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
——

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 Center

for Health Statistics. Vital and health statistics: Series 21, Data from the National Vital

Statistics 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’.1’73s

ISBN 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 Statistics 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) 79-1912

Library 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 marriage

cohorts ........................................................................................................................................ 9

5. Percent of marriage cohorts divorced at selected single-yemduration intervals, and crude divorce

rate, 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, with

percent change: United States, 1949 and 1962 maniage cohorts ................................................. 7

B. Cumulative percent of marriage cohorts divorced and ratio to 2d anniversary percent, by anniverSEUY of marriage: United States, selected cohorts ......................................................................... 13

c. Cumulative percent of marriage cohorts divorced after the 10th anniversary of -age, b,y

anniversary 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 of

reliability 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 the

United States in recent years, there has been increasing interest in determining what this rise

means in terms of the proportion of marriages

disrupted by divorce within any specified number of years after marriage. Broad interest focuses

on the general question of what proportion of

any selected group of marriages has already

ended in divorce or will eventually end in divorce. A more specific question involves the

problem of determining whether the likelihood

of divorce has increased at all durations of

marriage. If so, has the increase occurred relatively the same at all durations, or have larger

increases in proportions divorced occurred at

the shorter or longer durations of marriage?

How do the relative rates of increase compare?

This report investigates these questions by presenting data on divorces by marriage cohort

(a group consisting of all couples married in the

same year).

Fluctuations in the national divorce rate

during the last 50 years demonstrate that the

risk of divorce can change drastically over time

(figure 1). Moreover, any change in the variety

of conditions—social, economic, cultural, demographic-that may influence the overall risk of

marital disruption at any given point in time,

will affect the various groups of married couples

differently, according to the respective stages

in their married lives. That is, the factors affecting the risk of divorce might be expected to have

different effects at different durations of marriage. Because divorce data for a single given

year provide information on many cohorts, each

at a different point in its married life, there are

specific qualifications that must be placed on

inferences made from information on divorces

granted in a single year as to the proportion of

marriages likely to end in divorce after a given

marriage duration. An alternative approach,

utilized in this report, is to study the past disruption experience of consecutive marriage cohorts, that is, to study divorces by year of

marriage of the divorcing couples, rather than by

year in which divorce occurred. A quantitative

description of past cohort experience can be

obtained from vital statistics data by following

groups of married couples (cohorts) through

their married lives and observing annual losses

due to divorce.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

In this report, annual divorce totals, previously tabulated by duration of marriage, are

converted into estimates of divorces by year

of marriage. A group consisting of all couples

married during a given calendar year is referred

to as a “marriage cohort.” For each marriage

cohort, the estimated divorces occurring within

that cohort are distributed and analyzed by

duration of marriage. Some duration-specific

information is available for each cohort from

1922 to 1974, but for no marriage cohort can

@formation be obtained for all intervals of

marriage duration; in certain years little or no

divorce data are avaiIabIe. Using the durationspecific divorce estimates for each cohort,

percents of losses through divorce are com-

~uted for each marriage- cohort

intervals of duration of marriage.

for selected

1
Percents divorced for successive marriage

cohorts have increased in all intervals of marriage duration. In the 1957 marriage cohort,

2.1 percent were divorced after the 3d but

before the 4th anniversaries (that is, at duration

3 years), compared with 4.0 percent of the 1971

cohort. After the 7th but before the 8th anniversaries (at duration 7 years), the percent divorced increased from 1.1 percent for the 1951

cohort to 2.7 percent for the 1967 cohort. Percents of cohorts divorced have about doubled

at the higher durations of marriage. For example,

in the marriage-duration, interval 10-14 years,

3.9 percent of the 1950 cohort divorced and 7.7

percent of the 1960 cohort divorced; at duration 25-29 years, 1.0 percent of the 1934

cohort divorced and 2.0 percent of the 1945

cohort divorced.

Cumulative percents divorced indicate the

proportion of the original marriages in a cohort

‘that were dissolved by divorce before any specified anniversary. A cumulative percent is obtained by first summing the duration-specific

numbers of divorces for a cohort over the period’

beginning at marriage and ending at a specified

anniversary of marriage. This sum is then divided

by the original number of marriages in the cohort. For example, of the 1,546,000 marriages

in the 1953 cohort, 10.0 percent had ended in

divorce by the 5th anniversary, 16.3 percent by

the 10th anniversary, and 25.1 percent by the

2 Oth anniversary.

More recent cohorts have reached a given

percent divorced at earlier anniversaries. For

example, 27.3 percent of the 1955 cohort

had divorced by the 20th anniversary, and the

1960 cohort reached 27.0 percent divorced by ~

the 15th anniversary. A divorce level of about

25 percent was reached by the 1950 cohort at

the 25th anniversary, by the 1952 cohort at

the 20th anniversary, by the 1958 cohort at

the 15th anniversary, and by the 1965 cohort

at the 10th anniversary.

The duration of marriage up to the 25th

anniversary is the longest interval for which

available data permit a direct estimate of the

cumulative percent divorced. Such an estimate

could be made for only three cohorts. Divorce

data available through 1975 indicate that about

1 out of 4 marriages contracted in 1948, 1949,

and 1950 had ended in divorce before the 25th

anniversary. In order to estimate the ultimate

proportion divorced in any cohort, an appropriate procedure would involve adding to the

current known proportion divorced for a given

cohort a further proportion of marriages that

are projected to end in divorce in the future.

Although no projections are made in the present

analysis, such projections have been made by

other authors and some of these are discussed.

Preston and McDonaldl have projected the proportion of marriages that will ever end in divorce

(based on 1969 divorce and death rates) at 27.1

percent for the 1950 marriage cohort and at

35.7 percent for the 1964 cohort. According

to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, projections

based on the June 1975 Current Population

Survey indicate that 34 percent of ever-married

women born in 1940-44 will eventually end

their first marriage in divorce, and that 40 percent of women born in 1940-44, who have

been married twice, will eventually end their

second marriage in redivorce.

DATA BY MARRIAGE COHORT

Each year a number of marriages in each

cohort are broken by judicial decree or dissolved by death of husband or wife. Due to

death and divorce, a marriage cohort eventually

disappears, but this process takes many decades.

Indeed, individual cases of divorce have been

reported to occur after more than 60 years of

marriage. Statistical data on duration of marriage at death of husband or wife are not available, and consequently the investigation of

marital dissolution for marriage cohorts must

be limited to divorces, with the understanding

that W marriages not disrupted by judicial

decree eventually will be broken by death.

Because the number of divorces becomes

negligible after 30 years of marriage, a very

close approximation to the final number of divorces in a marriage cohort can be determined

if uninterrupted annual divorce statistics by

duration of marriage are available for a period of

30 years following the year of marriage. For

recent cohorts, the proportion of marriages

ending in divorce can be determined only for

,.

.
limited periods of duration, and their lengths

vary for individual marriage cohorts, depending

on the available data.

Divorce statistics by duration of marriage are

available for two comparatively recent periods,

1922-32 and 1948-75. Statistics for 1922-32

and for 1960 are national; those for 1948-59

and 1961-75 are limited to the reporting States.

Since 1961, the reporting States have comprised

the divorce-registration area (DIM). Duration

of marriage has been better reported than any

other variable used in tabulations of divorce

data for the DRA: The “duration not stated”

category usually comprises less than 3 percent

of all divorces granted in the reporting States.

For the years for which national data are not

available, national estimates have been prepared

on the assumption that the percent distribution

of divorces by duration of marriage (table 1) was

the same in the United States as in the reporting

States combined.

The appendix to the present report describes

in detail the method used for converting national divorce data, tabulated by duration of

marriage and by year of decree, into durationspecific divorce estimates by year of marriage.

The method was originally described in NCHS’

Technical Information Notes. 2 A similar approach has been used by Ferriss for selected

intervak.s The present report offers cohort

divorce experience for consecutive single-year

intervals through duration 9 years and then for

5-year-duration intervak through duration 29

years,

Generally the method proceeds by recognizing that divorces, granted during a calendar year

and tabulated by single-year-duration intervals,

include couples married during 2 calendar years.

