Research on Divorce: Causes and Consequences Editorial on the special issue “Research on Divorce: Causes and Consequences” Paul B. Hill, Johannes Kopp “Of all changes in family life during the 20th century, perhaps the most dramatic – and the most far-reaching in its implications – was the increase in the rate of di- vorce“, Paul Amato (2000: 1269) wrote in a review. Amato’s thesis can undoubtedly be approved; separation and divorce have certainly received a lot of attention in the sociology of the family. However, these topics are not as prominent in research as one would expect and as they surely deserve to be – especially in Europe and Ger- many. This is all the more surprising, considering that general sociology also refers to these phenomena and thereby shifts the focus to the question of how the – puta- tively or actually – rising instability of romantic relationships can be explained. The instability of close relationships is often seen as a consequence of modernisation and individualisation processes or even as a manifestation of the postmodern loss of solidarity and community spirit. With these speculative considerations, increas- ing divorce rates are often hastily taken as empirical evidence. The fact that this increased dissolution of close relationships is not historically unique – existing even in tribal, estate-based and pre-modern industrial societies – is often ignored. In the past, separation and divorce were less frequent in total numbers, but this was due rather to specifi c individual circumstances than to the social system. Therefore, it is not surprising that even in pre-modern societies the instability of close roman- tic and long-term relationships was particularly observable in those social groups whose resource level made separation and divorce possible, as well as the support of those who were left behind (like children and women). Thus, it is not the needs, the integrity or the bonding capacity of individuals that have changed, nor the infl u- ence of society with its framework of norms and values, but rather the allocation of resources and the additional possibilities for individuals. Confi rmed by this reasoning, micro-sociological approaches dominate the ex- planation of separation and divorce. Recent reviews (Arránz Becker 2015a; Braver/ Lamb 2013) on theory development only discuss approaches based on action the- ory. Four theories are featured in nearly all lists: exchange theory, New Home Eco- nomics as well as its theoretical extensions, the vulnerability-stress-adaption model and the cascade theory. Undoubtedly, exchange theory provides the central argu- ments for the explanation of separation and divorce and for the prior processes of partner choice and the institutionalisation of the relationship (Thibaut/Kelley 1959; Lewis/Spanier 1979). Its key advantage is its applicability to a whole range of famil- Comparative Population Studies Vol. 40, 3 (2015): 219-228 (Date of release: 30.09.2015) © Federal Institute for Population Research 2015 URL: www.comparativepopulationstudies.de DOI: 10.12765/CPoS-2015-11en URN: urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2015-11en7 • Paul B. Hill, Johannes Kopp220 ial decisions and developments. New Home Economics, which provides important amendments to exchange theory and thereby emphasizes the relevance of market mechanisms and decision-making calculations, can be considered as quite “relat- ed”. Within the same theoretical context, two other additional theories have to be mentioned: On the one hand commitment theory (Rusbult 1980) which emphasizes the “sunk costs” or, in other words, the investments in relationships as stabilising factors, and on the other hand – in accordance to the action-theoretical assumptions of the two perspectives mentioned above – the framing model which provides an- other (additional) perspective, namely the theoretical integration of norms into the rational-choice-approach (Esser 2002; Kroneberg 2007). Finally, stress theory and the “trajectory toward divorce” approach have been established. Stress theory focuses on the social and psychological consequences of actions by partners (Karney/Bradbury 1995). The handling of stress-provoking in- teractions, dealing with stress and coping strategies in relationships provide impor- tant arguments for the causes as well as the consequences of divorce. The cascade theory analyses the paths leading to separation (Gottman 1993, 1994), and explains how destructive