shown in table C. After the 10th anni-1928-50; but cumulative percents to the 25th versary, the 1955 cohort cumulated more than
12
Table B. Cumulative percent of marriage cohorts divorced and ratio to 2d anniversary percent, by annivel”sary of marriage: UnitedStates, selected cohorts
F
Anniversary of marriage
Marriage cohort
2d 4th . 8th 15th 20th 25th 2d14th 18thElEE
Cumulative percent Ratio
1973 . .. .. .. . .. .... .. .. .... . . ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. . ... . .. ... . 5.7 . . . . . . ..- . . . .-. 1.0 --- ..- -.. . . . . . .1971 . .. ... .. ... ... .. . .... .. .. ... . .. .. .. ... ... .. . ... .. .. .. .. . ... . 5.1 13.0 1.0 2.51967 . . .... .. ... .. .. .. .... .. .. ... . .. ... ... . ... . .. ... .. .... .. .. .. . 4.3
N_L
. . . . . .10.9 22:8 ::: ::: ::: 1.0 2.5 5:i -.. . . .
. . .
1963 . . .. .. .. .. .... .. . .... .. .. ... .. .. .. . .. .... . . .... .. .... . .. ... . 3.9 9.0 18.1 1.0 2.3 4.6 . . . . . . :::1960 . . .... .. .. .... .. .. ... .. .. ... . .. ... .. . ... .. .. ... .. .... . .. ... . 4.0 8.4 16.0 2i:o ::: ::: 1.0 2.1 4.0 6.8 . . . . . .1955 . .. .... . ... .. ... . ... .. ... .. .. .. ... ... ... .. . .. .. .. .... . .. ... . 4.0 8.4 14.7 22.3 27.3 1.0 2.1 3.7 5.6 6.8 . . .1950 . . ..... . .. .... .. .. .... . .. ... . . .. .. .. . ... .. .. .... . .... . .. ... . 3.6 7.7 13.1 18.8 22.2 25:5 1.0 2.1 3.6 5.2 6.2 7.11930 ... ... ... .. .. .... .... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. . .... . .. ... . . .... . .. ... . 2.0 --- --- --- --- --- I .0 --- --- --- ‘-- ‘--1928 . .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . ... . ... ... . . .... . .. ... . 2.2 4.8 --- --- --- --- I .0 2.2 ~-8 --- ‘-- ‘--1924 . . .. .. ... . .... .. . .... .. .. ... .. .. .. . .. ... .. .. ... ... ... . .. ... . 1.9 4.8 9.2 --- --- --- 1.0 2.5 . --- --- ‘--
10 percent divorced by the 20th anniversary; incomparison, the 1949 cohort exceeded a cumu-lative 10 percent divorced between the 10th and
Table C. Cumulative pewnt of marriage cohorts divorced afterthe 10th anniversaw of marriage, by anniversary interval:United States, 1938-60 marriage cohorts
25th anniversaries, and the 1944 cohort showedmore than 10 percent divorced by the 30thanniversary. Thus, the more recent cohortsare cumulating a given level c)f divorce at shorterintervals after the 10th annivltrsary.
Marriage cohort
1960 . . . ..... . ... .... . ... ... ... . .... . .. .. .. ..
1959 . ... .... .. .. .... .. .... .. .. ... .. . ..... .. .1958 . .. . ... .. .. .... . .. .... .. . .... .. . ... .. . ..1957 . .. ... .. .. .... .. .. .... .. .. .... ... .... . ..1956 . ... . .... . ... .... . .. ... .. .. .... . .. ... . ..1955 . .... . ... .. .. . .. .. .. . .... . .. ... .. . .... . .1954 .. . .. ... ... .. ... . .. .... . ... ... .. . .... . . .1953 .. .. . ... .. .. .... .. .. ... . .. .... . .. .. .. .. .1952 .. .. . .... . .. .... . . ..... .. . ... ... . ... .. . .1951 . ... .. .. .. .. .... . .. .... ... .... .. . ... .. ..1950 . . . .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .... . .. ... .. .. .... . . .1949 .. .. .. .. ... . .... .. . .... . .. ... .. .. ... .. ..1948 . ... .. .... . .. .... . . .. .. ... . ... .. . .... . ..1947 . .. .. . .... .. . .... .. .. ... .. . .... . . .... . ..1946 ... . .. .... . .. ... .. .. ... . .. . .. ... . ... ... .
1945 ... . .. ..... . .. ... . .. ... ... . ... .. .. .... ..1944 . ... .. .. ... .. . ... .. ... .. .. . ..... .. ... .. .1943 . ... .. . ... .. .. .. ... . .... .. .. .... . .... . ..1942 . ... . .. .... . .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... . . .... ..1941 . . ... ... . ... .. .. .. ... . .... . .. ... . ... ... .1940 . . . .... . .. ... .. . ... ... . .... . .... . .. .... .
1939 . . ..... . .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... . .. ... . .. .... .1938 . .. . ... . .. ... .. . .... .. . .. .. . .... . ... .. . .
Marriage interval defined bystated anniversaries
m
“Cumulative percent divorced
7.77.37.06.25.45.25.04.54.34.13.94.13.53.12.6
3.63.73.32.93.03.13.63.8
. . .
. . .,... . .
10:1”9.8B.98.47.87.27.56.45.74.8
6.46.65.84.95.05.25.86.1
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
.!.
10:610.9
9.28.16.78.99.17.96.76.76.97.78.0
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
10:911.2
9.68.08.08.29.09.3
PROJECTIONS OF COHORTPROPORTIONS EVEN TUALLY
DIVORCED
The duration of marriage IIp to the 25thanniversary is the Iongest interval for whichavailable data permit a direct {estimate of thecumulative percent divorced. As shown in table4, such an estimate could be mad e for only threecohorts. Divorce data available through 1975indicate that about 1 out of 4 marriages con-tracted in 1948, 1949, and 1950 had ended indivorce before the 25th anniversary. For latercohorts, marital histories are tru] ncated at suc-cessively shorter durations. Corwequently, forthe purpose of studying trends in long-durationcohort divorce experience, it is ldesirable to ob-tain estimates of the proporticm of marriagesthat may eventually end in divcn-ce for selectedcohorts.
An appropriate” proceckre to estimate theultimate proportion divorced for the 1948-50and later marriage cohorts woul[d involve addingto the current known proporticm divorced for agiven cohort a further proport ion of marriagesthat are projected to end in divorce in the
13
fl Iture, but had not clone so by the current date.J.n a recent paper, PI“eston and McDonaldl pre-sented a projection of the proportion of mar-riages that will eve] - end in divorce for eachmarriage cohort betv ieen 1915 and 1964. Theybegan by preparing an estimate of the cumu-lative proportion of each cohort of marriagesending in divorce b y the beginning of 1970.These estimates wer(: prepared by proportionalallocation of divorces according to duration ofmarriage (irrespective e of marriage order), andthey agree very C1OSely with the estimated pro-portions presented in this report for eachcohort at the appro]?riate duration experiencedin 1969. Periods of missing divorce data werebridged by interpolar ion.