For the individual duration intervals of 1 through

9 years, the number of divorces granted is divided into two equal parts, which are assigned

to the two marriage cohorts. A slightly different

ratio is used to divide the interval of less than

1 year.

Divorces granted during a calendar year and

tabuIated by 5-year-duration intervals (10-14

through 25-29 years) include couples married

in 6 calendar years. Divorces in such an interval

are divided into 10 equal parts; then 1 part each

is assigned to the chronologically earliest and

latest of the 6 marriage cohorts, and 2 parts

each are assigned to the remaining 4 cohorts.

Divorces were assigned to marriage cohorts

without regard to the numerical size of these

cohorts. In the overwhelming majority of cases,

this method wiIl provide the same or nearly

the same restit as that which would be produced by allocation according to relative sizes

of adjacent cohorts (proportiomil allocation).

This is due to the fact that the annual number of

marriages performed generally vaxies comparatively little from year to year.

Because divorce estimates by duration of

marriage for marriage cohorts have been prepared from annual divorce data, the duration

intervals for which such estimates could be made

vary from year to year, depending on the availability of the relevant divorce statistics for each

year. In particular, divorce statistics by duration were not collected on a national basis for

the years 1933-47. Thus for some cohorts only

short-duration and long-duration intervals can be

obtained (with a gap in between); for others

only middle-duration intervals are avadable. No

estimates could be prepared for the open-ended

interval of 30 years or more, as discussed in the

appendix. In spite of the limitations, some

information is presented for each marriage cohort from 1922 through 1974, but for no cohort

is information available for all duration intervals (table 2).

Duration-specific divorce estimates assigned

to a marriage cohort were used for computing

percents of that cohort disrupted by divorce,

according to the duration of marriage of the

divorcing couples (table 3). Whenever possible,

cumulative percents were ako prepared, beginning with the percents for divorces granted less

than 1 year after marriage (table 4). These

cumulative percents tell us what proportion of

each cohort was broken by divorce within a

certain number of years after marriage.

ESTIMATED DIVORCES BY

MARRIAGE COHORT

During the 54-year period under study,

1922 through 1975, annual divorce and marriage totals have fluctuated several times, including 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 differ3,000

— 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 1.0

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1975

YEAR

a

a

<

i

--

Figure 1. Marriages, divorces, and divorce rates: United States, 1922-75

4
ence was particularly pronounced in the years

1963-73 when marriages increased 38.1 percent

but divorces 113.8 percent. The cumulative resuh of these differences was that during the

entire 1922-75 period annual marriage totals

increased 90 percent, from 1,134,151 to

2,152,662, and divorce totals grew almost 600

percent, from 148,815 to 1,036,000.

Reflecting this result, cohort divorce estimates based on divorces granted in 1948 and

later years are in all durations much Iarger than

comparable estimates based on 1922-32 data,

and the highest divorce estimate prepared from

1922-32 figures was much less than the lowest

estimate for the same duration interval based

on 1948-75 divorces (table 2).

During the recent increase in divorce beginning with the 1962 marriage cohort, the estimated number of divorces in a given man-iageduration interval for each cohort was higher

than that for the same interval of the preceding

cohort and lower than that for the succeeding

cohort. Indeed, the latest available divorce

estimate for. each duration interval has represented an all-time high.

The comparison of divorce estimates for

various duration intervals of the same marriage

cohort (table 2) shows a change in the modaI

cohort estimate: For most cohorts of the 1948-

55 period, the largest estimates were found in

the interval of 1 year; for the 1956-63 cohorts

the interval of 2 years had the largest estimates,

and the Iargest estimates for 1964 and later

years were found” in the duration interval of 3

years (figure 2).

The composition of the recent rise in the

divorce rate, relative to cohort differentials by

duration of marriage, can be illustrated by comparing the experience of the 1949 and 1962

marriage cohorts (table A). These two cohorts

were selected because their sizes are very similar:

1,579,798 marriages were performed in 1949

and 1,577,000 marriages in 1962. During the

1949-59 period, annual divorce totals showed

no discernible trend and varied only between

368,000 in 1958 and 397,000 in 1949. Annual

divorce totals increased rapidly during the years

1962-72, and doubled from 413,000 in 1962

to 845,000 in 1972. As a result, divorce totals

for the two 1l-year periods were 4,227,000 and

6,341,000, respectively, representing an increase

of 50.0 percent. All eke equal, duration-specific

divorce estimates for the 1962 cohort might be

expected to be about 50 percent higher than

those for 1949. However, table A indicates that

this was not generally the case, and that differences between divorce estimates varied considerably by duration interval.

The estimated number of divorces granted

to the 1962 cohort less than 1 year after marriage was 10.4 percent below the corresponding

estimate for the 1949 cohort, even though there

was an increase in the divorce totals, from which

these estimates were prepared, from 782,000

in the 1949-50 biennium to 841,000 in the

1962-63 biennium. The lower number of divorces

granted to the 1962 cohort (as compared with

the 1949 cohort) less than 1 year after marriage

reflects the 21.2-percent decrease in the proportion of divorces granted less than 1 year after

marriage (from 6.3 percent of all divorces granted

in 1949 and 1950 to about 5.2 percent of all

divorces granted in 1962 and 1963).

The remaining estimates for the 1962 cohort

were higher than those for 1949, and the difference between the two figures increased from 6.7

percent for the interval of 1 year to about 109

percent for the interval of 9 years (table A and

figure 2). This striking increase in the difference

between cohorts with respect to the number of

divorces by duration of marriage follows the

concurrent rise in the divorce rate since 1962.

Although the 1949 and 1962 cohorts started out

having about the same number of divorces, the

recent increase in the period risk of divorce has

resulted in an ever-widening gap between the

1949 and 1962 cohorts in the number of divorces

at successive durations of marriage. This widening gap appears to be due to a change in the

numbers of divorces, rather than a change in the

distribution by duration.

COHORT PERCENTS DIVORCED

BY DURATION OF MARRIAGE

Insight into the composition of the recent

rise in the divorce rate can be obtained by comparing relative changes in the percent divorced at

duration intervals for individual marriage cohorts. For this purpose, table 3 presents for each

cohort the percent of cohort marriages broken

by 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

‘\ \

\

\

“\

/

1

I

/

I

I

............

.....

....“ . ...... I

...

/

.....

......

L

.

I ‘“””””’””””-”..

/! ....

“...

. .. .. . . . .

l! ....

....

....

/,/ ---------

...%..-

/ ‘-”--- \

;, “\.

! i,r-----, \

‘*.

ii’ .- -..

-.

ii’ “-. ‘. -------- ._ ._.

.

\

; /} I

‘\ ‘. ‘\

‘.

.

‘.

1. ‘.

---p- ..+

----

--------- ----~+

----- -. 1-

--- /- ‘-.

‘*

----- /’

-,/’ ----

/ %------

I ! I I 1

Less 1 2 3 4 5

than 1

6 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 of

divorce

1949-59

1949-50

1950-51

1951-52

1952-53

1953-54

1954-55

1955-56

1956-57

1957-58

1958-59

Estimated divorces

Number ] Percent

246,377 I 15.6

24,292 1.5

35,818 2.3

34,595 2.2

32,063 2.0

27,684 1.8

23,247 1.5

20,493 1.3

18,122 1.1

15,736 1.0

14,327 0.9

1962 marriage cohort

Year of

divorce

1962-72

1962-63

1963-64

1964-65

1965-66

1966-67

1967-68

1968-69

1969-70

1970-71

1971-72

Estimated divorces

Number

332,871

21.754

38,204

39,497

38,621

35,260

33,210

33,313

32,717

30,361

288934

Percent

21.1

1.4

2.4

2.5

2.4

2.2

2.1

2.1

2.1

1.9

1.9

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 in

5-year intervals up to 25-29 years of marriage.

Certain data are not available, as previously

noted. All percents are based on the initial number of marriages in the respective cohorts.

