Study: Divorce is contagious

SleekandBouncy

Well-Known Member
Divorce is contagious: Why there is a 75% chance your marriage will fail if your friends split


article-1291916-0A531798000005DC-390_233x330.jpg


By David Derbyshire (Mail Online)
Last updated at 10:18 AM on 5th July 2010

If your best friends' marriage is falling apart then beware, yours could also be heading for the rocks.
Researchers have discovered that divorce is catching and spreads like a disease through families, work places and groups of friends.
The domino effect means that if an immediate friend or colleague splits up, your own chance of divorce increases by 75 per cent.
Even the break-up of a friend-of-a-friend's marriage boosts your chances of divorce by a third, scientists say.

The researchers describe the effect as 'divorce clustering' - and believe that break-ups within friendship groups force couples to start questioning their own relationships.

They say that a friend's divorce can also reduce the social stigma of splitting up, even when children are involved.
The findings come from a continuing study into the lives of more than 12,000 Americans living in the New England town of Framingham since 1948.

The researchers - led by Dr Rose McDermott of Brown University, Rhode Island - found that every divorce sends ripples through friends, families and work colleagues. These results go beyond previous work intimating a person-toperson effect to suggest a person-to-person-to-person effect,' said Dr McDermott.

Individuals who get divorced may influence not only their friends, but their friends' friends as the propensity to divorce spreads.'
She added: 'A person's tendency to divorce depends not just on his friend's divorce status, but also extends to his friend's friend.
'The full network shows that participants are 75 per cent more likely to be divorced if a person - obviously other than their spouse - that they are directly connected to is divorced.
'The size of the effect for people at two degrees of separation, for example the friend of a friend, is 33 per cent. At three degrees the effect disappears.' It wasn't just friends who split up that had an impact on someone's relationship.

Divorce among family members and work mates also increased the chances of someone's own marriage ending, the study found.
It also suggests that knowing lots of divorced people can be bad for your marriage. The more divorced people that you know, the riskier your own marriage. And while many couples cling to the belief that children reduce their risk of divorce, the scientists found it made no difference.
 
I believe this.

I wonder if the opposite can be true as well. Perhaps some couples feel a stronger need to stay together as to not be a part of the status quo; feeling unique in a way.
 
I have definitely observed this, just as I have observed that friends affect each other's chances of getting married in the first place. It cannot be overstated that one should be very mindful of the company one and one's significant other keep.
 
This reminds me a little of a discussion that took place on another forum about Islam and the practice of separating the genders.
One of the members posted a study that IIRC was done in a Euro country that found people were more likely to get divorced if during rough patches in their marriage they worked in close proximity to or were close friends with people of the opposite sex because they were more likely to fall victim to contrast and compare.
This was so many years ago. I wish I could recall the specifics or the name of the study. I do not recall if the odds were the same for men and women.
 
^^^ How does that work in Islam? Men/women are only allowed to be around the opposite sex if they are family members?
 
^^^ How does that work in Islam? Men/women are only allowed to be around the opposite sex if they are family members?


The study was done in Europe with non-Muslims and had nothing to do with Islam.

The study was mentioned in a larger discussion about adultery and the practice in Muslim societies of keeping the genders separated.
Essentially it was a debate, and that study was brought into the mix by the side arguing/outlining what they felt were the complications that arise from the intermingling of men and women.
That is the discussion in which the high divorce rate amongst male secondary school teachers and professors was brought up and whether it was due to them contrasting and comparing their wives with their students or whether it was another factor like work stress or wives themselves acting on insecurities (since they know their DHs are working with young women) and bring stiff into the marriage.
 
I have definitely observed this, just as I have observed that friends affect each other's chances of getting married in the first place. It cannot be overstated that one should be very mindful of the company one and one's significant other keep.

I was thinking this as well.

There have been studies done that show that friends often get married in rapid succession. It's like one influences the other and a subtle peer pressure (even if it's not verbalized) develops in which the remaining single friends want to fit in.