To project the divorce experience of eachcohort beyond 1969, Preston and McDonald(1) estimated the fraction of marriages con-tracted in a particu k- year that had not beendissolved by 1970 a,ld (2) applied divorce anddeath risks beyond a particular duration tomarriages that had S1revived to that duration in1970. The divorce m~d death risks used irI thisprojection method were calculated on the basisof events recorded in 1969. In short, their pro-cedure “assumes that the divorce and death ratesof 1969 will be rrlaintained throughout the re-maining life of all marriage cohorts that survivedto the beginning o f 1970. ”
Preston and h lcDonald found that the pro-jected proportion of marriages that will everend in divorce (based on 1969 divorce and deathrates) increased f~om 26.4 percent of the 1948cohort to 35.7 percent of the 1964 cohort.Projections for the 1950, 1955, and 1960cohorts were 27.1 percent, 29.9 percent, and33.8 percent, respectively. In view of the con-tinuing rise in t]~e divorce rate since 1969, it isquite probable t“hat these projections are under-estimates of tht: eventual proportions of these ,cohorts that wil 1 end in divorce. Preston andMcDonald made no projections for marriagescontracted after 1964 because these later co-horts would have had less than one-third of theirexpected divorce incidence by 1970.
Similar projecl:ions of the proportion of mar-riages that may eventually end in divorce havebeen made by Gli( ;k and Norton.4 These authors
prepared projectic Ins based on marital histories
from the June 1971 Current Population Survey(C1’S),5 and these differed from those madeby Preston and McDonald in several key respects.The projections based on 1971 CPS data weremade for birth cohorts (in 5-year intervals ofbirth), not for individual marriage cohorts,and were presented for first marriages andsecond marriages separately, not for all mar-riages combined. GIick and Norton cumulatedpercents divorced as of 1971 for each birthcohort, and then made a projection of the pro-portion of women in the cohort whose firstmarriage “may eventually end in divorce, iftheir future divorce experience is similar to thatof older cohorts during 1965-70. “A The pro-jected percents increased from 19 percent forthe 1920-24 birth cohort to 29 percent for the1940-44 cohort, with percents of 21, 23, and 27for the three intervening 5-year birth cohorts.Because the median age at first marriage is about21 years for American women, the 1940-44birth cohort would probably make up a largeproportion of the 1961-65 marriage co’horts,and consequently a rough comparison wouldindicate that the CPS-based projections aresomewhat lower than those of Preston andMcDonald.
A more recent projection for both first andsecond marriages has been made by Glick andNorton using marital histories from the June1975 CPS.G Using these more recent data, itwas found that the percent of ever-m amiedwomen who se first marriage may eventuallyend in divorce increased from 20 percent for the1920-24 birth cohort to 38 percent for the1945-49 birth cohort, with percents of 24, 26,31, and 34 for the four intervening cohorts.Moreover, the percent of persons married twicewhose second marriage may eventually end inredivorce increased from 15 percent for the1920-24 birth cohort to 44 percent for the1945-49 birth cohort, with percents of 23, 26,31, and 40 for the four intervening cohorts.Projections for men were somewhat less than forwomen in the same birth cohorts. These morerecent CPS-based projections for the various
birth cohorts reflect the fact that the divorcerate continued to increase rapidly in the period1970-75, appreciably affecting all marriagecohorts in all duration intervals.
14
CONCLUSION
For the earlier marriage cohorts, the projec-tions of the proportion of marriages that wiIIeventually end in divorce will undoubtedly bevery close to the actual outcome. However,for more recent cohorts, the outcome is some-what more indeterminate. The projections forthe recent cohorts do suggest that an unprece-dented proportion of these couples wiIl eventu-ally divorce. Yet, the future experience of recentcohorts will depend on how the people whocomprise these cohorts react to changing social,economic, demographic, and cultural factorsat the higher durations of marriage. We haveprovided data in this report that indicate thatthere is a very strong period effect on the riskof divorce at all durations. That is, as the perioddivorce rate has increased, so has the cohortproportion divorced at each duration of mar-riage. Consequently, the likelihood of divorceat each duration appears to respond generallyto the same factors that influence the overallperiod divorce rate, especially when the divorcerate is increasing rapidly.
Divorce rates for 1976 and 1977 have notshown the rapid growth that was experiencedin the years from 1967 to 1975. The divorcerate increased from 2.6 to 4.9 (per 1,000 popu-lation) between 1967 and 1975; the final ratesfor 1976 and 1977 were both 5.0. Thus the~owth in the divorce rate has slowed consid-erably, especially in comparison with the periodof 1967 to 1973 when the average annwd rate ofincrease was 11.5 percent. If the current levelof divorce should continue indefinitely, thenthe projections given in the preceding sectionfor recent birth cohorts, based on 1975 cross-sectional survey data, should be quite close towhat eventuzdly occurs. However, if for somereason the divorce rate declines in the nearfuture, then these projections might well beoverstated. This wouId depend on the extent towhich the proportions divorcing at later dura-tion-of-marriage intervals respond to the changingsocial, economic, and other factors in the sameway as the divorce rate responds. We must waitseveral years for the sequel to this analysis asthe various cohorts accumulate their divorceexperience at later and later durations of mar-riage.
REFERENCES
lPreston, S. H., and McDonald, J.: The incidence ofdivorce within cohorts of American marriages con~actedsince the Civil War. Demography 16, (1):1-23, 1979.
2Nation~ Center for He~th statistics: Estimation ofdivorces by marriage cohort, by A. Platens, TechnicalInformation Notes, No. 50. Rockville, Md., Mar. 1973.Mimeographed.
3 Ferriss, A. L.: An indicator of maxriage dissolutionby marriage cohort. Sot. Forces 48 (3):356-364, 1970.
4Glick, P. C., and Norton, A. J.: Perspectives on the
recent upturn in divorce and remarriage. Demography10 (3):301-314, 1973.
5U.S. Bureau of the Census: Marriage, divorce, andremarriage by year of birth: June 1971. Current Popula-tion Reports. Series P-20, No. 239. Washington. U.S.Government Printing Office, Sept. 1972.
6u.s. Bureau of the Census: Number, timing, andduration of marriages and divorces in the United States:June 1975. Current Population Reports. Series P-20,No. 297. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office,Oct. 1976.
15
LIST OF DETAILED TABLES
1. Percent distribution of divorces, by duration of marriage: Total reporting States, 1922-32 and 1948-75 ..... . .. .. .. .. ... .... ... . .... .. . . 17
2. Marriages and estimated divorces for marriage cohorts, by duration of marriage: United States, 1922-74 marriage cohorts . .... 18
3. Marriages and parcent of marriage cohorts divorced, by duration of marriage: United States, 1922-74 marriage cohorts ... . ... .. 19
4. Cumulative percent of marriage cohorts divorced, by anniversary of marriage: United States, 192231 and 1948-74 marriagecohons .... ... ... ... .. . ..... . ... ... ... . ..... . .. .... .. .. .... .. . .. .... .. . ..... . ... ... .. ... .... ... ... .. . . ..... . .. ... ... .. .... .. ... .............................................................. 20
5. Marriages, divorces, and percent change from preceding year: United States, 1922-75 .. ... .. . ... ... ... .... .. ... ... ... .. .... ... ...... .. . ... ... .. ... 21
16
Table 1. Percent distribution of divorces, by duration of marriage: Total reporting States, 1922-32 and 1948-75
Year of
divorce
1969 .. .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . .1968 ... . .. . .. . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. . . . . .1967 ... .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. .. . ..1966 .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . ..1965 .. . .. .. .. . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. .. .1964 .. .. .. . . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .1963 .. . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .. .1962 ... .. . .. . .. .. . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . .1961 .. . . . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .
1960 .. .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . .
1949 ... . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . .1948 .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . ..
193347 .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. .
