‘ 

1 

FROM VITAL & HEALTH STATISTICS 0? THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, . Publlc Health Serwce


EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Off Ice of Health Research, Statwlcs, and Technology Number 58 � February 14,1980


Remarriages of Women 15-44 Years of Age Whose First 

Marriage Ended in Divorce: United States, 19761 

INTRODUCTION 

In the United States in 1976 there were about 

6 million women 15-44 years of age whose first 

marriage had ended in divorce. About 21 percent of these women had entered a second marriage during the first year following divorce, and 

about 71 percent had remarried within 5 years 

after divorce. However, the likelihood of remarriage varied depending on the social and demo­

* graphic characteristics of these women. The most 

important of these characteristics were race, age 

at divorce, and educational attainment. Data 

provide evidence that during the first 5 years 

after divorce the likelihood of remarriage was 

greater for white than for black women, greater 

for those who were divorced before age 25 than 

for those who were divorced later, and greater 

for those with less than a high school education 

than for those with one or more years of college. 

These statistics on remarriage are from the 

National Survey of Family Growth, CycIe H, 

conducted by the National Center for Health 

Statistics in 1976. Data were collected through 

personaI interviews with women who were selected in a multistage probability sample of the 

household population of the conterminous 

United States. Women 15-44 years of age who 

were currently married or previously married ‘or 

were never married but had offspring Iiving in 

the household at the time of the survey were 

eligible for inclusion in the sample. 

The interview focused on the respondent’s 

marital and pregnancy histories; use of contra0 1This report was prepared by William R. Grady, M.A., 

Division of Vital Statistics. 

ception; planning status of each pregnancy; intentions regarding number and spacing of future 

births; use of maternal care and family planning 

services; and abroad range of social, demographic, 

and economic characteristics. For CycIe II, 3,009 

black women and 5,602 women of ether races 

were interviewed from January through September 1976. Further discussion of the survey 

design and sampling variabilityy is in the Technical 

Notes. 

In this report statistics are presented on the 

likelihood of second marriage for women whose 

first marriage ended in divorce and on group 

differences in the likelihood of second marriage. 

The basic statistics presented are cumulative probabilities of remarriage for each of the fh-st 5 years 

following divorce. The probabilities shown for 

women with each characteristic indicate the 

approximate proportion of a group of women 

with that characteristic that remarried by the 

end of each year since divorce occurred. For example, the .731 probability at the end of 4 years 

for women who divorced before age 25 (see table 

1) indicates that about 73 percent of women 

who divorced before that age remarried within 

4 years. By comparing different groups in terms 

of their probabilities of remarriage at the end of 

each year foIlowing divorce, group differences in 

the timing and frequency of remarriage can be 

determined. 

Two types of probabilities are presented in 

this report. The unadjusted probabilities found 

in table 1 are calculated, as described in the 

Technicid Notes, directly from the marital experiences of women with each characteristic. 

The adjusted probabilities for the various subgroups of each characteristic in table 2 are those 

that would have occurred if the different sub-
4 

2 admncedata 

Tabla 1. Numbar of women, cumulative probabilities of remarriage by number of years after divorce and median years to remarriage, by 

selected characteristics, with standard errors: United States, 1976 

tiumberof Years after divorce Median 

Characteristic women in years to 

thou sands 1 2 3 4 5 remarriage 

Probability 

All women . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,029 .206 I .395 I .553 I .644 ~ .705 2.7 

Race and oricrin 

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,244 .221 .414 .578 .668 .731 2.5 

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710 .097 .231 .342 .445 .485 5.0+ * * HispanicI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 .202 .494 .761 2.0 

Age at divorce 

Under25years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,882 .230 .459 .624 .731 .785 2.3 

25 yearsand over, . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,147 .182 .328 .478 .545 .611 3.3 

Year of divorce 

Bafore 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,782 .238 .457 .604 .695 .752 2.3 

19700rlater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,247 .177 .331 .498 .577 .628 3.0 

Durationoffirst marriage 

Lessthan 5years, . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,598 .233 .443 .595 .712 .755 2.4 

5yearsormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,431 .184 .354 .517 .579 .633 2.9 

Numbar of Iivinq children at divorce 

No children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,448 .184 .408 .578 .679 .763 2.5 

