http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sɛҳuąƖ-partner-divorce-risk.html

Cohabitation, that is "living together" before marriage has been shown to increase the risk of subsequent divorce of a couple. Many investigators have felt that the practice of cohabitation is selective for people who don't value marriage highly and hence are more likely to divorce when stress is put onto the marriage. In essence, it was thought that the cohabitors more "liberal values" placed them at higher risk of divorce.

Jay Teachman, an academic, investigated this matter further. The study, which is available online, makes for interesting reading. Teachman's genius was to look stratify the cohabitors risk of divorce by the by the number of sɛҳuąƖ partners/cohabiting history.

The study was based on data from the National Survey of Family Growth 1995 cycle and involved over 6500 women.

It was controlled for a host of variables.

The study was in no way sponsored or funded by any conservative organisation.

Teachman's conclusion:

]The results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce.  It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions. These findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabbitation have become part of the normal courtship pattern in the United States. They do not indicate selectivity on characteristics linked to the risk of divorce and do not provide couples with experiences that lessen the stability of marriage.
Executive summary: It's not the liberal values, it the number of partners that matter.

And,
This limitation notwithstanding, the results presented here should shift attention away from research that focuses on the selection of individuals into cohabitation and premarital sex to a focus on the selection of individuals who do not marry the individuals with whom they first cohabit or initiate first sex. It may well be the case that, irrespective of the legal status of the relationship, the relevant distinction to make is between people who form multiple relationships and people who form a single, longer lasting relationship.

(My highlighting)

The paper data and methods can be found here. Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent. Marital Dissolution Among Women

Oh, in table 4 of the study, Teachman gives probabilities of divorce, which for fun, we will map onto the Heritage Foundation's study.




10 year divorce rate of the Teachman study group was 34%. (I didn't use the 5 year divorce risk in Teachman's paper since the Heritage study made its calculations on the people being married more than 5 years)

Teachman didn't plot the risk by the number of sɛҳuąƖ partners, merely that more than one and in different relationship contexts, so I have simply marked the range of his findings. Note, the really disturbing one still holds. A soon as a woman has had more than one partner her long term marital stability risk drops to near 50%.

How can a "non-virgin bride" have 0 number of "lifetime non-marital sɛҳuąƖ partners"?
Or is it meant "virgin husband" and "non-virgin husband" (as this study is about women)?

Interesting data, but this only mentions women. Is there similar data regarding men?

From the comment section

I've got to rush out to work but briefly, The 2002 NSFG does have data on men, and yes, the more promiscuous the man, the higher the risk of divorce.

Though, it appears that the each partner a man has increases his risk of divorce to a lesser degree than that of a woman. The double standard appears to be real.

I found this post elsewhere 

When you hear the stat get thrown around that 50% of marriages end in divorce, those stats are coming from the CDC (lol) and the NSFG (National Survey of Family Growth).

But it is one of those things that gets thrown around with no context and I believe that was intentional.

This “50%” figure is calculated using a method called the Divorce-to-Marriage Ratio which = (Number of Divorces /Number of Marriages) X 100.

Upon further investigation, this method is tracking within a given year annual divorces and annual marriages and does not account for whether or not the same marriages are ending in divorce that year

Then I found out that the "50% divorce rate" DOES NOT = 50% of marriages will last a LIFETIME.

In fact. THERE ARE NO LIFETIME STUDIES/DATA. ONLY SHOTTY PREDICTIVE MODELS.

Models that fail to adjust to the current societal changes, because well … THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

The most accurate way I have found so far to predict LIFETIME MARRIAGE SURVIVAL is something called a “Marriage longevity study”. This is supposed to track specific cohorts of marriages overtime to see how many marriages remain intact at the 5,10, and 20-year mark.

From the studies I looked at, by the 10-year mark about 32-35% of marriages are terminated and by the 20-year mark it's 50%. (The latest study was conducted using marriages from the years 2006-10. This is effectively pre iPhone and social media explosion. This is a completely different era)

You see but that’s where the reporting ends for these things. “Til death do us part” but people don’t die after 20 years. So what about the 30, 40, and 50 year mark?

So there is very little data on this apparently because it's difficult to track. But I did find something called "Gray Divorces". These “Gray Divorces” are typically defined as divorces for adults over 50. About half of these are older, 20+ year marriages.

What I have found is that the gray divorce rate doubled between 1990 and 2010 for those Over 50 Y/O and under 65 Y/O. For those 65+, the divorce rate tripled during that same time period. (Thank the sɛҳuąƖ revolution)

I’m officially coming to the conclusion now that the lifetime success rate of marriage is probably <20%.

And for our generation, it will probably be <5%. (This is a harrowing realization

The 50% number is misleading propaganda. If they inferred what the real number likely is, the public would panic.

Interesting data, but this only mentions women. Is there similar data regarding men?

You're bumping a thread from 14 years ago, hoping this long-gone member is going to respond to you?