1932 .. . .. .. . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . .. . .1931 .. . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . . . .. . ..1930 .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . .. ..
1929 .. .. . . . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . ..1928 ... . .. .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .
1927 .. . . .. .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .1926 .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .
1925 .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .1924 .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . .. ..1923 .. .. . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
1922 .. .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. . .. . . . .
Report
i ngStates
125Izg1zgIzg
129128
126126122122122122122121120
Us.
1612242323
2323
231916
1212
Us.Us.Us.
Us.us,
us.us.Us.U.S.Us.us.
[Data for 1960-75 based on probabiIit y sample; data for earlier years, on complete counts]
II Duration of marriage in vear$
Total Less 30than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10-14
115-19 20-24 25-29 or
more
Percent distribution
100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
100.0100.0
...~loo.o?100.0~loo.o
?100.0~loo.o~loo,o!100.0{100.01100.0$100.01100.0
4.54.64.74.74.64.8
5.25.15.85.65.35.35.25.1
5.6
6.2
5.87.66.16.4
6.3
6.16.66.76.36.1
6,47.2
. . .
4.64.9
5.1
5,15.1
5.35.44.7
4.64.5
4.6
8.68.78.38.3&68.5
8.68.79.18.99.38.88.68.6
9.48.1
8.29.49.89.79.7
10.09.9
8.59.0
9.7
8.49.2
. . .
7.37.8
8,1
7.68.1
8.28.2
8.27.7
U
9.49.19.09.s9.59.4
9.29.38.49.06.66.48.48.3
8.08.1
9.110.1
9.29.4
10.0
9.69.79.08.9
I 0.2
I0.510.5
. . .
8,46.56.3
8.58.6
8.88.98.6
8.19.40.1
8.98.78.29.28.88.5
8.58.58.17.88.07.37.57.6
7.77.9
8.38.28.08.28.5
8.58.1
8.39.0
10.0
9.77.8
. . .
8.58.28.5
8.7
8.58.7
8.66.29.210.1
8.7
8.18.58.17.77.57.7
7.57.2
6.96.96.86.86.86.67.3
7.3
7.1
6.67.17.17.4
7.27.28.18.89.4
6.8
6.6
7.97.7
7,8
7.88.17.87.6
8.5
9.38.0.7.9
7.47.26.96.56.46.9
6.46.06.06.05.9
6.25.77.0
6.16.4
6.0
6.06.26.4
6.2
6.17.0
7.88.16.0
5.5
6.5
. . .
7.1
6.87.1
7.37.2
6.97.7
6.37.17.26.8—
6.26.15.85.85.95.6
5.45.55.35.45.15.25.55.1
5.65.0
5.4
5.15.45.4
5.4
6.26.87.15.24.6
5.35.8
. . .
6.46.36.3
6.2
6.06.97.3
6.26.46.35.7
5.25.15.14.94.85.0
4.74.64.74.64.55.05.04.94.9
4.9
4.74.74.74.85.8
5.9
6.14.64.34.4
5.14.9
. . .
5.65.7
5.6
5.4
6.0
6.55.4
5.65.55.14.8
4.44.44.44.34.14.1
4.24.33.94.04.24.64.04.44.0
4.3
4.3
4.14.34.7
5.3
5.64.03.64.14.4
4.34.1
. . .
5.14.9
4.8
5.45.74.74.8
4.84.54.44.7
4.03.83.83.73.73.6
3.83.73.43.83.83.83.73.94.0
3.9
3.93.64.14.84.7
3.63.13.54.0
3.7
3.83.4
. . .
4.54.34.7
5.1
4.14.14.24.0
3.84.24.3
13.613.113.213.313.513.8
13.814.214.414.113.7
14.614.915.115,5
17.0
16.215.215.114.112.8
12.813.0
13.213.012.5
13.213.7
. . .
16.316.315.6
14.614.3
14.213.9
14.415.114.914.9
8.08.28.68.99.09.0
9.59.610.010.811.211.411.510.3
9.78.9
9.08.58.68.17.8
7.97.8
7.77.8
7.5
7.78.0
. . .
8.38.28.2
8.2
8.38.1
8.28.58.48.58.6
5.65.96.16.57.07.0
7.17.37.16.78.5
6.36.8
5F5.45.44.8
4.7
4.74.74.95.25.3
5.85.7
. . .
3.73.83.93.83.63.3
3.53.63.93.83.63.43.5
m12.2
12.0
3.12.72.82.83.0
3.03.13.13.33,2
3.5
3.5
. . .
T10.0
10.0
10.0
9.9
9.89.9
10.010.210.010.1
2.52.72.72.72.62.6
2.52.42.82.83.12.9
J.O
3.22.93.23.22.8
2.82.83.03.13.0
3.03.0
. . .—
] Divorce-registration area (1961.75).2For ~“”alment~, the duratiOn interva] of 5.9 years was distributed by single Years Of durati[~n ( 1926-32).3Ab~olute divorces onl y. Information on annulments not available(19z2-25).
17
Table 2. Marriages and est!mated dfvorces for marr, age cohorts, by duratmn of marriage Umted States, 1922-74 marrtage cohorts
Marriage
cohort
1974.,.,,,,,1973., ,, .,1972 ,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,1971,,,,.,..,,,,, ,..1970,.,.,,.,,,,,,.,
1969. , ,,, ..,.,,,,,., ,.,1968 ,,,,,,.,,,,.,.,,.1967.. ,.., ,,.,,,,,. ..,,1966.,.,,1965, ., ,,:,,:.,1964,,,,, ,, ,,.,,,1963,,.,,,,1962 ,,,,,,,,,.,1961,,,, ., ,,,,,.,,,1960,,,, ,,,
1959,,,,1958.1957,,,1956,,,,,,,,,1955,,1954,,,,1953,,,, ., ,’1952,,,,,1951 ,, ,,,,1950,.,, ,,,
1949,,1946,,,1947 ,. .,1946, ,,,1945,,,, ,,1944,,, ,,1943,,,,.,1942 ,,1941, ,,1940,,,,,,,,
1939 ,, ,,1936.19371936,,,,,1935 .’193419331932,1931 .,,1930
1929192819271926,192519241923, ,,1922
2,229,6672,284,1082,282,1542,190,4612,158,802
2,145,0002,069,WJ01,927,0001,657,0001.603,0001,725,0001,654,0001,577,0001,548,0001,523,000
1,494,0001,451,0001,518,0001,585,0001,531,0001,490,0001,546,0001,539,3181,5,94,6941,667,231
1,579,7981,811,1551,991,6762,291,0451,612,9921,452,3941,577,0501,772,1321,695,9991,595,879
1,403,6331,330,7601,451,2961,369,0001,327,0001,302,0001,096,000
961.9031,060,9141,126,856
1,232,5591,182,4971,201,0531,202,5741,188,3341,184,5741,229.7841,134,151
[ For estmmtmg method see the Technmd Notes]
Duration of marr!age ,n years
Lessfhan 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.14 15-19 20-24 25-29
Number of dworcml
15,916L4,128$1,623)7 ,96934,667
13,66731,76130,01429,33026,871?4,74123,181?1,75421,95423,681
?3,920?5,26425,982?3,74824,155?3,46624,220Z5,96025,314?3,786
Z4,29227,075
8,2909,588
10,21110,31610,22410,1529,2428,1447,6787,119
87,046B0,47373,04169,080
64,10257,56752,66149,20146,00344,46042,07438,20436,16337,217
35,37532,11233,49135,96537,19636,81237,23538,25537,92535,765
35,81837,33237,427
13,471
15,40315,94616,09016,10915,54314,73513,80712,740
93,14685,62982,580
78,12369,99462,67056,55049,12244,42143,05239,49736,67635,116
33,70032,47733,89036,55736,11035,48036,80437,04237,10736,555
34,59536,59040,47642,263
.
