Women and divorce: financial coping from midlife to older age

Abstract

Divorce is a life-changing event with financial implications for women. Although large-scale studies have examined the factors associated with financial coping after divorce, little attention has been paid to the lived experience of women over time. In this study, we used mixed methods to examine the financial well-being of divorced women over 20 years from 1996 to 2016. Using data from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health [ALSWH], we analyzed women’s ratings of their ability to manage on available income, and their narrative comments about financial coping over eight waves, beginning in midlife (ages 46–51). The ratings improved over time, particularly as women reached peak career in their 50s or 60s or entered retirement. Despite this upward trajectory, financial strain persisted for ~40% of the cohort who faced poor health or diminishing job prospects. We conclude that, although financial hardship often eases over time, women’s early ratings of financial coping predict levels of income security in older age.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjwa20
Journal of Women & Aging
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjwa20
Women and divorce: financial coping from midlife
to older age
Bronwen Lichtenstein, Jayne Lucke & Deborah Loxton
To cite this article: Bronwen Lichtenstein, Jayne Lucke & Deborah Loxton (2022) Women and
divorce: financial coping from midlife to older age, Journal of Women & Aging, 34:3, 323-340, DOI:
10.1080/08952841.2021.1935552
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2021.1935552
Published online: 28 Jun 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 242
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Women and divorce: nancial coping from midlife to older age
Bronwen Lichtenstein
a
, Jayne Lucke
b
, and Deborah Loxton
c
a
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA;
b
School of
Public Health, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia;
c
Research Centre for Generational Health and
Ageing, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia
ABSTRACT
Divorce is a life-changing event with financial implications for women.
Although large-scale studies have examined the factors associated with
financial coping after divorce, little attention has been paid to the lived
experience of women over time. In this study, we used mixed methods to
examine the financial well-being of divorced women over 20 years from 1996
to 2016. Using data from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s
Health [ALSWH], we analyzed women’s ratings of their ability to manage on
available income, and their narrative comments about financial coping over
eight waves, beginning in midlife (ages 46–51). The ratings improved over
time, particularly as women reached peak career in their 50s or 60s or
entered retirement. Despite this upward trajectory, financial strain persisted
for ~40% of the cohort who faced poor health or diminishing job prospects.
We conclude that, although financial hardship often eases over time,
women’s early ratings of financial coping predict levels of income security
in older age.
KEYWORDS
Divorce; women; aging;
financial coping
How do women cope financially after divorce? A robust social science literature has addressed this
topic in various forms and generally agrees that the financial outlook for divorced women is worse
than for men or never-married women (Hogendoorn et al., 2020; Jenkins, 2008; De Vaus et al., 2017).
Most of this research uses statistical methods to examine post-divorce financial outcomes by region,
country, or place. Qualitative literature on the topic is lacking, although a few studies have addressed
related issues, such as divorce and stigma (Konstam et al., 2016) and divorce as a “financial disruptor”
in conjunction with other stressors (Muir et al., 2017). Qualitative work has also identified older
women’s reliance on children, grandchildren, and public services for financial support after divorce
(Canham et al., 2014), and addressed their ability to negotiate power, resources, and labor after
remarrying in later life (Clarke, 2005). Despite the importance of qualitative inquiry in giving voice
to women’s experience of financial security, the topic has yet to be addressed in this way. Such
perspectives are not only critical to understanding post-divorce realities but also for interpreting data
with accuracy and sensitivity to gender contexts. Our study addresses this methodological deficit and
lack of longitudinal data in qualitative research by using mixed-methods to analyze midlife women’s
lived experience of financial coping over 20 years.
This study seeks to answer two questions that were developed from prior research. The first
question, “Why is divorce associated with worse financial outcomes for women?” seeks to unravel
the story of financial disadvantage after divorce and, through qualitative reporting, identify the factors
behind this disparity. The second question, “Why does this disadvantage persist over time?” seeks to
identify the reasons for chronic financial strain, as identified by the participants. How these reasons
intersect with gender and social realities are examined in a “just research” approach to the production
CONTACT Bronwen Lichtenstein blichten@ua.edu Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, The University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA
© 2021 Taylor & Francis
JOURNAL OF WOMEN & AGING
https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2021.1935552
2022, VOL. 34, NO. 3, 323–340

of knowledge (Rice et al., 2019). For study purposes, we pair women’s post-divorce narratives with
their subjective ratings of financial coping over eight waves of the Australian Longitudinal Study of
Women’s Health [ALSWH]. This national dataset was established in 1996 and yields a wealth of data
on women’s health and well-being for longitudinal analysis. The survey offers life course researchers
a unique opportunity to collect qualitative and quantitative data on a range of topics, including
women’s financial coping in the post-divorce period.
Prior research
Longitudinal research on divorce and financial security includes gender comparisons. Gender-income
disparities have been found inter-culturally, although the degree to which they occur varies by culture,
region, or country. Divorced women are not only worse off than divorced men in many cases (Jenkins,
2008; Leopold, 2018; De Vaus et al., 2017), but the disparity often persists beyond the immediate post-
divorce period (e.g., Arber, 2004; De Hoon et al., 2015). Arber (2004), Dolan (2019), and De Hoon
et al. (2015) found independently that divorced women were worse off financially than either divorced
men or women who were married, never married, or widowed. In Arber’s (2004) study, divorced older
women earned less than any other group, including widows and divorced men. Never-married women
were better off than either divorced women or widows in Arber’s study, a point also made by Dolan
(2019) who analyzed similar data from the American Time Use Survey [ATUS].
Three examples of comparative analysis are relevant to the current study. First, Leopold’s (2018)
21-year longitudinal study of post-divorce outcomes in Germany found that financial precarity is
transient for men, but not for women who typically earn less than men do, shoulder much of family
caregiving, and experience chronic financial strains that increase the risk of poverty. Leopold
described these gendered outcomes as “large” and “disproportionate.” Second, Jenkins (2008) analysis
of data from the British Household Panel Survey reported stark gender differences in post-divorce
income, not only in the immediate aftermath, but also five years after splitting up. At the end of this
period, men’s earnings had increased by 25% while women’s income levels were lower than before
divorce. Jenkins attributed this disparity, in part, to men earning more and re-partnering at a higher
rate than women, and to women receiving less spousal support from ex-husbands as time went on.
Third, and more broadly, De Vaus et al. (2017) identified significant financial disparities among
divorced men and women across six countries in the OECD region (USA, UK, Germany, Australia,
South Korea, and Switzerland), with women substantially worse off than men in all cases. The authors
found that men fared better regardless of nationality and concluded that “class” and “geography” could
not explain chronic gender gaps in income after divorce.
Longitudinal research has also identified post-divorce changes in women’s financial position.
Brüggman (2020) assessed the impact of divorce on women’s employment and income in West
Germany between 2000 and 2005. The author used administrative data to examine the causal impact
of divorce on labor supply and individual income among 413 divorced women aged 25 to 55 years.
Brüggman concluded that divorce increased women’s involvement in regular employment and
simultaneously reduced their rate of marginal work. If women were not regularly employed in the
years before divorce, these effects were even more marked. However, divorce did not affect the
employment rate of women who were strongly attached to the labor market before divorcing.
Fisher and Low's (2016) study on 10,300 adults across 18 annual waves of British Household Panel
Survey (1990–2008) showed that women from the highest income households (pre-divorce) lost more
and took longer to recover their standard of living than women from lower-income households. The
authors found that income recovery was driven by re-partnering, whether by remarriage or informal
cohabitation. In contrast to U.S. findings (e.g., Tamborini et al., 2015), the authors did not find
increased employment to be important for women’s financial recovery after divorce.
Hogendoorn et al. (2020) analyzed a decade’s worth of administrative data from the Netherlands
for a 2003–2005 cohort of 179,018 individuals who married between the ages of 18 and 25. The authors
found that women with lower levels of education divorced more often and were worse off financially
324
B. LICHTENSTEIN ET AL.

