Perceived Causes of Divorce: An Analysis of Interrelationships

Author(s): Margaret Guminski Cleek and T. Allan Pearson

Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Feb., 1985), pp. 179-183
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/352080
Accessed: 11-03-2015 11:08 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/352080?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:08:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Perceived Causes of Divorce:
An Analysis of Interrelationships
MARGARET GUMINSKI CLEEK
University of Wisconsin Center, Washington County

T. ALLAN PEARSON*
Comprehensive Services of Ozaukee County, Wisconsin

Interrelationships between perceived causes of divorce were investigated utilizing factor

analysis. In a sample of 275 males and 336females, seven dimensions of divorce, underly-
ing 18 possible contributing causes, were revealed. Significant differences were found be-
tween the sexes both in the frequencies with which causes were identified and in the com-
position of the seven factors. This suggests the need to look beyond single causes, exploring
constellations of problems separately for each sex.

Since many interacting factors are likely to con- demographic data provided by county, state, and
tribute to a divorce, multicausal descriptions that federal bureaus which rarely include reasons for
focus on the interrelationships between these fac- divorce, other than the legal ones.
tors should be more illuminating than unitary Smaller scale studies have examined the cause-
conceptions of divorce (Price-Bonham and of-divorce question more directly through infor-
Balswick, 1980). mation provided by interviews and surveys. They
The literature contains many large-scale studies have tended, however, to concentrate on a fairly
that have focused on the demographic character- limited number of divorce causes and, more im-
istics of divorcing individuals, such as age, educa- portantly, have examined these causes in isolation
tional level, income, length of marriage, and so on rather than in interaction.
(Kop, 1976; Spanier and Glick, 1981; Thomson, The major objective of the current study is to
1976; Vigderhaus and Fishman, 1978; Weed, combine the information from these two types of
1974). These studies, while supplying valuable in- research in order to investigate the interrelation-
formation on the probabilities of divorce for ships between perceived divorce causes on a scale
groups of individuals sharing particular character- comparable to that of some demographic studies.
istics, generally do not provide data on the per-
sonal reasons for divorce. This is understandable METHODS
given that such studies usually rely on aggregate The Wisconsin no-fault divorce law, which
went into effect in 1978, requires petitioners and
The data reportedin this paperwere collectedin 1980 requests respondents to attend a divorce counsel-
and 1981.An earlierversionof this paperwaspresented ing session conducted by the county or by a pri-
at the annualmeetingof the MidwesternPsychological vate therapist.
Associationin Chicago,May 1983. At the counseling sessions conducted for indi-
viduals with minor children in Ozaukee County,
Departmentof Psychology, Universityof Wisconsin Wisconsin in 1980 and 1981, single-page surveys
Center-WashingtonCounty,400 UniversityDr., West
Bend, WI 53095. including demographic data items as well as
cause-of-divorce items were distributed to the par-
*Mental Health, Alcohol, and Drug Abuse Coordi- ticipants. Demographic data items on the survey
nator, ComprehensiveServices of Ozaukee County, concerned sex, age, length of marriage, years of
Ozaukee County Courthouse, 121 W. Main, Port education, number of previous marriages, and
Washington,WI 53074. number of children. Eighteen possible divorce