14,69816,16616,97417,45617,26716,86215,79114,495
,..
36,60234,590
S0,96072,62234,10257.24651,97846,00240,64336,62135,58532,475
31,74431,63331,46331,91731,48130,32830,90231,68532,13031,903
32,06333.41336,39536,50535,167
.
14,72916,04317,22017,40116,96116,46715,145
13,481
‘8,56119,591il ,521i6,246il,221M,987)9,06815,260)3,742!1 ,626
!9,652!6,181!6,740?9,456!8,368!6,167!5,670!7,087?7,510!7,593
!7,684?9,91612,64014,859I 1,593?6,962
.
.
.
13,74914,94215,66216,08515,79614,675
73,50456,74059,03152,199$9,162$4,87437,96a13,21030,66029,101
28,o8126,14826,65327,o8225,20324,42622,89022,85124,03523,911
23,24725,21028,93830,71926,98122,46824,176
.
.
12,35713,47214,44814,69713,940
. ..
..,.
.,,61,91556,33451,04047,30842,6I2837,07733,31329,92o27,333
25,56823,91523,47022,30222,32421,41720,49020,04919,67120,601
20,49321,92825,00927,17623,82218,76119,37622,353
.
11,19712,11012,60712,461
. . .
.
.. .
.
51,85046,24744,03639,25536,25232,71729,03326,307
23,76822,25522,02821,95020,81920,26219,77218,91217,93117,602
18,12219,15921,17223,07620,91117,20616,66216,59420,120
. .
...
.
.
.
. .
9,92810,61111,041
,..,,.
!4,28641,62438,29834,01530,36127,93325,975
22,75520,17920,03920,40916,91017,64617,36616,73016,94316,03?
15,73817,16916,96620,60318,41214,85614,58616,28117,00616,900
. ..
.
. .
. .
. . .
.
.
. . .
9,248
.
.. ... ..,.
39,28335,94833,01829,93427,CU1524,885
22,94519,69516,37218,62217,69116,46815,97216,33415,94415,367
14,32714,43516,97916,02815,68212,86712,90514,48014,74314,666
14,479
. .
. .
.. .
.
. . .
. .
7,725
.,.
.
,..,.
.
.
. .116,961
108,662100,89693,40486,29779,68674,23370,06966,65664,94564,444
54,39263,43862,17060,65657,77054,36652,28551,19250,16149,736
50,11151,021
..... .
.
.
.
.
. . .
. . .
.
. ..
. . .
.,.
. . .
..
. . .,..
.,.
.,.
.,.
.,.
,.
75,37671,51957,31532,76358,904j6,329
;4,382;2,75651,096$8,747!5,507!2,06436,69535,92414,02432,546
31,42730,76030,43630,05629,68229,89130,176
. . ..
. . .
. .
.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .
.,.
.,.
..
..
.. .
. ..,..
.
.,.
. . .
,.
.
55,257
53,18350,638$7,540$3,69339,78436,23933,18430,80326,91427,261
25,64224,29522,74521,46820,27119,29318,70916,41618,43018,646
19,63520,649
.
. .
. . .
.
.
. ..
.,.
. .
. . .
. ....
. . .
. . .
. .
. .
. .
. . .
..
,..,...
32,71929,74826,80524,16822,10920,609
19,29217,98016,74115,53414,45613,64612,83612,03211,47811,134
10,96011,08811,41371,71112,00012,35412,825
. . .
lDataexcl”de .”n.lrnmtsgnmted during 1922.25.
18
Table3. Marriages and percent of marriage cohorts divorced, by duration of marriage: Unitad States, 1922-74 marriage cohorts
Marriage cohort Marriages
2,229,6672,284,1082,282,1542,190,4812,158,802
2,145,0002,069,0001,927,0001,857,0001,800,0001,725,0001,654,0001,577,0001,548,0001,523,000
1,494,0001,451,0001,518,0001,585,0001,531,0001,490,0W1,546,0001,539,3181,594,6941,667,231
1,579,7981,811,1551,991,8782,291,0451,612,9921,452,3941,577,0501,772,1321,695,9991,595,879
1,403,6331,330,7801,451,2961,369,0001,327,0001,302,0001,098,000
981,9031,060,9141,126,856
1,232,5591,182,4971,201,0531,202,5741,188,3341,184,5741,229,7841,134,151
Duration of marriage in years
Lesshan 1 ‘ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29
Percent divorced]
2.11.91.81.71.6
1.61.51.61.61.51.41.41.41.41.6
1.61.71.71.51.61.61.61.71.61.4
1.51.5. .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .. . .. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
0.80.9
0.80.90.92.83.83.7).61.6
3i3.5
3.33.2
3.02.82.72.62.62.62.52.42.32.4
2.42.22.22.32.42.52.42.52.42.1
2.42.11.9. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
1.2
1.21.31.31.31.31.21.11.1—
. .4.13.93.8
3.63.43.33.02.72.62.62.52.42.3
2.42.22.22.32.42.42.42.42.32.2
2.22.02.01.8. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .. .
. . .. .. .
. . .
1.21.4I .4I .5I .51.4I .3I .3
. . .
. . .
. . .4.03.9
3.83.53.33.12.92.72.52.42.32.1
2.12.22.12.02.12.02.02.12.01.9
2.01.81.8
H. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .1.21.31.41.51.41.31,3—
..
. . .
. . .3.9
3.73.43.23.02.82.62.42.22.22.1
2.01.91.91.91.91.81.71.81.71.7
1.81.71.61.52.01,9. . .. . .. . .. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
1.11.21.31.41,31.3—
. . .
. . .. .
. . .
. . .
3.43.23.12.82.72.62.32.12.01.9
1.91.81.81.71.61.61.51.51.51.4
1.51.41.51.31.71.51.5. . .. . .. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
1.01,11.21.21.2—
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .3.02.92.72.62.52.22.11.91.8
1.71.61.51.41.41.41.31.31.21.2
1.31.21.31.21.51.31.21.3. . .. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
0.91.01.01.1—
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .2.72.62.42.32.22.11.91.7
1.61.51.51.41.41.41.31.21.11.1
1.11.11.11.01.31.21.11.01.2. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .
. .. . .. .. .
3.83.9I .0—
. . .
. . .
. .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .2.42.32.22.11.91.81.7
1.51.41.31.31.21.21.11.11.11.0
1.00.91.00.91.11.00.90.91.01.1
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
0.70.8—
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . ..
. .2.22.12.01.91.71.6
1.51.41.21.21.21.11.01.01.10.9
0.90.80.90.81.00.90.80.80.90.9
1.0. . .. . .-... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
0.7
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .7.7
7.37.06.25.45.25.04.54.34.13.9
4.13.53.12.63.63.73.32.93.03.1
3.63.8. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . ..
. . .
. . .
. .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .4.94.84.44.13.73.4
3.42.92.62.12.82.92.52.02.02.0
2.22.32.12.22.32.32.7. . .. . .. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .
. . .
. .
. .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
.,.
.,.
. . .
. . .
. . .. .
. . .