after divorce. They also found differences between women with and without children. For childless
women, less education increased the impact of financial vulnerability in the post-divorce period.
Among mothers with less education, divorce increased poverty differences, not only because of the
higher risk of getting divorced, but also from greater income vulnerability in the workplace.
These large-scale quantitative studies highlight factors that contribute to women’s ability to manage
on their income after divorce, including whether women re-partner and/or engage with the labor
market. Being able to find and keep adequate paid work depends upon a range of individual factors,
such as previous labor force engagement, level of education, mental and physical health, and caregiv-
ing responsibilities. Structural factors, which also shape financial well-being, include the availability of
suitable employment opportunities, childcare, and government benefits. We used the findings in this
section to develop research questions for the study. Following the longitudinal, intercultural findings
of Leopold (2018), Jenkins (2008), and De Vaus et al. (2017), we could expect divorced women in the
Australian cohort to be worse off than married women a year or two after divorce and perhaps for
longer periods as well.
Theoretical framework
Our study applies Pearlin et al’s (1981)and Pearlin's (1989)) theory of social stress to women’s lived
experience of financial coping post-divorce. The theory offers analytical tools that are helpful in the
examination of disruptive events such as divorce and sequelae such as financial precarity. Pearlin
(1989) argued that primary stressors, which he termed “disruptive events,” interact with chronic or
“durable” strains in the social production of stress. In this paradigm, disruptors such as divorce can
lead to chronic strains (e.g., less income; sole parenting) and overlapping stressors (e.g., loss of social
status; depression; ill-health). The stress process is influenced by structural forces as well. Taking
divorce as an example, if gender roles are fixed and marriage is idealized, then greater social isolation
and gender-based stigma add to the constellation of stressors in post-divorce. Pearlin argued that
mediating events in the form of support networks (or re-partnering) can alleviate these strains,
although class and social differences determine whether “socially valued dreams [will be] thwarted
by socially erected barriers” (p. 242). In the case of divorce, these barriers include overcoming
reputational stigma from transgressing gender norms, family relations, and the social status quo.
Pearlin held that chronic strains do not exist in a vacuum but arise from systems of stratification
that mark people as “other” in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, social class, age, sexual identity, and
other factors. Pearlin emphasized the importance of “structural arrangements [i.e., family or work-
place] in which people are embedded” (p. 241); he called for close attention to “the organization of
lives and the structure of experience” (p. 254) rather than individual risk factors devoid of context. In
considering divorce as a status disruptor, we wanted to see if women’s ratings of financial coping
reflected the strains of sole parenting, paid work, educational status, health concerns, and aging, and
how the “durable strain” of divorce related to long-term financial outcomes.
Sample and methods
ALSWH is a longitudinal population-based survey of the health and well-being of Australian women,
funded by the Australian Government Department of Health. The study includes four cohorts of
women of different ages. Three original cohorts were first surveyed in 1996 when they were aged 18–
23 years (the 1973–78 cohort), 45–50 years (the 1946–51 cohort) and 70–75 years (the 1921–26
cohort). The fourth cohort of women aged 18–24 was added in 1989. Participants were selected from
the national health insurance database (Medicare) and completed mailed and online questionnaires
about physical and emotional well-being, as well as social and lifestyle factors relating to health and
their use of health services (Brown et al., 1998; Lee et al., 2005). Ongoing IRB approval for the study is
provided by the Human Research Ethics Committees of the Universities of Newcastle and
Queensland. Details about the study, including survey instruments and data books, are available on
JOURNAL OF WOMEN & AGING
325

the study website (see Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health [http://ALSWH.org.au]).
For this article, we analyzed data for the cohort born 1946–1951, with separated and divorced women
as our primary focus.
Study sample
The characteristics of the 1946–1951 cohort (married and divorced) reflect the cultural map of
Australia in 1996, when the first ALSWH survey was conducted. As reported by Dobson et al.
(2015), most women in this sample were born in Australia (69%), with others emigrating from
English-speaking countries such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand (14%), and from Europe
(13%). The women’s schooling reflects the educational landscape of the era, when university education
for Australian women was less common than today. Accordingly, although 63.1% of the midlife cohort
had attended or completed high school, fewer women had attained a certificate or diploma (19.4%) or
a university degree (16.3) compared to younger cohorts in the survey. Eighty percent of the women
worked full-time (40%) or part-time (40%) in 1996, where they occupied professional or managerial
positions (40%), semi-skilled employment (25%), or unskilled labor (10%). Twenty percent of the
women were homemakers or unemployed in 1996.
In 1996 (Wave 1), 76.7% of 13,715 midlife women were married, 4.2% were separated, 7.6% were
divorced, and the others identified as de facto partners (i.e., living together as a married couple),
widowed, or never married. By Wave 8 (2016), the cohort had reduced to 10,011 women. Although
attrition was a factor, the 77% rate of retention was higher than for any other age cohort in the survey.
By 2016, 66.4% of women were married and 14.7% were separated or married. Nine hundred and
seventy-four (974) women had died during this time, but retention was affected by other factors as
well. Functional decline affected 20% of the cohort, and 13% of women withdrew or were lost to
contact by 2016. Full-time work, lower education, poor health, lack of English fluency, and death
account for most attrition from longitudinal studies, including for the ALSWH survey (Brilleman
et al., 2010).
Survey instrument
The survey protocol comprises 101 variables on a wide range of topics involving women’s health and
well-being, broadly defined to include social relationships, work history, caregiving (for children or
older people), community involvement, and personal or family finances. Demographic variables
include marital status, level of education, health status, and occupational status. For the divorced
cohort only, we selected measures such as financial coping, hours of employment, and caring for
children for matching with the demographic information. Financial coping was measured by a survey
item: “How do you manage on the income you have available?” Participants rated their responses on
a five-point Likert scale item, with the options being “impossible” (coded 1) to “it is easy (coded 5),
with three intermediate ratings (“difficult always,” “difficult sometimes,” and “not too bad”), coded 2–
4 respectively. This format proved more acceptable to women than checked income boxes for the pilot
stage of the study and accounted for women’s own financial contexts. The protocol also included
a section for free-text (narrative) comments for each wave. These comments helped to explain the
women’s income ratings at each wave and identified life changes relative to financial coping. We
entered these responses into SPSS for data management and analysis. For consistency with other
ALSWH projects (e.g., Joham et al., 2014), our study data were weighted by area of residence to adjust
for intentional over-sampling in rural and remote areas of Australia.
Approach to analysis
The analysis sought to identify patterns of financial coping over eight waves of the study. For the first
task of the research (comparison of married and separated/divorced groups by income ratings), we
326
B. LICHTENSTEIN ET AL.