I child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,753 .214 .433 .602 .693 .720 2.4 

2 children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,485 .242 .381 .537 .622 .660 2.8 

3children ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,342 .181 .345 .479 .561 .672 3.3 

Education 

Lessthan12years . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,964 .268 .507 .622 .731 .804 2.0 

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,756 .201 .392 .570 .658 .715 2.6 

Morethan 12years . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,309 .137 .253 .426 ,487 .532 *4.3 

Religion 

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,111 .197 .362 .501 .599 .625 3.0 

Protestant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,281 .209 .404 .572 .665 .728 2.6 

Otherornone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637 ‘.203 .397 .494 .603 .694 *3.1 

Place of residence 

Metropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,447 .186 .350 .514 .607 .665 2.9 

Nonmatropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,582 .261 .514 .657 .740 .804 1.9 

Geographic region 

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799 .277 .361 .551 .645 .700 2.7 

North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,772 .176 .391 .510 .625 .693 2.9 

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,087 .206 .408 .573 .659 .731 2.6 

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,371 .213 .399 .580 .649 .683 2.6 

See footnote at end of table. 
� advancedata 3 

Tabla 1. Number of women, cumulative probabilities ofremarriage bynumber ofyeamaRer divorce andmedian years toremarriage, by 

selected characteristics, with atandard errors: United States, 1976—Con. 

Standard Standard 

error of Yeara after divorce error of 

Characteristic number of median 

women in 

thousands 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 yeara to 

,emarriage 

All women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Race and origin 

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

HispanicI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Age at divorce 

Under25years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

25yearsand over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Year of divorce 

Before 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

19700rlater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Duration of first marriage 

Lessthan 5years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

5yearsormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Number of living children at divorce 

Nochildren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

I child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

2children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3children ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Education 

Lessthan 12yeara . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Morethan 12years . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Religion 

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Protestant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Otherornone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Place of residence 

Metropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Nonmetropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Geographic region 

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Standerd error of probability 

182 .024 .016 .020 .021 .024 .09 

164 .026 .020 .021 .022 .027 .09 

39 .010 .028 .042 .042 .046 . . . 

43 .088 .099 .109 . . . . . . .33 

145 .038 .035 .030 .060 .051 .19 

130 .025 .027 .033 .060 .062 .45 

123 .035 .026 .024 .023 .025 .14 

133 .022 .023 .031 .034 .034 .31 

118 .042 .038 .033 .037 .034 .23 

136 .025 .018 .027 .028 .030 .17 

88 .032 .029 .027 .049 .040 .12 

97 .034 .024 .035 ,051 .048 .15 

89 .036 .038 .033 .024 .024 .19 

84 .029 .030 .048 .055 .053 .60 

103 .029 .036 .038 .035 .042 .20 

122 .031 .026 .024 .015 .027 .11 

84 .022 .017 .068 .081 .081 1.31 

77 .043 .052 .036 .039 .041 .31 

152 .029 .024 .022 .048 .041 .12 

58 .061 .064 .063 .078 .085 .90 

155 .028 .014 .027 .025 .029 .15 

92 .028 .038 .036 .042 .045 .15 

65 .059 .058 .091 .070 .057 .39 

98 .027 .032 .048 .041 .027 .38 

106 .029 .032 .043 .041 .041 .22 

86 .046 .051 .039 .037 .042 .23 

lInc]”des all\~omen rep~r~gany Hispanic origin, regardless of race or other ethnic origins repotted; estimates forthe4thand 5th 

2	 years of divorce are not sh-own ~ecause th-e condit(on~ p~obabilities produced forthose years, from which thecumuIative probabilities 

precalculated, are based on fewer than 10unweighted cass. Data for women of Hispanic origin are also includedin thestatistics by race. 

9 
� � 

Table 2. Number of women, adjustedl cumulative probabilities of remarriage by numbarof years after divorce and median years to 

remarriage, bysalectad characteristics, with standa;d errors: United States, 1976 

Jumbar of Years after divorce Median 

Characteristic	 women in years to 

:housands 1 12\31415 remarriage 

All women . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Race and origin 

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

HispanicZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Age at divorce 

Under 25years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

25 yearsand over . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Yea r of divorce 

Before 1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

19700rlater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Duration of first marriage 

Lessthan 5years . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

5yearsormora ..,..... . . . . . 

