Reasons for Divorce and Openness to Marital Reconciliation

Abstract

This study explores the factors that divorcing couples say contributed to the breakdown of their marriage and how those factors are related to thoughts and interest in reconciliation. A sample of 886 individual divorcing parents in Hennepin County, Minnesota, in 2008 responded to a brief survey after mandated parenting classes. The two most common reasons given for seeking a divorce were “growing apart” (55%) and “not able to talk together” (53%). Growing apart, differences in tastes, and money problems were negatively associated with interest in reconciliation; abuse and adultery were not associated with interest in reconciliation.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [BYU Brigham Young University]
On: 13 August 2012, At: 15:35
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjdr20
Reasons for Divorce and Openness to
Marital Reconciliation
Alan J. Hawkins
a
, Brian J. Willoughby
a
& William J. Doherty
b
a
School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA
b
Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, USA
Version of record first published: 13 Aug 2012
To cite this article: Alan J. Hawkins, Brian J. Willoughby & William J. Doherty (2012): Reasons for
Divorce and Openness to Marital Reconciliation, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 53:6, 453-463
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2012.682898
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 53:453–463, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1050-2556 print/1540-4811 online
DOI: 10.1080/10502556.2012.682898
Reasons for Divor ce and Openness
to Marital Reconciliation
ALAN J. HAWKINS and BRIAN J. WILLOUGHBY
School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA
WILLIAM J. DOHERTY
Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
This study explores the factors that divorcing couples say
contributed to the breakdown of their marriage and how those
factors are related to thoughts and interest in reconciliation.
A sample of 886 individual divorcing parents in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, in 2008 responded to a brief survey after mandated
parenting classes. The two most common reasons given for seek-
ing a divorce were “growing apart” (55%) and “not able to talk
together” (53%). Growing apart, differences in tastes, and money
problems were negatively associated with interest in reconcilia-
tion; abuse and adultery were not associated with interest in
reconciliation.
KEYWORDS divorce, divorce attitudes, reconciliation
This study explores how the factors that divorcing people believe
contributed to their divorce are related to openness to reconciliation and the
belief that their marriage could still be saved. The limited body of research
on reasons for divorce suggests that most divorces are initiated because
of problems such as falling out of love, changing personal needs, lack of
satisfaction, and feelings of greater entitlement, especially for more edu-
cated individuals, whereas severe problems such as abuse and addiction
are noted less frequently (Amato & Previti, 2003). De Graaf and Kalmijn
(2006) noted a change over time in the Netherlands from more serious rea-
sons for divorce, such as violence and infidelity, to less acute reasons, such
as relational problems (e.g., growing apart, not enough attention). A U.S.
Address correspondence to Alan J. Hawkins, Brigham Young University, 2050 JFSB,
Provo, UT 84602, USA. E-mail: hawkinsa@byu.edu
453
Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 15:35 13 August 2012

454 A. J. Hawkins et al.
national survey (National Fatherhood Initiative, 2005) found that the most
common reason given for divorce among those who had ever divorced
was “lack of commitment” (73%). Other significant factors included too
much arguing (56%), infidelity (55%), marrying too young (46%), unrealistic
expectations (45%), lack of equality in the relationship (44%), lack of pre-
marital preparation (41%), and domestic violence (29%). This limited body
of research suggests that a number of divorces might be prevented without
threat to the health and safety of the spouses.
Another reason why some believe that more divorces can be prevented
comes from longitudinal research with representative samples of U.S. adults.
One study found that half of divorces come from marriages with low rather
than high amounts of conflict (Amato & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007). This sug-
gests that there is more potential than often assumed to repair relationships.
Those who end low-conflict marriages generally report declines in well-
being; those who end high-conflict marriages report increased well-being
(Amato & Hohmann-Marriott). Waite, Luo, and Lewin (2009) also found that
divorce is not a reliable path to better psychological well-being for adults.
In addition, a recent study documented that a subset of divorcing indi-
viduals hold hope for the marriage well into the divorce process. Doherty,
Willoughby, and Peterson (2011) found that about 25% of individuals and
about 10% of couples (both spouses) going through a mandated divorcing-
parents class felt that their marriage could still be saved, even at a late
stage in the legal process of divorce. Similarly, 30% of individuals and 10%
of couples expressed interest in a for mal reconciliation service, if it were
available.
Finally, research on people already divorced suggests that some who
divorce later have regrets about the divorce. A handful of surveys from vari-
ous states suggest that perhaps half of divorced individuals wished they had
worked harder to try and overcome their marital differences (see Hawkins &
Fackrell, 2009, for a summary). A study that followed divorced individu-
als over time found that, in 75% of divorced couples, at least one partner
was having regrets about the decision to divorce 1 year after the breakup
(Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Divorce scholar Robert Emery reports that
ambivalent or mixed feelings about a divorce are common (Emery & Sbarra,
2002). These findings suggest that, for some, the decision to divorce might
not have been fully considered.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
This study aims to understand better the reasons that divorcing individu-
als give for the breakdown of their marriage and whether these reasons
differ significantly by gender. Also, we seek to understand whether the rea-
sons divorcing individuals give for marital breakdown are due primarily to
inherently destructive problems, such as abuse, addiction, and adultery, or
Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 15:35 13 August 2012