analyzed data from Wave 1 of the 1946–51 cohort. After we had compared the income ratings for all
women by marital status, we selected the separated/divorced group for in-depth analysis. We combined
this group because of the close convergence between separated and divorced women over 20 years.
Then, we examined the descriptive (quantitative) data and analyzed the free text (qualitative) responses
for the divorced group across eight waves of the survey (1996–2016). This span covered the start of the
study period, when the women were aged 45 to 50 years old, through to the end of the 20-year period,
when they were aged 65 to 70 years old. The cohort comprised 1,597 women who identified as separated
or divorced in 1996. By 2016, the group was somewhat smaller (N = 1,149) but, with fewer married
women in the cohort, comprised a larger share of the total (14.7%). Income-related events involving
education, work, caregiving, illness, and retirement were integral to the analytical approach.
Because pre-divorce stressors are outside the scope of our inquiry, we focused on the “chronic
stress” domains of Pearlin’s conceptual framework to guide the analysis. We used the first set of
income ratings in 1996 as a baseline for charting financial trajectories, which we then matched with
narrative comments on chronic strains in the post-divorce period. For the “meaning contexts” of
chronic strains, we used narrative input at each wave to contextualize women’s financial coping
according to work, family, education, health, and other factors in their post-divorce life. Taken
together, the income ratings and narratives provided detailed information on the structural arrange-
ments in which people are embedded. We examined how these arrangements enabled or constrained
the women in Australian context.
For social disparities as a source of strain, we first sought to compare the divorced group’s income
ratings with those of married women in the larger study. Then, for the divorced group only, we sought
to compare the five income categories for intra-group differences, and for evidence of financial strains
that resolved or persisted over time. This task would identify whether the women began and ended on
the same rating as a sign of financial stability, or if other patterns emerged, such as ratings stratified by
education, health, hours worked, or type of employment. In terms of age-related findings, a patterned
analysis would help to identify if universal benefits such as superannuation or the age pension were
equalizing factors for divorced women in retirement.
For an examination of how strains and events provide meaning contexts for one another, we
sought to match specific comments on sole parenting, health, work, illness, disability, caregiving,
and aging with data from the income categories. We framed these data in terms of divorce as
a primary stressor (disruptive event) from which the secondary stressors could follow the first type
and become chronic over time. The narrative comments illustrated how divorced women juggled
sole parenting, work, and other responsibilities, and shed light on how income levels and “media-
tors” (e.g., social support) alleviated or reflected these strains. These comments anchored the
findings in women’s lived experience and shed light on interactions between primary and secondary
stressors in post-divorce context.
Descriptive analysis
We took a stepwise approach to the mixed-methods analysis. In the first (quantitative) stage, we
organized the data into “married” and “separated/divorced” groups, performed cross tabulations for
all variables, and created frequency tables for comparison. The results captured the overall distribu-
tions for each group for all waves of the study. These groupings did not explain individual differences
between women (e.g., individual income ratings that improved, worsened, or stayed the same) but did
show how the two groups fared at each wave, and if the distributions supported prior research findings
about the financial vulnerability of divorced women. For the divorce-specific analyses, we calculated
group frequencies for each income rating at each wave. These distributions indicated whether baseline
ratings improved, worsened, or stayed the same over time. Then, we identified each woman’s income
ratings at each wave for individualized (de-aggregated) trajectories on financial coping. This step
identified how many women had begun and ended with the same rating and whether their ratings
JOURNAL OF WOMEN & AGING
327

fluctuated from one wave to another according to individual circumstances (e.g., ill-health, relocation,
loss of job, or remarriage). We used these trajectories to organize our qualitative results.
A logistical challenge at this stage involved changes to marital status over 20 years. For example,
some of the married women (a large group) had divorced during the study period; some divorced
women had remarried as well. This fluctuation resulted in a smaller (but still large) group of married
women in 2016, a shift that parallels the growth of “gray divorce” among older adults (Brown & Lin,
2012). Because separation, divorce, and remarriage are common events and change-of-status data
could provide meaningful insights into women’s financial well-being over time, we included these split
cases for analysis. The results provided a baseline for contextualizing comments (or narratives) on
financial coping after divorce or remarriage.
Qualitative analysis
In the second (qualitative) stage, we analyzed divorced women’s free-text responses for each wave of
the study. We began this task by using the Linguistic Word Count and Inquiry (LWIC) software
package in order to categorize the data by topic (e.g., money and work). The program created
a relevance score for each extract: the higher the score, the closer the fit to our categories. LWIC
identified income-related data from women’s comments, sentences and paragraphs and created
a hierarchy of relevance for qualitative analysis. As a supplement to the LWIC method, and for
interpretive rigor (Kitto et al., 2008), the first author and her research assistant searched the data
manually and independently, using terms such as “money,” “finances,” “work,” “job,” “budget,”
“expenses,” “sick leave” “injured” and “disability” for relevant information on financial coping. This
iterative process and inter-rater results found cases not identified by the LWIC software program. The
most useful data for qualitative analysis occurred in the context of work, family, or social life rather
than as stand-alone comments or in segue to unrelated topics.
Matched case analysis
In the third (mixed methods) stage, we matched the variables for education, health, occupation, and hours
worked with the income ratings and free text responses for each divorced woman in the study. These
variables were major areas of concern for the women and were selected for their relevance to financial
coping in post-divorce. The matched analysis revealed gaps in the free-text data; some women had
provided comments at each wave, but many did not. For more meaningful results we selected only the
cases in which women had included narrative comments for at least five out of eight waves of the study.
This sub-sample allowed us to match educational status and disruptive life events such as remarriage, job
loss, disability, or illness to financial coping and, in so doing, give voice to women’s lived experience on
their own terms. We were also able to identify and contextualize trajectories of financial coping into older
age. This analytical approach contributed to the trustworthiness of the qualitative component of the study
(Kitto et al., 2008). The approach also helped to anchor the descriptive results and generate what Geertz
(1973) described as “thick” or interpretative detail. In selecting relevant quotes for the paper, and as
a credibility check on our findings (Kitto et al., 2008; Tavener et al., 2016), we only used comments that
contextualized women’s income ratings at baseline (1996), mid study (2007), and 20 years (2016). Many
comments were not fit for purpose, either because they were too brief (e.g., “thank you”) or did not
address financial coping or related topics (e.g., “I would like better exercise options for older women”).
The remaining narratives offered detailed, often compelling insights into financial coping and explana-
tions for women’s income ratings at each stage of the study.
328
B. LICHTENSTEIN ET AL.

Financial coping
The divorce penalty
The comparative results show a clear financial benefit for married women over the study period
(Figure 1). Compared to married women, the divorced group was more likely to find it difficult to live
on one income, especially in the first waves of the study. Although the gap between the two groups
narrowed by 2016, it did not disappear. Equalizing factors such as the age pension could account for
this shift, with both sets of women likely to gain access to superannuation payouts in addition to age
pensions. Although not shown in the figure, married women had higher health ratings than divorced
women as well. This disparity was not as stark as for income, but for both income and health, the
divorced group’s lower ratings persisted over time. The two groups were comparable for education
(e.g., 16.3% of married women had earned a university degree compared to 18.16% of divorced
women). Figure 1 highlights differences in marital status and financial coping at the beginning
(1996), middle (2007), and end of the study period (2016). These dates correspond to data collected
in Waves 1, 5, and 8 of the study.
Income groups and trajectories
Figure 2 summarizes income ratings among divorced women at each wave. Out of the five options for
financial coping, the “it is easy” and “impossible” options at both ends of the scale garnered fewest
responses. By 2016, the size of these groups had reversed, with the “easy to manage” category almost
twice the size (14.4%) and the “impossible to manage” category reduced to 3.1%, from a peak of 7.8%
in 1998. Despite this trend, most women found it difficult to manage financially until their mid-50s or
later, as reflected in the frequency of “difficult always/sometimes” responses in the first decade. In
the second decade, the “not too bad/it is easy” share increased to 41.7% of the total, replacing the
“difficult” category as the largest in the study. When combined with the “it is easy” category, more than
half (56%) of the women found a measure of financial security by their 65
th
birthday. With 74.1% of
the women having partly or fully retired by the end of the study period, the increase in the “it is easy”
and “not too bad” ratings indicate greater financial security in older age. The brighter financial outlook
for older women in post-divorce is a major finding of the study.
0
60
1996
Married Separated Divorced
0
60
2007
Married Separated Divorced
0
60
2016
Married Separated Divorced
Figure 1. Ratings of ability to manage on income by marital status in over time. 1. These charts represent general distributions in
1996, 2007, and 2016. Within the groupings, individual ratings often fluctuated from wave to wave, although the overall trend was
toward financial improvement.
JOURNAL OF WOMEN & AGING
329