Numbarofliving childranatdivorce 

Probability 

6,029 .206 .395 .553 .644 .705 2.7 

5,244 .219 .408 .574 .663 .731 2.6 

710 .114 .279 .382 .492 .493 5.0+ 

339 �.21 3 .461 .757 2.1 

2,882 .204 .433 .615 .710 .758 2.4 

3,147 .208 .357 .491 .574 .649 3.1 

2,782 .223 .432 .577 .665 .720 2.5 

3,247 .191 ,357 .530 .622 .695 2.8 

2,598 .243 .398 .524 .648 .727 2,B -

3,431 .181 .397 .580 .644 .689 2.6 

1,44B .166 .398 .571 .651 .734 2.6 

1,753 .204 .419 .583 .673 .686 2.5 

1,485 .248 .389 .536 .631 .676 2.B 

1,342 .206 .369 .517 .616 .736 2.9 

1,864 .260 .493 .604 .713 .791 2.1 

2,756 .198 .390 .567 .656 .714 2.6 

1,309 .155 .279 .459 .525 .563 *3.6 

1,111 *.192 .375 .497 .602 .621 3.0 

4,281 .206 .395 .571 .661 .722 2.6 

637 *.229 .430 .511 .576 .709 * 2.9 

4,447 .190 .361 .524 .620 .674 2.9 

1,582 .250 .485 ,630 ,708 .786 2.1 

799 .285 .384 .587 .671 .732 2.6 

1,772 .170 .389 .512 .612 .663 2.9 

2,087 .205 ,400 .567 .655 .733 2.6 

1,371 .219 .403 .570 .659 .698 2.6 

No children . . . . . . . . . . . 

child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

2children . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3childrenormore , , . . . . . 

Education 

Less than 12 years . . . . . . . 

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Morethan12 years. . . . . . 

Religion 

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Protestant . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Other or none . . . . . . . . . . 

Place of residence 

Metropolitan. . . . . . . . . . . 

Nonmetropolitan . . . . . . . 

Geographic region 

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . 

North Central . . . . . . . . . . 

South, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

,,. . 

,.. . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

See footnotes at end of table. 

l 
dmcedaa5 

Table 2. Number of women, adjustedl cumulative probabilities of remarriage by number of years after divorce and median years to 

remarriage, by selected characteristics, with standard errors: United States, 1976—Con. 

Standard Standard 

error of Years after divorce error of 

Characteristic wmbar of median 

~omen in years to 

thousands 1 2 3 4 5 emarriage 

Standard error of probability 

All women, . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 .024 .016 .020 .021 .024 .09 

Race and origin 

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 .026 .019 .023 .023 .029 ,10 

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 .021 .023 .051 .044 .057 . . . 

Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 .091 .108 .112 . . . . . . .35 

Age at divorce 

Under 25years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 .031 .037 .041 .042 .037 .18 

25yearsand over . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 .030 .040 .038 .033 .033 .41 

Year of divorce 

Before 1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 .033 .026 .027 .028 .030 .15 

19700r later . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 .025 .028 .030 .039 .038 .17 

— Duration of first marriage

Lessthan 5years . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 .050 .060 .059 .053 .051 .48 

5vearsormora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 .031 .047 .049 .045 .045 .23 

Number of Iivina children at divorce 

Nochildren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 .028 .029 .037 .048 ,046 .16 

I child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 .039 .025 .043 .052 ,048 .16 

2 children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 .040 .043 .035 .024 .030 .23 

3children ormore . . . . . . . . . . 84 .037 .036 .054 .058 .054 .28 

Education 

Lessthan12years . . . . . . . . . . . 103 .027 .035 .037 .033 .041 .27 

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 .032 .027 .027 .015 .025 .13 

Morethan 12years . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 .022 .022 .070 .078 ,076 1.04 

Religion 

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 .049 .057 .052 .045 .055 .45 

Protestant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 .030 .022 .024 .026 .032 ,11 

Otheror none . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 .067 .073 .070 .047 .079 .81 

Place of rasidence 

Metropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 .027 .028 .021 .020 .026 .12 

Nonmetropolitan . . . . . . 92 .026 .044 .042 .064 .058 .28 

Geographic ragion 

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 .062 .077 .091 .056 .050 .40 

North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 .025 .031 .040 .041 .032 .32 

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 .030 .031 .041 .038 .043 .20 

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 .049 .052 .040 .036 .034 .25 

l~obabilitie~ for each chara~teristi~ are ~dju~ted fOrtheeffects Ofallother characteristics inthe table bY means ofdummy-variable 

- multiple regression analysis. See the Technical Notes for further discussion of the adjustments. 