So I could totally see this happening in reverse as well... I remember how my last boyfriend (who had never been married) hung with a group of male friends in which all of them were divorced.

It didn't surprise me later that he expressed very nasty and hateful sentiments about women, even though he had never been married to one. He didn't seem to be in much of a hurry to get married either.
 
If that were the case then my parents wouldn't have stayed married for over 40 years
 
When I first read this article, I couldn't help but think of a book called "Bowling Alone," which is about the power of social networks on our behaviors. I'm not surprised by this study. People would be shocked to find out how much what we do is shaped by those around us. It reminds me of another study that found that those who were overweight were more likely to have friends who were overweight, too.

Just to throw it out there, wouldn't it be interesting to consider the implications of this study within subgroups of Blacks and the Black community at large?
 
When I first read this article, I couldn't help but think of a book called "Bowling Alone," which is about the power of social networks on our behaviors. I'm not surprised by this study. People would be shocked to find out how much what we do is shaped by those around us. It reminds me of another study that found that those who were overweight were more likely to have friends who were overweight, too.

Just to throw it out there, wouldn't it be interesting to consider the implications of this study within subgroups of Blacks and the Black community at large?


Eggg-ZACTLY.
 
I instantly thought about Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point". Specifically the article from The New Yorker in '96.

ETA: Naija, in reading Tipping Point, I too thought about certain patterns amongst blacks. Gladwell's main question stemmed from crime rates rather than divorce, but many of the examples and subsequent theories can easily be related.
 
Last edited:
this is interesting... and i guess it makes sense. i was starting to think that i was being too picky about only wanting to date men who come from a solid 2 parent home but maybe i'm not. i don't want to get divorced! and i don't know many people who have divorced parents or are divorced...

and i'd like to keep it that way. :)
 
If that were the case then my parents wouldn't have stayed married for over 40 years

The biggest thing I took away from reading this is the infectious nature of human behavior while not new it's a concept that is often poo-pooed behind assertions that you can't judge situations or predict outcomes by looking at people's past actions or the company they keep. Apparently all these things occur in bubbles separate from one another :lol:

What's occurring here largely is that the divorce of a friend/relative triggers married couples to start reevaluating their own marriage and their spouse so the key is less in disassociating with divorcing friends/relatives and more in making sure that your own marriage is up to snuff so that upon evaluation you are pleased with the results...or at least dedicated to improving it. Maybe your parents fall into one of those two categories.
 
What's occurring here largely is that the divorce of a friend/relative triggers married couples to start reevaluating their own marriage and their spouse so the key is less in disassociating with divorcing friends/relatives and more in making sure that your own marriage is up to snuff so that upon evaluation you are pleased with the results...or at least dedicated to improving it. Maybe your parents fall into one of those two categories.

...to which I have to question wouldn't the couple get divorced anyway if they were not in a circle of friends where divorce was a domino effect? Obviously they are only seeing something that was already there before.
 
Eggg-ZACTLY.

I instantly thought about Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point". Specifically the article from The New Yorker in '96.

ETA: Naija, in reading Tipping Point, I too thought about certain patterns amongst blacks. Gladwell's main question stemmed from crime rates rather than divorce, but many of the examples and subsequent theories can easily be related.

I'm glad you both feel me. :yep: :yep:

The reason I said what I said was because of our discussion in your thread a few days ago (http://www.longhaircareforum.com/showthread.php?t=482660). In it, I discussed "Code of the Street" and the author's theories regarding the normative behaviors and beliefs that emerged in communities whose lack of social and financial capital renders them unable to access mainstream forms of success.