Sole parenthood was financially draining for 55% of divorced women who identified as custodial
mothers in 1996. This group was substantially smaller 10 years later, although some women had
replaced sole parenting with unpaid caregiving for grandchildren and/or elderly or ill relatives. In
2016, more than half of the group (57.7%) provided unpaid care for grandchildren (or other people’s
children) on a regular basis. More than one third (39.4%) of women supplied occasional care for ill,
disabled, or elderly relatives, and 5.5% provided residential care on a consistent basis. Women in the
custodial group were likely to work fewer hours or had left the workforce to care for family members,
sometimes drawing upon their own financial resources for this reason.
The following paragraphs offer a snapshot of the five income groups as contextualized by educa-
tion, health, family, job status, caregiving, and retirement. These results begin with group findings (i.e.,
the size of each group at each wave, and relevant demographic characteristics), rather than individual
ratings that often fluctuated over the course of the study. Then, in anecdotes on financial coping, we
describe individual experiences and contexts for women in each income group. We include tables to
illustrate how individual women fared, with each income category (e.g., “It is easy”) defined by the
woman’s final rating in 2016. The tables highlight women’s lived experience at the beginning, middle,
and end of the study period, with narratives and demographic details for context. We have assigned
a pseudonym and edited the content to preserve privacy in each case.
Group 1: “it is easy”
This group of divorced women found it easy to live on their available income. The group averaged
10.5% over time but was larger by the end of the study period (14.4%). In 1996, the few women (6.1%)
who were financially secure highlights the challenge of getting by after divorce. Half of these women
(51.3%) worked as administrators, business managers, or professionals (e.g., teachers, lawyers, and
health providers) when the study began. Another 14% of the group worked as associate professionals
such as middle managers or computer analysts. These higher-income occupations ranked first, second,
and third out of 10 employment categories. Women in the “it is easy” group had the highest rates of
employment of all divorced women in the study and were more likely to have earned a university
degree (30%). They were also more likely to work full-time compared to those with lower ratings in
Wave 1 (63%), and to be employed past official retirement age in Wave 8 (49.1%). These findings
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1996 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016
Impossible Difficult Always Difficult Sometimes Not Too Bad Easy
Figure 2. Divorced women’s ratings by income category: 1996–2016.
330
B. LICHTENSTEIN ET AL.

suggest that higher pay (or job status) takes precedence over retiring on a fixed income. Some women
also remarried during the study, which boosted their financial ratings in later years.
An unexpected finding for all divorced women involved ratings that moved from one category to
another in later waves (e.g., from “not too bad” in Wave 3 to “it is easy” in Wave 4). Few women
provided the same rating at each wave, with jobs, health, caregiving, and relationships in flux over
20 years. Even the “it is easy” group (the most financially well-off) did not find it easy most of the time,
with only 9.4% of women checking this rating at each wave. More than one fourth of the share (29.4%)
checked “it is easy” in the first and last waves, with intermediate ratings dipping to “not too bad” or
even “difficult sometimes/always,” especially when raising children on a single income. This move-
ment across income categories was not evident in the grouped results at each wave but was striking
when analyzed at the individual level.
Two examples of how the ratings matched women’s lived experience appear in Table 1. In both
cases, we could match the narrative comments with income ratings at each wave (a rarity for this
group), highlighting the journey from “difficult” to “easy” over 20 years. Notably, no one with “it is
easy” or even “not too bad” ratings provided narrative comments about coping on available income in
1996. For this reason, Table 1 features excerpts from only two women, both of whom gave “difficult”
ratings before progressing to “it is easy” in 2016.
The comments in Table 1 reflect the difficulty of keeping a home and family as a sole parent and/or
on a single income. The “it is easy” group shared similar experiences in terms of balancing family and
work responsibilities. In 1998, a sole parent with a rating of “difficult always” before an “it is easy”
rating in a subsequent wave, stated bluntly, “I’m overworked – there’s no time for rest and relaxation,
which has contributed to my recent health problems.” In 2001, another sole parent with a “difficult
always” rating wrote: “A great source of worry is my ability to pay mortgage or support my kids if I am
forced to take time off from work due to ill-health.” A third sole parent, whose child had a chronic
health condition, attributed her “difficult always” rating in 2003 to “insurance companies [that] don’t
want to pay claims and employers [who] don’t want to honor sick leave.” These comments highlight
the challenges of making ends meet before achieving financial stability.
Table 1. Narrative extracts demonstrating the trajectory of selected women’s lived experience of financial coping, rated as “easy” at
Wave 8.
Wave: Date
(Age Range)
1: 1996
(45–50)
5: 2007
(56–61)
8: 2016
(65–70)
Income Rating Difficult Sometimes Not Too Bad Easy
“Iris”
Full-time
professional.
College
degree.
Good
health.*
“Single parents who are trying to
make ends meet are penalized by
the pension system when they
declare extra income. It’s stressful
trying to work and care for the
family and be two parents at
once.”
“The teaching workload is
extremely stressful. I work until
midnight most nights and don’t
have time to cook properly or go
to the gym. I’m lucky to have my
health, although I do have
physical symptoms from the
stress.”
“Still paying off a mortgage, and
don’t expect to finish until I’m 70.
Not much superannuation
because I started late and my ex
didn’t have any. Will have to live
on the age pension, I suppose.”
Income
Rating
Difficult Always Not Too Bad Easy
“Daisy”
Full-time
professional.
College
degree.
Fair health.*
“There’s a lack of paid sick leave to
look after family members who
are ill. I suffer a lot of stress from
looking after my frail mother and
managing her financial affairs.
I also support my son who can’t
work.”
“Suffering from severe stress due to
blackmail from ex-husband, son’s
illness, mother’s dementia, and
challenges to child support
payments. Lack of support for
sole parents who work.”
“I have retired from paid work after
marrying again, but my health
has deteriorated because of my
sick son, who has left his wife and
moved in with me.”
* As reported in 1996.
JOURNAL OF WOMEN & AGING
331