. . .3.3
3.42.82.41.92.52.52.11,71.71.7
1.81.81.61.61,51,51.71.91.71.7
1.61.7. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .
. . .
. .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .
. . .
. . .
. . .2.02.01.71.41.31.3
1.41.41.21.11,11.01.21.21,11.0
0.90.91.01.01.01.01.0. . .
lData ~xc]ude annulments granted during 1922-25.
19
Table 4. Cumulative percent of marriage cohorts divorced, by anniversary of marriage: United States, 1922-31 and 1948-74 marriagecohorts
[ Percents are cumulated from marriage to the specified anniversary of marriage. No cumulative percents are available for anniversaries
Marriage cohort
later than 25 years 1
Anniversary of marriage
1St 2d 3d 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 15th 20th 25th
Cumulative percent divorcedl
2.11.91.81.-?1.6
1.61.51.61.61.51.41.41.41.41.6
1.61.71.71.51.61.61.61.71.61.4
1.51.5
. . .
0.80.9
0.80.90.90.80.80.70.60.6—
5:;5.45.14.8
4.64.34.34.24.04.03.93.83.84.0
4.04.03.93.84.04:04.04.24.03.6
3.83.6
---
2.0
2.12.22.22.22.11.91.71.8—
. . .
9:49.08.6
8.27.77.67.36.86.66.56.36.16.3
6.26.26.26.16.46.46.46.66.35,8
6.05.6
-... . .. . .
3.33.63.63.63.53.43.03.0—
. .. . .
13:012.6
12,011.210.910.49.79.39.08.88.48.4
8.38.48.28.18.48.58.48.68.37.7
8.07.4
..----.-.
. . .4.84.95.15.04.84.44.4
. . .
. . .
. . .
16:4
15.614.614.113.412.511.911.411.010.610.5
10.310.310.1
9.910.310.210.010.410.09.3
9.89.1
---. . .. . .
---. . .
6.16.36.36.15.75.7
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
19.117.817.116.215.214.513.713.112.612.4
12.212.111.911.711.911.911.511.911.510.8
11.210.5
. . .
..-
. . .
. . .
.-.
.-.
7.37.57.46.86.9
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
20:820.118,917.916.915.915.214.514.2
13.913.813.413.113.413.312.813.212.812.0
12.511.7
---.-.-..
---..-. . .. . .
8.48.47,98.0
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
22:%21.520.319.218.117.316.416.0
15.515.314.914.414.714.714.114.413.913.1
13.712.7
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
..-----... . .
9.28.89.0
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .,..
23:922.621.420.219.218.277.7
17.116.716.275.716.015.815.215.515,014.0
14.713.7
. . .-..---
---. . .. . .. . .-... . .9.59.8
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
24:823.522.121.120.019.3
18.618.017.416.917.116.916.316.616.014.9
15.614.5
-... . .. . .
-...-.------. . .---. . .
10.5
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
2+:0
25.925.023.622.422.321.920.820.920.018.8
19.718.0
. . .-..---
-------... . .------..-. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .,... . .. . .. . .. . .
,... . .. . .
2;:326.725.125.023.722.2
23,120.9
---. . ..-.
---. . .------. . .. . .---..-
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .,... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
.,,
. . .
25:5
26.523.7
. . .----..
. . .---.-.. . .------. . .. . .
-—lData exclude annulments granted during 1922-25.
20
Table 5. Marriages, divorces, and percent change from preceding year: United States, 1922-75
Year of occurrence
1975 ...... .............................................................................................................. .....1974 ............................................................ ............................... ..............................1973 ......................................................................... ..................... .................. ...... ...1972 ........................................... ..............................................................................1971 ....................... .............. ....................................................................................1970 .... ...... ............................................................................ ........... ........................
1969 ........................................... ................................................................. .............1968 ......... .............. ............................. ...... ................................................. ..............1967 ................................................................ .........................................................?966 ..................... ................................ ....................................................................1965 ......................................... ................................................................................1964 ........ .................................................. ...............................................................1963 ..... ....................................................................................................................1962 ....................................... .......................... ........................................................1961 ........................................ .................................. ........ ................... ....................1960 .......... ........................................................................................... ....................
1959 ................................. .................... ........................................................... .........1958 ................................ ............................................... .................................. ........1957 .......................................... ........................................................... ..... ...............1956 ........ .............. .......................................... ............................... ..........................1955 .........4....... ......................................... ............................................... ........... .....1954 ................ .........................................................................................................1953 ........................................................... ............... ................................. ..............1952 ................ ................................................ .......................... ...... .........................1951 ............................................ .................................................... ........ .............. ...1950 ..............................4..........................................................................................
1949 ........................................... ..................................... .........................................1948 ........ ................................................................................ .................... .............1947 ................ .................................................................... .................... ...... ...... .....1946 ........................................................... ......................... ........................... ...... ....1945 ............................ .............................................. ................................ ...............1944 .......................................................................................................... ...............1943 ................................................ ......................................... ............ ...... ..............1942 ................................................................................................ ............ ........ .....1941 ................................................................. ........ ....... ....................................... ..1940 ...................................................... ............................................... ...... .... ..........
1939 ................ .................................................................... ...... .................. .............1938 ..................................................... .......................... .................. ........................1937 ............................ .............................................................................................1936 ...................... .................................................... ............... ............................. ...1935 ................................................................................................ .................... .....1934 ........... .......................................................................... ............ ........................1933 ........ ................................. .......................................................... .............. ........1932 ...... ......................................................... .......................... ................... ..... ........1931 ........................................... ............. ......................................... .................. ......1930 .......................... .............................................. ............................................ .. ...
1929 ..................................................................... ....................................................1928 ............................................................... ..........................................................1927 ..................................................... ...... ............................... ...............................1926 .......................... ................................. ................................ ..............................1925 ................................................ ..................................................... .................. ..1924 ................................................................................................................... ......1923 .........................................................................................................................1922 .........................................................................................................................
Marriages
Number
2,152,6622,229,6672,284,1082,282,1542,190,4812,158,802
2,145,0002,069,0001927,0001,857,0001,800,0001,725,0001,654,0001,577,0001,548,0001,523,000
1,494,0001,451,0001,518,0001,585,0001,531,0001,490,0001,546,0001,539,3181,594,6941,667,231
1,579,7981,811,1551,991,8782,291,0451,612,9921,452,3941,577,0501,772,1321,695,9991,595,879
1,403,6331,330,7801,451,2961,369,0001,327,0001,302,0001,098,000
981,9031,060,9141,126,856
1,232,5591,182,4971,201,0531,202,5741,188,3341,184,5741,229,7841,134,151
Percentchange
-3.5-2.4+0.1+4.2+1.5+0.6
+3.7+7.4+3.8-f-3.2‘+4.3+4.3i4.9+1.9+1.6
+1.9
+3.0-4.4-4.2+3.5+2.8-3.6+0.4-3.5-4.4+5.5
-12.8-9.1
–13.1+42.0+11.1
-7.9-11.0
+4.5+6.3
+13.7
+5.5-8.3+6.0+3.2+1.9
+18.6+11.8
-7.4-5.9-8.6
+4.2-1.5-0.1-f-l .2+0.3-3.7+8.4
. . .
