The present study investigates the impact of union formation, parenthood and union dissolution on Swedes’ attitudes toward divorce. The results, based on fixed-effects models of longitudinal data from the Young Adult Panel Study (YAPS), suggest a prevalent, albeit small, influence of family life-course events on attitudes toward divorce in Sweden. Attitudes toward divorce are studied using two survey statements: ‘It is too easy to get divorced in today’s Sweden’ (item A) and ‘Parents should stay together for the sake of their children’ (item B). For both items, union dissolution from parental relationships is associated with a decrease in intolerance toward divorce, but only for women. For men, but not for women, parental union formation increases intolerance toward divorce as measured by item B. The results are discussed in relation to the literature on gendered family life-course experiences.
AjzenIFishbeinM (2000) Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. European Review of Social Psychology11(1): 1–33.
2.
AmatoPRBoothA (1991) The consequences of divorce for attitudes toward divorce and gender roles. Journal of Family Issues12(3): 306–322.
3.
AmatoPRHohmann-MarriotB (2007) A comparison of high- and low-distress marriages that end in divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family69(3): 621–638.
4.
AnderssonGPhilipovD (2002) Life-table representations of family dynamics in Sweden, Hungary, and 14 other FFS countries: A project of descriptions of demographic behavior. Demographic Research7(4): 67–144.
5.
BarberJS (2011) The theory of planned behaviour: Considering drives, proximity and dynamics. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research9: 31–35.
6.
BernardJ (1982) The Future of Marriage. New Haven: Yale U.P.
7.
BoothAJohnsonDRWhiteLKEdwardsJN (1985) Predicting divorce and permanent separation. Journal of Family Issues6(3): 331–346.
8.
BoyeKNermoM (2014) Lönsamt arbete – Familjeansvarets fördelning och konsekvenser. SOU Report no. 2014:28.
9.
BreenR (1999) Beliefs, rational choice and Bayesian learning. Rationality and Society11(4): 463–479.
10.
BygrenMGählerM (2012) Family formation and men’s and women’s attainment of workplace authority. Social Forces90(3): 795–816.
11.
CherlinAJ (2004) The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family66(4): 848–861.
12.
CunninghanMThorntonA (2006) The influences of parents’ and offsprings’ experience with cohabitation, marriage, and divorce on attitudes toward divorce in young adulthood. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage44(1-2): 119–144.
13.
DurkheimE (1951) Suicide: A Study in Sociology. New York: The Free Press.
14.
FestingerL (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
15.
GählerM (2006) ‘To divorce is to die a bit…’: A longitudinal study of marital disruption and psychological distress among Swedish women and men. The Family Journal14(4): 372–382.
16.
GoveWR (1972) The relationship between sex roles, marital status, and mental illness. Social Forces51(1): 34–44.
17.
HalabyCN (2004) Panel models in sociological research: Theory into practice. Annual Review of Sociology30(1): 507–544.
18.
HeuvelinePTimberlakeJM (2004) The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family66(5): 1214–1230.
19.
HorwitzAWhiteHRHowell-WhiteS (1996) The use of multiple outcomes in stress research: A case study of gender differences in response to marital dissolution. Journal of Health and Social Behavior37: 278–291.
20.
KalmijnM (2009) Country differences in the effects of divorce on wellbeing: The role of norms, support and selectivity. European Sociological Review26(4): 475–490.
21.
KalmijnMPoortmanAR (2006) His or her divorce? The gendered nature of divorce and its determinants. European Sociological Review22(2): 201–214.
22.
KapinusCA (2003) The effect of relationship experiences and parents’ attitudes on young adults’ views of divorce. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage39(3-4): 143–157.
23.
KnudsenKWærnessK (2001) Context, individual characteristics and attitudes on mothers employment: A comparative analysis of Great Britain, Sweden and Norway. Acta Sociologica44(1): 67–78.
24.
LevingerG (1976) A socio-psychological perspective on marital dissolution. Journal of Social Issues52: 21–47.
25.
LiefbroerACBillariFC (2010) Bringing norms back in: A theoretical and empirical discussion of their importance for understanding demographic behavior. Population, Space and Place16(4): 287–305.
26.
MoorsG (2002) Values and Living arrangements: A recursive relationship. In: WaiteLJ (ed.) The Ties that Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and the Family. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
27.
PagininiDLRindfuss (1993) The divorce of marriage and childbearing: Changing attitudes and behavior in the United States. Population and Development Review19(2): 331–347.
28.
RijkenAJLiefbroerAC (2012) European views of divorce among parents of young children: Understanding cross-national variation. Demographic Research27(2): 25–52.
29.
SiebenIVerbakelE (2013) Permissiveness toward divorce: The influence of divorce experiences in three social contexts. European Sociological Review29(6): 1175–1188.
30.
SingerA (2008) Active parenting or Solomons Juctice? Alternating residence in Sweden for children with separated parents. Ultrech Law Review4: 35.
31.
Statistics Sweden (2014) Statistical Yearbook of Sweden. Örebro: Statistics Sweden.
32.
StutzerFreyBS (2006) Does marriage make people happy, or do happy people get married?Journal of Socio-economics35(2): 326–347.
33.
SurkynJLesthaegheR (2004) Value orientations and the second demographic transition (SDT) in Northern, Western and Southern Europe: An update. Demographic Research Special Collection3(3): 45–86.
34.
ThomsonE (2000) Motherhood, Fatherhood, And Family Values. NSFH Working Paper, 88. Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
35.
ThorntonA (1985) Changing attitudes toward separation and divorce: Causes and consequences. American Journal of Sociology90(4): 856–872.
36.
ThorntonAAxxinWGHillDH (1992) Reciprocal effects of religiosity, cohabitation, and marriage. American Journal of Sociology98(3): 628–651.
37.
UunkW (2004) The economic consequences of divorce for women in the European Union: The impact of welfare state arrangements. European Journal of Population20: 251–285.
38.
WadsbyMSvedinCG (1992) Divorce: Different experiences for men and women. Family Practice9: 451–460.
39.
WaiteLJGoldscheiderFKWitsbergerC (1986). Nonfamily living and the erosion of traditional family orientations among young adults. American Sociological Review51(4): 541–554.
40.
WhiteLGallagherM (2002) The Case for Marriage: Why Married couples are Happier, Healthier and Better off Financially. New York: Broadway Books.
41.
WiikKABernhandENoackT (2009) A study of commitment and relationship quality in Sweden and Norway. Journal of Marriage and Family71(3): 465–447.