To facilitate the discussion, figure 3 has been

prepared showing percent divorced for marriage cohorts at the odd-numbered, single-year

durations only. Figure 4 shows similar data for

all 5-year-duration intervals. It is clear that

dramatic changes in percent of cohorts divorced

have occurred not only in absolute terms, but

also in relative terms.

In the cohorts of 1960 and earlier years,

percents for each of the five seletted single-yearduration intervals show that, despite considerable fluctuation, the rank order of the intervals

remained stable from one cohort to the next.

In figure 3, the percent for the l-year-duration

interval was always the largest and the percents

declined consistently with increasing duration

to a minimum for the interval of 9 years. Table

3 shows that percents for marriage duration of

less than 1 year were consistently below those

for the l-year interval. Recent rapid increases

----

in percents divorced have considerably altered

this picture. The percent for the duration

interval of 1 year was equaled or exceeded

by the percents for the intervals of 2 and 3 years

of marriage in the 1961 cohort, by the percent

for 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 1961

and later cohorts, the relative sizes of percents

divorced have changed considerably. For example, as shown in table 3, the percent divorced

at marriage duration 1 year was 1.4 percentage

points greater than that at duration 9 years

for the 1951 cohort, but ordy 0.4 percentage

point greater for the same durations in the 1965

cohort. Similarly, the percent divorced at marriage duration 3 years was 0.9 percentage point

greater than that at duration 7 years for the

1951 cohort, but only 0.6 percentage point

greater for the 1967 cohort at the same durations of marriage. Thus the upward trend in

percent divorced for each marriage duration

has resuIted in a reduction of the differences

between the percents divorced at various marriage durations.

The curves for the 5-year-duration intervals

in figure 4 show that similar trends are occurring

at later durations. For example, the percent

of the 1950 cohort divorced fell from 3.9 percent in the 10-14-year interval to 3.3 percent in

the 20-24-year interval. This represented a sizable

change from the experience of the 1940 cohort,

in which 3.1 percent divorced in the 10-14-year

interval 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

f Duration l.tewal

— 1 year

t

,/

----3 ye.m

----5 yean

,’

.. . . . . ...7 ~eam

#

- —9 years

4’

:

84 i

t’ /’ 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 periods

divorced 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 which

creases in percents divorced have occurred at all percents in each duration interval have particiduration intervals. The percent divorced has pated in the recent rise of the divorce rate, the

8
8.0

Duration interval

— 10.14 years

---- 15-19 yearn

---- 2@24 yOa~

. . . . . ...2529 years

7.0

6.0

5.0

fi

g

0

~

0 4.0

g

:

E

3.0

4

.

8

\

.

\

b.- . : /

-G- ,~ --

. 8’ /

-J .

2!0

/“p”\ a---.%

“<.,.~--” “\. 0

-----

\

.---” /

---- /

............... /....”

...””

.. ........ ......

/ ..

...

.... ......

1.0 ,

# .....

.........................

o

1925 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 than

have been plotted according to the year of by year of marriage), with the period divorce

divorce for each cohort-duration combination. rate Plotted for comparison. Because each codivorced is estimated from data for

totals, the cohort data have been

9
4

3

2

1

0

1’

— Dworce rate per 1.000

population (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 to

estimate each percent divorced.

For the most part, percents divorced in the

various marriage-duration intervals followed the

trend of the divorce rate (figure 5). Between

1950 and 1958, the divorce rate declined somewhat and then rose gradualIy between 1958

and 1967. The rate rose very rapidly between

1967 and 1975. Only the duration intervals of

1 year and 2 years reflected the decline in the

divorce rate between 1950 and 1958; all other

durations remained fairly constant. Between

1958 and 1967 all duration percents increased

slightly (as did the divorce rate), and then all

increased much more rapidly between 1967

and 1975.

The crude divorce rate (per 1,000 population) doubled in the 1l-year period between

1964 and 1975. Between 1950 and 1975, the

percent divorced doubled at all intervals except

those of less than 1 year and 1 year (table 3).

The percent divorced doubled in 15 years at

marriage duration 3 years, in 13 years at marriage duration 5 years, in 11 years at marriage

durations 8 and 9 years, and in 8-12 years at the

higher 5-year marriage-duration intervals. It

appears that somewhat steeper increases have

occurred at successively higher duration-ofmarriage intervals. The recent rise in the divorce

rate thus seems to be a phenomenon associated

with marriages of alI durations. Proportions divorcing have been increasing very fast at all durations, indeed, perhaps a little faster at the longer

durations than at the shorter. “

CUMULATIVE PERCENTS

Because all divorce percents for any given

marriage cohort (table 3) are calculated on the

basis of the initial number of marriages in the

cohort, it is possible to calculate the percents

divorced from the interval of less than 1 year up

to any specified anniversary of marriage. The

cumulative percent so obtained indicates the

proportion of the original marriages in that

cohort dissolved by divorce within the period

beginning at marriage and ending at the specified anniversary. Table 4 presents cumulative

percents of marriages ended by divorce, by

marriage anniversary, for the cohorts of 1922

through 1931 and 1948 through 1974. Insufficient (or unavailable) data prevented the calculation of cumulative percents for other cohorts.

For purposes of comparison, figure 6 has

been prepared showing percents cumulated for

anniversaries that correspond to the end of the

duration intervals shown in figures 3 and 4. For

example, the interval of duration 1 year ends

with the 2d anniversary, duration 3 years ends

with the 4th anniversary, and so forth.

The differences among cohorts described in

the previous section tend to become quite pronounced when the individual duration percents

are cumuIated. As figure 6 shows, the largest

cumulative percent since marriage for the 1922-

31 cohort was in aU cases much less than the

smallest comparable percent for the same interval

for cohorts of 1948 and all following years.

Cumulative percents for cohorts married after

1956 show a particularly rapid increase at all

anniversaries after the second; there were few

declines in cumulative percents at these anniversaries.

Table B presents data for selected cohorts

and anniversaries that help to highlight the

major trends in cohort disruption. For the cohorts of 1950-1973, the percent divorced by the

2d anniversary was about double that for the

cohorts of 1924 to 1930. For all cohorts, the

percent divorced at least doubled between the

2d and 4th anniversaries with more recent cohorts increasing by a factor of more than 2.5

in this interval. At the 8th anniversary, the percent divorced increased by factors 3.6, 4.0,

and 5.3 over the percent at the 2d anniversary

for the 1950, 1960, and 1967 cohorts, respectively. Finally, the percent divorced by the

2d anniversary had increased by a factor of

approximately 7 at the 25th, 20th, and 15th

anniversties of the 1950, 1955, and 1960 cohorts, respectively. In fact, the ratios at the 2d,

4th, and 8th anniversaries (table B) are very

similar for the 1950, 1955, and 1960 cohorts,

rmd differences between these cohorts are most

pronounced at the 15th anniversary.

Percents for the longest interval, 25-29 years

of 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 of

they could not be included in cumulative per- these cohorts. In order to obtain some informacents since marriage, because in all cases there tion about cumulative changes of long-duration

was no information about one or more intervals intervals, cumulative percents divorced after

of shorter duration. Percents for the interval of the 10th anniversary were prepared for thle

20-24 years were available for 23 cohorts, cohorts shown in table C. After the 10th anni1928-50; 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: United

States, selected cohorts

F

Anniversary of marriage

Marriage cohort

2d 4th . 8th 15th 20th 25th 2d

14th 18thElEE

Cumulative percent Ratio

1973 ............................................................ 5.7 . . . . . . ..- . . . .-. 1.0 --- ..- -.. . . . . . .

1971 ................................................. ........... 5.1 13.0 1.0 2.5

1967 ................................................. ........... 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 7.1

1930 ................. ........................................... 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; in

comparison, the 1949 cohort exceeded a cumulative 10 percent divorced between the 10th and

Table C. Cumulative pewnt of marriage cohorts divorced after

the 10th anniversaw of marriage, by anniversary interval:

United States, 1938-60 marriage cohorts

25th anniversaries, and the 1944 cohort showed

more than 10 percent divorced by the 30th

anniversary. Thus, the more recent cohorts

are cumulating a given level c)f divorce at shorter

intervals 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 by

stated anniversaries

m

“Cumulative percent divorced

7.7

7.3

7.0

6.2

5.4

5.2

5.0

4.5

4.3

4.1

3.9

4.1

3.5

3.1

2.6

3.6

3.7

3.3

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.6

3.8

. . .