21nc]ude5 all ~omen reporting any Hispanic origin, regardless of race ~r~ther ethnic ~rigins reported; estimates forthe4th and 5th 

years of divorce are not shown because the conditioned probabilities produced for those yeers, from which the cumulative probabilities 

precalculated, are based on fewer than 10 unweighed cases. Data for women of Hispanic origin are also included in the statistics by race. 
�

a 

a 

a 

z 

�

�

�

6 

groups of a particular characteristic had included 

exactly the same proportions of women with 

each of the other characteristics in the table. For 

example, consider the characteristic “duration 

of first marriage, ” which has been divided into 

the two subgroups, “less than 5 years” and “5 

years or more. ” The adjusted probabilities of 

remarriage for each of these two subgroups are 

those that would have occurred if both groups 

of women (those married less than 5 years and 

those married 5 years or more) had contained 

exactly the same proportions of white women, 

black women, and Hispanic women; the same 

proportions of women who were divorced prior 

to age 25 and at 25 or older; the same proportions from metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 

areas; and so on. This adjustment permits comparisons of the effects of each characteristic on 

the chances of remarriage independent of the 

effects of all other characteristics. Further discussion of this adjustment procedure can be 

found in the Technical Notes. 

In addition to cumulative probabilities of 

remarriage, both table 1 and table 2 include the 

median years to remarriage for each group of 

women. This statistic represents the number of 

years it took for the cumulative probability of 

remarriage to reach .50: the number of years it 

took for half the women to remarry. 

DIFFERENTIALS IN PROBABILITIES 

OF REMARRIAGE 

An examination of table 1 reveals that white 

women had a higher probability than black 

women of remarrying within 1 year after divorce; 

the probability was .221 for white women compared with only .097 for black women. Further, 

this racial differential increased during the second 

and third years following divorce, so that by the 

end of the third year the difference was .236, 

nearly twice the difference found at the end of 

1 year. The difference was then maintained at 

about this level during the next 2 years following 

divorce, and by the end of 5 years the probability of remarriage was .731 for white women 

and .485 for black women. 

The magnitude of the racial difference in the 

likelihood of remarriage is illustrated in the number of years it took for the probability of remarriage to reach .50 (median years to remarriage). For white women this occurred after 

about 2.5 years, but for black women the probability was still less than .50 after 5 years. 

An adjustment for the effects of the other 

characteristics in the table has little effect on the 

racial differences shown in table 1 (see figure 1). 

Although the racial differences in the adjusted 

probabilities shown in table 2 are somewhat 

smaller at each duration after divorce, all differences remain statistically significant. That the 

adjustment has little effect indicates that racial 

differences in the probability of remarriage are 

largely unrelated to the other characteristics in 

the table; that is, the greater probability of remarriage for white women was not due to other 

charac~eristics in the table associated with high 

probabilities of remarriage. 

Figure 1. UNADJUSTED AND ADJUSTED CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY OF REMARRIAGE FOR WOMEN AGED 15-44 YEARS WHOSE 1ST MARRIAGE 

ENDED IN DIVORCE, BY RACE AND NUMBER OF 

YEARS AFTER DIVORCE: UNITED STATES, 1976 

.70 

w White 

u 

~ .60 

. ; .50 .. . . . ...=. � -

v**

*+ 

+* 

� 

.* /’ 

�

�.

�* 

Black ** 

/ 

#* 

w 

> v4’ 

** 

c � 

— Unadjusted 

[

/

4*

/ 

4 

� ====1 Adjusted 

1 2 3 4 5 

YEARS AFTER DIVORCE 

.— 
ackmdaa7 

During the first year following divorce the 

probability of remarriage for Hispanic women 

was not significantly different from that found 

for either all white women or all black women. 

