IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dem/demres/v49y2023i20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Religion and union dissolution: Effects of couple and municipal religiosity on divorce and separation

Author

Listed:
  • Willem R. J. Vermeulen

    (Nederlands Interdisciplinair Demografisch Instituut (NIDI))

  • Mioara Zoutewelle-Terovan

    (Nederlands Interdisciplinair Demografisch Instituut (NIDI))

  • Niels Kooiman

    (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS))

  • Aart C. Liefbroer

    (Nederlands Interdisciplinair Demografisch Instituut (NIDI))

Abstract

Background: Several theoretical models argue that divorce risks depend on an individual’s level of religiosity and the level of religiosity in this individual’s spatial context. However, it remains unclear whether the same relationship holds for couples and whether the strength of the effect of couple-level religiosity depends on the level of religiosity in the context (a so-called cross-level interaction effect). Moreover, we lack considerable knowledge about whether such effects also apply to the dissolution of unmarried cohabitations. Objective: We aim to understand the extent to which levels of couple and municipal religiosity, as well as their interplay, affect the union dissolution risk of married and cohabiting couples. Methods: This study focuses on the Netherlands and links survey information from the Dutch Labor Force Surveys (2011–2015) and register data from Statistics Netherlands (ncouples = 145,461). We used multilevel modeling to test hypotheses. Results: Highly religious couples are less likely to dissolve their marriage than less religious couples, but both are equally likely to dissolve a cohabitation. The less religious a municipality, the smaller the differences in the union dissolution risks of highly religious and less religious couples. Conclusions: The effect of couple religiosity on union dissolution risks depends on the religious context in which a couple lives and the relationship type of the couple. Union dissolution risks are higher for religious couples who live in less religious contexts or choose to cohabit instead of marry. Contribution: This study provides a new and integrated understanding of the effect of religiosity on union dissolution from a micro-level (couple), macro-level (municipality), and cross-level perspective. It is one of the first studies of a nationally representative sample revealing the different roles of religion in marriage and cohabitation.