Divorces
Number
1,036,000977,000915,000845,000773,000708,000
639,000584,000523,000499,000479,000450,000428,000413,000414,000393,000
395,000368,000381,000382,000377,000379,000390,000392,000381,000385,000
397,000408,000483,000610,000485,000400,0003598000321,000283,000264,000
251,000244,000249,000236,000218,000204,000165,000164,241188,003195,961
205,876200,176196,292184,678175,449170,952165,096148,815
Percentchange
+6.0+6.8+8.3+9.3+8.2
+10.8
+9.4+11 .7
+4.8+4.2+6.4+5.1+3.6-0.2+5.3-0.5
+7.3-3.4-0.3+1.3-0.5-2.8-0.5+2.9-1.0-3.0
-2.7-15.5-20.8+25.8+21 .3+11 .4+11.8
+9.6+11.0
+5.2
+2.9-2.0+5.5+8.3+6.9
+23.6+0.5
-12.6-4.1-4.8
+2.8+2.0+6.3+5.3+2.6+3.5
+10.9. . . .
21
APPENDIX
CONTENTS
Technical Notes ......................... ....... .......... ...................... ....................... ...............................................Divorce Data by Duration of Mtiage ........ ............................ ........ ................ ........ ...... ....................Duration Data by Marriage Cohort .. ...................................... ........ ....................................................
I.
II.
III.
Iv.
v.
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Available data on divorces, by duration of marriage: Each State and the Dktrict of Columbla,1948-75 ...................... ................................................ ............ .......... ..............................................
Sampling errors of estimated percents: United States, 1960 and divorce-registration area,1961-75 ............................................. ............................................................ ........ ................ .........
Years of divorce, by duration of marriage: Marriage cohort of year N ........................................... .
Possible month of divorce of couples divorced less than 1 year after marriage, by month whenmarried: Marriage cohort of year N ............................................................... .. ............................
Proportions of divorces in 5-year-duration intervals allocated to marriage cohort of year N ...........
232323
24
26
26
27
28
22
APPENDIX
TECHNICAL NOTES
Divorce Data by Durationof Marriage
The term “divorce,” as used in this report,covers those types of judicial decrees that, ac-cording to the law of the State where they arerendered, dissolve the bonds of matrimony andpermit the spouses to remarry. This includesdecrees of absolute divorce, of annulment, andof marriage dissolution; the last type of decreehas replaced divorces in many States in recentyears. Excluded are all types of limited decrees,such as legal separations, divorces from bed andboard, separate maintenance, and other similararrangements. The number of annulments grantedis very small for all years under considerationand represents only a few percent of the com-bined total of divorces and annulments. For theyears 1922-25, data on annulments were notcolIected; for the years 1926-32, they were pub-lished separately from divorces. For the purposeof this report annulment data were combinedwith divorce figures.
Annual divorce statistics by duration of mar-riage at time of decree are available for the years1922-32 and 1948-75. Statistics for 1922-32and for 1960 are national; those for 1948-59and 1961-75 are limited to the reporting States(table I). Since 1961, the reporting States havecomprised the divorce-registration area (DRA).Duration data for 1960-75 are based on a prob-ability sample and are subject to sampling varia-bility. Sampling errors are shown in table II.For years with no national data, national esti-mates were prepared on the assumption that thepercent distribution of divorces by duration ofmarriage was the same in the United States asin the reporting States combined. Cases withduration not stated were distributed propor-
tionally for all data years. This adjustmentwas comparatively negligible, because durationof marriage is better reported than any otherstatistical variable routinely used in tabulationsof divorce data: The “not stated” category forthe DRA comprises between 1 and 4 percent ofthe total each year.
In a few cases, divorce data previously tab-ulated for a calendar year had wider durationintervals than the distribution used throughoutthe report. Thus, for 1960, 1961, and 1962,the upper open-ended interval was “20 years ormore, ” and not “30 years or more, ” as was thecase for other years. The “20 years or more”interval was sub-divided into three intervals,“20-24 years,” “25-29 years,” and “30 yeas Ormore,” using the average of the percent distri-butions of the “20 years or more” interval intothe three narrower intervals, based on data forthe four nearest calendar years, 1958, 1959,1963, and 1964.
Duration Data by Marriage Cohort
After the national divorce data by durationof marriage were estimated, the cross-sectionaldistribution by yeax of decree was convertedinto a longitudinal distribution by year ofmarriage. Divorce estimates were assigned toappropriately identified marriage cohorts (allcouples married in the same year), and, frommarriage cohort data, percents were computedusing as a basis the original number of marriagesin a given cohort. Slightly different methodswere used for the single-year-duration inter-vak, 1 through 9 years, for the interval of lessthan 1 year, and for 5-year-duration intervalsfrom 10 through 29 years. Cohorts included in
23
Table 1. Availeble data on divorcas, by duration of marriage: Each State and the District of Columbia, 1946-75
[X denotes that data are available]
—1958
12—
1948 1952 I 953 1954 1955 1958 1957 1959 1960State
Numtxw of States . . . . . . . .
Alabama .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alaska .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
Arizona . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
Arkansas .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
California .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .
Colorado .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
District of Columbia .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Georgia . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
Idaho .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Indiana .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Iowa . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Kentucky . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .
Louisiana .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
Maine .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maryland .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .
Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
Michigan .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .
Mississippi . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
Montana..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nebraska .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nevada . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
New Hampshire..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New Jersey . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Naw Mexico .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
New York . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
North Carol ina.., .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Oragon .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .Pennslyvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
Rhode Island . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
South Carol ina . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tennessaa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .
Texas .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
Utah . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vermont . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wisconsi n., . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
1949
13
1951
13 16 19 23 23 23 23 23 24 16 Us. 20
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
xx
xxxx
x
xx
x
xx
xx
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xx
x
x
xxxx
x
xx
x
xx
xx
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xx
x
x
xxxx
x
xx
x
xx
xx
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xx
x
x
xxxx
x
xx
x
xx
xx
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xx
x
x
xxxx
x
xx
x
xx
xx
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xx
x
x
xxxx
x
xx
x
xx
xxx
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
xx
x
x
x
xx
x
x
xx
xx
xx
xx
x
x
xx
x
(;(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)
xx
J(1}
x
(:(1)
(1)
(:
(1)(1)
P;
x
J
(1)
(1)
(1)(1}(1}(1)(1)(1)x
(;
(1)x
d
(:
(:
(1)xx
xx
xxx
xx
x
x
xxx
xx
xx
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xx
x
(;
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
xx
x
(3)
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
‘x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
xxxx
x
x
x
xx
xx
x
See footnotes at end of table.
the upper open-ended interval, “3 O years. or Divorces are tabulatedmore, ” could not be identified, but this interval
by completed yearsand, consequently,
duration interval ofof duration of marriage,
represents only a small proportion of all divorces,.2.7 percent in 1973 and 1974, and 2.5 percentin 1975.
24
marriages included in3 years actually lastedCouples divorced in
tiefrom 3.00 to 3.99 years.the beginning of 1965
Table 1. Available data on divorces, by duration of merriage Each State and tha District of Columbia, 194S-75-Con.
[X denotes that data are available]
State 1962 1963 1984 1965 1966 1967 1966 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975
Number of States.......
Alabama .....................................Alaska ......................................Arizona .....................................,Arkansas ....................................California ...................................Colorado ....................................Connecticut ...............................Delaware ....................................District of Columbia ..................Florida .......................................
Georgia ......................................Hawaii ......................................Idaho .........................................Illinois ........................................Indiana .......................................Iowa ...........................................Kansas........................................Kentucky ...................................Louisiana ...................................Maine .........................................