However, their probability of remarriage increased rapidly over the next 2 years following 

divorce and by the end of the third year had 

reached .761. Although that probability is not 

significantly different from the .578 found for 

all white women, it is greater than the .342 found 

for black women. Adjustment for the effects of 

the other characteristics in the table has no effect 

on these relationships. 

Women whose divorce occurred prior to age 

25 had higher probabilities of remarriage by the 

end of both the second and third years after divorce than those whose divorce occurred at an 

older age. There is also some evidence that the 

probabilities of remarriage were higher for the 

younger women at the end of the fourth and 

fifth years following divorce as well. The difference in probabilities between the two groups of 

women ranges from a nonsignificant .048 at the 

end of the first year to .186 at the end of 4 

years. When the probabilities are adjusted for 

the effects of the other characteristics, the differences are reduced, but the relationship persists: The younger women were more likely to 

have remarried by the end of the third and fourth 

years after divorce, and there is some evidence 

they were more likely to have remarried within 

5 years as well. However, the difference at the 

end of the fifth year is reduced from .174 to .109 

(see figure 2). 

A comparison of women who divorced before 1970 with those who divorced in 1970 or 

later shows that both groups of women had a 

simiIar probability of remarrying within 1 year 

after divorce, but that at higher durations of divorce (second through fifth years), women who 

divorced during the earlier time period were 

more likely to have remarried (see table 1). This 

does not mean that the probability of remarriage 

has decreased over time for all groups, however. 

Year of divorce and likelihood of remarriage are 

related because women who were divorced before 

1970 were more likely to have other characteristics in the tabIe associated with high probabilities 

of remarriage. The factors probably accounting 

for most of the difference in the unadjusted 

probabilities are age at divorce and educational 

attainment. Women divorced before 1970 were 

Figure 2. UNADJUSTED AND ADJUSTED CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY OF REMARRIAGE FOR WOMEN AGED 15-44 YEARS WHOSE 1ST MARRIAGE 

ENDED IN DIVORCE, BY AGE AT DIVORCE AND 

NUMBER OF YEARS AFTER DIVORCE: UNITED 

STATES, 1976 

.70 

_ Unadjusted 

t ..~..= Adjusted 

1 2 3 4 5 

YEARS AFTER DIVORCE 

more likely to have divorced prior to age 25 

than those- divorced after 1970- (about 60 percent compared with about 39 percent) and to 

have had less than a high school education (about 

39 percent compared with about 25 percent). 

When the effects of these characteristics are removed through the adjustment procedure, no 

statistically significant differences in the probabilities of remarriage between the two groups 

of women remain (see table 2). 

Similar results were found when the relationship between duration of first marriage and 

probability of remarriage was examined. By the 

end of the fourth year foIlowing divorce, women 

whose first marriage lasted less than 5 years had 

a significantly greater probability of having re-
8 actmncedata 

married than women whose first marriage lasted 

5 years or longer. This excess was also maintained 

during the fifth year, and there is some evidence 

that it had already existed at the end of the 

second and third years as welI. When the probabilities are adjusted, however, only nonsignificant differences remain, and no clear pattern of 

differences is evident. The effects of the adjustment demonstrate that the duration of a woman’s 

first marriage had little or no effect on the Likelihood of her remarrying. Differences in the 

probability of remarriage by length of first marriage were due to differences in other characteristics in the table that were associated with a 

high probability of remarrying. The factor probably accounting for most of the differences in 

the unadjusted probabilities is age at divorce. 

Women who had first marriages lasting less than 

5 years were more Iikely to have divorced before 

age 25 than those married 5 years or longer (about 

77 percent compared with about 12 percent). 

Table 1 shows no statistically significant differences in remarriage probabilities by number 

of children at any duration of divorce. Women 

with no living children or only one child did 

have consistently higher probabilities at each 

duration than those with two or more living 

children, but even these nonsignificant differences are reduced by the adjustment procedure. 

The number of children a woman had when she 

divorced had little influence on her probability 

of remarrying during the first 5 years after 

divorce. 