interactions operate, spread, reinforce and fi nally lead to the dis- solution of a relationship. Altogether, these different theoretical approaches do not compete directly. Some are based on action theory; others focus on the emotional and communica- tive consequences and their dysfunctional perpetuation. Criticism has been raised with regard to all theoretical perspectives mentioned, but without a doubt they have lost little of their persuasive power so far. Put more defensively, a superior theoreti- cal alternative is not within sight. However, research on separation and divorce has a solid and coherent theoretical foundation. We mentioned at the beginning that empirical research on divorce, however, is not particularly elaborate. The number and the degree of sophistication of present analyses do not do the public signifi cance and the sociological defi nition of the phenomenon as a “common indicator” of social change justice. For Germany, there merely exists one research study that compares married and divorced individuals on the basis of a large random sample and thus can also be classifi ed as a theory- testing survey, namely the “Mannheim Divorce Study” from the 1990s (Klein/Kopp 1999). This over twenty years old survey has clearly increased the knowledge about relationship dissolution, but it is (unfortunately) still an exception in its comprehen- siveness. Its universal theoretic foundation corresponds to the action-theoretical tradition of the sociology of the family. In its specifi c confi guration, it is infl uenced (among others) by Lewis and Spanier (1979) and their utility theory. The lack of suitable studies is also connected to the methodological require- ments they carry. Due to the lack of a register, sampling among the population of di- vorced people, which consists of the currently divorced and the remarried divorced, is diffi cult. In practice, the sampling can almost only be run through a screening procedure. If restricted to the currently divorced, a bias is to be expected, because they probably differ systematically from the remarried. Additionally, problems of retrospective memorising arise. Besides methodological challenges, there are also restrictions in terms of content, because one single survey cannot reveal the full Research on Divorce: Causes and Consequences • 221 variety of processes including all relevant aspects of separation or divorce. The Mannheim study could have been the starting point of increased empirical research on divorce, but the opportunity was not seized. However, it could at least answer questions which were, up until the 1990s, subject to speculation (for an overview see the empirical research of Wagner/Weiß 2003 as well as Klein et al. 2013). The “German Family Panel” (pairfam), which includes questions on the quality, satisfaction and stability of relationships, was planned as a continuation of the Man- nheim study. But in this case – due to the large number of topics included and the variables of different fi elds of marriage and relationships – only a limited systematic test of theoretical hypotheses is possible. The research design as well as panel at- trition are also problematic. Overall, the number of recorded divorces is relatively low and hardly allows for causal analysis. Other data sources (the “German Socio- Economic Panel Study” (SOEP), the “German General Social Survey” (ALLBUS) and data from the “International Social Survey Programme” (ISSP), the “Generations and Gender Survey” (GGS) etc.) allow for – more or less limited – analysis of separa- tion and divorce. But such valuable studies only exist unrelated to each other and suffer from a lack of central explanatory variables and methodological restrictions. Separation or divorce were not central topics in the conception of these and other surveys, they were rather viewed as marginal processes. In spite of these data limitations, empirical determinants for relationship dis- solution can be isolated. Some effects are to be mentioned: The risk of divorce rises with the urbanity of the living environment, the divorce of parents or parents- in-law (transmission of divorce), a lower marriage age, a non-religious wedding and increasing educational heterogamy of couples. Children are probably the main risk-reducing effect (see for example Klein/Kopp 1999; Wagner 1997; Brüderl et al. 1997; Kopp 2000; Hill/Kopp 2013; Babka von Gostomski et al. 1998). Besides chil- dren, who are viewed as “marriage-specifi