Reasons for Divorce 455
whether they are more likely due to interpersonal issues such as growing
apart, or to conflict over money or domestic labor, or in-laws. If the lat-
ter, then this gives more credence to divorce prevention intervention and
policy, whereas if the former is true, then this raises important concerns
about subjecting individuals to unwanted and perhaps unwise consideration
of reconciliation.
In addition, it would be useful for researchers and policymakers to
understand how reasons couples give for marital breakdown are associated
with openness to reconciliation. We hypothesized that divorcing individuals
who report experiencing destructive problems such as abuse, addictions, or
adultery would be less interested in reconciliation. In contrast, those who
report interpersonal problems concerning role issues, communication diffi-
culties, violation of expectations, feelings of inattention, and the like would
be more interested in reconciliation because their problems are less severe.
We also explore whether these potential associations differ by gender.
METHOD
Sample and Procedure
Individuals in the sample were surveyed while taking parent education
courses offered in Hennepin County, Minnesota, the metropolitan area of
Minneapolis. The total sample consisted of 886 individual divorcing parents
who took parenting classes mandated by state law and district court policy
from March to December of 2008 at two sites, one free site for noncontested
cases offered at the court building and one private facility that charged a
fee to couples with contested cases. At the end of the courses, participants
were asked to fill out an evaluation form and a one-page survey used in this
study. The University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board approved the
research. All those attending the classes were asked to complete the evalua-
tion and survey; 98% did so. Nevertheless, despite the mandatory nature of
the classes, court records indicated that only about 60% of all divorcing cou-
ples in Hennepin County completed the classes. Information about parents
who did not attend the classes is not available. Thus, it is unknown how the
current sample differs from those who did not attend the classes.
Approximately 45% of the sample was male and 55% was female. The
average age of the participants was 39.1 (SD = 7.9) years old. The average
marriage length was 11.8 (SD = 6.6) years. About 19% of the sample had
been married for 5 years or less, and 10% had been married for more than
20 years. The mean number of children was 1.9 (SD = .94). In terms of edu-
cation, 2% of the sample had less than a high school education, 16% had only
a high school diploma or equivalent, and 53% had graduated from college.
These educational levels closely reflected those of the married population in
Minnesota.
Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 15:35 13 August 2012