. . .

,..

. . .

10:1”

9.8

B.9

8.4

7.8

7.2

7.5

6.4

5.7

4.8

6.4

6.6

5.8

4.9

5.0

5.2

5.8

6.1

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

.!.

10:6

10.9

9.2

8.1

6.7

8.9

9.1

7.9

6.7

6.7

6.9

7.7

8.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

10:9

11.2

9.6

8.0

8.0

8.2

9.0

9.3

PROJECTIONS OF COHORT

PROPORTIONS EVEN TUALLY

DIVORCED

The duration of marriage IIp to the 25th

anniversary is the Iongest interval for which

available data permit a direct {estimate of the

cumulative percent divorced. As shown in table

4, such an estimate could be mad e for only three

cohorts. Divorce data available through 1975

indicate that about 1 out of 4 marriages contracted in 1948, 1949, and 1950 had ended in

divorce before the 25th anniversary. For later

cohorts, marital histories are tru] ncated at successively shorter durations. Corwequently, for

the purpose of studying trends in long-duration

cohort divorce experience, it is ldesirable to obtain estimates of the proporticm of marriages

that may eventually end in divcn-ce for selected

cohorts.

An appropriate” proceckre to estimate the

ultimate proportion divorced for the 1948-50

and later marriage cohorts woul[d involve adding

to the current known proporticm divorced for a

given cohort a further proport ion of marriages

that 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 presented a projection of the proportion of marriages that will eve] - end in divorce for each

marriage cohort betv ieen 1915 and 1964. They

began by preparing an estimate of the cumulative proportion of each cohort of marriages

ending in divorce b y the beginning of 1970.

These estimates wer(: prepared by proportional

allocation of divorces according to duration of

marriage (irrespective e of marriage order), and

they agree very C1OSely with the estimated proportions presented in this report for each

cohort at the appro]?riate duration experienced

in 1969. Periods of missing divorce data were

bridged by interpolar ion.

To project the divorce experience of each

cohort beyond 1969, Preston and McDonald

(1) estimated the fraction of marriages contracted in a particu k- year that had not been

dissolved by 1970 a,ld (2) applied divorce and

death risks beyond a particular duration to

marriages that had S1revived to that duration in

1970. The divorce m~d death risks used irI this

projection method were calculated on the basis

of events recorded in 1969. In short, their procedure “assumes that the divorce and death rates

of 1969 will be rrlaintained throughout the remaining life of all marriage cohorts that survived

to the beginning o f 1970. ”

Preston and h lcDonald found that the projected proportion of marriages that will ever

end in divorce (based on 1969 divorce and death

rates) increased f~om 26.4 percent of the 1948

cohort to 35.7 percent of the 1964 cohort.

Projections for the 1950, 1955, and 1960

cohorts were 27.1 percent, 29.9 percent, and

33.8 percent, respectively. In view of the continuing rise in t]~e divorce rate since 1969, it is

quite probable t“hat these projections are underestimates of tht: eventual proportions of these ,

cohorts that wil 1 end in divorce. Preston and

McDonald made no projections for marriages

contracted after 1964 because these later cohorts would have had less than one-third of their

expected divorce incidence by 1970.

Similar projecl:ions of the proportion of marriages that may eventually end in divorce have

been 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 made

by Preston and McDonald in several key respects.

The projections based on 1971 CPS data were

made for birth cohorts (in 5-year intervals of

birth), not for individual marriage cohorts,

and were presented for first marriages and

second marriages separately, not for all marriages combined. GIick and Norton cumulated

percents divorced as of 1971 for each birth

cohort, and then made a projection of the proportion of women in the cohort whose first

marriage “may eventually end in divorce, if

their future divorce experience is similar to that

of older cohorts during 1965-70. “A The projected percents increased from 19 percent for

the 1920-24 birth cohort to 29 percent for the

1940-44 cohort, with percents of 21, 23, and 27

for the three intervening 5-year birth cohorts.

Because the median age at first marriage is about

21 years for American women, the 1940-44

birth cohort would probably make up a large

proportion of the 1961-65 marriage co’horts,

and consequently a rough comparison would

indicate that the CPS-based projections are

somewhat lower than those of Preston and

McDonald.

A more recent projection for both first and

second marriages has been made by Glick and

Norton using marital histories from the June

1975 CPS.G Using these more recent data, it

was found that the percent of ever-m amied

women who se first marriage may eventually

end in divorce increased from 20 percent for the

1920-24 birth cohort to 38 percent for the

1945-49 birth cohort, with percents of 24, 26,

31, and 34 for the four intervening cohorts.

Moreover, the percent of persons married twice

whose second marriage may eventually end in

redivorce increased from 15 percent for the

1920-24 birth cohort to 44 percent for the

1945-49 birth cohort, with percents of 23, 26,

31, and 40 for the four intervening cohorts.

Projections for men were somewhat less than for

women in the same birth cohorts. These more

recent CPS-based projections for the various

birth cohorts reflect the fact that the divorce

rate continued to increase rapidly in the period

1970-75, appreciably affecting all marriage

cohorts in all duration intervals.

14
CONCLUSION

For the earlier marriage cohorts, the projections of the proportion of marriages that wiII

eventually end in divorce will undoubtedly be

very close to the actual outcome. However,

for more recent cohorts, the outcome is somewhat more indeterminate. The projections for

the recent cohorts do suggest that an unprecedented proportion of these couples wiIl eventually divorce. Yet, the future experience of recent

cohorts will depend on how the people who

comprise these cohorts react to changing social,

economic, demographic, and cultural factors

at the higher durations of marriage. We have

provided data in this report that indicate that

there is a very strong period effect on the risk

of divorce at all durations. That is, as the period

divorce rate has increased, so has the cohort

proportion divorced at each duration of marriage. Consequently, the likelihood of divorce

at each duration appears to respond generally

to the same factors that influence the overall

period divorce rate, especially when the divorce

rate is increasing rapidly.

Divorce rates for 1976 and 1977 have not

shown the rapid growth that was experienced

in the years from 1967 to 1975. The divorce

rate increased from 2.6 to 4.9 (per 1,000 population) between 1967 and 1975; the final rates

for 1976 and 1977 were both 5.0. Thus the

~owth in the divorce rate has slowed considerably, especially in comparison with the period

of 1967 to 1973 when the average annwd rate of

increase was 11.5 percent. If the current level

of divorce should continue indefinitely, then

the projections given in the preceding section

for recent birth cohorts, based on 1975 crosssectional survey data, should be quite close to

what eventuzdly occurs. However, if for some

reason the divorce rate declines in the near

future, then these projections might well be

overstated. This wouId depend on the extent to

which the proportions divorcing at later duration-of-marriage intervals respond to the changing

social, economic, and other factors in the same

way as the divorce rate responds. We must wait

several years for the sequel to this analysis as

the various cohorts accumulate their divorce

experience at later and later durations of marriage.

REFERENCES

lPreston, S. H., and McDonald, J.: The incidence of

divorce within cohorts of American marriages con~acted

since the Civil War. Demography 16, (1):1-23, 1979.

2Nation~ Center for He~th statistics: Estimation of

divorces by marriage cohort, by A. Platens, Technical

Information Notes, No. 50. Rockville, Md., Mar. 1973.

Mimeographed.

3Ferriss, A. L.: An indicator of maxriage dissolution

by 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. Demography

10 (3):301-314, 1973.

5U.S. Bureau of the Census: Marriage, divorce, and

remarriage by year of birth: June 1971. Current Population Reports. Series P-20, No. 239. Washington. U.S.

Government Printing Office, Sept. 1972.