Group 2: “not too bad”
Divorced women who rated their ability to cope financially as “not too bad” averaged of 33.3% of the
cohort, reaching 41.7% of the total by 2016. Work and family-related activities help to explain the
group’s lower ratings compared to the “it is easy” one above. Not only were fewer women employed as
managers or professionals in the first wave (37% versus 63.5% above), but they were less likely to
occupy full-time positions that offered financial security (45.7% versus 63%). The women were less
likely to have a university degree as well (22.5% versus 30%), and 14.1% had not completed high
school. Equal numbers of women in this category (37%) held part-time jobs or were engaged in
tertiary studies, and 18.3% were unemployed due to illness, disability, home duties, or lack of job
opportunities. Most women (52%) supported children and other family members in 1996 – a larger
share relative to the “it is easy” group above. These factors affected women’s income ratings during the
study period.
By the middle decade, more women rated their incomes as “not too bad,” reversing the “difficult
sometimes” ratings of prior years. The highest share of “not too bad” ratings coincided with pension
eligibility in 2016. Three factors could account for this finding: reduced household expenses after
children left home, higher wages and salaries at the tail end of careers, and greater financial security
after retirement. By 2016, 60% of this group had retired – a higher rate compared to women in the “it is
easy” category above. At an individual level, the women’s ratings were more uneven, with fluctuations
in the wake of job loss, ill-health, disability, or other circumstances that affected financial coping.
However, such changes did not affect size of the “not too bad” group, which showed stable growth over
time. Table 2 illustrates how the women’s ratings mirrored the ups-and-downs of post-divorce life in
the context of work, family, health problems, romantic relationships, and even structural forces such
as global recession.
Retirement was a common theme in later waves, with concerns about remaining active and
engaged, living on a fixed income, or being locked out of the workforce because of age. Relocating
to a new city in 1998 prompted this comment, “When you reach late 40s or early 50s because of health,
divorce, and move to new town, it is quite difficult to prove to employers you are still very viable.
I worry about what will happen when I am over 60. I get very depressed about not being able to get
a job.” This woman’s ratings went from “difficult” to “not too bad” after retirement in her late 50s,
when she received an inheritance. Other cases also ended on a positive note. For example, a woman
who rated her income “difficult sometimes” until promoted to manager seemed assured of financial
security with a “not too bad” rating in 2001. Her next rating (“difficult always”) followed a new
partner’s job loss but ended with “not too bad” after leaving her partner and retiring a few years later.
In another instance, work-related injuries prompted a “difficult sometimes” rating along with this
comment in 2005, “You have to be thrifty and resourceful on a basic pension.” Although the woman’s
outlook was brighter in terms of “not too bad” ratings for the rest of the study period, her physical
limitations meant being socially isolated and housebound as well. Finally, a woman who had been ill,
unemployed, and reduced to “difficult always” ratings, celebrated the fact that, in 2010, “I’ve begun to
enjoy life and have gone back to playing golf.” By 2013, she had remarried, retired from paid work, and
rated her income as “not too bad” in 2016. These gains and losses highlight the intersections between
major life events, income trajectories, and financial circumstances in older age.
Groups 3-4: “dicult sometimes/always”
We combined the “difficult sometimes” and “difficult always” categories because the women often
alternated between these ratings at different waves. Although the size of the combined group was
smaller as time went on, the “difficult sometimes” category still comprised about one-fourth of the
total in 2016. This consistency is explained by roughly equal numbers of women moving into the
“sometimes” group from a lower rating, and others moving up to “not too bad” or “it is easy” in the
same wave. The combined group remained sizable with a 40.8% share of the total in 2016.
332
B. LICHTENSTEIN ET AL.

In 1996, fewer women in the combined group had a paid job compared to women with higher
ratings (58.6% versus 70%). In Australia, midlife women are disadvantaged in terms of workforce
participation and, relatedly, earning money for retirement because “Australian employers don’t like
hiring people in their 40s” (Irving, 2017 [headline]). The employed women were less likely to be
managers or professionals and were more likely to be clerks, sales assistants, or unskilled workers than
those with higher income ratings. The group was less educated as well, with 22% of women not
completing high school and only 12.3% earning a university degree. Cited reasons for midlife
unemployment included home duties, followed by illness, disability, or inability to find a paying
job. Compared to the above groups, more of these women were custodial parents. (61.1% versus 48%),
suggesting that caregiving contributed to these lower ratings.
A key finding for this category relates to social mobility. Compared to those with higher income
ratings, women with a combined “difficult” rating in 1996 were likely to view their financial position
more favorably in 2016 (32% versus 14.2%). Part of this improvement relates to the leveling function of
retirement. By 2016, two-thirds of the combined group had retired from the workforce, a higher share
compared to women in the “it is easy” and “not too bad” groups above (66% versus 55.5%). Thus,
lower income ratings were associated with earlier retirement, as indicated by 70% of the “difficult
always” group of women who had retired by 2016.
Nevertheless, financial hardship was a common complaint (Table 3). In some cases, precarity was
a barrier to medical care for injuries and chronic illness. In other cases, physical limitations or mental
illness affected women’s ability to work, sometimes for lengthy periods. The women’s narrative comments
contextualized these “difficult” ratings. In 1998, while supporting two children as a part-time teacher in
Table 2. Narrative extracts demonstrating the trajectory of selected women’s lived experience of financial coping, rated as “not too
bad” at Wave 8.
Wave: Date
(Age Range)
1: 1996
(45–50)
5: 2007
(56–61)
8: 2016
(65–70)
Income
Rating Not Too Bad Easy Not Too Bad
“Dahlia”
Full-time
business
owner.
Post-
secondary
training.
Good
health.*
“Due to a new, loving [de facto]
relationship, I am happier and
more stress-free than I have ever
been in the past. We started our
own business, which is all
consuming but is making
a profit.”
(Separated): “I feel tireder and older
than in the past due to having to
work 7 days a week, 12 hours
a day. Have parted ways with
[partner]. The business put
a huge strain on our relationship.”
(Reunited). “I had to sell my home
after losing the business and my
investments during the Global
Financial Crisis. We are currently
living in a motor home and
touring the country.”
Income
Rating
Not Too Bad Difficult Sometimes Not Too Bad
“Camille”
Part-time
admin
assistant.
Completed
high
school.
Good
health.*
(Married 19 years): “I have
a wonderful and supportive
family. I’m grateful for my life,
good health, and all the
blessings.”
(Separated): “I’ve left my abusive
husband and stopped smoking.
I am starting to feel more in
control of my life. I will take
a temp job to see where that
goes.”
(Divorced): “I retired from paid work
and live on the age pension. I am
blessed with wonderful family
and friends who support me.”
Income
Rating
Easy Easy Not Too Bad
“Jasmine”
Full-time
educator.
College
degree.
Good
health.*
“I have taken a job at [university].
I have had to move away from
home and friends where I lived
for 18 years. The move has had
a negative effect on my wellbeing
because of depression.”
“Because of funding cuts to
universities, my job has become
extremely stressful – I can’t get
through all my allocated work.
I don’t want to do this job any
more but I can’t see a way out.”
(Retired). “The only solution to my
job situation was to take Super.
I have had three hospitalizations
for [chronic illness] in the past
couple of years, so working again
isn’t on the cards.”
* As reported in 2016
JOURNAL OF WOMEN & AGING
333

