title: Breaking Up is Hard to Do, Unless Everyone Else is Doing it Too: Social Network Effects on Divorce in a Longitudinal Sample.
abstract: Divorce represents the dissolution of a social tie, but it is also possible that attitudes about divorce flow across social ties. To explore how social networks influence divorce and vice versa, we exploit a longitudinal data set from the long-running Framingham Heart Study. The results suggest that divorce can spread between friends. Clusters of divorces extend to two degrees of separation in the network. Popular people are less likely to get divorced, divorcees have denser social networks, and they are much more likely to remarry other divorcees. Interestingly, the presence of children does not influence the likelihood of divorce, but each child reduces the susceptibility to being influenced by peers who get divorced. Overall, the results suggest that attending to the health of one's friends' marriages may serve to support and enhance the durability of one's own relationship, and that, from a policy perspective, divorce should be understood as a collective phenomenon that extends beyond those directly affected.
authors.affiliation: Brown University.
authors.forename: Rose
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: McDermott
authors.affiliation: University of California, San Diego.
authors.forename: James
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Fowler
authors.affiliation: Yale University.
authors.forename: Nicholas
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Christakis
references.citation: Demography. 1993 Aug;30(3):385-404
references.pmid: 8405605
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2007 Jul 26;357(4):370-9
references.pmid: 17652652
references.citation: Demography. 2008 Nov;45(4):851-73
references.pmid: 19110901
references.citation: Vital Health Stat 23. 2002 Jul;(22):1-93
references.pmid: 12183886
references.citation: Am J Public Health. 2004 Jan;94(1):89-95
references.pmid: 14713704
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 1986;23(6):605-9
references.pmid: 3764510
references.citation: Demography. 1993 May;30(2):189-208
references.pmid: 8500636
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Mar 23;107(12):5334-8
references.pmid: 20212120
references.citation: Biostatistics. 2005 Oct;6(4):633-52
references.pmid: 15917376
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 1979 Sep;110(3):281-90
references.pmid: 474565
references.citation: BMJ. 2008 Dec 04;337:a2533
references.pmid: 19056789
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Nov 29;108(48):19193-8
references.pmid: 22084103
references.citation: Sociol Methods Res. 2011 May;40(2):240-255
references.pmid: 25580037
references.citation: Sociol Methods Res. 2011 May;40(2):211-239
references.pmid: 22523436
references.citation: Nor Epidemiol. 2009;19(1):5-16
references.pmid: 22544996
references.citation: J Marriage Fam. 2017 Jun;79(3):723-738
references.pmid: 28579639
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2008 May 22;358(21):2249-58
references.pmid: 18499567
references.citation: J Fam Issues. 1991 Mar;12(1):22-42
references.pmid: 12316638
references.citation: BMJ. 2008 Dec 04;337:a2338
references.pmid: 19056788
references.citation: Sleep. 1997 Dec;20(12):1077-85
references.pmid: 9493915
references.citation: Curr Popul Rep Popul Charact. 1992 Oct;(180):i-1-21
references.pmid: 12345021
references.citation: Demography. 1990 Feb;27(1):55-63
references.pmid: 2303141
references.citation: J Health Econ. 2008 Sep;27(5):1400-5
references.pmid: 18692263
references.citation: J Health Econ. 2008 Sep;27(5):1382-7
references.pmid: 18571258
references.citation: Stat Med. 2013 Feb 20;32(4):556-77
references.pmid: 22711416
references.citation: Demography. 2002 May;39(2):331-51
references.pmid: 12048955