6u.s. Bureau of the Census: Number, timing, and

duration 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 marriage

cohons ..................................................................................... ................................................................................................. 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

ing

States

125

Izg

1zg

Izg

129

128

126

126

122

122

122

122

122

121

120

Us.

16

12

24

23

23

23

23

23

19

16

12

12

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 30

than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10-14

1

15-19 20-24 25-29 or

more

Percent distribution

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

...

~loo.o

?100.0

~loo.o

?100.0

~loo.o

~loo,o

!100.0

{100.0

1100.0

$100.0

1100.0

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.7

4.6

4.8

5.2

5.1

5.8

5.6

5.3

5.3

5.2

5.1

5.6

6.2

5.8

7.6

6.1

6.4

6.3

6.1

6.6

6.7

6.3

6.1

6,4

7.2

. . .

4.6

4.9

5.1

5,1

5.1

5.3

5.4

4.7

4.6

4.5

4.6

8.6

8.7

8.3

8.3

&6

8.5

8.6

8.7

9.1

8.9

9.3

8.8

8.6

8.6

9.4

8.1

8.2

9.4

9.8

9.7

9.7

10.0

9.9

8.5

9.0

9.7

8.4

9.2

. . .

7.3

7.8

8,1

7.6

8.1

8.2

8.2

8.2

7.7

U

9.4

9.1

9.0

9.s

9.5

9.4

9.2

9.3

8.4

9.0

6.6

6.4

8.4

8.3

8.0

8.1

9.1

10.1

9.2

9.4

10.0

9.6

9.7

9.0

8.9

I 0.2

I0.5

10.5

. . .

8,4

6.5

6.3

8.5

8.6

8.8

8.9

8.6

8.1

9.4

0.1

8.9

8.7

8.2

9.2

8.8

8.5

8.5

8.5

8.1

7.8

8.0

7.3

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.9

8.3

8.2

8.0

8.2

8.5

8.5

8.1

8.3

9.0

10.0

9.7

7.8

. . .

8.5

8.2

8.5

8.7

8.5

8.7

8.6

6.2

9.2

10.1

8.7

8.1

8.5

8.1

7.7

7.5

7.7

7.5

7.2

6.9

6.9

6.8

6.8

6.8

6.6

7.3

7.3

7.1

6.6

7.1

7.1

7.4

7.2

7.2

8.1

8.8

9.4

6.8

6.6

7.9

7.7

7,8

7.8

8.1

7.8

7.6

8.5

9.3

8.0

.7.9

7.4

7.2

6.9

6.5

6.4

6.9

6.4

6.0

6.0

6.0

5.9

6.2

5.7

7.0

6.1

6.4

6.0

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.2

6.1

7.0

7.8

8.1

6.0

5.5

6.5

. . .

7.1

6.8

7.1

7.3

7.2

6.9

7.7

6.3

7.1

7.2

6.8

—

6.2

6.1

5.8

5.8

5.9

5.6

5.4

5.5

5.3

5.4

5.1

5.2

5.5

5.1

5.6

5.0

5.4

5.1

5.4

5.4

5.4

6.2

6.8

7.1

5.2

4.6

5.3

5.8

. . .

6.4

6.3

6.3

6.2

6.0

6.9

7.3

6.2

6.4

6.3

5.7

5.2

5.1

5.1

4.9

4.8

5.0

4.7

4.6

4.7

4.6

4.5

5.0

5.0

4.9

4.9

4.9

4.7

4.7

4.7

4.8

5.8

5.9

6.1

4.6

4.3

4.4

5.1

4.9

. . .

5.6

5.7

5.6

5.4

6.0

6.5

5.4

5.6

5.5

5.1

4.8

4.4

4.4

4.4

4.3

4.1

4.1

4.2

4.3

3.9

4.0

4.2

4.6

4.0

4.4

4.0

4.3

4.3

4.1

4.3

4.7

5.3

5.6

4.0

3.6

4.1

4.4

4.3

4.1

. . .

5.1

4.9

4.8

5.4

5.7

4.7

4.8

4.8

4.5

4.4

4.7

4.0

3.8

3.8

3.7

3.7

3.6

3.8

3.7

3.4

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.7

3.9

4.0

3.9

3.9

3.6

4.1

4.8

4.7

3.6

3.1

3.5

4.0

3.7

3.8

3.4

. . .

4.5

4.3

4.7

5.1

4.1

4.1

4.2

4.0

3.8

4.2

4.3

13.6

13.1

13.2

13.3

13.5

13.8

13.8

14.2

14.4

14.1

13.7

14.6

14.9

15.1

15,5

17.0

16.2

15.2

15.1

14.1

12.8

12.8

13.0

13.2

13.0

12.5

13.2

13.7

. . .

16.3

16.3

15.6

14.6

14.3

14.2

13.9

14.4

15.1

14.9

14.9

8.0

8.2

8.6

8.9

9.0

9.0

9.5

9.6

10.0

10.8

11.2

11.4

11.5

10.3

9.7

8.9

9.0

8.5

8.6

8.1

7.8

7.9

7.8

7.7

7.8

7.5

7.7

8.0

. . .

8.3

8.2

8.2

8.2

8.3

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.4

8.5

8.6

5.6

5.9

6.1

6.5

7.0

7.0

7.1

7.3

7.1

6.7

8.5

6.3

6.8

5F

5.4

5.4

4.8

4.7

4.7

4.7

4.9

5.2

5.3

5.8

5.7

. . .

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.8

3.6

3.3

3.5

3.6

3.9

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.5

m

12.2

12.0

3.1

2.7

2.8

2.8

3.0

3.0

3.1

3.1

3.3

3,2

3.5

3.5

. . .

T

10.0

10.0

10.0

9.9

9.8

9.9

10.0

10.2

10.0

10.1

2.5

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.6

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.8

2.8

3.1

2.9

J.O

3.2

2.9

3.2

3.2

2.8

2.8

2.8

3.0

3.1

3.0

3.0

3.0

. . . —

] 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.

1937

1936,,,,,

1935 .’

1934

1933

1932,

1931 .,,

1930

1929

1928

1927

1926,

1925

1924

1923, ,,

1922

2,229,667

2,284,108

2,282,154

2,190,461

2,158,802

2,145,000

2,069,WJ0

1,927,000

1,657,000

1.603,000

1,725,000

1,654,000

1,577,000

1,548,000

1,523,000

1,494,000

1,451,000

1,518,000

1,585,000

1,531,000

1,490,000

1,546,000

1,539,318

1,5,94,694

1,667,231

1,579,798

1,811,155

1,991,676

2,291,045

1,612,992

1,452,394

1,577,050

1,772,132

1,695,999

1,595,879

1,403,633

1,330,760

1,451,296

1,369,000

1,327,000

1,302,000

1,096,000

961.903

1,060,914

1,126,856

1,232,559

1,182,497

1,201,053

1,202,574

1,188,334

1,184,574

1,229.784

1,134,151

[ For estmmtmg method see the Technmd Notes]

Duration of marr!age ,n years

Less

fhan 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.14 15-19 20-24 25-29

Number of dworcml

15,916

L4,128

$1,623

)7 ,969

34,667

13,667

31,761

30,014

29,330

26,871

?4,741

23,181

?1,754

21,954

23,681

?3,920

?5,264

25,982

?3,748

24,155

?3,466

24,220

Z5,960

25,314

?3,786

Z4,292

27,075

8,290

9,588

10,211

10,316

10,224

10,152

9,242

8,144

7,678

7,119

87,046

B0,473

73,041

69,080

64,102

57,567

52,661

49,201

46,003

44,460

42,074

38,204

36,163

37,217

35,375

32,112

33,491

35,965

37,196

36,812

37,235

38,255

37,925

35,765

35,818

37,332

37,427

13,471

15,403

15,946

16,090

16,109

15,543

14,735

13,807

12,740

93,146

85,629

82,580

78,123

69,994

62,670

56,550

49,122

44,421

43,052

39,497

36,676

35,116

33,700

32,477

33,890

36,557

36,110

35,480

36,804

37,042

37,107

36,555

34,595

36,590

40,476

42,263

.