rural Australia, one woman said: “I would love to go to the dentist, but it will cost an extra [AUD] $200
[. To get a mammogram, I have to drive 106 kilometers round trip to get one from a mobile van every two
years.” Similarly, the physical demands of farm work led to this woman’s admission in 2001: “Taking care
of everything myself is very stressful. Finances are difficult because of repair fees on the farm, and from
knee problems that require surgery. I tore a tendon there three years ago. I have had to ask friends to put
themselves out.” In 2001, social services employment was too stressful for a third woman, because “the
work has become heavier with more high-needs clients. I would like to cut back on hours, but the base pay
is poor and I have to survive. After 15 years in this job, I am really looking forward to retirement.” And in
2007, a fourth woman’s onset of illness prompted this pragmatic arrangement in which, “I’m making do
by moving in with someone, as I need help with my finances. It is with a member of the opposite sex, but
there is no de facto relationship.” In each of these stories, the “difficult” ratings invoked images of Aussie
battlers who were constrained by caregiving, health problems, and making ends meet on a limited income.
Group 5: “impossible”
Women who found it “impossible” to live on their income (n = 78) represented the smallest of the divorce
categories, with ill health and job loss as dominant themes in their lives. Less than half of the women had
finished high school (39.2%) and most reported being homemakers or unemployed when the study began
(53.4%). Of the 20.3% of women who worked full time in 1996, most were employed as clerical or sales
assistants, or less commonly, as machine operators or laborers. Although one-fifth of these employed
women identified as managers or professionals, they generally worked part-time or on a casual basis.
Table 3. Narrative extracts demonstrating the trajectory of selected women’s lived experience of financial coping, rated as “difficult
sometimes or always” at Wave 8.
Wave: Date
(Age Range)
1: 1996
(45–50)
5: 2007
(56–61)
8: 2016
(65–70)
Income
Rating Difficult Always Difficult Sometimes Difficult Sometimes
“Linea”
Full-time
manual
worker.
Completed
high
school.
Good
health.*
“I was married for 22 years. My
husband left his job, family,
everything, to be with someone
else. I will have to sell the family
home to pay all the debts. I am
distressed, as I don’t know what
will happen now.”
“I don’t have a health card. It is too
expensive to see the doctor.
I have a steady job but now I have
to pay off the house (in my 50s!).
I am considering resigning from
[private] health fund.”
“I have started extra study in aged
care – halfway through it. My
health is okay (being treated for
a clot), and I am still working part-
time. Can’t afford to retire; I’m
looking after a grandchild whose
mother is ill.”
Income
Rating
Difficult Always Difficult Always Difficult Sometimes
“Daphne”
Part-time
sales
assistant.
Completed
high
school.
Fair health.
*
“My husband just walked out on me
after gambling a whole lot of
money from our Visa card!
30 years of marriage just thrown
away because of gambling and
drinking. I am trying to cope as
best as I can.”
“I lost my mum and things have
been a bit hard for me. I could not
go back for her funeral [in
another state], which is very hard.
I can’t afford to take time off
work. My future seems bleak,
jobwise.”
“My work is very challenging but it
does affect my health. My neck
and hands hurt all the time. But
I do not have any other
experiences so I have to keep this
job to earn my living. I will keep
going as long as I can.”
Income
Rating
Difficult Always Difficult Always Difficult Always
“Astrid”
Part-time
/tutor.
College
degree.
Disability.
“I have severe hearing loss and no
health care card. I do not earn
enough to buy hearing aids. I will
probably have to sell my business
to sort this problem out.”
[Semi-retired]. “My hearing is much
worse. Having to get hi-tech
hearing aids has caused me to go
into debt. Without them, I can’t
work – with them, I work with
difficulty, but I try to work to
maintain social skills.”
[Retired]. “I am deaf, which is why
I have ‘retired.’ Work is stressful
for me. The latest technology will
help a bit, but I can’t afford it yet.
I do a bit of child tutoring to save
for higher quality hearing aids.”
* As reported in 1996.
334
B. LICHTENSTEIN ET AL.

Women with “impossible” ratings were also more likely to be custodial parents compared to their divorced
peers (66% versus 58%). Conversely, they were less likely to care for grandchildren and other relatives in
later waves because of chronic ill-health, family dysfunction, and poverty (49.2% versus 53.2%).
Early retirement was a notable finding for the group. By 2004 (mid- to late-50s), 29% of the women
had retired fully. By 2010, almost half (49%) of this group had retired compared to 27% for all divorced
women. By 2016, 77.4% of the women had retired compared to 51% of the “it is easy” group and 63%
overall. This difference reinforces the finding that financial hardship, and the contextual reasons for it,
are factors in early retirement. It also suggests that early retirement affected the size of the group,
which had declined to 3.1% of the total by 2016. Table 4 gives examples of two women in the
“impossible” group whose financial precarity continued throughout the study. Their comments
show how divorce intersects with financial hardship on a durable basis.
Women in the “impossible” group identified the role of illness, disability, work-related stress,
unemployment, and family obligations as reasons for financial hardship and their decisions to retire.
In 2007, chronic illness had ended the career of this custodial parent because, “I was laid off and can no
longer provide for my teenage children. I developed fibromyalgia this year. I am lucky to get financial
help from my mother, otherwise I don’t know how I would survive.” Also, in 2007, a sudden increase in
work hours prompted a second woman to report, “I retired from my full-time job because of the extreme
pressure I was under. I now work in hospitality, which is casual and seasonal. If I retired completely,
I have no idea what I would live on.” Injury was career ending for a third woman whose “impossible”
rating in 2003 followed redundancy after “breaking my ankle, which took months to rehabilitate. I have
not been able to return to work and will retire.” The woman also credited her mother’s financial support
for pulling through because, “I don’t know how I would have survived mentally, due to stress.”
Table 4. Narrative extracts demonstrating the trajectory of selected women’s lived experience of financial coping, rated as
“impossible” at Wave 8.
Wave: Date
(Age Range)
1: 1996
(45–50)
5: 2007
(56–61)
8: 2016
(65–70)
Income
Rating Impossible Difficult Always Impossible
“Olivia”
Part-time
sales
assistant.
Post-
secondary
training.
Good
health.*
“I have recently rejoined the
workforce, live frugally and money
is still a nightmare. I’ve been
changed from casual to part-time,
which means less money coming
in. I rent a substandard house with
no bathroom and an outside loo.”
“Going through this study has
amplified how sad my life has
become. I had to leave a job at
this time on doctor’s urging due
to bullying. It took me three
months to get another job and
I have problems coping with its
demands. I have a significant bank
loan to repay.”
“I live in a shed with no bathroom,
kitchen, or interior walls. There is
a rainwater tank not connected to
the shed and lugging buckets of
water is a daily trial. I am trying to
save in order to stay with my sister
in [city] for a holiday.”
Income
Rating
Impossible Impossible Impossible
“Daisy”
Ex-
machine
operator/
disability.
Did not
complete
high
school.
Fair
health.*
“Arthritis limits just about everything
I want to do. I provide care for my
5-year old grandchild while my
daughter works. In a family
situation, grandparents are
expected to help out.”
“A basic disability support pension is
soon exhausted and a lower
standard of living is all a pensioner
can expect. Along with everything
else, I have to pay for a lawn
mowing service and the upkeep of
a car. Medicine is too dear.”
“My health is much worse, and
money is tight, but I am
reasonably contented. Most of my
time goes to caring for my elderly
father who is living by himself.
I travel 2 hours and stay for
a couple of days with him each
fortnight.”
* As reported in 1996.
JOURNAL OF WOMEN & AGING
335