Maryland ....................................Massachusetts.............................Michigan ....................................Minnesota ..................................Mississippi..................................Miaaouri .....................................Montana .....................................Nebraska ....................................Nevada .......................................New Hampshire ..........................
New Jersey.................. ...............New Mexico ...............................New York ..................................North Carolina ...........................North Dakota .............................Ohio ....................... ....................Oklahoma ..................................Oregon .......................................Pennsylvania ..............................Rhode Island..............................
South Carol ina ...........................South Dakota .............................Tennessee...................................Texas .........................................Utah ...........................................Vermont ....................................Virginia ......................................Washingtcm ................................West Virginia ..............................Wisconsin ...................................Wyoming ....................................
21 22 22 22 22 22 26 28 28 29 29 29 29 29
xx
xxx
xx
x
x
xxx
x
xx
xx
x
x
xx
xx
xxx
xx
x
x
xxx
x
xxx
xx
x
x
xx
xx
xxx
xx
x
x
xxx
x
xxx
xx
x
x
xx
xx
xxx
xx
x
x
xxx
x
xxx
xx
x
x
xx
xx
xxx
xx
x
x
xxx
x
xxx
xx
x
x
xx
xx
xxx
xx
x
x
xxx
x
xxx
xx
x
x
xx
xx
x
x
xxxx
xx
x
x
xxx
x
xxx
xx
xxx
xx
xx
x
x
xxxx
xxx
x
x
xxx
x
x
xx’x
xx
xxx
xx
xx
x
x
xxxx
xxx
x
x
xxx
x
x
xxx
xx
xxx
xx
xx
x
x
xxxx
xxx
x
x
xxx
x
x
xxx
xxx
xxx
xx
xx
x
x
xxxx
xxx
x
x
xxx
x
x
xxx
xxx
xxx
xx
xx
x
x
xxxx
xxx
x
(2)
xxx
x
x
xxx
xxx
xxx
xx
xx
x
x
xxxx
xxx
x
(2)
xxx
x
x
xxx
xxx
xxx
xx.
xx
x
x
xxxx
xxx
x
x
xxx
x
x
xxx
xxx
xxx
xx
lData included h the U.S. totrd, but not avaiIable fOr the State.21973 and 1974 data from Michigan exclude Wayne cmmtY.3wyom~g ~eported for 194s and 1949, but data were omitted because of divorce intervde used.
after 3.99 years of marriage were married in married during a 2-year period, January 1961January 1961, and couples divorced in Decem- through December 1962. From this observationber 1965 after 3.00 years of marriage were a- general statement can be made, that eachmarried in December 1962. Therefore, couples single-year-duration interval includes couplesdivorced in 1965 after 3 years of marriage were married during two different calendar years,
25
Table II. Sampling errors of estimated percents: United States,
1960 and divorce-registration area, 1861-75
Table I I 1. Years of divorce, by duration of marriage: Marriagecohort of year N
Year of
divorce
1975 . .. . .... ... . ..... . .1974 . .. .... .. .. ..... . ..1973 ... ... ... .. .... . ...1972 . .. .... .. .. .... .. ..1971 . .... ... ... .... .. ..1970 . ..... ... .. .... . ...1969 . ... .. . ... .... .. . ..1968 . .... . ... .... .. .. ..1967 ..... .. .. .... ... . ..1966 .... .. ... ... ... . ...1965 ... .. .. .... ... . ....1964 ..... ... ... .. ... ...1963 . .. .. .... .. ... .... .1962 ... .. ... ... ... . ....1961 . ... . ..... . .... .. ..
1960 . .... ... . .... .. .. ..
Number
of States~eporting
292929292928282622222222222120
50
Estimated percent Duration of marriage
1or
I
10or 250r so
99 90 75
0.030.030.040.040.040.040.040.050.050.060.06
0.060.070.100.10
1(32 :
Sampling error
0.100.100.110.110.110.120.130.140.160.17
0.170.180.210.300.31
0.5
I Sampling error Of estimated percent 2 Or 98.
0.140.150.160.170.160.170.180.200.240.250.25
0.250.300.430.45
0.7
0.170.170.180.190.190.200.210.230.270.280.29
0.290.350.490.52
1.0
namely the year that preceded the year ofdivorce by the number of years of duration andthe year before that. Thus, in the example givenabove, the years of marriage were 1965- 3 =1962 and 1965-3- 1 = 1961. The estimated38,320 divorces granted in 1965 to couples witha marriage duration of 3 years were divided intotwo halves of 19,160 divorces each: One halfwas assigned to the 1961 marriage cohort andthe other half to the 1962 cohort.
Data for a marriage cohort were obtained bycombining divorces with the same duration,granted to the same cohort, in two differentcalendar years. In general, for a cohort marriedin year N, the years of divorce correspondingto a specified duration of marriage are shown intable III. For example, there were an estimated19,160 couples with a 3-year duration of mar-riage who married in 1961 and divorced in 1965;these were assigned to the 1961 cohort, andwere added to the estimated 16,425 couples ofthe same cohort and duration who divorcedin 1964. Thus the duration of marriage atdivorce was 3 years for an estimated total of35,585 couples married in 1961. The re”making19,160 couples divorced in 1965 with a 3-yearduration of marriage were assigned to the 1962cohort and added to the 19,461 couples di-
Less than 1 year ... .. .... .. .. .. ... .. ... ... . .... ...1 year .. . ... ... .. ... ... .. .. ... .. .. ... ... .. .... .. ... .. ...2 years . . .. .... .. . .. .. ... .. ... .. .... .. . .. . .... . ... ..... .3 years . . .. .... . .. ..... . .. ... .. ... ... ... .. .... .. . .... .. .4 years . . .. .... . .. ..... .. . .... .. .. .... .. . ..... .. .. ... ...5 years . . .. .... . .. .... .. . ..... .. . .... .. ... .... . .. .... .. .6 years . .. ..... ... ... .. .. ... ... . .... .... .... .. .. .... ... .7 years . . .. ... .. .. .... .. . .... .. .. ... ... .. ... .. .. .... .. ..8 years .. .. .... .. . .... . .. ..... . .. .... .. .. .... .. .. .... . ..9 years . . . .... .. . .... .. .. .... .. .. .... . ... .....i . .... .. ..10-14 years . . .. ... .. ... ... .. .. ... .. .. .... .. . .... .. .. .15-19 years .. .. .. ... . ..... ... . .... ... . ... .. .. .... .. ..20-24 years . . . .... .. .. ..... . . ..... .. .. .... .. .. .... . ..25-29 years .. ..... . .. .. .. .. .. .... . ... ... ... . ..... .. ..30 years or more .... ... . ..... . .. ... ... .. .... .. .. .