February 1985 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 179

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:08:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TABLE 1. MEAN AGE, YEARS OF EDUCATION, demographic measures. Compared with Wiscon-
AND LENGTH OF MARRIAGE FOR MALES AND sin as a whole, Ozaukee County has a population
FEMALES IN 1980 AND 1981
with a higher median income and a larger per-
Survey Mean Mean Years of Mean Length centage of its inhabitants involved in manufactur-
Date Age Education of Marriage ing. As can be seen in the table, Wisconsin, and
1980 Ozaukee County as well, have a somewhat lower
Males 35.1 12.8 11.3 divorce rate than the United States average.
Females 32.2 11.9 11.5
1981 Perceived Divorce Causes
Males 34.8 12.2 11.7
Females 32.3 12.2 11.7 Table 3 consists of the survey list of 18 per-
ceived divorce causes, the percentages of males
and females who checked each problem, and the
rank of each problem by sex. Males checked an
causes generated from clinical interaction with average of 3.2 problems and females 4.2 prob-
divorcing persons also were listed. Any combina- lems. Other researchers also have found that
tion of the 18 causes could be indicated as being women tend to make more marital complaints
important in an individual's divorce action. than men (Levinger, 1966; Kitson and Sussman,
Names were not requested on the forms.
1982).
In 1980, 508 individuals were asked to attend As can be seen in Table 3, communication
the sessions; 335 attended. In 1981, 429 persons
problems was the most frequently indicated cause
were invited, and 304 attended. Although comple- for both sexes: 69.7% of females and 59.3% of
tion of the surveys was not required, 96% of those males selected it. Basic
unhappiness and incom-
attending in 1980-147 males and 176 females- patibility were ranked second and third by both
did so. In 1981, surveys were completed by 95% sexes. There
were, however, a number of sex dif-
of those attending-128 males and 160 females. ferences in problems indicated. Females checked
FINDINGS basic unhappiness (X2 = 10.63; p < .002), in-
compatibility ( X2 = 8.46; p < .004), emotional
Demographic Information abuse ( X2 = 59.51; p < .001), alcohol abuse-
Table 1 shows the mean age, years of educa- spouse (X2 = 21.76; p < .001), infidelity-
tion, and length of marriage for the male and spouse (X2 = 10.63; p < .002), and physical
female participants in 1980 and 1981. Of those abuse ( X2 = 42.28; p < .001) as contributing fac-
participants filing for divorce in 1980, 90.7% had tors to their divorce more often than did males.
not been married previously; in 1981, 80.3% were Males checked alcohol abuse-self ( X2 = 24.38;
previously unmarried. Survey respondents in 1980 p < .001) and women's lib (x2 = 26.83; p <
had an average of 2.3 children; in 1981 this .001) more often than did females. It should be
average was 2.2. noted that, although all participants had minor
Since same-sex participants did not differ sig- children, children were mentioned as a problem
nificantly on these demographic characteristics by only 4.4% of the males and 8.9?% of the
for the two years of data collection, the data for females; this difference between the sexes was
the two years were combined and analyzed sepa- statistically significant (X2 = 5.01; p < .02).
rately for each sex. Problems rarely mentioned by either sex were
Ozaukee County, located in southeastern Wis- drug abuse-self and spouse, infidelity-self,
consin, is compared in Table 2 with the state of mental illness, and religious differences.
Wisconsin and the United States on various These differences between the sexes as to the

TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF OZAUKEE COUNTY WITH WISCONSIN AND THE UNITED STATES ON
VARIOUS DEMOGRAPHIC MEASURES
Ozaukee United
Measures County Wisconsin States
1975 divorce rate per 1,000 population 2.5 2.9 4.9
1970 % population urban 67.3 65.9 73.5
1974 per capita income ($) 5,608 4,468 4,572
1969 median family income ($) 12,620 10,065 9,586
1975 %oemployees in manufacturing 47.9 37.9 30.3
1975 % employees in wholesale and retail 21.9 26.5 27.4
1970 % one-unit housing structures 82.6 70.5 69.1
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, County and City Databook, 1977.