Probabilities of remarriage show a consistent 

relationship with educational attainment at all 

durations of divorce: the greater the educational 

attainment, the lower the probability of having 

remarried. At the end of the first year following 

divorce, women with less than 12 years of education were about twice as likely to have remarried as those with more than 12 years. They 

were aIso significantly more likely to have remarried by the end of the first, second, and fifth 

years after divorce, and there’ is evidence that 

they were more likeIy to have remarried by the 

end of the third and fourth years. The difference 

between those with less than 12 years of education and those with more than 12 years ranges 

from .131 at the end of 1 year of divorce to 

.272 at the end of 5 years. 

These substantial educational differences are 

also reflected in the time it took for the probability of remarriage to reach .50. Although the 

differences are not statistically significant, the 

median number of years to remarriage was 2 

years for women with less than 12 years of education compared with more than 4 years for 

women with more than 12 years of education. 

The statistical adjustment for the effects of 

the other characteristics in the table has little influence on the relationship between educational 

attainment and probability of remarriage (see 

figure 3). Women with less than 12 years of education remain significantly more likely than 

Figure 3. UNADJUSTED AND ADJUSTED CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY OF REMARRIAGE FOR WOMEN AGED 15-44 YEARS WHOSE 1ST MARRIAGE 

ENDED IN DIVORCE, BY EDUCATION AND 

NUMBER OF YEARS AFTER DIVORCE: UNITED 

STATES, 1976 

.90 r 

t 

.80 – 

u Less than 12 years
 0


~ .7(3 . education


K


%


~


K .60


u-


o


>


~ .50 –


z 

< More than 12 years ~ education 

$ 

P 

3 

3 

u 

—	 Unadjusted 

B...=. Adjusted 

.10 r 

1 2 3 4 5 

YEARS AFTER DlvORcE 
coHege-educated women to have remarried 

during the first and second years after divorce, 

and some evidence of a difference by the end of 

the fifth year also remains. After adjustment, 

the difference in remarriage probabilities between the two groups of women ranges from 

.105 at the end of 1 year to .228 at the end of 

5 years. 

The religion of a woman appears to have littie relationship to her probability of remarrying. 

AIthough Catholic women had consistently 

lower probabilities of remarriage at every duration than Protestant women, no differences by 

religion are statistically significant. 

The probabilities of remarriage shown for 

residents of metropolitan areas are Iower than 

those shown for residents of nonmetropolitan 

areas in the second through fifth years following 

divorce, and there is some evidence of a difference in the first year. When the probabilities are 

adjusted for the other characteristics in the table, 

however, a substantial convergence occurs, with 

statistically significant differences remaining for 

only the second and third years after divorce. 

Thus, much of the residential difference in the 

likelihood of remarriage was due to residential 

differences in the likelihood of having the other 

characteristics in the table. In particular, metropolitan residents were more likely than nonmetropolitan residents to be college educated (about 

24 percent compared with about 15 percent) 

and more likely to be black (about 15 percent 

compared with about 4 percent). 

There is no consistent relationship between 

geographic region of residence and the probability of remarriage. AH differences for both unadjusted and adjusted probabilities are statistically 

nonsignificant. 

TECHNICAL NOTES 

SURVEY DESIGN 

The National Survey of Family Growth 

(NSFG) was designed to provide data on fertility, 

family planning, and related aspects of maternal 

and child health. The NSFG is a cyclic survey; 

that is, data are collected every few years by 

means of a sampIe survey. Fieldworli for Cycle II 

was carried out by Westat, Inc., from January 

through September 1976. 

A multistage probability sample of women 

in the household population of the conterminous 

United States was used in both cycles. Each time, 

approximately 33,000 households were screened 

to identify the sample of women eligible for 

NSFG: women 15-44 years of age who were 

either currently married, previously married, or 

never married but with offspring presently living 

in the household. For Cycle H, interviews were 

RELIABILITY OF ESTIMATES 

Since the statistics presented in this report 

are based on a sample, they may differ somewhat from the figures that wouId have been obtained if a complete census had been taken using 

the same questionnaires, instilRions, intervie\ving personnel, and field procedures. This chance 

difference between sample results and a complete 

count is referred to as sampling error. In addition, 

the resuIts are subject to nonsampIing error due 

to respondent misreporting, processing errors, 

and nonresponse. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain accurate measures of nonsampling errors. These types of errors were kept 

to a minimum by the quality-control procedures 

and other methods incorporated into the survey 

design and administration. 