14,698

16,166

16,974

17,456

17,267

16,862

15,791

14,495

,..

36,602

34,590

S0,960

72,622

34,102

57.246

51,978

46,002

40,643

36,621

35,585

32,475

31,744

31,633

31,463

31,917

31,481

30,328

30,902

31,685

32,130

31,903

32,063

33.413

36,395

36,505

35,167

.

14,729

16,043

17,220

17,401

16,961

16,467

15,145

13,481

‘8,561

19,591

il ,521

i6,246

il,221

M,987

)9,068

15,260

)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

?9,916

12,640

14,859

I 1,593

?6,962

.

.

.

13,749

14,942

15,662

16,085

15,796

14,675

73,504

56,740

59,031

52,199

$9,162

$4,874

37,96a

13,210

30,660

29,101

28,o81

26,148

26,653

27,o82

25,203

24,426

22,890

22,851

24,035

23,911

23,247

25,210

28,938

30,719

26,981

22,468

24,176

.

.

12,357

13,472

14,448

14,697

13,940

..

.

.

.,.

.,,

61,915

56,334

51,040

47,308

42,6I28

37,077

33,313

29,92o

27,333

25,568

23,915

23,470

22,302

22,324

21,417

20,490

20,049

19,671

20,601

20,493

21,928

25,009

27,176

23,822

18,761

19,376

22,353

.

11,197

12,110

12,607

12,461

...

.

.

..

.

51,850

46,247

44,036

39,255

36,252

32,717

29,033

26,307

23,768

22,255

22,028

21,950

20,819

20,262

19,772

18,912

17,931

17,602

18,122

19,159

21,172

23,076

20,911

17,206

16,662

16,594

20,120

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

9,928

10,611

11,041

,..

,,.

!4,286

41,624

38,298

34,015

30,361

27,933

25,975

22,755

20,179

20,039

20,409

16,910

17,646

17,366

16,730

16,943

16,03?

15,738

17,169

16,966

20,603

18,412

14,856

14,586

16,281

17,006

16,900

. .

.

.

. .

. .

. . .

.

.

. . .

9,248

.

.

...

..

.,.

39,283

35,948

33,018

29,934

27,CU15

24,885

22,945

19,695

16,372

18,622

17,691

16,468

15,972

16,334

15,944

15,367

14,327

14,435

16,979

16,028

15,682

12,867

12,905

14,480

14,743

14,666

14,479

. .

. .

.

. .

.

. . .

. .

7,725

.,.

.

,..

,.

.

.

. .

116,961

108,662

100,896

93,404

86,297

79,686

74,233

70,069

66,656

64,945

64,444

54,392

63,438

62,170

60,656

57,770

54,366

52,285

51,192

50,161

49,736

50,111

51,021

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

. . .

. . .

.

...

...

.,.

...

..

...

,..

.,.

.,.

.,.

.,.

,.

75,376

71,519

57,315

32,763

58,904

j6,329

;4,382

;2,756

51,096

$8,747

!5,507

!2,064

36,695

35,924

14,024

32,546

31,427

30,760

30,436

30,056

29,682

29,891

30,176

. . .

.

. . .

. .

.

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

..

.,.

.,.

..

..

...

...

,..

.

.,.

...

,.

.

55,257

53,183

50,638

$7,540

$3,693

39,784

36,239

33,184

30,803

26,914

27,261

25,642

24,295

22,745

21,468

20,271

19,293

18,709

16,416

18,430

18,646

19,635

20,649

.

. .

. . .

.

.

...

.,.

. .

...

..

.

.

.

...

...

. .

. .

..

...

..

,..

,..

.

32,719

29,748

26,805

24,168

22,109

20,609

19,292

17,980

16,741

15,534

14,456

13,646

12,836

12,032

11,478

11,134

10,960

11,088

11,413

71,711

12,000

12,354

12,825

. . .

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

2,229,667

2,284,108

2,282,154

2,190,481

2,158,802

2,145,000

2,069,000

1,927,000

1,857,000

1,800,000

1,725,000

1,654,000

1,577,000

1,548,000

1,523,000

1,494,000

1,451,000

1,518,000

1,585,000

1,531,000

1,490,0W

1,546,000

1,539,318

1,594,694

1,667,231

1,579,798

1,811,155

1,991,878

2,291,045

1,612,992

1,452,394

1,577,050

1,772,132

1,695,999

1,595,879

1,403,633

1,330,780

1,451,296

1,369,000

1,327,000

1,302,000

1,098,000

981,903

1,060,914

1,126,856

1,232,559

1,182,497

1,201,053

1,202,574

1,188,334

1,184,574

1,229,784

1,134,151

Duration of marriage in years

Less

han 1 ‘

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29

Percent divorced]

2.1

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.7

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.6

1.4

1.5

1.5

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

0.8

0.9

0.8

0.9

0.9

2.8

3.8

3.7

).6

1.6

3i

3.5

3.3

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.4

2.4

2.2

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.4

2.5

2.4

2.1

2.4

2.1

1.9

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.1

—

. .

4.1

3.9

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.3

3.0

2.7

2.6

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.4

2.2

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.2

2.0

2.0

1.8

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. .

. .

. . .

1.2

1.4

I .4

I .5

I .5

1.4

I .3

I .3

. . .

. . .

. . .

4.0

3.9

3.8

3.5

3.3

3.1

2.9

2.7

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.1

2.1

2.2

2.1

2.0

2.1

2.0

2.0

2.1

2.0

1.9

2.0

1.8

1.8

H

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.4

1.3

1,3

—

.

.

. . .

. . .

3.9

3.7

3.4

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.2

2.1

2.0

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.8

1.7

1.7

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5

2.0

1,9

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1,3

1.3

—

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. . .

3.4

3.2

3.1

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.3

2.1

2.0

1.9

1.9

1.8

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.5

1.4

1.5

1.3

1.7

1.5

1.5

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

1.0

1,1

1.2

1.2

1.2

—

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.2

2.1

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.2

1.3

1.2

1.5

1.3

1.2

1.3

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

0.9

1.0

1.0

1.1

—

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

2.7

2.6

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.1

1.9

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.0

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.2

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

. .

. . .

. .

. .

3.8

3.9

I .0

—

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.1

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.0

1.0

0.9

1.0

0.9

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.9

1.0

1.1

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

0.7

0.8

—

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

.

. .

2.2

2.1

2.0

1.9

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.0

1.1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.9

0.8

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.9

0.9

1.0

. . .

. . .

-..

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

0.7

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. ..

. . .

. . .

7.7

7.3

7.0

6.2

5.4

5.2

5.0

4.5

4.3

4.1

3.9

4.1

3.5

3.1

2.6

3.6

3.7

3.3

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.6

3.8

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

.

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

4.9

4.8

4.4

4.1

3.7

3.4

3.4

2.9

2.6

2.1

2.8

2.9

2.5

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.2

2.3

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.3

2.7

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. .

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

.,.

.,.

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. . .

3.3

3.4

2.8

2.4

1.9

2.5

2.5

2.1

1,7

1.7

1.7

1.8

1.8

1.6

1.6

1,5

1,5

1.7

1.9

1.7

1.7

1.6

1.7

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

.. .

. .

. . .

.. .

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

2.0

2.0

1.7

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.1

1,1

1.0

1.2

1.2

1,1

1.0

0.9

0.9

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

. . .

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 marriage

cohorts

[ 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

2.1

1.9

1.8

1.-?

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.7

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.6

1.4

1.5

1.5

. . .

0.8

0.9

0.8

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.6

—

5:;

5.4

5.1

4.8

4.6

4.3

4.3

4.2

4.0

4.0

3.9

3.8

3.8

4.0

4.0

4.0

3.9

3.8

4.0

4:0

4.0

4.2

4.0

3.6

3.8

3.6

---

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.1

1.9

1.7

1.8

—

. . .