I haven't read the Tipping Point (I know :nono:, but I do hope to read it soon) but my understanding of it is that Gladwell essentially posits ideas and innovations as being, to borrow from the authors of this study, analogous to "contagions." What I keep thinking about is this: if you live in a community that is disenfranchised from mainstream society, certain philosophies and behaviors will be inculcated amongst members of that community and become the norm. At the heart of such norms are ideas that became contagious; once they're internalized, they become endemic to that group. I'm purposefully borrowing from epidemiological terminology to be consistent with the "contagion" idea that the researchers used. In this light, it would make perfect sense that amongst certain groups of people, divorce is normalized, obesity is not a concern, and men wouldn't want to be fathers or husbands. I this is an extremely simplistic argument but it kind of makes sense (I hope).
 
...to which I have to question wouldn't the couple get divorced anyway if they were not in a circle of friends where divorce was a domino effect? Obviously they are only seeing something that was already there before.

I would like to suggest that no, they might not. It's my opinion that human behavior is as infectious as diseases can be, and that's why certain patterns of behavior remain prevalent despite the enormous amount of anecdotal and empirical evidence demonstrating that those behaviors are actually detrimental to a person's growth.

I also believe that the extent to which a person is influenced by others' behavior is akin to the immune system. Some people are more susceptible to getting a cold than others. Perhaps some couples are more swayed by the company they keep than others are, as are some individuals. But one would never know which side they fall on until something happens within a core group of friends, or a family unit, or a community. Much like you never know how sick you can get with something until it actually happens to you.

These are just my thoughts, and bear in mind that all this is, on my part, is an attempt to bridge the little I know of different types of norms (subjective, injunctive, and descriptive) to what these authors are saying as well as to some of my own thoughts from a public health perspective. :)
 
I'm glad you both feel me. :yep: :yep:

The reason I said what I said was because of our discussion in your thread a few days ago (http://www.longhaircareforum.com/showthread.php?t=482660). In it, I discussed "Code of the Street" and the author's theories regarding the normative behaviors and beliefs that emerged in communities whose lack of social and financial capital renders them unable to access mainstream forms of success.

I haven't read the Tipping Point (I know :nono:, but I do hope to read it soon) but my understanding of it is that Gladwell essentially posits ideas and innovations as being, to borrow from the authors of this study, analogous to "contagions." What I keep thinking about is this: if you live in a community that is disenfranchised from mainstream society, certain philosophies and behaviors will be inculcated amongst members of that community and become the norm. At the heart of such norms are ideas that became contagious; once they're internalized, they become endemic to that group. I'm purposefully borrowing from epidemiological terminology to be consistent with the "contagion" idea that the researchers used. In this light, it would make perfect sense that amongst certain groups of people, divorce is normalized, obesity is not a concern, and men wouldn't want to be fathers or husbands. I this is an extremely simplistic argument but it kind of makes sense (I hope).

You would adore the book and article because Gladwell also portrays various phenomenon in an epidemiological context. Very provocative concepts, and extremely well written.

Read this: http://www.gladwell.com/pdf/tipping.pdf
It's only 7 pages but it will give you a great idea of what the book is about. I'd love to hear your thoughts. (sorry to hijack)
 
...to which I have to question wouldn't the couple get divorced anyway if they were not in a circle of friends where divorce was a domino effect? Obviously they are only seeing something that was already there before.

Not necessarily. There are many marriages filled with reasons to get divorced, but they remain married because they don't consider divorce an option (for whatever reason) or they don't realize how dissatisfied they are or they are apathetic about their unhappiness. How many old unhappy married couples do we know? Lots of people consider discontent and boredom the natural state of marriage. It's been said on this very site numerous times.

The divorce of friends and relatives would push said couples into evaluating their own marriages or they may start to view divorce as a viable option. A lot of unhappy couples stay together out of fear, but if you see that your homegirl/boy did it and survived then it doesn't look so scary.
Also depending on why their friends or relatives get divorced it may make them question things they have previously considered acceptable within their own marriage. For example a GF that divorces her DH because he cheated might make you question staying with your own DH after his numerous affairs. Suddenly you feel self conscious about accepting behavior you now see is grounds for divorce within your circle.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily. There are many marriages filled with reasons to get divorced, but they remain married because they don't consider divorce an option (for whatever reason) or they don't realize how dissatisfied they are or they are apathetic about the problems they do so. How many old unhappy married couples do we know? Lots of people consider discontent and boredom the natural state of marriage. It's been said on this very site numerous times.