180 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY February 1985

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:08:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TABLE 3. PERCENTAGES OF MALES AND variables for each sex are "pure" in that they load
FEMALES INDICATING EACH OF 18 PERCEIVED on one factor only, while 7 variables in each
DIVORCE CAUSES (RANK)
analysis load on two factors. The only variable
Perceived Divorce Cause Females Males that loads on more than two factors is sexual
Communication problems, which in the male analysis appears in
problems 69.7% (1) 59.3% (1) four factors. Unlike the other variables, then, the
Basic unhappinessa 59.9 (2) 46.9 (2) variable of sexual problems as perceived by males
Incompatibilitya 56.4 (3) 44.7 (3) is not circumscribed in its effect but contributes to
Emotional abusea 55.5 (4) 24.7 (6)
Financial problems 32.9 (5) 28.7 (5) a number of different constellations of problems.
Sexual problems 32.1 (6) 30.2 (4) This result is compatible with the findings of Lev-
Alcohol abuse-spousea 30.0 (7) 5.8 (14) inger (1966) and Rhyne (1981).
Infidelity-spousea 25.2 (8) 10.5 (9) A comparison of the seven factors for each sex
Physical abusea 21.7 (9) 3.6 (15)
In-laws 10.7 (10) 11.6 (8) listed in Table 4 reveals clear similarities in the
Childrena 8.9 (11) 4.4 (16) composition of two factors, although the relative
Religious differences 8.6 (12) 6.5 (12) importance of each factor is different for each
Mental illness 5.0 (13) 6.9 (11) sex.
Drug abuse-spouse 3.9 (14) 1.4 (17)
Infidelity-self 3.9 (15) 6.2 (13) Factor 1 for females, Interpersonal Interaction,
Women's libb 3.0 (16) 14.5 (7) is quite similar to Factor 5 for males. In the
Alcohol abuse-selfb .9 (17) 9.4 (10) female analysis, this factor includes the variables
Drug abuse-self .3 (18) 1.1 (18) of incompatibility and basic unhappiness, both of
aproblems indicated significantly more often by which load on this factor only. Communication
females. problems, the most frequently indicated problem
bproblems indicated significantly more often by
males. for both sexes, and sexual problems also load on
Factor 1 for females. The comparable factor for
males, Factor 5, is identical except that emotional
perceived causes of divorce were not unexpected. abuse replaces communication problems as a per-
Levinger (1966) reported that women were signifi- ceived divorce cause. The difference in the relative
cantly more likely to cite physical abuse, financial importance of these factors may indicate that, for
problems, alcohol abuse, and lack of love, while females, problems involving communication and
husbands complained more often of in-law prob- affect have a salience that they do not have for
lems or sexual incompatibility. males.
Although Table 3 indicates the percentages of Another area of comparability can be found in
subjects who perceived various problems as im- Factor 2 for females and Factor 3 for males. Each
portant in their divorce, it does not reveal the in- of these factors has been named Abuse. Variables
terrelationships between these divorce causes. In that constitute the female factor are emotional
order to investigate reasons for divorce within a abuse and alcohol abuse-spouse, both of which
multicausal framework, separate factor analyses load on this factor only; while physical abuse,
were performed for each sex. financial problems and alcohol abuse-self each
load on one other factor as well. The male factor
Factor Analysis Results of abuse is quite similar to this one. Alcohol
Table 4 presents the factors extracted by these abuse-self (which loads only on this factor for
factor analyses. A varimax rotation, preceded by males), financial problems, and physical abuse are
a principal factor analysis, was used to provide a present in the male analysis as well. In the male
simplified, orthogonal factor structure. Variables abuse factor, emotional abuse and alcohol
or causes within a factor are listed in Table 4 in abuse-spouse are absent, and the variable of sex-
descending order of the strength of their loading ual problems is present. In light of other research
on that factor. on alcoholism, the composition of both of these
Seven factors were extracted in each case. Each factors suggests that alcohol abuse by the male is
factor can be considered an underlying dimension the key variable, with physical abuse (Gelles,
or interacting combination of causes of divorce. 1974), financial problems, and sexual problems
The identification of each of these underlying probably attributable to the male alcohol prob-
dimensions stems from the examination of the lem. The attribution of the problem to male alco-
variables-or perceived causes-that load signifi- holism and not to female alcoholism is supported
cantly on the factor, as well as the factorial com- also by the composition of Factor 5 for females.
plexity of the variables. Factorial complexity Female alcoholism appears again here but does
refers to the number of factors on which a par- not occur with emotional abuse or physical abuse
ticular variable loads significantly. In this study 10 and is negatively related to financial problems.

February 1985 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 181

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:08:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TABLE 4. RESULTS OF FACTOR ANALYSES ON 18 PERCEIVED DIVORCE CAUSES FOR MALES AND
FEMALES
Females Males
1. Interpersonal Interaction (12.7%) 1. Drug Abuse (15.3%)
Incompatibility Drug abuse-self
Basic unhappiness Drug abuse-spouse
Sexual problems Mental illness
Communication problems Physical abuse
Women's lib
2. Abuse (9.1 %) 2. Various Differences (9.1%)
Emotional abuse In-laws
Alcohol abuse-spouse Emotional abuse
Physical abuse Communication problems
Financial problems Religious differences
Alcohol abuse-self Financial problems
3. Infidelity (7.7%) 3. Abuse (7.9%)
Infidelity-spouse Alcohol abuse-self
Infidelity-self Financial problems
Drug abuse-spouse Physical abuse
Sexual problems
4. Religion (7.6%) 4. Independence (7.2%)
Religious differences Infidelity-spouse
Children Women's lib
Physical abuse (-)a Sexual problems
Communication problems
5. Female Alcohol Abuse (6.7%) 5. Interpersonal Interaction (6.5o%)
Alcohol abuse-self Basic unhappiness
Financial problems (_)a Incompatibility
Mental illness (-)a Sexual problems
Emotional abuse
6. In-laws (6.3 %) 6. Female Alcohol Abuse (6.1%)
In-laws Children
Infidelity-self Alcohol abuse-spouse
Communication problems (-)a Sexual problems
7. Independence (6.2%) 7. Infidelity (5.7%)
Women's lib Infidelity-self
Sexual problems Religious differences
Children Basic unhappiness
aThe different signs for divorce causes loading on a particular factor indicate that the causes are related to that
factor in opposite directions; i.e., for Factor 4, females who checked the problems of religious differences and chil-
dren tend not to check physical abuse, and vice versa.