c capital”, other investments, such as a shared bank account, shared land or home ownership also act as stabilising factors (Wagner 1997). Infi delity, drifting apart as well as alcohol and drug abuse are indi- vidual causes that foster divorce (Amato/Previti 2003). De Graaf and Kalmijin (2003) prove the relevance of communication behaviour, such as a lack of attention and empathy among partners. The impact of interaction styles and confl ict resolution strategies has also been empirically proven. Accordingly, openness, intimacy and trust strengthen the stability of relationships (Arránz Becker 2004; Arránz Becker/ Rüssmann 2004). The effect of premarital cohabitation on stability is positive (see for example Lois 2008). Experiences of unemployment – especially among men – and ensuing fi nancial problems reduce the stability. The employment of women shows ambivalent effects (Arránz Becker 2015a; Wagner/Weiß 2003). However, in the last two decades, the focus of research on divorce has changed (Amato 2010; Arránz Becker 2015a). Roughly from the turn of the millennium on- wards, the consequences of relationship dissolution are being addressed more of- ten than its causes. This shift in research can be explained by the increase of divorce rates all over the world (Goode 1993) and the assumed and empirically proven nega- tive consequences. To mention only one example, the results of Holden and Smock (1991) proved that a divorce poses the greatest risk of impoverishment to women in • Paul B. Hill, Johannes Kopp222 the US. Another study points out drastic psychological and social consequences of divorce for parents and their children (Amato 2000). Consequently, the majority of articles in this volume concentrate on the consequences of separation and divorce. However, there is no homogeneous perspective of theory in this fi eld of research. Rather, there is a coexistence of theories and hypotheses. Whereas the dissolution of relationships is treated as the explanandum in all approaches mentioned above, quite different explanatory phenomena operate under the heading “consequences of divorce”. Still, the research is characterised by a common cause, namely the increasing instability of relationships. Implications of separation vary substantially: social isolation, identity problems, economic deprivation and the loss of contact with one’s children, to name only a few. In this context, a stringent theory can hardly be expected and probably would not be very useful. The articles in this volume em- phasize these facts and circumstances. There is no universal theoretical framework for post-divorce research, instead, specifi c explanatory approaches focus on individual issues. The divorce-stress-ad- justment perspective of Amato (2000) is a particularly infl uential approach on which many empirical studies of the psychological consequences of relationship dissolu- tion are based. According to this approach, separation and divorce are dramatic life events, which drastically infl uence the lives of those involved, carrying short- and/ or long-term consequences. On the level of psychological implications, a variety of results prove the negative consequences. Braver and Lamb (2013: 493) summarise the relevant research results as follows: “It is not surprising that divorced parents are more likely to suffer psychological and emotional problems than married par- ents, although most parents are not permanently damaged by divorce. Divorced parents have higher risks of depression, anxiety, and unhappiness, physical illness, suicide, motor vehicle accidents, alcoholism, homicide, and overall mortality.” The adjustment to new life conditions is, in the most cases, easier for women than for men, because they have better support networks, initiate divorce more frequently than men and often have more effective coping strategies. Besides the psychosocial and personality-related consequences addressed above, other research priorities can be identifi ed. Economic consequences, for ex- ample, make up a very important research area, as mentioned (Weitzman 1985). Separation and divorce are often connected with a reduced fi nancial scope, while women are the losers in most cases (given the fact that role division is often ar- ranged traditionally between the genders). The magnitude of economic conse- quences also depends on legal and socio-political circumstances, which leads to diffi culties when it comes to international comparisons. For Germany, economic effects have been examined by Hans-Jürgen Andreß and Miriam Bröckel particu- larly (see for example 2007, as well as the article in the present volume). Family dis- solution also often negatively affects the raising and socialisation of children, which might have consequences on their educational careers. Changes concerning the frequency and intensity of contact between former partners and their children are perhaps the most important research areas. Contact between former partners is especially relevant and almost inevitable when both still are in touch with the child or the children and share childrearing duties (“parallel Research on Divorce: Causes and Consequences • 223 parenting”). The main intent is often to reduce negative psychosocial consequenc- es for the children. According to US studies (Braver/Lamb 2013: 499-500), about 20 percent of children whose parents are divorced show adaptive and develop- mental disorders, whereas the respective number for stable families is only about 10 percent. The omission of interaction or clearly diminished communication with a parent – especially at the age of approximately one to three years – can lead to the formation of an unfavourable attachment style, which can negatively infl uence behaviour in adolescence and adulthood. In summary: “The quality of both mother- and father-child relationships remains the most reliable predictor of individual dif- ferences in psychological, social, and cognitive adjustment in infancy, as well as in later childhood” (Braver/Lamb 2013: 498). This similarly applies to the methodological side of post-divorce research as well as to the analyses of the instability of relationships. Surveys which focus exclusively on the diverse consequences of the separation process, which are theory-driven and include a suffi cient number of cases are rare. In the case of relationship instabil- ity, as well as the process of divorce, panel studies should ideally be carried out, be- cause they are the only adequate means that is able to illustrate the consequences of divorce in their processuality. In this respect, pairfam might be a good starting point for initial analysis, although methodological problems such as high panel at- trition exist. For the analysis of specifi c effects – for example changes of fi nancial resources as a result of separation and divorce – other data sets are also suitable, as demonstrated in the article by Bröckel and Andreß. The contributions to the present volume provide important research fi ndings focussing on prominent topics in Europe and Germany. The results provide new in- sights, complement and contrast recent American fi ndings and point to open ques- tions. The fi rst article by Ingmar Rapp, Thomas Klein, Sebastian Fronk and Johannes Stauder deals with the determinants of divorce decisions. The authors take up well- known considerations of exchange theory, according to which the opportunities on the so-called “marriage market” – meaning the availability of alternatives to the existing relationship – determine the stability of the relationship. Allegedly, better alternatives theoretically have a destabilising effect, even if marriage quality is high. For the fi rst time in divorce research, the authors do not only try to use proxy vari- ables for the analysis of market structures, but rather integrate the actual social con- texts (as Scott Feld (1981) described in his focus theory) into the analysis and can therefore prove respective effects. With recourse to the latest “German Marriage Market Survey”, the results of older surveys can be critically discussed with regard to the new data (Rapp et al. 2015). The following articles then turn to the consequences of separation and divorce. Father-child relationships after divorce, for example, are the issue of the survey by Matthijs Kalmijn. By focussing on living arrangements after divorce, the amount of contact with the father, and the perceived quality of the father-child relationship, he addresses questions which have hardly been taken into consideration in research so far. He analyses the dependence of contact frequency and the intensity of the father-child-dyad on demographic and socio-economic variables. The author uses • Paul B. Hill, Johannes Kopp224 different data sets, allowing for an international comparison between England, Swe- den, the Netherlands and Germany. Results show that the national context also mat- ters for understanding father-child