Does Re-Partnering Behavior Spread Among Former Spouses?

Abstract

This study focused on individuals’ re-partnering behavior following a divorce and asked whether divorcees influence each other’s new union formation. By exploiting the System of Social statistical Datasets (SSD) of Statistics Netherlands, I identified divorced dyads and examined interdependencies in their re-partnering behavior. Discrete-time event history models accounting for shared characteristics of divorcees that are likely to influence their divorce and re-partnering behavior simultaneously were estimated. Findings showed that the probability of re-partnering increased within the first two years following a former spouse’s new union formation. Further analyses focusing on formerly cohabiting couples rather than divorcees also revealed significant associations in re-partnering behavior. Following a former romantic partner’s new union formation, women were exposed to risk longer than men, due to men’s quicker re-partnering. These results were robust to the falsification tests. Overall, findings indicate that the consequences of a divorce or breakup are not limited to the incidence itself and former romantic partners remain important in each other’s life courses even after a breakup. With the increasing number of divorcees and changing family structures, it is important to consider former spouses as active network partners that may influence individual life courses.

Neighbourhood effects on early adulthood family life courses: A trajectory‐based approach

“…Contrary, poor adults in disadvantaged neighbourhoods do not provide such successful role models increasing the risk of nonconventional family formation patterns such as childbearing outside of marriage (South & Crowder, 2010) and family instability (South, 2001). The relevance of role models in the family life course is also emphasized recurrently in the social interaction effects and family formation behaviour literature: individuals learn from other role models through observation, imitation and modelling, which affects their decision‐making process (Bernardi & Klaerner, 2014; Buyukkececi, 2021; Buyukkececi et al, 2020). The learning process can take different forms, ranging from small observations to intensive discussions with role models about the consequences of certain behaviours.…”

Subjective biology: how perceived fecundity influences relationship satisfaction and stability

“…These shifts have noticeably altered family structures in the West. This transformation has led to the emergence and the increasing prevalence of diverse living arrangements such as nonmarital cohabitation (Heuveline & Timberlake, 2004), out-ofwedlock childbearing (Wu, 2008), divorce (Schoen & Canudas-Romo, 2006), and repartnering after union dissolution (Buyukkececi, 2021). Consequently, complex family structures have emerged that are characterized by partnership dissolution, single parenthood, and stepfamily formation (Thomson, 2014).…”

Like brother, like sister? Disentangling the intertwined associations between siblings’ life course trajectories

“…In order to test whether siblings' transitions to independent living are connected because of age norms within a family or a society, in Chapter 2, a falsification test was employed. This method has been used by previous researchers to differentiate the social network effects from the group-level effects (Asphjell et al, 2013;Buyukkececi, 2021;. To do so, we conducted a matching process, taking into account specific criteria such as the demographic characteristics of individuals and their siblings.…”

“…While both intergenerational (parent-child) and intragenerational (siblings, friends, colleagues, ex-partner) transmission of behaviors have been continuously studied (e.g., Buyukkececi, 2021;Dupéré et al, 2021;Liefbroer & Elzinga, 2012;Pink et al, 2014), most studies focused on one single network, with two exceptions being and McDermott et al (2013). It would thus be fruitful to carry more studies that incorporate and compare the effects from different social network members.…”