The divorce of friends and relatives would push said couples into evaluating their own marriages or they may start to view divorce as a viable option. A lot of unhappy couples stay together out of fear, but if you see that your homegirl/boy did it and survived then it doesn't look so scary.
Also depending on why their friends or relatives get divorced it may make them question things they have previously considered acceptable within their own marriage. For example a GF that divorces her DH because he cheated might make you question staying with your own DH after his numerous affairs. Suddenly you feel self conscious about accepting behavior you now see is grounds for divorce within your circle.

@ red. Right. I think they've always viewed divorce as an option, even subconsciously. Seeing their friends divorce and probably the freedom of ending the marriage pushed those original feelings of divorce to the surface. Every time the husband messed up, those emotions brought forth the possibility of divorce - or at least in private thoughts. 'I can't wait to get rid of this guy!' 'Why am I putting up with this?' Then after things settled down, the wife talks herself out of it - but the thought is always there.

@ bold. This is why I think those marriages would eventually fall. The observations of a friend free of the burden from her marriage just expedited the process that most likely would have happened anyway. That wife had already contemplated divorce 1,000 times before her friend actually took the big step. I do not think these relationships would last til death did them part if they were not in their circle of divroced friends. It would have happened down the line sooner or later. There is always another trigger.
 
I'm glad you both feel me. :yep: :yep:

The reason I said what I said was because of our discussion in your thread a few days ago (http://www.longhaircareforum.com/showthread.php?t=482660). In it, I discussed "Code of the Street" and the author's theories regarding the normative behaviors and beliefs that emerged in communities whose lack of social and financial capital renders them unable to access mainstream forms of success.

I haven't read the Tipping Point (I know :nono:, but I do hope to read it soon) but my understanding of it is that Gladwell essentially posits ideas and innovations as being, to borrow from the authors of this study, analogous to "contagions." What I keep thinking about is this: if you live in a community that is disenfranchised from mainstream society, certain philosophies and behaviors will be inculcated amongst members of that community and become the norm. At the heart of such norms are ideas that became contagious; once they're internalized, they become endemic to that group. I'm purposefully borrowing from epidemiological terminology to be consistent with the "contagion" idea that the researchers used. In this light, it would make perfect sense that amongst certain groups of people, divorce is normalized, obesity is not a concern, and men wouldn't want to be fathers or husbands. I this is an extremely simplistic argument but it kind of makes sense (I hope).


The Tipping Point is a must read! I've recommended it to so many people.
I originally read it because my mother bought all the books he had written at that point and I of course "borrowed" them from her.
Anyhoo, must read. It's good for a variety of reasons particularly that it really drives home how the smallest things in a society can snowball and have very large effects, contrary to the "out of nowhere" theory.

Also it places the reader in a much more objective position when looking at various groups of people and behavior because it conveys how easily our values and behavioral norms are influenced and transferred. All the elements used in separating the "good" from the "bad" and more.
 
The Tipping Point is a must read! I've recommended it to so many people.
I originally read it because my mother bought all the books he had written at that point and I of course "borrowed" them from her.

Anyhoo, must read. It's good for a variety of reasons particularly that it really drives home how the smallest things in a society can snowball and have very large effects, contrary to the "out of nowhere" theory.

Also it places the reader in a much more objective position when looking at various groups of people and behavior because it conveys how easily our values and behavioral norms are influenced and transferred. All the elements used in separating the "good" from the "bad" and more.

You know I lub your "rents" don't ya....:grin:

I have all his books...recently purchased his new one "what the dog saw"..

to my kindle...

http://www.gladwell.com/dog/index.html
 
You would adore the book and article because Gladwell also portrays various phenomenon in an epidemiological context. Very provocative concepts, and extremely well written.