The durable strains of divorce
The findings of this study support and extend prior research on separated and divorced women.
Previous research has demonstrated that divorced women experience worse financial outcomes
compared to those who stay married (Arber, 2004; De Hoon et al., 2015; Lain et al., 2020), and
relatedly, to divorced men (Jenkins, 2008; Leopold, 2018; De Vaus et al., 2017). Our Australian study
has contextualized this disparity through lived experiences of financial coping from mid-life to older
age. The results align with Pearlin’s concept of divorce as a primary stressor, with secondary stressors
relating to family, work, health, and social relationships in gendered context. These strains were
evident in the women’s lower financial coping ratings compared to their married peers over 20 years,
albeit with improved prospects toward retirement. This pattern suggests that divorced women
experience income disparities across the life spectrum.
Chronic strains relating to work, family, and social relationships were reported by women at all
income levels. Women who found it easy to cope on their income were least likely to include
comments with their completed surveys, but when they did, their concerns related to the lack of
work/life balance, rather than the health, financial, caregiving, and housing burdens of women with
lower ratings. Comments from this group highlighted the toll of juggling work and family responsi-
bilities and worries about how to keep healthy in mind and body while “doing it all,” especially in
earlier waves of the study. For these women, finding it easy to manage on available income was offset
by the pressures of overwork and chronic stress.
Illness and disability topped the durable strains for women who found their income “difficult
always” or “impossible” to live on, who worked part-time, casually, or not at all, and who became
pensioners before reaching official retirement age. Prior research points to a close relationship between
health status and financial stability. In one such study, Minton et al. (2012) found that healthy men and
women were more likely to work full-time in higher-status occupations, while the opposite was true
for people with physical limitations, who found that employment prospects dimmed over time. The
fact that almost half of the divorced women in our study continued to struggle financially after 20 years
suggests that sole parenthood, job loss, lower educational attainment, disability, and illness constitute
durable strains. In Pearlin’s terms, the accumulation of chronic strains after a disruptive event such as
divorce bears the signature of financial precarity.
Income ratings underscored the lived experience of financial coping in post-divorce. The women
who rated their income levels as “not too bad” and “easy” in 1996 were more likely to have a university
degree and occupy higher-status occupations; this group started businesses, received promotions, and
relocated for better job opportunities along the way. Their ability to cope financially was often offset by
work overload and family responsibilities as chronic strains. By contrast, the women who started out
with “difficult” or “impossible” ratings were less likely to finish high school and more likely to have
lower status jobs or be unemployed; they also had poorer health and fewer coping strategies at their
disposal. Coping mechanisms, such as doubling up with friends or family, taking lodgers, selling the
family home, receiving financial help from relatives, and doing odd jobs were evidence of durable
strains for this group, as well as the mediating role of government in reducing financial distress. In the
case of disability, injury, and illness, such women often qualified for pensions and/or subsidized
housing, which required frugal management but were crucial for survival. Caregiving could also be
expensive, although women with physical limitations or mental illness were often unable to perform
this function. Coping repertoires were more limited for this group compared with women who, in
Pearlin’s conceptualization, have better opportunities and social support networks to manage “the
contagion of stressors” in post-divorce life (p. 248).
Growing older brought greater financial stability for divorced women by the end of the study
period. In 2016, 56% of women rated their financial situation as “not too bad” or “easy” compared to
1996, when less than one-third of the sample (31%) checked these ratings. Higher earnings and less
caregiving in pre-retirement, as well as dual pensions after retirement, played a role in this outcome.
Sixty-one percent of the cohort had fully retired by 2016, although the timing of this event related, in
336
B. LICHTENSTEIN ET AL.

part, to occupational status. Women who were financially distressed retired earlier than their divorced
peers, with the “difficult always” and “impossible” categories leading the way. This finding is consistent
with cross-cultural research on the antecedents of early retirement. In the United States, for example,
Aaron and Callan (2011) found that working less than 30 hours per week (as a proxy for income),
correlated with earlier retirement for men and women equally. Similarly, Siegrist et al. (2007) found
that poor-quality jobs and low incomes were associated with early retirement in EU countries. In both
cases, less education and ill-health contributed to work-related and socioeconomic disadvantages, as
well as to early retirement.
Australia’s dual pension system is noteworthy for its role as a stress mediator in people’s lives. For
the 1946–51 cohort, age eligibility for compulsory superannuation (an employer-based scheme),
begins at 55 years for women born before 1960, and at 65 years for a government age pension. The
age pension is subject to income and assets tests (Australian Government Department of Social
Services, 2020). Women in full-time and/or in higher-status occupations are likely to delay retirement
in order to capitalize on higher superannuation payouts. Women in part-time or temporary positions
are eligible for both the age pension and superannuation, although payouts from the latter scheme
would be smaller for this group, and perhaps less useful as a reason to delay retirement. In the present
case, women who were unemployed and/or on a disability support pension or other government
benefit had the highest rates of exit from the workforce. Many of these women, who clustered in the
“difficult always” and “impossible” categories, listed their status as retired after becoming beneficiaries.
By age 65, most women in this group had transitioned to the age pension, which offers more generous
payments and work/asset exemptions compared to other government benefits (Services Australia,
2020). The stabilizing effect of the age pension meant fewer women were financially distressed by the
end of the study period.
Strengths and limitations
A major strength of this study relates to the ALSWH, which surveys thousands of Australian women
on a longitudinal basis. Qualitative inquiry typically involves a small number of participants at a single
point in time rather than national samples who are studied over the life course. Our use of mixed
methods for analysis has led to novel insights on women’s financial coping in divorce, particularly as
they approached and entered retirement. Self-rated assessments of financial coping helped to validate
the qualitative results, and account for differences in individual circumstances without having to make
assumptions about the actual level of income required to live on. Financial coping is likely to be
different for everyone depending upon living expenses and other financial commitments, but clear
trends emerged from the data to guide future research and woman-centered policies on long-term
financial prospects after divorce.
As well as considerable strengths, there were limitations associated with the use of the ALSWH
dataset. The 1946–51 cohort was recruited from the Australian universal health insurance database in
1996 and has been followed up with 3-yearly self-report surveys ever since. Longitudinal research often
produces a skewed sample because respondents who remain in these studies are usually healthier,
better educated, and less diverse than those who drop out or are lost to contact (Brilleman et al., 2010).
The results of this study would be overstated if women in the “impossible” and “difficult” categories
dropped out of the study in higher numbers than their better-off peers. It was difficult to ascertain the
level of attrition in this study because many women who skipped one survey would complete the next
one, a pattern that repeated over time. Although midlife women were more likely to complete their
surveys in Wave 8 than other age cohorts, the paucity of “impossible” or “difficult always” ratings at
the end of the study period suggests that attrition could have biased our findings of financial security in
older age.
In terms of heterogeneity, we were unable to provide detailed information on financial coping for
divorced women from diverse communities, including gender non-binary participants. In 1996, “coun-
try of birth” was the sole survey item for race or ethnic identity, which showed 96% of women of
JOURNAL OF WOMEN & AGING
337