Suggested Citation

  • Willem R. J. Vermeulen & Mioara Zoutewelle-Terovan & Niels Kooiman & Aart C. Liefbroer, 2023. "Religion and union dissolution: Effects of couple and municipal religiosity on divorce and separation," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 49(20), pages 513-542.
  • Handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:49:y:2023:i:20
    DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2023.49.20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol49/20/49-20.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/DemRes.2023.49.20?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rafael González-Val & Miriam Marcén, 2018. "Unemployment, marriage and divorce," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(13), pages 1495-1508, March.
    2. Ron Lesthaeghe, 2010. "The Unfolding Story of the Second Demographic Transition," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 36(2), pages 211-251, June.
    3. Zhiling Wang & Thomas De Graaff & Peter Nijkamp, 2016. "Cultural Diversity and Cultural Distance as Choice Determinants of Migration Destination," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 176-200, June.
    4. Shanshan Li & Laura D Kubzansky & Tyler J VanderWeele, 2018. "Religious service attendance, divorce, and remarriage among U.S. nurses in mid and late life," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Nicole Hiekel & Aart Liefbroer & Anne-Rigt Poortman, 2014. "Understanding Diversity in the Meaning of Cohabitation Across Europe," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 30(4), pages 391-410, November.
    6. Heisig, Jan Paul & Schaeffer, Merlin, 2019. "Why You Should Always Include a Random Slope for the Lower-Level Variable Involved in a Cross-Level Interaction," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 35(2), pages 258-279.
    7. Wendy D. Manning, 2020. "Young Adulthood Relationships in an Era of Uncertainty: A Case for Cohabitation," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(3), pages 799-819, June.
    8. Jia Yu & Yu Xie, 2015. "Cohabitation in China: Trends and Determinants," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 41(4), pages 607-628, December.
    9. Evelyn Lehrer & Carmel Chiswick, 1993. "Religion as a determinant of marital stability," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 30(3), pages 385-404, August.
    10. Aart Liefbroer & Edith Dourleijn, 2006. "Unmarried cohabitation and union stability: Testing the role of diffusion using data from 16 European countries," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 43(2), pages 203-221, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Laura Bernardi, 2015. "Exploring social norms around cohabitation: The life course, individualization, and culture," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 33(25), pages 701-732.
    2. Jennifer A. Holland & Kenneth Aarskaug Wiik & Lars Dommermuth, 2018. "Transitions from first unions among immigrants and their descendants. The role of partner choice," Discussion Papers 887, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    3. Ryohei Mogi & James Raymo & Miho Iwasawa & Shohei Yoda, 2023. "An alternative version of the second demographic transition? Changing pathways to first marriage in Japan," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 49(16), pages 423-464.
    4. Jarl E. Mooyaart & Aart C. Liefbroer, 2016. "The Influence of Parental Education on Timing and Type of Union Formation: Changes Over the Life Course and Over Time in the Netherlands," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 53(4), pages 885-919, August.
    5. Julia Hellstrand & Jessica Nisén & Mikko Myrskylä, 2021. "Less partnering, less children, or both? Analysis of the drivers of first-birth decline in Finland since 2010?," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2021-008, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    6. Jolene Tan, 2022. "Heterogeneity among the never married in a low-fertility context," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 47(24), pages 727-776.
    7. Silvana Salvini, 2015. "Living In Couple. Marriage And Cohabitation In A Changing Italy," RIEDS - Rivista Italiana di Economia, Demografia e Statistica - The Italian Journal of Economic, Demographic and Statistical Studies, SIEDS Societa' Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica, vol. 69(2), pages 37-58, April-Jun.
    8. Kasey J. Eickmeyer & Wendy D. Manning & Monica A. Longmore & Peggy C. Giordano, 2023. "Exploring the Married-Cohabiting Income Pooling Gap Among Young Adults," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 990-1006, December.
    9. Elena Bastianelli & Daniele Vignoli, 2022. "The Gendered Relationship Between (Old and New Forms of) Employment Instability and Union Dissolution," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(3), pages 1021-1048, June.
    10. Brienna Perelli-Harris, 2014. "How Similar are Cohabiting and Married Parents? Second Conception Risks by Union Type in the United States and Across Europe," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 30(4), pages 437-464, November.
    11. Kenneth Aarskaug Wiik, 2019. "First union formation among the children of immigrants in Norway. Timing and choice of union type," Discussion Papers 917, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    12. Layla Van den Berg & Dimitri Mortelmans, 2022. "Endogamy and relationship dissolution: Does unmarried cohabitation matter?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 47(17), pages 489-528.
    13. Roberta Rutigliano & Gøsta Esping-Andersen, 2018. "Partnership Choice and Childbearing in Norway and Spain," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 34(3), pages 367-386, August.
    14. Yumiao Zhang & Wenbin Zang, 2022. "Do the Marital Statuses of Adult Offspring Affect Their Parent’s Mental Health? Empirical Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-18, August.
    15. Maria Winkler-Dworak & Eva Beaujouan & Paola Di Giulio & Martin Spielauer, 2019. "Simulating Family Life Courses: An Application for Italy, Great Britain, and Scandinavia," VID Working Papers 1908, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
    16. Philipp M. Lersch & Sergi Vidal, 2016. "My house or our home? Transitions into sole home ownership in British couples," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 35(6), pages 139-166.
    17. Layla Van den Berg & Jonas Wood & Karel Neels, 2021. "Socioeconomic preconditions to union formation: Exploring variation by migrant background," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 45(32), pages 973-1010.
    18. Li Ma & Ester Rizzi, 2017. "Entry into first marriage in China," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 37(36), pages 1231-1244.
    19. Lonneke van den Berg, 2023. "The educational gradient in young singlehood: The role of gender and the gender climate," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 48(6), pages 153-188.
    20. Paola Di Giulio & Roberto Impicciatore & Maria Sironi, 2019. "The changing pattern of cohabitation: A sequence analysis approach," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 40(42), pages 1211-1248.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    union dissolution; religion; couples; cross-level effects;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:49:y:2023:i:20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.