Sampling error, or the extent to which samples may differ by chance from a complete count, 

is measured by a statistic called the standard 

error of the estimate. Estimates for standard 

m 

completed with 3,009 black women and 5,602 

women of other races. A detailed description of 

the sample design for Cycle II is in preparation. 
errors of estimated numbers, probabilities, and 

medians, all calculated by pseudoreplication, are 

shown in tables 1 and 2. 

The chances are about 68 out of 100 that an 

estimate from the sample will differ from a complete census. by less than the standard error. The 

chances are about 90 out of 100 that the differences between the sample estimate and a 

complete count will be less than 1.8 times the 

standard error and about 95 out of 100 that the 

difference will be less than 2.2 times the standard error. The relative standard error is the ratio 

of the standard error to the statistic being estimated. In this report, numbers, probabilities, 

and medians having a standard error more than 

25 percent of the estimate itself are considered 

unreliable. They are marked with an asterisk to 

caution the user when interpretin”g results involving unreliable estimates. 

In this report, terms such as “similar” and 

“the same” mefi that any observed difference 

between two estimates being compared is not 

statistically significant. Similarly, terms such as 

“greater,” “less,” “larger,” and “smaller” indicate that the observed differences are statistically significant at the .05 level. Statements 

about differences that are qualified in some way 

(e.g., by use of the phrase “some evidence”) indicate that the difference is significant at the 

.10 level but not the .05 level. Significance at 

the .05 level means that the difference is large 

enough that in repeated samples of the same size 

and type as this one , such a large difference 

would be expected to be found in less than 5 

percent of the samples. Significance at the .10 

level means that such a large difference would be 

expected to be found in less than 10 percent of 

such repeated samples. The t-test (with 10 degrees of freedom) was used to test all comparisons. Lack of comment in the text does not 

mean that the difference between any two 

statistics was tested and found not to be significant. 

Adjustment for nonsampling error due to 

nonresponse is made in two ways. Nonrespondent cases, as distinct from missing data items, 

are imputed by weighting for nonresponse within each primary sampling unit, stratum, and agerace category. Cases with missing data are allocated among the cells of a table in proportion to 

the distribution of known cases with the same 

characteristics. 

CALCULATION OF REMARRIAGE 

PROBABILITIES 

The basic statistics in this report are unadjusted and adjusted cumulative probabilities of 

remarriage for selected subgroups of the population of women whose first marriage ended in 

divorce. They are calculated as follows. 

Unadjusted Probabilities 

The unadjusted probabilities of remarriage 

are calculated for each group by 

(1)	 Determining the conditional probability of remarriage for each of the first 5 

years after divorce (the probability that 

a woman will remarry during each year 

given that she had not remarried during 

any of the previous years). 

(2)	 Converting conditional probabilities of 

remarriage to nonconditional ones (probabilities of remarrying during each- year 

following divorce). a 

(3)	 Cumulating nonconditional probabilities . 

to produce cumulative probabilities of 

remarriage (probabilities of remarrying 

within a given number of years after 

divorce). 

In algebraic notation, let 

x	 number of years after divorce 

occurred; 

M,	 number of women whose divorce occurred at least x years 

ago who remarried during the 

xth year following divorce; 

N,	 number of women whose divorce occurred at least x years 

ago who had not remarried by 

the end of the xth year foHowing divorce; 

cQx conditional probability of remarriage during the xth year 

following divorce; 

Q, nonconditio~al probability of 

remarriage during the ith year 

Q

following divorce-; and 
m


9 

CC7MQX= cumulative probability of remarriage within x years following divorce. 

Then 

x-1 

Q, = CQX (l. -n~OQn); and 

CUMQX = i Qn . “=1 

The quantity described as the unadjusted 

probability of remarriage and discussed in detail in this report is CUMQX, the cumulative 

probability of remarrying within x years following divorce. 

Since CQX is based on the marital experiences 

of women who were divorced at Ieast x years before the survey date, the experiences of women 

divorced less than 5 years are not represented in 

all CQY values. For example, the experiences of -.. 

women divorced only 3 y~ars are inc~uded in the 

calculation of CQ1 , CQ2, and C~, but not in 

C% and CQ5. Thus CUMQX is interpreted with 

the “assumpti& that women not yet divorced for 

x years have the same probability of remarriage 

during year x as those divorced x years or longer. 