Read this: http://www.gladwell.com/pdf/tipping.pdf
It's only 7 pages but it will give you a great idea of what the book is about. I'd love to hear your thoughts. (sorry to hijack)

Thanks for posting this (and actually, after reading it, I think it's pretty consistent with what the authors of the study are arguing). I think the notion of the "tipping point" could be invoked in the context of divorces among friends. It makes me wonder what the tipping point is among a core group of friends, within pockets of communities, within a larger community, and in society as a whole when it comes to this as well as other social problems. Especially as it pertains to Black people.
 
@ red. Right. I think they've always viewed divorce as an option, even subconsciously. Seeing their friends divorce and probably the freedom of ending the marriage pushed those original feelings of divorce to the surface. Every time the husband messed up, those emotions brought forth the possibility of divorce - or at least in private thoughts. 'I can't wait to get rid of this guy!' 'Why am I putting up with this?' Then after things settled down, the wife talks herself out of it - but the thought is always there.

@ bold. This is why I think those marriages would eventually fall. The observations of a friend free of the burden from her marriage just expedited the process that most likely would have happened anyway. That wife had already contemplated divorce 1,000 times before her friend actually took the big step. I do not think these relationships would last til death did them part if they were not in their circle of divroced friends. It would have happened down the line sooner or later. There is always another trigger.


They may have viewed it as an option but in that distant manner like how many consider moving to another country or winning the lotto - a fleeting consideration that you don't intend to implement for a variety of reasons.

Seeing divorces take place within your circle can make a fleeting consideration seem more practical. Suddenly you can look to your friends for an idea of how your life may turn out whereas before divorce was a non option because you feared being alone, ostracized, not being able to cover the mtg, didn't realize you were unhappy, etc.. It's like watching a demo. There are a lot of people who will only take certain risks after others have safely proven it to be doable.
We can look to generations before us to see just how many people remained in unhappy or dysfunctional marriages so the idea that all people who could potentially get divorced, will get divorced is not true. And you're right some of those marriage probably would not have lasted anyway, but that doesn't mean their lifespan couldn't have been longer.

Lastly, let's not forget the contagious nature of dissatisfaction. The dissatisfaction expressed and ACTED upon by those in our social circles can cause us to be more critical of your own circumstances. Suddenly that little issue between your spouse and yourself seems more serious.If a marriage is on shaky ground in other areas I imagine hysteria can sort of take place, even paranoia if say a friend's divorce is predicated on adultery. Suddenly you're looking sideways at your own spouse.
 
They may have viewed it as an option but in that distant manner like how many consider moving to another country or winning the lotto - a fleeting consideration that you don't intend to implement for a variety of reasons.

Seeing divorces take place within your circle can make a fleeting consideration seem more practical. Suddenly you can look to your friends for an idea of how your life may turn out whereas before divorce was a non option because you feared being alone, ostracized, not being able to cover the mtg, didn't realize you were unhappy, etc.. It's like watching a demo. There are a lot of people who will only take certain risks after others have safely proven it to be doable.
We can look to generations before us to see just how many people remained in unhappy or dysfunctional marriages so the idea that all people who could potentially get divorced, will get divorced is not true. And you're right some of those marriage probably would not have lasted anyway, but that doesn't mean their lifespan couldn't have been longer.

Lastly, let's not forget the contagious nature of dissatisfaction. The dissatisfaction expressed and ACTED upon by those in our social circles can cause us to be more critical of your own circumstances. Suddenly that little issue between your spouse and yourself seems more serious.If a marriage is on shaky ground in other areas I imagine hysteria can sort of take place, even paranoia if say a friend's divorce is predicated on adultery. Suddenly you're looking sideways at your own spouse.