Years of divorce
Nand N+lN+land N+2
N+2and N+3N+3and N+4
N+4and N+5N+5and N+6
N+6and N+7N+7and N+8
N+8and N+9N+9and N+-10N-1- 10through N +15N+ 15 through N +20N + 20 through N +25N +25 through N +30N +30 and a~ver
vorced in 1966 who had the same duration ofmarriage; a total of 38,621 divorces withl 3 yearsof duration of marriage was obtained for the1962 cohort. Since 1~548,000 marriages wereperformed in 1961 and 1.577,000 in 1962,‘m estimated 2.3 percent of the 1961 cohortand 2.4 percent of the 1962 cohort were di-vorced between the 3d and 4th marriage anni-versary. In the same manner, all divorces withsingle-year duration, 1 through 9, were assignedto the appropriate marriage cohort, and per-
~ents were computed.The situation is slightly different for the
duration interval of less than 1 year. A lag ofat least 2 months can be assumed between themarriage and divorce of a couple. Under thisassumption, no couple can be divorced duringthe calendar month of marriage, the followingcalendar month, and a part of the third calen-dar month that depends on the date of mar-riage, averaging roughly one-half of that month.Table IV shows the possible months of divorceof couples divorced after less than 1 year ofmarriage, by month of marriage. It can be seenthat the sum of months of marriage classifiedby month of decree is 50 for couples marriedand divorced in the same calendar year (yearN) and 70 for those divorced in the year im-mediately following the year of marriage (yearN + 1). This is why the total numbers of di-vorces granted after less than 1 year of mar-riage were not divided into two equal parts,as it was done with those that had 1 through
26
--
—z—067a7-7
—d—L-)nz0
s—
s
—sm..5
—.su.s!U
)
—00sw
—.s!!.0::r-l
=0r-
—
0u)
—
,,,0
.0.
00
.0s
I,,,
!,.!!
‘.s-
1
=1 ,,,!,s-..-~-
,,,,
>-.-.-.-F
.-v-
,,,>“
---------
“s----------
,.s-----------
.-g
s-----------
,-g~I
--.-e>
.,,O
,,,,
-->:”
“’”‘“
,.,,.,
,,,,,,
,.,,,,
,,,,,,
27
9 years (Of duratic m, but in the ratio of 50:70,or 42 per(uent to b(: assigned to the cohort of thedivorce year and !;8 percent to that of the pre-ceding yea-.
Divorces with a marriage duration of over9 years are tabulti ted in 5-year intervals. Thereare 4 such interva !s: 10-14 years, 15-19 years,20-24 years, and 25-29 years. Each 5-yearinterval of divorces granted during a calendaryear includes co uples that belong to sixmarriage cohorts. (conversely, each 5-year dura-tion interval oi’ di%forces granted to a marriagecohort include~: C(mples divorced during sixcalendar years, fro m N + d through N + d + 5,where N is the ye ar of marriage and d is theshortest duration i] I the 5-year group. To eachcohort was assi~ le d one-tenth of divorces forthe year N + d and N + d + 5 and one-fifth ofthose for the year:$N +d+l, N+d+2, N+d+ 3, and N + d + ~k. The general format for this
distribution procedure is displayed in table V.When divorce data by duration of marriage
were converted in to marriage-cohort data, in-formation was obtained on duration-of-marriageintervals, which vary from cohort to cohortdepending on am-w d divorce statistics available
for the computation. When the present reportwas prepared, divorce data were not availablefor years after 1975, and marriage-cohort datacome to an end with the duration intervals basedon divorces granted in 1974-75. In addition, di-vorce statistics by duration of marriage h[ave notbeen collected for the years 1933-47. Hence,for some marriage cohorts only short-durationand long-duration intervals are available, with agap in between; for others, only middle-durationintervals are available. In spite of these limita-tions, some information was obtained for eachmarriage cohort, 1922 through 1974, but forno cohort could information be obtained forall duration intervals.
From frequencies estimated for each mar-riage cohort, percents were computed based onthe original number of married couples in eachcohort, ,that is, on the national marriage totalin the year when the cohort was marriecl. When-ever possible, cumulative percents since marriagewere also prepared. They could be computedonly for cohorts for which information existsfor the “le,ss than 1 year” interval and othershort-duration intervals, and they were inter-rupted by the first break in the duration series.
Table V. Proportions of diyorces in 5-yearduration intervals allocated to marriage cohort of year N
[d is the 1st year of a 5-year duration interval, either 10, 15,20, or ’25 ]
Total Year of divorceMarriage cohort dur ation interval propor-
tion N.+d N+d+l
Proportion
Total 5-year interval: c1to d +4 .... .. .. .... .. 1 f 1/10 2/10 2/10 2/10 2110 1/10.
d .................................. ............. ....... ....................... 1/5 1/10 1/10d + 1 .......................................... ............................. 115 - 1/10 1/10d +2 .......................................... ............................. 115 - 1/10 1/10d +3 .......................................... ............................. 115 - 1/10 1/10d +4 .............................. ............ ............................ 1/5 - 1/10 1/10
000
28
●U .S. GOVERIWENT PR2NT1NG OFFICE: 1979 281-259/27
VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS Series
Sen”es1. Programs and Collection Procedures. –Reports which describe the general programs of the NationalCenter for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions and data collection methods used and includedefinitions and other matenaJ necessary for understanding the data.
Series 2. Data Evaluation and Methods Research. –Studies of new statistical methodology including experi-mental tests of new survey methods, studies of vitaI statistics collection methods, new analyticaltechniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, and contributions to statistical theory.
Series 3. Analytical Studies. –Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and healthstatistics, carrying the analysis further than the expository types of reports in the other series.
Series 4. Documents and Committee Reports. – Final reports of major committees concerned with vital andhealth statistics and documents such as recommended model vital registration laws and revised birthand death certificates.
Series 10. Data FTO m the Health Interview Survey. –Statistics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use ofhospital, medical, dental, and other semices, and other health-related topics, all based on data collectedin a continuing national household interview survey.
Serks 11. L)ata From the Health Examination Suroey and the Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. –Datafrom direct examination, testing, and measurement of national samples of the civilian noninstitu-tionalized population provide the basis for two types of reports: (1) estimates of the medically definedprevalence of speci.tlc diseases in the United States and the distributions of the population with respectto physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics and (2) analysis of relationships among thevarious measurements without reference to an explicit finite universe of persons.
Series 12. Data Fro m the Institutionalized Population Surveys. –Discontinued effective 1975. Future reports fromthese surveys wilI be in Series 13.
Series 13. Data on Health Resources Uk%.zation. –Statistics on the utilization of health manpower and facilitiesproviding long-term care, ambulatory care, hospital care, and family planning services.
Series 14. Data on Health Resources: Manpow= and Facilities. -statistics on the numbers, geographic distri-bution, and characteristics of health resources ineiuding physicians, dentists, nurses, other healthoccupations, hospitals, nursing homes, and outpatient facilities.
Series 20. Data on Mortality. –Various statistics on mortality other than as included in regular annual or monthlyreports. SpeciaI analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables; geographic and timeseries analyses; and statistics on characteristics of deaths not available from the vitalrecords based onsample surveys of those records.
Series 21. Data on Natality, Mum-age, and Divorce. –Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce otherthan as included in regular annual or monthly reports. Special analyses by demographic variables;geographic and time series analyses; studies of fertility; and statistics on characteristics of births notavailable from the vitaI records based on sample surveys of those records.
Sm”es X2. Data From the Arational Mortality and Natility Surveys. –Discontinued effective 1975. Future reportsfrom these sample surveys based on vital records will be included in Series 20 and 21, respectively.
Sen”es 23. Data From the National Suwey of Family Growth. –Statistics on fertility, family formation and dis-solution, family planning, and related maternal smd infant health topics derived from a biennial surveyof a nationwide probability sample of ever-married women 15-44 years of age.
For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to: ScientWxc and Technical Information BranchNationaI Center for Health StatisticsPublic Health ServiceHyattsville, Md. 20782
NH-ISU S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDPublm I-1.allh Sm-wc.Of f!cc of Health R..mrch, SIamtI.s, .rNaooml Center for Health Stmsttc%3700 EGx Vim H lghww
HvxtwW MarYlmd 20782
OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, woo