relationships (Kalmijn 2015). Miriam Bröckel and Hans-Jürgen Andreß focus on the economic consequences of divorce. As the New Home Economics approach points out in particular, mate- rial gain can also be achieved by pooling resources during a cohabitation or mar- riage. When the advantages of a shared household break away due to separation, the expenditures for two separate households will typically be higher in total. Spe- cialisation gains resulting from the division of labour between the partners will also disappear. In consequence, greater restrictions regarding the available income are to be expected after divorce (Bröckel/Andreß 2015). The survey, based on almost 30 waves of the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP), directly draws on comparable analysis (Andreß 2003; Andreß et al. 2003; Andreß/Bröckel 2007). Over this period, the socio-structural, socio-economic and legal conditions as well as the division of gender roles in relationships have clearly changed. The analysis shows the effects of these changes on the fi nancial situation of men and women after di- vorce. Overall, the results prove that the fi nancial consequences of divorce are still more negative for women than for men. In his article, Oliver Arránz Becker analyses in which way parent-child relation- ships change after a divorce or union dissolution, examining the differences be- tween mother-child and father-child relationships. The focus is on adolescents and adults (of the offspring generation) and the relationships to their parents. The author bases his analyses on pairfam data and tests several competing hypoth- eses. According to the spillover hypothesis, stress and confl ict that parents experi- ence between each other might be transferred to their children and consequently harms their well-being. However, a compensation of confl icts might also be pos- sible through a more intensive and empathetic communication between children and both parents, or one parent (the “compensation hypothesis”). So far, little is known about the situation in Germany. The main innovation of this article, com- pared with earlier studies, is the analysis method used. A rather methodical conclu- sion from the analyses is that the fi xed-effects regressions based on variance within respondents offer a different picture than earlier studies based on cross-sectional data. Conclusions drawn in American studies are certainly very helpful; however, comparisons with results gathered in other national contexts allow conclusions on the relevance of family politics, economic and social normative arrangements. Ar- ránz Becker is able to point out that there are evident indications for the infl uence of such contexts (Arránz Becker 2015b). Sabine Walper, Carolin Thönnissen and Philipp Alt examine the effects of fam- ily structure and the experience of parental separation on adolescents and their well-being. They also base their analyses on data of the pairfam panel. The data set allows a systematic comparison of four different family structures: stable nuclear families, single mother families, step-families and a group of prospective separators whose parents separated between the two waves taken into account here. Adoles- cents’ satisfaction with different domains of life and their self-esteem were used as indicators of well-being. Contrary to fi ndings from international studies, the data Research on Divorce: Causes and Consequences • 225 do not suggest that adolescents raised in a stepfamily are similarly or even more strained than adolescents living in a single mother family. Generally, effects of fam- ily structure did not differ for boys and girls, but maternal education moderated the effects of family structure on adolescents’ life satisfaction. Overall, the fi ndings are in line with other evidence from Germany which suggests only limited disadvan- tages for adolescents from separated/divorced families (Walper et al. 2015). References Amato, Paul R. 2000: The Consequences of Divorce for Adults and Children. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 62,4: 1269-1287 [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x]. Amato, Paul. R.; Previti, Denise 2003: People’s Reasons for Divorcing: Gender, Social Class, the Life Course, and Adjustment. In: Journal of Family Issues 24,5: 602-626 [doi: 10.1177/0192513X03254507]. Amato, Paul R. 2010: Research on Divorce: Continuing Trends and New Developments. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 72,3: 650-666 [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x]. Andreß, Hans-Jürgen 2003: Die ökonomischen Risiken von Trennung und Scheidung im Ländervergleich: ein Forschungsprogramm. In: Zeitschrift für Sozialreform 49,4: 620-651. Andreß, Hans-Jürgen et al. 2003: Wenn aus Liebe rote Zahlen werden. Über die wirtschaftlichen Folgen von Trennung und Scheidung. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Andreß, Hans-Jürgen; Bröckel, Miriam 2007: Income and Life Satisfaction after Mari- tal Disruption in Germany. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 69,2: 500-512 [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00379.x]. Arránz Becker, Oliver 2004: Soziale Determinanten und Konsequenzen partnerschaftli- cher Interaktionsstile. In: Hill, Paul B. (Ed.): Interaktion und Kommunikation. Eine empi- rische Studie zu Alltagsinteraktionen, Konfl ikten und Zufriedenheit in Partnerschaften. Würzburg: Ergon: 157-206. Arránz Becker, Oliver; Rüssmann, Kirsten 2004: Die Interdependenz von Sozialstruktur, Familienzyklus, Interaktionsstil und Partnerschaftszufriedenheit. In: Hill, Paul B. (Ed.): Interaktion und Kommunikation. Eine empirische Studie zu Alltagsinteraktionen, Kon- fl ikten und Zufriedenheit in Partnerschaften. Würzburg: Ergon: 207-247. Arránz Becker, Oliver 2015a: Determinanten und Konsequenzen von Trennung und Scheidung. In: Hill, Paul B.; Kopp, Johannes (Eds.): Handbuch Familiensoziologie. Wiesbaden: Springer VS: 527-561. Arránz Becker, Oliver 2015b: The Impact of Union Dissolution and Divorce on Adole- scents’ and Adults’ Relationships with their Parents. In: Comparative Population Stu- dies 40,3: 313-334 [doi: 10.12765/CPoS-2015-09en]. Babka von Gostomski, Christian; Hartmann, Josef; Kopp, Johannes 1998: Soziostruk- turelle Bestimmungsgründe der Ehescheidung. Eine empirische Überprüfung einiger Hypothesen der Familienforschung. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation 18,2: 117-133. Braver, Sanford L.; Lamb, Michael E. 2013: Marital Dissolution. In: Peterson, Gary W.; Bush, Kevin R. (Eds.): Handbook of Marriage and the Family. Third Edition. New York/ Heidelberg/Dordrecht/London: Springer: 487-516. • Paul B. Hill, Johannes Kopp226 Bröckel, Miriam; Andreß, Hans-Jürgen 2015: The Economic Consequences of Divorce in Germany: What Has Changed since the Turn of the Millennium? In: Comparative Population Studies 40,3: 277-312 [doi: 10.12765/CPoS-2015-04en]. Brüderl, Josef; Diekmann, Andreas; Engelhardt, Henriette 1997: Erhöht eine Probee- he das Scheidungsrisiko? Eine empirische Untersuchung mit dem Familiensurvey. In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 49,2: 205-222. Esser, Hartmut 2002: Ehekrisen. Das Re-Framing der Ehe und der Anstieg der Schei- dungsraten. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 31,6: 472-496. Feld, Scott L. 1981: The Focused Organization of Social Ties. In: American Journal of Sociology 86,5: 1015-1035. Goode, William J. 1993: World Changes in Divorce Patterns. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Gottman, John M. 1993: The Roles of Confl ict Engagement, Escalation, and Avoidance in Marital Interaction: A Longitudinal View of Five Types of Couples. In: Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 51: 6-15. Gottman, John M. 1994: What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Pro- cesses and Marital Outcomes. Hillsdale/New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. de Graaf, Paul M.; Kalmijn, Matthijs 2003: Alternative Routes in the Remarriage Market: Competing-Risk Analyses of Union Formation after Divorce. In: Social Forces 81,4: 1459-1498 [doi: 10.1353/sof.2003.0052]. Hill, Paul B.; Kopp, Johannes 2013: Familiensoziologie. Grundlagen und theoretische Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Holden, Karen C.; Smock, Pamela J. 1991: The Economic Costs of Marital Dissolution: Why do Women Bear a Disproportionate Cost? In: Annual Review of Sociology 17: 51- 78 [doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.000411]. Kalmijn, Matthijs 2015: Father-Child Relations after Divorce in Four European Countries: Patterns and Determinants. In: Comparative Population Studies 40,3: 251-276 [doi: 10.12765/CPoS-2015-10en]. Karney, Benjamin R.; Bradbury, Thomas 1995: The Longitudinal Course of Marital Qual- ity and Stability: A Review of Theory, Method, and Research. In: Psychological Bulletin 118,1: 3-34. Klein, Thomas; Kopp, Johannes 1999: Scheidungsursachen aus soziologischer Sicht. Würzburg: Ergon-Verlag. Klein, Thomas; Kopp, Johannes; Rapp, Ingmar 2013: Metanalyse mit Originaldaten. Ein Vorschlag zur Forschungssynthese in der Soziologie. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 42,3: 222-238. Kopp, Johannes 2000: Sociostructural Determinants of Divorce: A Test of Some Hypoth- eses of the Economic Theory of the Family. In: Raub, Werner; Weesie, Jeroen (Eds.): The Management of Durable Relations. Theoretical Models and Empirical Studies of Households and Organizations. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis 2000. Kroneberg, Clemens 2007: Wertrationalität und das Modell der Frame-Selektion. In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 59,2: 215-239 [doi: 10.1007/ s11577-007-0027-9]. Lewis, Robert A.; Spanier, Graham B. 1979: Theorizing About the Quality and Stability of Marriage. In: Burr, Wesley et al. (Eds.): Contemporary Theories about the Family. Vol. 1. New York/London: Free Press: 268-294. Research on Divorce: Causes and Consequences • 227 Prof. Dr. Paul B. Hill (). RWTH Aachen University, Institute of Sociology. Aachen, Germany. E-mail: sekretariat.hill@soziologie.rwth-aachen.de URL: http://www.soziologie.rwth-aachen.de/aw/cms/website/zielgruppen/mes/ mitarbeiter/Mitarbeiter_MES/Ablagestruktur/~tcj/paul-hill/?lang=en Prof. Dr. Johannes Kopp. Universität Trier, Sociology. Trier, Germany. E-mail: kopp@uni-trier.de URL: https://www.uni-trier.de/index.php?id=50114&L=2 Lois, Daniel 2008: Arbeitsteilung, Berufsorientierung und Partnerschaftsstabilität. Ehen und nichteheliche Lebensgemeinschaften im Vergleich. In: Kölner Zeitschrift für So- ziologie und Sozialpsychologie 60,1: 53-77. Rapp, Ingmar et al. 2015: Partner Market Opportunities and Relationship Stability. In: Comparative Population Studies 40,3: 229-250 [doi: 10.12765/CPoS-2015-08en]. Rusbult, Caryl E. 1980: Commitment and Satisfaction in Romantic Associations: A Test of the Investment Model. In: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 16: 172-186. Thibaut, John W.; Kelley, Harold, H. 1959: The Social Psychology of Groups. Oxford/ England: John Wiley. Wagner, Michael 1997: Scheidung in Ost- und Westdeutschland. Zum Verhältnis von Ehestabilität und Sozial-struktur seit den 30er Jahren. Frankfurt/New York: Campus. Wagner, Michael; Weiß, Bernd 2003: Bilanz der Scheidungsforschung. Versuch einer Meta-Analyse. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 32,1: 29-49. Walper, Sabine; Thönnissen, Carolin; Alt, Philipp 2015: Effects of Family Structure and the Experience of Parental Separation: A Focus on Adolescents’ Well-Being. In: Com- parative Population Studies 40,3 [doi: 10.12765/CPoS-2015-12en]. Weitzman, Lenore J. 1985: The Divorce Revolution. The Unexpected Social and Eco- nomic Consequences for Women and Children in America. New York: Free Press. Published by / Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Norbert F. Schneider Federal Institute for Population Research D-65180 Wiesbaden / Germany Managing Editor / Verantwortlicher Redakteur Frank Swiaczny Assistant Managing Editor / Stellvertretende Redakteurin Katrin Schiefer Copy Editor (German) / Lektorat (deutsch) Dr. Evelyn Grünheid Layout / Satz Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs E-mail: cpos@bib.bund.de Scientifi c Advisory Board / Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Paul Gans (Mannheim) Johannes Huinink (Bremen) Michaela Kreyenfeld (Rostock) Marc Luy (Wien) Clara H. Mulder (Groningen) Notburga Ott (Bochum) Peter Preisendörfer (Mainz) Zsolt Spéder (Budapest) Comparative Population Studies www.comparativepopulationstudies.de ISSN: 1869-8980 (Print) – 1869-8999 (Internet) Board of Reviewers / Gutachterbeirat Martin Abraham (Erlangen) Laura Bernardi (Lausanne) Hansjörg Bucher (Bonn) Claudia Diehl (Konstanz) Andreas Diekmann (Zürich) Gabriele Doblhammer-Reiter (Rostock) Jürgen Dorbritz (Wiesbaden) Anette Eva Fasang (Berlin) E.-Jürgen Flöthmann (Bielefeld) Alexia Fürnkranz-Prskawetz (Wien) Beat Fux (Salzburg) Joshua Goldstein (Berkeley) Karsten Hank (Köln) Sonja Haug (Regensburg) Hill Kulu (Liverpool) Aart C. Liefbroer (Den Haag) Kurt Lüscher (Konstanz) Emma Lundholm (Umeå) Nadja Milewski (Rostock) Dimiter Philipov (Wien) Roland Rau (Rostock) Tomáš Sobotka (Wien) Jeroen Spijker (Barcelona) Olivier Thévenon (Paris) Helga de Valk (Brussel) Heike Trappe (Rostock) Michael Wagner (Köln) © Federal Institute for Population Research 2015 – All rights reserved