Adjusted Probabilities 

The technique used to produce the adjusted 

cumulative probabilities of remarriage for this 

report is dummy-variable multiple regression 

analysis. The effects of the adjustment are discussed in detail in the text, and the adjustment 

procedure is discussed here. 

Five separate regressions, one corresponding 

to each l-year interval in the first 5 years followin~ divorce, are used to produce the adjusted 

probabilities. The dependent variable for each 

interval-specific regression is a dichotomous variable on which all women who remarried during 

the interval are assigned a score of 1, and all 

other women are assigned a score of O. Since all 

women who remarried during an interval are deleted from all regressions specific to subsequent 

intervak, and since only women who were exposed to the chances of remarriage for the entire interval are incIuded in the regression for 

that interval, the mean value of the dependent 

variable for each regression is the conditional 

probability of remarriage for all women in that 

interval. 

The independent variables representing the 

characteristics of women are also represented by 

dichotomous, “dummy,” variabIes. The coefficients of these dummy independent variables 

can be used to directly calculate adjusted conditional probabilities for women of each subgroup. 

For example, adjusted conditional probabilities 

for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan residents 

are calculated as foIlows. 

Let 

cQx


c%


C~Q; 

Ax 

B lx 

D,x 

Bix 

Dix 

Then 

conditional probability of remarriage for all women during 

the xth year foIIowing divorce; 

adjusted conditional probability 

of remarriage for nonmetropolitan residents during the xth year 

folIowing divorce; 

adjusted conditional probability 

of remarriage for metropolitan 

residents during the xth year 

foIlowing divorce; 

constant for the regression specific to the xth year foI1owing 

divorce; 

coefficient for the dummy independent variable, place of residence; 

mean value of the dummy independent variabIe, type of residence (where metropolitan = 1 

and nonmetropolitan = O); 

coefficient for the ith independent variable in the regression 

equation for the xth year following divorce; and 

mean vaIue for the ith independent variable in the regres~ion 

for the x th year folIowing divorce. 

cQx = Ax + BIX”D,X + ;

i=zBix.Dix 
---

12 ackincedata


*


where n= the number of independent year in the above manner, the conditional 

variables in the equation; probabilities are converted to nonconditional 

A n probabilities and then to cumulative ~robabiliCQ; = Ax +~~2Bix”Dix; and ~ies by using the same procedure ou~lined for 

unadjusted probabilities. 

CAQ:= Ax +BIX +kBix.D. lx i=2 

SYMBOLS 

Data not available ............................................ 

Category not applicable ................................... . . . The same general procedure is used to calcu- Quantity zero .................................................. 

late adjusted probabilities for women with other Quantity more than O but less than 0.05 . . . . . . . . . O.~ 

characteristics. After adjusted conditional prob- Figure does not meet standards of reliability 

or precision ................................................... * 

abilities are determined for each subgroup and 

Recent Issues of A duance Data From Vital and Health Statistics 

No. 57.	 Office Visits for Diabetes Mellitus, National No. 54. Fats, Cholesterol, and Sodium Intake in the 

Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: United Diet of Persons 1-74 Yea;s: United States 

States, 1977 (Issued: January 25, 1980) (Issued: December 17, 1979) 

No. 56.	 Wanted and Unwanted Births Reported by No. 53, Office Vkits Involving X-Rays, National AmbMothers 15-44 Years of Age: United States, ulatory Medical Care Survey: United States, 

1976 (Issued: Januaxy 23, 1980) 1977 (Issued: September 11, 1979) 

No. 55.	 Re~roductive Imr2airments Arnon~ Currentlv 

MaAmiedCouples: ‘United States, 19-76 ‘ 

(Issued: January 24, 1980) 

A complete list of Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics is available from the Scientific and Technical 

Information Branch. 

NCHS POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.E.W. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EOUCATION, ANO WELFARE 

Public Heal?h Service


Office of Health Research,Statistics, and Techn.alogV FIRST CLASS MAIL
 National Center for Health Statistics


3700 East.West Highway


Hwtsville, Maryland 20782


OFFICIAL BUSINESS


PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, S300


OHEW Publication No


(PHS) BO.1250


To r.ceiv. this publication regularly, contact 

the National C.ntcr for Health Statistics by 

calling 301-43 &NCfE I