I view it as people experiencing these influences of social behavior as a group of people who have a wider filter for their subconscious than other couples. That's why I say it would have or likely could have happened down the line. What makes one couple with friends who are divorcing stay together while in another group of people, each couple is getting divorced one by one leaving no in tact couples? Surely there is a common thread that doesn't involve using the exception to the rule label every time. If in their subconscious mind they hold positive feelings about being alone, being single, being happier without their mate yet the conscious mind - only 10% of our thoughts - is saying I don't believe in divorce and I am going to sit here miserable, it's only a matter of time to which the subconscious is given a trigger to fulfill those deeper requests. I don't doubt the ideas presented in this thread. It's sociology 101. But I think toooooo much credit is given to those observations withouth examining the psyche of these populations when they alter their behaviors.
I wish more articles would approach this from a psychological stand point rather than a sociological one.

@bold. But we can't. The cohort is totally different. I watched my own mother do the whole 'til death do us part role while everyone they considered close friends got divorced. Her age group and demographic (southern, black, and G-d fearing 'I'm going to hell if I ever divorced' baptist) changes the entire argument. Those women are definitely from a different 'cloth' and can be put in any environment unshaken.
 
I view it as people experiencing these influences of social behavior as a group of people who have a wider filter for their subconscious than other couples. That's why I say it would have or likely could have happened down the line. What makes one couple with friends who are divorcing stay together while in another group of people, each couple is getting divorced one by one leaving no in tact couples? Surely there is a common thread that doesn't involve using the exception to the rule label every time. If in their subconscious mind they hold positive feelings about being alone, being single, being happier without their mate yet the conscious mind - only 10% of our thoughts - is saying I don't believe in divorce and I am going to sit here miserable, it's only a matter of time to which the subconscious is given a trigger to fulfill those deeper requests. I don't doubt the ideas presented in this thread. It's sociology 101. But I think toooooo much credit is given to those observations withouth examining the psyche of these populations when they alter their behaviors.
I wish more articles would approach this from a psychological stand point rather than a sociological one.

@bold. But we can't. The cohort is totally different. I watched my own mother do the whole 'til death do us part role while everyone they considered close friends got divorced. Her age group and demographic (southern, black, and G-d fearing 'I'm going to hell if I ever divorced' baptist) changes the entire argument. Those women are definitely from a different 'cloth' and can be put in any environment unshaken.

To answer the bold - Many of the factors I listed earlier. The article mentions that the divorce of friends and relatives causes people to question their own marriages. Marriages on strong ground are more likely to survive the evaluation period.

A group may hold similar feelings, but not everyone will act in the same way. There is no rule that says everyone who feels X way will do X.
One couple may have an external support system (family), feel a strong cultural obligation to remain married, have finances that don't accommodate an easy divorce, etc.. There are various things that will make the findings of that study more or less true for certain couples.

I'm sure there are multiple factors at play. One may be that people in shaky marriages and those with personalities that lend themselves to shaky marriages may be attracted to each other so when one divorce takes place it's easy for it to wipe out the other already shaky marriages.

To the red text - I agree that occurred in a very different context but my point was that socialization influences our decisions and socialization takes place on a micro and macro level. The article stated that divorcing friends removes some of the stigma of divorce and that's exactly what kept many marriages of previous generations in place - no one wanted the stigma of divorce.
 
There are so many unconscious things that draw us to those around us. I think that we can be unaware of the fact that many times our chosen group of friends is essentially reflecting something about ourselves back to us...and not necessarily the things we consciously know we have in common.

If we look at groups of couples with strong, or at least long-lasting marriages, I would think that such couples run in circles with other couples that share the same outlook on marriage, family, and divorce--an outlook which keeps them in their marriages. I would also think that those married couples also shared common ideas about mating in general, and they generally chose better than the divorcing couples at the beginning of their courtships. The divorcing couples likely have in common attitudes which are more open to divorce and perhaps were not conducive to building a lasting marriage in the courtship stage. So, since we're speaking epidemiologically, the divorcing couples already had compromised immune systems and then hung around people prone to catch the same disease they were.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top