9:4

9.0

8.6

8.2

7.7

7.6

7.3

6.8

6.6

6.5

6.3

6.1

6.3

6.2

6.2

6.2

6.1

6.4

6.4

6.4

6.6

6.3

5,8

6.0

5.6

-..

. . .

. . .

3.3

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.0

3.0

—

. .

. . .

13:0

12.6

12,0

11.2

10.9

10.4

9.7

9.3

9.0

8.8

8.4

8.4

8.3

8.4

8.2

8.1

8.4

8.5

8.4

8.6

8.3

7.7

8.0

7.4

..-

---

.-.

. . .

4.8

4.9

5.1

5.0

4.8

4.4

4.4

. . .

. . .

. . .

16:4

15.6

14.6

14.1

13.4

12.5

11.9

11.4

11.0

10.6

10.5

10.3

10.3

10.1

9.9

10.3

10.2

10.0

10.4

10.0

9.3

9.8

9.1

---

. . .

. . .

---

. . .

6.1

6.3

6.3

6.1

5.7

5.7

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

19.1

17.8

17.1

16.2

15.2

14.5

13.7

13.1

12.6

12.4

12.2

12.1

11.9

11.7

11.9

11.9

11.5

11.9

11.5

10.8

11.2

10.5

. . .

..-

. . .

. . .

.-.

.-.

7.3

7.5

7.4

6.8

6.9

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

20:8

20.1

18,9

17.9

16.9

15.9

15.2

14.5

14.2

13.9

13.8

13.4

13.1

13.4

13.3

12.8

13.2

12.8

12.0

12.5

11.7

---

.-.

-..

---

..-

. . .

. . .

8.4

8.4

7,9

8.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

22:%

21.5

20.3

19.2

18.1

17.3

16.4

16.0

15.5

15.3

14.9

14.4

14.7

14.7

14.1

14.4

13.9

13.1

13.7

12.7

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

..-

---

-..

. . .

9.2

8.8

9.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

,..

23:9

22.6

21.4

20.2

19.2

18.2

77.7

17.1

16.7

16.2

75.7

16.0

15.8

15.2

15.5

15,0

14.0

14.7

13.7

. . .

-..

---

---

. . .

. . .

. . .

-..

. . .

9.5

9.8

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

24:8

23.5

22.1

21.1

20.0

19.3

18.6

18.0

17.4

16.9

17.1

16.9

16.3

16.6

16.0

14.9

15.6

14.5

-..

. . .

. . .

-..

.-.

---

---

. . .

---

. . .

10.5

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

2+:0

25.9

25.0

23.6

22.4

22.3

21.9

20.8

20.9

20.0

18.8

19.7

18.0

. . .

-..

---

---

---

-..

. . .

---

---

..-

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

,..

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

,..

. . .

. . .

2;:3

26.7

25.1

25.0

23.7

22.2

23,1

20.9

---

. . .

.-.

---

. . .

---

---

. . .

. . .

---

..-

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

,..

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

.,,

. . .

25:5

26.5

23.7

. . .

---

-..

. . .

---

.-.

. . .

---

---

. . .

. . .

-—

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

2,152,662

2,229,667

2,284,108

2,282,154

2,190,481

2,158,802

2,145,000

2,069,000

1927,000

1,857,000

1,800,000

1,725,000

1,654,000

1,577,000

1,548,000

1,523,000

1,494,000

1,451,000

1,518,000

1,585,000

1,531,000

1,490,000

1,546,000

1,539,318

1,594,694

1,667,231

1,579,798

1,811,155

1,991,878

2,291,045

1,612,992

1,452,394

1,577,050

1,772,132

1,695,999

1,595,879

1,403,633

1,330,780

1,451,296

1,369,000

1,327,000

1,302,000

1,098,000

981,903

1,060,914

1,126,856

1,232,559

1,182,497

1,201,053

1,202,574

1,188,334

1,184,574

1,229,784

1,134,151

Percent

change

-3.5

-2.4

+0.1

+4.2

+1.5

+0.6

+3.7

+7.4

+3.8

-f-3.2

‘+4.3

+4.3

i4.9

+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

1,036,000

977,000

915,000

845,000

773,000

708,000

639,000

584,000

523,000

499,000

479,000

450,000

428,000

413,000

414,000

393,000

395,000

368,000

381,000

382,000

377,000

379,000

390,000

392,000

381,000

385,000

397,000

408,000

483,000

610,000

485,000

400,000

3598000

321,000

283,000

264,000

251,000

244,000

249,000

236,000

218,000

204,000

165,000

164,241

188,003

195,961

205,876

200,176

196,292

184,678

175,449

170,952

165,096

148,815

Percent

change

+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 when

married: Marriage cohort of year N .............................................................................................

Proportions of divorces in 5-year-duration intervals allocated to marriage cohort of year N ...........

23

23

23

24

26

26

27

28

22
APPENDIX

TECHNICAL NOTES

Divorce Data by Duration

of Marriage

The term “divorce,” as used in this report,

covers those types of judicial decrees that, according to the law of the State where they are

rendered, dissolve the bonds of matrimony and

permit the spouses to remarry. This includes

decrees of absolute divorce, of annulment, and

of marriage dissolution; the last type of decree

has replaced divorces in many States in recent

years. Excluded are all types of limited decrees,

such as legal separations, divorces from bed and

board, separate maintenance, and other similar

arrangements. The number of annulments granted

is very small for all years under consideration

and represents only a few percent of the combined total of divorces and annulments. For the

years 1922-25, data on annulments were not

colIected; for the years 1926-32, they were published separately from divorces. For the purpose

of this report annulment data were combined

with divorce figures.

Annual divorce statistics by duration of marriage at time of decree are available for the years

1922-32 and 1948-75. Statistics for 1922-32

and for 1960 are national; those for 1948-59

and 1961-75 are limited to the reporting States

(table I). Since 1961, the reporting States have

comprised the divorce-registration area (DRA).

Duration data for 1960-75 are based on a probability sample and are subject to sampling variability. Sampling errors are shown in table II.

For years with no national data, national estimates were prepared on the assumption that the

percent distribution of divorces by duration of

marriage was the same in the United States as

in the reporting States combined. Cases with

duration not stated were distributed proportionally for all data years. This adjustment

was comparatively negligible, because duration

of marriage is better reported than any other

statistical variable routinely used in tabulations

of divorce data: The “not stated” category for

the DRA comprises between 1 and 4 percent of

the total each year.

In a few cases, divorce data previously tabulated for a calendar year had wider duration

intervals than the distribution used throughout

the report. Thus, for 1960, 1961, and 1962,

the upper open-ended interval was “20 years or

more, ” and not “30 years or more, ” as was the

case for other years. The “20 years or more”

interval was sub-divided into three intervals,

“20-24 years,” “25-29 years,” and “30 yeas Or

more,” using the average of the percent distributions of the “20 years or more” interval into

the three narrower intervals, based on data for

the four nearest calendar years, 1958, 1959,

1963, and 1964.

Duration Data by Marriage Cohort

After the national divorce data by duration

of marriage were estimated, the cross-sectional

distribution by yeax of decree was converted

into a longitudinal distribution by year of

marriage. Divorce estimates were assigned to

appropriately identified marriage cohorts (all

couples married in the same year), and, from

marriage cohort data, percents were computed

using as a basis the original number of marriages

in a given cohort. Slightly different methods

were used for the single-year-duration intervak, 1 through 9 years, for the interval of less

than 1 year, and for 5-year-duration intervals

from 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

—

State 1948 1952 I 953 1954 1955 1958 1957 1959 1960

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

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

(;

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

x

x

J

(1}

x

(:

(1)

(1)

(:

(1)

(1)

P;

x

J

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1}

(1}

(1)

(1)

(1)

x

(;

(1)

x

d

(:

(:

(1)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

(;

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

(3)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

‘x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

See footnotes at end of table.

the upper open-ended interval, “3 O years. or Divorces are tabulated

more, ” could not be identified, but this interval

by completed years

and, consequently,

duration interval of

of duration of marriage,

represents only a small proportion of all divorces,

.2.7 percent in 1973 and 1974, and 2.5 percent

in 1975.

