IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nas/journl/v119y2022pe2020901119.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Separations of romantic relationships are experienced differently by initiators and noninitiators

Author

Listed:
  • Max Brüning

    (a Department of Macro, International, and Labour Economics, Maastricht University, 6211 LM Maastricht, The Netherlands)

Abstract

In economic and sociological theory of divorce, the link between divorce consequences and the decision to divorce is central: A couple divorces if at least one spouse expects to improve their life by initiating divorce. The present study provides empirical evidence in support of this theoretical link: Separation initiators become better off in terms of subjective well-being after a separation, whereas noninitiators become worse off, before they eventually experience a full recovery. Because separations are predominantly initiated by only one partner, this finding suggests that one partner typically benefits from the separation (the initiator), while the other is disadvantaged (the noninitiator). Accordingly, analyses of average divorce trajectories convey only limited information about the causal effects of divorce on individuals’ well-being.

Suggested Citation

  • Max Brüning, 2022. "Separations of romantic relationships are experienced differently by initiators and noninitiators," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 119(23), pages 2020901119-, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:119:y:2022:p:e2020901119
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/119/23/e2020901119.full
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:nas:journl:v:119:y:2022:p:e2020901119. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Eric Cain (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.pnas.org/ .

    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.