456 A. J. Hawkins et al.
Measures
REASONS FOR DIVORCE
Reasons for divorce were assessed by a scale developed and validated by
de Graaf and Kalmijn (2006) in their study of changing reasons for divorce
over historical time periods. It provides individuals with a list of 20 possible
factors in their divorce. In the directions for this study, each individual was
asked to check the factors that were important in his or her divorce. Reasons
are provided in Table 1. If individuals marked a reason as important, that
item was coded as yes (1) for analyses. Otherwise, responses were coded
no (0). Thus for each participant, yes responses indicated the reasons he or
she felt were important factors in his or her divorce.
Preliminary data reduction analyses were undertaken to see if reasons
for divorce covaried or could be combined into subcategories. Tetrachoric
correlations and exploratory factor analyses using techniques appropriate
for dichotomous variables were both examined to determine if responses
loaded on common factors. These preliminary results (not reported here)
suggested a poor factor structure and little overlap between reasons for
divorce. The only two items with significant and strong overlap were the
items “how we divided child care responsibilities” and “how we divided
household responsibilities,” which produced a tetrachoric correlation of .68.
Due to this higher correlation, responses to this item were summed into
TABLE 1 Percentage of Sample Indicating Factor Was an Important Reason in Their Divorce,
by Gender
Factor Total sample Female Male χ
2
Growing apart 55% 52% 59% 3.62
∗
Not able to talk together 53% 53% 52% 0.153
How my spouse handles money 40% 42% 38% 1.21
Infidelity 37% 39% 34% 2.19
Personal problems of my spouse 37% 35% 39% 1.99
Not getting enough attention 34% 33% 36% 0.724
My spouse’s personal habits 29% 29% 28% 0.072
Sexual problems 24% 22% 27% 2.99
Differences in tastes and preferences 23% 23% 24% 0.318
Alcohol or drug problems 22% 27% 16% 16.43
∗∗
How we divided household responsibilities 21% 26% 16% 11.69
∗∗
Conflicts over raising our own children 20% 21% 18% 1.34
In-law problems 18% 19% 17% 0.683
My spouse’s leisure activities 18% 23% 12% 18.30
∗∗
How we divided child care responsibilities 17% 22% 10% 24.56
∗∗
Physical violence 13% 18% 6% 29.78
∗∗
My spouse’s friends 11% 10% 13% 3.01
My spouse worked too many hours 9% 13% 5% 19.27
∗∗
Religious differences 9% 9% 8% 0.704
Note. N = 886.
∗
p < .05.
∗∗
p < .01.
Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 15:35 13 August 2012

Reasons for Divorce 457
one measure assessing the importance of division of domestic labor to
divorce.
O
UTCOME MEASURES
Two outcome measures were assessed. Belief about whether their marriage
could be saved was assessed b y one item asking participants, “Even at this
point, do you think your divorce could be prevented if one or both of
you works hard to save the marriage?” Responses were 2 (yes), 1 (maybe),
and 0 (no). Interest in possible reconciliation services was assessed by one
item proposing to participants, “If the court offered a reconciliation service,
I would seriously consider trying it.” Responses were 2 = (yes), 1 = (maybe ),
and 0 = (no). (The item does not give any detail about the potential service.)
C
ONTROLS
Participants were asked a series of questions regarding their backgrounds,
including age, gender, level of education, and the number of children in their
family. Education was assessed by asking the participants the highest grade
they had completed. Divorce initiation was also controlled for by asking
each participant who took the lead in the divorce process. Responses were
you, your spouse, or both of us together. You and your spouse responses were
combined to create an outcome that reflected if one or both partners took
the lead in the divorce process.
Data Analysis
Analyses for this study consisted of multinomial logistic regression mod-
els run to predict responses separately for the “marriage could be saved”
outcome and “interest in a reconciliation service” outcome. There was a
moderate correlation of .6 between these two items. Because we believe that
the items assess conceptually different concepts, and because the moderate
correlation left r oom for distinctive sets of statistical findings, we analyzed
the items separately. The reference outcome for both items was “no.” Each
model included all reasons for divorce as predictors and controlled for age,
gender, number of children, education, and divorce initiation. Due to the
data collection method utilized, it was possible that data could include
information from both spouses, creating potential dependency in the data
set. To address this, spouses were identified by matching individuals within
the data who indicated the same marriage date, number of children, and
age of those children. Individuals who matched on all three items were
labeled as couples and removed from the data set utilized in this study.
Missing data were handled by listwise deletion. Difference by site of data
Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 15:35 13 August 2012

458 A. J. Hawkins et al.
collection (i.e., courthouse for uncontested, private facility for contested)
were examined to explore if participants differed in their listed important
reasons for divorce. Only two significant differences emerged. Participants
from the private facility, who were referred there because they had con-
tested cases, were more likely to report that conflicts over raising their own
children, χ
2
(1, N = 886) = 5.94, p < .05, and how the couple divided house-
hold responsibilities, χ
2
(1, N = 886) = 10.45, p < .05, were important factors
in the divorce. No other site differences emerged. Due to these differences,
data source was also coded and included as a control in all analyses.
RESULTS
Descriptive Results
Twenty-six percent of the sample indicated some agreement (yes or maybe)
to the item asking if their marriage could still be saved. Thirty-three percent
of the sample indicated some interest in reconciliation services if they were
offered. Eighty-four percent of the sample indicated that one spouse initiated
the divorce process; women (66%) were twice as likely as men (33.1%) to
indicate that they initiated the divorce process, χ
2
(2, N = 886) = 271.35,
p < .001, and men (19%) were more likely than women (14%) to indicate
the divorce was initiated by both partners, χ
2
(1, N = 886) = 9.83, p < .01.
As shown in Table 1, the most commonly cited reason for seeking a
divorce was growing apart (55%). This was followed by not being able to
talk together (53%), money problems (40%), personal problems of spouse
(37%), infidelity (37%), and not getting enough attention (34%). The three
least common reasons given were my spouse’s friends (11%), spouse worked
too much (9%), and religious differences (9%).
Table 1 also reports on gender differences in reasons for divorce.
Several significant differences were found. Women were significantly more
likely than men to report that alcohol and drug problems, how household
responsibilities were divided, spouse’s leisure activities, physical violence,
and spouse working too many hours were important factors in the divorce.
Men (59%) were more likely than women (52%) to report growing apart as
an important factor in the divorce.
Predictors of Belief That Marriage Could Be Saved
Multinomial logistic regression results predicting responses to the item ask-
ing if their marriage could still be saved are summarized in Table 2. Results
controlling for age, gender, education, number of children, initiation status,
and data collection site showed that three reasons for divorce significantly
influenced the likelihood that individuals would select yes as opposed to
no on this item. Indicating that growing apart (e
β
= .511, p < .01) and
Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 15:35 13 August 2012

Reasons for Divorce 459
TABLE 2 Multinomial Logistic Regression Results Predicting Belief That Marriage Could Still
Be Saved
Response = Maybe Response = Yes
Variable β SE e
β
β SE e
β
Growing apart −.495
∗
.219 .610 −.671
∗∗
.235 .511
Can’t talk together .167 .228 1.18 .294 .246 1.34
Spouse’s money habits −.146 .220 .864 −.125 .242 .882
Infidelity .030 .215 1.03 .357 .229 1.43
Spouse’s personal problems −.057 .220 .945 −.133 .242 .875
Inattention .397 .231 1.49 .569
∗
.250 1.77
Spouse’s personal habits −.055 .248 .947 −.162 .283 .850
Sexual problems .453
∗
.227 1.57 −.254 .278 .776
Difference in tastes −.613
∗
.278 .542 −.665
∗
.326 .514
Alcohol or drugs −.095 .269 .909 −.407 .322 .666
Domestic labor .231 .184 1.26 .280 .221 1.32
Parenting conflict −.367 .291 .693 −.353 .332 .703
In-laws .448 .266 1.57 .467 .298 1.60
Spouse’s leisure activities .164 .283 1.18 −.518 .380 .596
Violence −.141 .348 .868 .073 .402 1.08
Friends .077 .332 1.08 −.131 .392 .877
Spouse worked too much .305 .355 1.36 .586 .376 1.80
Religion .579 .331 1.78 −.059 .469 .943
Note. Models control for gender, age, education, initiator status, data collection site, and number of
children.
∗
p < .05.
∗∗
p < .01.
differences in tastes (e
β
= .514, p < .05) were important factors in the
divorce lowered the likelihood by about half that individuals believed that
their marriage could be saved. Not getting enough attention (e
β
= 1.77,
p < .05) increased by 77% the likelihood that individuals thought their mar-
riage could be saved compared to those who said their marriage could
not be saved. Notably, the most serious factors—physical violence, alco-
hol or drug problems, and infidelity—were not associated with increased or
decreased odds of believing the marriage could be saved.
On the item asking if the marriage could still be saved, the factors
growing apart (e
β
= .610, p < .05) and differences in tastes (e
β
= .542,
p < .05) decreased by about half the likelihood that individuals reported
“maybe” compared to “no.” Conversely, on the same item, indicating that
sexual problems were an important factor in the divorce (e
β
= 1.57,
p < .05) increased the likelihood by 57% that individuals reported “maybe”
compared to “no.”
To test if gender moderated the relationship between reasons for
divorce and belief that the marriage could still be saved, a series of
gender-by-reasons-for-divorce interactions were added to the base model
and tested. To simplify these results, responses to the item asking if the
marriage could still be saved were dichotomized, with “yes” and “maybe”
responses being combined to indicate any beliefs that marriage could be
Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 15:35 13 August 2012

460 A. J. Hawkins et al.
saved. Results found no significant interactions, suggesting that the associa-
tions between reasons for divorce and belief that marriage could be saved
were stable across gender.
Predictors of Interest in Reconciliation
For multinomial logistic regression models predicting the likelihood of being
interested in reconciliation services, five factors were significant in predict-
ing “yes” versus “no” responses. Full results are summarized in Table 3.
Four factors decreased the probability of being interested in reconciliation
services (saying “yes”): money problems (e
β
= .571, p < .05), grow-
ing apart (e
β
= .355, p < .01), alcohol or drug problems (e
β
= .465,
p < .05), and differences in tastes (e
β
= .417, p < .01). Indicating that
in-law problems were an important factor in the divorce (e
β
= 1.39,
p < .01) increased by 39% the likelihood of being interested in reconcili-
ation services. Note that experiencing physical violence or infidelity was not
associated with increased or decreased odds of interest in a reconciliation
service.
With regard to interest in reconciliation services, only one factor,
inattention, increased significantly the probability (e
β
= 1.78, p < .05) of
selecting “maybe” versus “no” on that item.
TABLE 3 Multinomial Logistic Regression Results Predicting Interest in Reconciliation Services
Response = Maybe Response = Yes
Variable β SE e
β
β SE e
β
Growing apart −.291 .219 .748 −1.04
∗∗
.247 .355
Can’t talk together −.119 .226 .888 .336 .258 1.40
Spouse’s money habits −.135 .217 .873 −.561
∗
.261 .571
Infidelity .078 .210 1.08 .162 .242 1.18
Spouse’s personal problems −.400 .226 .671 −.278 .249 .757
Inattention .575
∗
.228 1.78 .240 .264 1.27
Spouse’s personal habits −.122 .250 .885 −.317 .296 .728
Sexual problems .158 .236 1.17 .015 .272 1.02
Difference in tastes −.447 .269 .640 −.875
∗
.343 .417
Alcohol or drugs .134 .256 1.14 −.765
∗
.364 .465
Domestic labor .046 .177 1.05 .049 .218 1.05
Parenting conflict −.326 .294 .722 −.173 .323 .841
In-laws .301 .278 1.35 .898
∗∗
.290 1.39
Spouse’s leisure activities −.018 .289 .982 .008 .348 1.01
Violence .046 .343 1.05 .148 .414 1.16
Friends −.182 .363 .834 .500 .356 1.65
Spouse worked too much .303 .346 1.35 .603 .397 1.83
Religion .506 .346 1.66 .205 .437 1.23
Note. Models control for gender, age, education, initiator status, data collection site, and number of
children.
∗
p < .05.
∗∗
p < .01.
Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 15:35 13 August 2012

Reasons for Divorce 461
Gender interactions were also explored using the same method previ-
ously described. One significant interaction was found, between gender and
listing inattention as an important reason for divorce (β = –.693, p < .05).
Post-hoc analysis of this interaction via simple slope analysis revealed that
indicating inattention was significant for men (e
β
= .871, p < .01), in that it
lowered the probability that men were interested in reconciliation, but had
no effect for women (e
β
= 1.02, ns).
DISCUSSION
The most common reasons for divorce cited by both men and women were
the less severe problems such as growing apart, communication problems,
and not enough attention from the spouse. This was in accord with de
Graaf and Kalmijn’s (2006) Dutch study, which indicated a trend over time
from “hard” reasons for divorce (e.g., abuse, adultery) to “soft” reasons (e.g.,
psychological and relational problems). In our study, experiencing physical
violence or alcohol and drug problems in the marriage, two of the most
destructive factors, were infrequently given as reasons for divorce. Infidelity,
a factor that is difficult to overcome, was given as an important reason for
divorce by slightly more than one third of respondents. These findings also
are similar to the reasons for divorce cited in the research by Amato and
Previti (2003). Overall, these data suggest that the most common factors that
contribute to seeking a divorce, at least in this sample, are the ones most
amenable to intervention.
Our results exploring how reasons for divorce were related to outcomes
were somewhat counterintuitive. Some of the less severe reasons that we
expected would be associated with greater hope for the marriage actually
decreased expectations and interest in reconciliation services. Specifically,
growing apart, differences in tastes, and money problems were negatively
associated with the outcomes. But two other factors that could be consid-
ered less serious—feeling a lack of attention from one’s spouse and in-law
problems—were associated with thinking the marriage could be saved and
interest in a reconciliation service. One speculation is that some of the less
serious reasons such as growing apart and differences in tastes reflect a con-
clusion by the individual that there is now a basic incompatibility in the
relationship. Lack of attention from one’s spouse, on the other hand, implies
a sense that the spouse could still offer something in the relationship if he
or she chose to be attentive. Likewise, in-law problems might feel repairable
if the spouse took a different stance toward his or her family.
Just as intriguing as the significant predictors of the outcomes are the
reasons for divorce that were not associated with the belief that the marriage
could still be saved and interest in a reconciliation service. Note that neither
physical abuse nor infidelity influenced the odds of these outcomes. These
Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 15:35 13 August 2012

462 A. J. Hawkins et al.
results are hard to explain. That is, one would expect that destructive prob-
lems such as physical abuse and infidelity would produce less ambivalence
about divorce and more determination to terminate the marriage. Instead,
the results suggest that divorcing individuals who have experienced these
destructive problems are no more or less likely to believe the marriage can
be saved or to have interest in a reconciliation service than those experi-
encing less severe problems. One possibility is that these are more apt to
be volatile relationships with higher levels of both positives and negatives,
thus canceling out an effect on hopes for reconciliation. Our findings might
also be linked to studies suggesting that those in abusive relationships are
often still invested in and committed to their partners (Rhatigan & Axsom,
2006), indicating that those in destructive relationships might feel conflicting
feelings about ending such relationships despite the presence of violence or
abuse.
This study has a number of limitations worth noting. The data came
from one county in Minnesota and the findings cannot be generalized
beyond that population. The outcome measures reflected beliefs and inter-
ests and not behavior; we don’t know how many respondents would follow
through on their expressed interest in reconciliation services. The reasons-
for-divorce scale did not ask for weighted reasons for divorce, just a list of
all reasons that were important; thus, the reasons cannot be ranked at the
individual level.
The implications of this study for divorce prevention policy are com-
plex. On the one hand, a number of reasons for seeking a divorce that are
quite common and would seem to be amenable to marital intervention to
repair the relationship nevertheless are associated with less hope for rec-
onciliation and less interest in a reconciliation service. Accordingly, policy
efforts that urge divorcing parties to consider seriously the possibility of
reconciliation are more likely to be ignored by the very people for whom
marital problems could be addressed by marital interventions with reason-
able chances of success. On the other hand, those individuals experiencing
the most destructive problems are no less likely to be hopeful of saving
their marriage or no less interested in a reconciliation service than those
experiencing less serious problems. Policymakers then must make sure that
efforts to help couples reconcile make use of trained professionals with the
skills to deal with serious and difficult marital problems such as abuse and
infidelity.
REFERENCES
Amato, P. R., & Hohmann-Marriott, B. (2007). A comparison of high- and low-distress
marriages that end in divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 621–638.
Amato, P. R., & Previti, D. (2003). People’s reasons for divorcing: Gender, social
class, the life course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 602–626.
Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 15:35 13 August 2012

Reasons for Divorce 463
De Graaf, P. M., & Kalmijn, M. (2006). Divorce motives in a period of rising divorce.
Journal of Family Issues, 27, 483–505.
Doherty, W. J., Willoughby, B. J., & Peterson, B. (2011). Interest in marital
reconciliation among divorcing parents. Family Court Review, 49, 313–321.
Emery, R. E., & Sbarra, D. A. (2002). Addressing separation and divorce during
and after couple therapy. In A. S. Gurman & N. S. Jacobson (Eds.), Clinical
handbook of couple therapy (3rd ed., pp. 508–530). New York, NY: Guilford.
Hawkins, A. J., & Fackrell, T. A. (2009). Should I keep trying to work it out? A guide-
book for individuals and couples at the crossroads of divorce (and before). Salt
Lake City, UT: Utah Commission on Marriage.
Hetherington, E. M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce reconsidered.
New York, NY: Norton.
National Fatherhood Initiative. (2005). With this ring ... A national survey on
marriage in America . Gaithersburg, MD: Author.
Rhatigan, D. L., & Axsom, D. K. (2006). Using the investment model to under-
stand battered women’s commitment to abusive relationships. Journal of Family
Violence, 21, 153–162.
Waite, L. J., Luo, Y., & Lewin, A. C. (2009). Marital happiness and marital stabil-
ity: Consequences for psychological well-being. Social Science Research, 38,
201–212.
Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 15:35 13 August 2012