24

marriages included in

3 years actually lasted

Couples divorced in

tie

from 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

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x’

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

(2)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

(2)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x.

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

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 1961

January 1961, and couples divorced in Decem- through December 1962. From this observation

ber 1965 after 3.00 years of marriage were a- general statement can be made, that each

married in December 1962. Therefore, couples single-year-duration interval includes couples

divorced 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: Marriage

cohort 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

29

29

29

29

29

28

28

26

22

22

22

22

22

21

20

50

Estimated percent Duration of marriage

1 or

I

10or 250r so

99 90 75

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.05

0.05

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.07

0.10

0.10

1(32 :

Sampling error

0.10

0.10

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

0.16

0.17

0.17

0.18

0.21

0.30

0.31

0.5

I Sampling error Of estimated percent 2 Or 98.

0.14

0.15

0.16

0.17

0.16

0.17

0.18

0.20

0.24

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.30

0.43

0.45

0.7

0.17

0.17

0.18

0.19

0.19

0.20

0.21

0.23

0.27

0.28

0.29

0.29

0.35

0.49

0.52

1.0

namely the year that preceded the year of

divorce by the number of years of duration and

the year before that. Thus, in the example given

above, the years of marriage were 1965- 3 =

1962 and 1965-3- 1 = 1961. The estimated

38,320 divorces granted in 1965 to couples with

a marriage duration of 3 years were divided into

two halves of 19,160 divorces each: One half

was assigned to the 1961 marriage cohort and

the other half to the 1962 cohort.

Data for a marriage cohort were obtained by

combining divorces with the same duration,

granted to the same cohort, in two different

calendar years. In general, for a cohort married

in year N, the years of divorce corresponding

to a specified duration of marriage are shown in

table III. For example, there were an estimated

19,160 couples with a 3-year duration of marriage who married in 1961 and divorced in 1965;

these were assigned to the 1961 cohort, and

were added to the estimated 16,425 couples of

the same cohort and duration who divorced

in 1964. Thus the duration of marriage at

divorce was 3 years for an estimated total of

35,585 couples married in 1961. The re”making

19,160 couples divorced in 1965 with a 3-year

duration of marriage were assigned to the 1962

cohort and added to the 19,461 couples diLess 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+l

N+land N+2

N+2and N+3

N+3and N+4

N+4and N+5

N+5and N+6

N+6and N+7

N+7and N+8

N+8and N+9

N+9and N+-10

N-1- 10through N +15

N+ 15 through N +20

N + 20 through N +25

N +25 through N +30

N +30 and a~ver

vorced in 1966 who had the same duration of

marriage; a total of 38,621 divorces withl 3 years

of duration of marriage was obtained for the

1962 cohort. Since 1~548,000 marriages were

performed in 1961 and 1.577,000 in 1962,

‘m estimated 2.3 percent of the 1961 cohort

and 2.4 percent of the 1962 cohort were divorced between the 3d and 4th marriage anniversary. In the same manner, all divorces with

single-year duration, 1 through 9, were assigned

to 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 of

at least 2 months can be assumed between the

marriage and divorce of a couple. Under this

assumption, no couple can be divorced during

the calendar month of marriage, the following

calendar month, and a part of the third calendar month that depends on the date of marriage, averaging roughly one-half of that month.

Table IV shows the possible months of divorce

of couples divorced after less than 1 year of

marriage, by month of marriage. It can be seen

that the sum of months of marriage classified

by month of decree is 50 for couples married

and divorced in the same calendar year (year

N) and 70 for those divorced in the year immediately following the year of marriage (year

N + 1). This is why the total numbers of divorces granted after less than 1 year of marriage were not divided into two equal parts,

as it was done with those that had 1 through

26
--

0

z

n

-)

L

—

d

—

w

s

0

0

—

U)

.s!

—

r-l

::

!.0

.s!

=

u)

0

—

r0

—

=1

,,,

,,, ,

>-.-.-.-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 the

divorce year and !;8 percent to that of the preceding yea-.

Divorces with a marriage duration of over

9 years are tabulti ted in 5-year intervals. There

are 4 such interva !s: 10-14 years, 15-19 years,

20-24 years, and 25-29 years. Each 5-year

interval of divorces granted during a calendar

year includes co uples that belong to six

marriage cohorts. (conversely, each 5-year duration interval oi’ di%forces granted to a marriage

cohort include~: C(mples divorced during six

calendar years, fro m N + d through N + d + 5,

where N is the ye ar of marriage and d is the

shortest duration i] I the 5-year group. To each

cohort was assi~ le d one-tenth of divorces for

the year N + d and N + d + 5 and one-fifth of

those 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, information was obtained on duration-of-marriage

intervals, which vary from cohort to cohort

depending on am-w d divorce statistics available

for the computation. When the present report

was prepared, divorce data were not available

for years after 1975, and marriage-cohort data

come to an end with the duration intervals based

on divorces granted in 1974-75. In addition, divorce statistics by duration of marriage h[ave not

been collected for the years 1933-47. Hence,

for some marriage cohorts only short-duration

and long-duration intervals are available, with a

gap in between; for others, only middle-duration

intervals are available. In spite of these limitations, some information was obtained for each

marriage cohort, 1922 through 1974, but for

no cohort could information be obtained for

all duration intervals.

From frequencies estimated for each marriage cohort, percents were computed based on

the original number of married couples in each

cohort, ,that is, on the national marriage total

in the year when the cohort was marriecl. Whenever possible, cumulative percents since marriage

were also prepared. They could be computed

only for cohorts for which information exists

for the “le,ss than 1 year” interval and other

short-duration intervals, and they were interrupted 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 divorce

Marriage cohort dur ation interval proportion 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 1/10

d + 1 .......................................... ............................. 115 - 1/10 1/10

d +2 .......................................... ............................. 115 - 1/10 1/10

d +3 .......................................... ............................. 115 - 1/10 1/10

d +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 National

Center for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions and data collection methods used and include

definitions and other matenaJ necessary for understanding the data.

Series 2. Data Evaluation and Methods Research. –Studies of new statistical methodology including experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vitaI statistics collection methods, new analytical

techniques, 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 health

statistics, 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 and

health statistics and documents such as recommended model vital registration laws and revised birth

and death certificates.

Series 10. Data FTO m the Health Interview Survey. –Statistics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use of

hospital, medical, dental, and other semices, and other health-related topics, all based on data collected

in a continuing national household interview survey.

Serks 11. L)ata From the Health Examination Suroey and the Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. –Data

from direct examination, testing, and measurement of national samples of the civilian noninstitutionalized population provide the basis for two types of reports: (1) estimates of the medically defined

prevalence of speci.tlc diseases in the United States and the distributions of the population with respect

to physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics and (2) analysis of relationships among the

various measurements without reference to an explicit finite universe of persons.

Series 12. Data Fro m the Institutionalized Population Surveys. –Discontinued effective 1975. Future reports from

these surveys wilI be in Series 13.

Series 13. Data on Health Resources Uk%.zation. –Statistics on the utilization of health manpower and facilities

providing 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 distribution, and characteristics of health resources ineiuding physicians, dentists, nurses, other health

occupations, hospitals, nursing homes, and outpatient facilities.

Series 20. Data on Mortality. –Various statistics on mortality other than as included in regular annual or monthly

reports. SpeciaI analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables; geographic and time

series analyses; and statistics on characteristics of deaths not available from the vitalrecords based on

sample surveys of those records.

Series 21. Data on Natality, Mum-age, and Divorce. –Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce other

than 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 not

available 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 reports

from 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 dissolution, family planning, and related maternal smd infant health topics derived from a biennial survey

of 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 Branch

NationaI Center for Health Statistics

Public Health Service

Hyattsville, Md. 20782
NH-IS

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ED

Publm I-1.allh Sm-wc.

Of f!cc of Health R..mrch, SIamtI.s, .r

Naooml Center for Health Stmsttc%

3700 EGx Vim H lghww

HvxtwW MarYlmd 20782

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, woo