European origin at baseline. This share is comparable to data from Australia’s 1996 census, but the lack
of detail ruled out meaningful analysis of the intersections between divorce, race/ethnicity, and financial
coping. We should add that demographic data provided by indigenous people (2.1% of Australians in
1996) is under the sovereign control of Aboriginal and Torres Strait people and not routinely provided
to researchers. Finally, the brevity of many free text responses limited our ability to conduct a more
comprehensive analysis of the narrative results. A fuller accounting of divorced women’s lives would
provide greater meaning and credibility to qualitative perspectives on financial coping after divorce.
Conclusion
This study has charted and contextualized divorced women’s ratings of their financial coping over
20 years. The main findings are that these ratings improved over time and inter-group differences
stratified on a durable basis for this national sample. Such patterning relates to the structure of society
and women’s place within it. Following Pearlin et al. (1981); Pearlin (1989), the results showed that
divorce is the connective tissue for financial and other challenges arising from gendered role expecta-
tions for social support, caregiving, and occupational status. At one end of the income spectrum,
women with higher ratings were constrained by work demands, sole parenting, and the pressures of
coping alone. By contrast, women with lower ratings experienced chronic financial hardship and
related challenges in health and daily living. The income disparity between married and divorced
women also tells a story – divorce is a financial penalty on a durable basis, with a financial coping
gradient from “easy” for women with adequate resources (who nevertheless reported stressful lives) to
“impossible” for poor women with little prospect of improving their health, social, or financial
circumstances in older age.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the Australian Government Department of Health for funding and to the women who provided the
survey data. Thanks also to Reed Farnsworth for his help on the technical aspects of this paper.
Disclosure of potential conicts of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The research on which this paper is based was conducted as part of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s
Health by the University of Queensland and the University of Newcastle.
ORCID
Jayne Lucke http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2885-5292
Deborah Loxton http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4745-8612
References
Aaron, H. J., & Callan, J. M. (2011). Who retires early? Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. https://crr.bc.
edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/wp_2011-10-508.pdf
Arber, S. (2004). Gender, marital status, and ageing: Linking material, health, and social resources. Journal of Aging
Studies, 18(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2003.09.007
Australian Government Department of Social Services. (2020). Age Pension. Department of Social Services. https://www.
dss.gov.au/seniors/benefits-payments/age-pension
Brilleman, S. L., Pachana, N. A., & Dobson, A. J. (2010). The impact of attrition on the representativeness of cohort
studies of older people. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10(71), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-71
338
B. LICHTENSTEIN ET AL.

Brown, S. L., & Lin, I.-F. (2012). The gay divorce revolution: Rising divorce among middle-aged and older adults
1990-2010. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B, 67(6), 721–741. https:doi.org/10.1093I/geronb/gbs089
Brown, W. J., Bryson, L., Byles, J. E., Dobson, A. J., Lee, C., Mishra, G., & Schofield, M. (1998). Women’s Health
Australia: Recruitment for a national longitudinal cohort study. Women & Health, 28(1), 23–40. http://doi.org/10.
1300/j013v28n01_03
Brüggman, D. (2020). Women’s employment, income and divorce in West Germany: A causal approach. Journal for
Labour Market Research, 54(5), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12651-020-00270-0
Canham, L., Mahmood, A., Stott, S., Sixsmith, J., & O’Rourke, N. (2014). ’Til divorce do us part: Marriage dissolution in
later life. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 55(8), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2014.959097
Clarke, L. H. (2005). Remarriage in later life: Older women’s negotiation of power, resources, and domestic labor.
Journal of Women & Aging, 17(4), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1300/J074v17n04_03
De Hoon, S., Keizer, R., & Dykstra, P. (2015). The influence of motherhood on income: Do partner characteristics and
parity matter? Community, Work & Family, 20(2), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2016.1227770
De Vaus, D., Gray, M., Qu, L., & Stanton, D. (2017). The economic consequences of divorce in six OECD countries.
Australian Journal of Social Issues, 52(2), 180–199. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.13
Dobson, A. J., Hockey, R., Brown, W. J., Byles, J. E., Loxton, D. J., McLaughlin, D., Tooth, L. R., & Mishra, G. D. (2015).
Cohort profile update: Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 44
(5), 1547e. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyv110
Dolan, P. (2019). Happy ever after: Escaping the myth of the perfect life. Allen Lane/Penguin.
Fisher, H., & Low, H. (2016). Recovery from divorce: Comparing high- and low-income couples. International Journal of
Law, Policy, and the Family, 30(3), 338–371. http://doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebw011
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.
Hogendoorn, B., Leopold, T., & Bol, T. (2020). Divorce and diverging poverty rates: A risk-and-vulnerability approach.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(3), 1089–1109. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12629
Irving, J. (2017,April 27). Employers don’t like to hire people in their 40s. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.
com.au/australian-employers-dont-like-employing-people-in-their-40s-2017-4
Jenkins, S. P. (2008). Marital splits and income changes over the longer term. Institute for Social and Economic Research,
University of Essex. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.933&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Joham, A. E., Boyle, J. A., Ranasinha, S., Zoungas, S., & Teede, H. J. (2014). Contraception use and pregnancy outcomes
in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: Data from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health.
Human Reproduction, 29(4), 802–808. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu020
Kitto, S. C., Chesters, J., & Grbich, C. (2008). Quality in qualitative research. Medical Journal of Australia, 188(4),
243–246. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01595.x
Konstam, V., Karwin, S., Curran, T., Lyons, M., & Celen-Demirtas, S. (2016). Stigma and divorce: A relevant lens for
emerging and young adult women? Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 57(3), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10502556.2016.1150149
Lain, D., Airey, L., Loretto, W., & Vickerstaff, S. (2020). Older workers and ontological precarity: Between precarious
employment, precarious welfare and precarious households. In A. Grenier, C. Phillipson, & R. A. Settersten Jr. (Eds.),
Precarity and ageing: Understanding insecurity and risk in later life (pp. 91–114). Polity Press.
Lee, C., Dobson, A. J., Brown, W. J., Bryson, L., Byles, J., Warner-Smith, P., & Young, A. F. (2005). Cohort profile: The
Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 34(5), 987–991. https://
doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyi098
Leopold, T. (2018). Gender differences in the consequences of divorce: A study of multiple outcomes. Demography, 55
(3), 769–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0667-6
Minton, J. N., Pickett, K. E., & Dorling, D. (2012). Health, employment, and economic change, 1973-2009: Repeated
cross-sectional study. The British Medical Journal, 344(may09 1), e–2316. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2316
Muir, K., Hamilton, M., Noone, J. H., Marjolin, A., Salignac, F., & Saunders, P. (2017). Exploring financial wellbeing in
the Australian context. Centre for Social Impact & Social Policy Research Centre – University of New South Wales
Sydney, for Financial Literacy Australia.
Pearlin, L. I. (1989). The sociological study of stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30(3), 241–256. https://www.
jstor.org/stable/2136956
Pearlin, L. I., Menaghan, E. G., Lieberman, M. A., & Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress process. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 22(4), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136676
Rice, C., Harrison, E., & Friedman, M. (2019). Doing justice to intersectionality in research. Critical Studies – Critical
Methodologies, 19(6), 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708619829
Services Australia. (2020). Prepare to transfer to age pension. Australian Government. https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.
au/individuals/services/centrelink/disability-support-pension/how-manage-your-payment/prepare-transfer-age-
pension#benefitsofeachpayment
Siegrist, J., Wahrendorf, M., von dem Knesebeck, O., Jürges, H., & Börsch-Supan, A. (2007). Quality of work, well-being,
and intended early retirement of older employees – Baseline results from the SHARE Study. European Journal of
Public Health, 17(1), 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ck1084
JOURNAL OF WOMEN & AGING
339

Tamborini, C. R., Couch, K. A., & Reznik, G. L. (2015). Long-term impact of divorce on women’s earnings across
multiple divorce windows: A life course perspective. Advances in Life Course Research, 26, 44–59. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.alcr.2015.06.001
Tavener, M., Chojenta, C., & Loxton, D. (2016). Generating qualitative data by design: The Australian Longitudinal
Study on Women’s Health qualitative data collection. Public Health Research and Practice, 26(3), e2631631. https://
www.phrp.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/PHRP-26-03-03-Qualitative.pdf
340
B. LICHTENSTEIN ET AL.