For males, female alcoholism (Factor 6) occurs combination in the female analysis. Something to
with the variables of children and sexual prob- note in the makeup of Factors 1 and 2 for males is
lems. the predominance of external, concrete problems.
The factor that accounts for the most variance Mental illness, in-laws, religious differences,
in the male data, Drug-Abuse (Factor 1), had no financial problems, women's lib, and drugs are
comparable factor in the female data. Found in examples of these problems. Perhaps this indi-
combination with the two drug-abuse components cates that some males look more to influences
for males are mental illness, which loads on this outside of the relationship to explain their marital
factor only, physical abuse, and women's lib. disruption than they do to problems involving af-
Three of these divorce causes do not appear to be fective interaction with their wives.
crucial in many relationships in this sample, as Several factors that have been given identical
Table 3 indicates: the drug abuse and mental ill- factor names in the male and female analyses are
ness causes were indicated by only a small per- nevertheless different in composition. The factor
centage of individuals. However, in the cases named Infidelity, Factor 3 for females and Factor
where they were indicated, they were found in 7 for males, is one of these. In both these factors,
combination. infidelity by the male is indicated, but the similari-
Factor 2 for males provides another example of ty ends there. Females tend to associate male in-
a constellation of variables that does not appear in fidelity with male drug abuse and their own in-

182 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY February 1985

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:08:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
fidelity. For males, their own infidelity is associ- REFERENCES
ated with religious differences and basic unhappi-
Gelles, R.
ness. 1974 The Violent Home: A Study of PhysicalAg-
Another set of factors, Factor 7 for females and gressionBetweenHusbandsandWives.Bever-
Factor 4 for males has been named Independence. ly Hills, CA:SagePublications.
In the female factor, women's lib is associated Kitson,G. C. and Sussman,M. B.
with children, while in the male factor, infideli- 1982 "Maritalcomplaints,demographiccharacter-
ty-spouse and communication problems are istics, and symptoms of mental distress in
found in combination with women's lib. These divorce."Journalof Marriageand the Family
two factors may reflect a somewhat different view 44 (February):87-101.
of women's liberation by males and females. Kop, P.
1976 "Age of marriage and divorce trends in
CONCLUSION Amsterdamduringthe period1911-71."Jour-
nal of BiosocialScience8:137-143.
In this paper interrelationships between 18 per- Levinger,G.
ceived causes of divorce were investigated utilizing 1966 "Sourcesof maritaldissatisfactionamongap-
the technique of factor analysis. Significant dif- plicants for divorce." AmericanJournal of
ferences between the sexes were found in the fre- Orthopsychiatry 36 (October):803-807.
quencies with which 9 of the 18 causes were indi- Price-Bonham,S. and Balswick,J. 0.
1980 "The noninstitutions:divorce, desertionand
cated, as well as in the composition of the 7 fac-
remarriage." Journal of Marriage and the
tors for each sex.
Family 42 (November):959-972.
This study attempts to generate hypotheses con- Rhyne, D.
cerning divorce. The factor analysis technique 1981 "Bases of marital satisfaction among men and
allows the examination of perceived divorce women." Journal of Marriage and the Family
causes in a multicausal framework and so 43 (November):941-954.
broadens the understanding of divorce beyond Spanier, G. B. and Glick, P. C.
simpler conceptions. It suggests that research in 1981 "Marital instability in the United States: some
this area must investigate constellations of per- correlates and recent changes." Family Rela-
tions 31:329-338.
ceived problems rather than single causes of
Thomson, K. S.
divorce and that these sets of problems must be 1976 "The divorce profile: differential social corre-
examined separately for each sex. It is also possi- lates in 1952 and 1972." International Journal
ble that such constellations are different for of Sociology of the Family 6:253-263.
groups of individuals sharing particular demo- U.S. Bureau of the Census
graphic characteristics such as age, income, and 1977 County and City Databook. Washington, DC:
years of marriage. U.S. Dept. of Commerce.
Vigderhaus, G. and Fishman, G.
1978 "Social indicators of marital instability. USA.
1920-1969." Social Indicators Research 5:
325-344.
Weed, J. A.
1974 "Age at marriage as a factor in state divorce
rate differentials." Demography 11(3):361-
375.

February 1985 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 183

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:08:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions