The Gray Divorce Revolution: Rising Divorce Among Middle-Aged

Received August 18, 2011; Accepted August 30, 2012

Decision Editor: Merril Silverstein, PhD

Brown, S.L., & Lin, I.-F., (2012). The gray divorce revolution: rising divorce among middle-aged and older adults, 1990–2010. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social

Sciences, 67(6), 731–741, doi:10.1093/geronb/gbs089. Advance Access publication October 9, 2012

The Gray Divorce Revolution: Rising Divorce Among

Middle-Aged and Older Adults, 1990–2010

Susan L.Brown and I-FenLin

Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio.

Purpose. Our study documents how the divorce rate among persons aged 50 and older has changed between 1990 and

2010 and identies the sociodemographic correlates of divorce among today’s middle-aged and older adults.

Design and Method. We used data from the 1990 U.S. Vital Statistics Report and the 2010 American Community

Survey (ACS) to examine the change in the divorce rate over time. ACS data were analyzed to determine the sociodemo-

graphic correlates of divorce.

Results. The divorce rate among adults aged 50 and older doubled between 1990 and 2010. Roughly 1 in 4 divorces in

2010 occurred to persons aged 50 and older. Demographic characteristics, economic resources, and the marital biography

were associated with the risk of divorce in 2010. The rate of divorce was 2.5 times higher for those in remarriages versus

rst marriages, whereas the divorce rate declined as marital duration rose.

Implications. The traditional focus of gerontological research on widowhood must be expanded to include divorce as

another form of marital dissolution. Over 600,000 people aged 50 and older got divorced in 2010 but little is known about

the predictors and consequences of divorces that occur during middle and later life.

Key Words: Cohort—Demographic characteristics—Divorce rate—Economic resources—Marital duration—Marriage

order.

HE United States has the highest divorce rate in the

world, with roughly 45% of marriages expected to end

through divorce (Amato, 2010; Cherlin, 2010). Although

divorce has been studied extensively among younger adults,

the research to date has essentially ignored divorce that

occurs to adults aged 50 and older (Amato, 2010; Cooney &

Dunne, 2001; Sweeney, 2010).

This omission is notable considering that the United

States is an aging society. Baby boomers were the rst

cohort to divorce and remarry in large numbers during

young adulthood. Now, they are aging into their fties and

sixties, and this portends that a growing number of older

adults will experience divorce because remarriages are more

likely than rst marriages to end through divorce (Sweeney,

2010). Indeed, the proportions ever divorced, currently

divorced, and married at least twice are highest among indi-

viduals aged 50 and older (Kreider & Ellis, 2011).

Social gerontologists have called attention to the grow-

ing diversity of older adult family living arrangements—

including the rise in the proportion currently divorced—and

the poorer economic, social, and health outcomes of older

unmarrieds (Allen, Blieszner, & Roberto, 2000; Cooney &

Dunne, 2001; Lin & Brown, 2012). Yet, it is unclear whether

older adults are at a higher risk of divorce today than in the

past, a trend forecasted by scholars decades ago and more

recently by computer microsimulation models of older adult

kinship ties (Berardo, 1982; Hammond & Muller, 1992;

Uhlenberg & Myers, 1981; Wachter, 1997). Although there

has been considerable speculation about rising divorce in

later life, there is essentially no empirical evidence.

In this article, we establish how the divorce rate among

middle-aged and older (i.e., aged 50 and older) adults has

changed between 1990 and 2010 by comparing the 1990

age-specic divorce rate data from the U.S. Vital Statistics

with our own estimate of today’s divorce rate using the 2010

American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS offers a unique

opportunity to measure the incidence of divorce because all

sample members are asked whether they divorced in the past

12months, which can be used to calculate an annual divorce

rate. Additionally, we are able to establish key correlates

of divorce among today’s middle-aged and older adults,

including demographic characteristics, economic resources,

and the marital biography (i.e., marriage order and marital

duration). Another advantage of our approach is attention to

cohort differences through comparisons of middle-aged baby

boomers versus older adults from the World War II generation.

The Prevalence Versus the Incidence of

Divorce

The marital status composition of older adults has shifted

in recent decades such that a larger proportion is divorced

and a smaller share is widowed. Comparing adults aged 65

and older in 1980 and 2008, the share reporting their marital

status as divorced doubled among men, rising from 5% to

10%. Among women, the percentage currently divorced tri-

pled during this time period, climbing from 4% to 12%. In

731

contrast, levels of widowhood among older men remained

unchanged and actually fell among women between 1980

and 2008 (Manning & Brown, 2011). Thus, the prevalence

of divorce has increased (and the prevalence of widowhood

has declined) among older adults.

The growing prevalence of divorce suggests that the

divorce rate, or the incidence of divorce, may be rising

among older adults. But prevalence and incidence are not

synonymous. Prevalence measures describe the propor-

tion of the population occupying a particular status at a

given point in time. In contrast, incidence measures tell

us about the risk of experiencing a new condition or event

(i.e., divorce) during a specied period of time. Although

a prevalence measure illustrates how widespread divorce is

among older adults, it obscures when the divorce occurred.

Many older adults who are currently divorced actually

experienced divorce much earlier in the life course. For this

reason, it is not clear why the prevalence of divorce has

increased. It is possible that today’s older adults are sim-

ply less likely to remarry following divorce and thus their

prevalence in the population is greater now. In this sce-

nario, the incidence or rate of divorce remains unchanged.

Alternatively, the growing prevalence of divorce may

reect an increase in the actual risk of divorce. That is,

the incidence of divorce (i.e., the divorce rate) may have

climbed in recent years. In this study, we shed light on why

the prevalence of divorce among older adults has increased

by documenting how the incidence of divorce has changed

over the past two decades.

Significance of Later Life Divorce

As early as 30years ago, researchers argued that divorce

among older adults would be a growing trend (Berardo,

1982; Hammond & Muller, 1992). Uhlenberg and Myers

(1981) posited several reasons why the divorce rate for older

adults would be likely to climb. First, a growing share of

older adults is in a higher order marriage, reecting divorce

experienced at earlier stages of the life course. Remarriages

are more likely to end in divorce than are rst marriages.

Second, divorce in the United States is a common occur-

rence, which means older adults will continue to be more

accepting of divorce in the future as either they or people

around them experience divorce (cf. McDermott, Fowler,

& Christakis, 2009). Third, rising female labor force par-

ticipation is also conducive to divorce in that women have

the economic autonomy (e.g., employment, retirement ben-

ets) to support themselves outside of marriage. Finally,

lengthening life expectancies decrease the likelihood that

marriages will end through death and increase the length of

exposure to the risk of divorce (Uhlenberg & Myers, 1981).

More recently, Wu and Schimmele (2007) suggested

that broad cultural shifts in the meanings of marriage and

divorce inuence all generations, including older adults.

Specically, the weakening norm of marriage as a lifelong

institution coupled with a heightened emphasis on individual

fulllment and satisfaction through marriage may contribute

to an increase in divorce among older adults, including those

in long-term rst marriages. Marriages change and evolve

over the life course and thus may no longer meet one’s needs

at later life stages. Qualitative research indicates that many

older couples that divorce simply have grown apart (Bair,

2007). Lifelong marriages are increasingly difcult to sus-

tain in an era of individualism and lengthening life expec-

tancies; older adults are more reluctant now to remain in

empty shell marriages (Wu & Schimmele, 2007).

Despite these theoretical suppositions for a sustained rise

in divorce among older adults, the empirical research on this

topic is limited, and most studies are quite dated (Berardo,

1982; Hammond & Muller, 1992; Uhlenberg, Cooney, &

Boyd, 1990; Uhlenberg & Myers, 1981; although see Wu

& Penning, 1997). Early research documented empirically

that divorce was on the rise for older adults during the

1980s but did not establish the predictors of divorce in later

life (Hammond & Muller, 1992; Uhlenberg et al., 1990).

Recently, the Association of American Retired Persons

(AARP) conducted an internet survey of people aged 40–79

who divorced between the ages of 40 and 69, although their

study did not include a comparison sample of continuously

marrieds, so it was not possible to identify correlates of

older adult divorce (Montenegro, 2004).

One study using Canadian data from 1990 suggests

a modest increase in the divorce rate for women in their

forties and fties during the 1980s, with factors such as

marital duration negatively associated with the odds of

divorce (Wu & Penning, 1997). However, women in a

remarriage were less likely to divorce than those in a rst

marriage, and education was positively associated with

divorce, results that are not consistent with U.S. patterns

(cf. Amato, 2010). Either these ndings from the Canadian

context have limited applicability in the United States or

they suggest that correlates of divorce operate differently

for older versus younger adults. There is mixed evidence

in the U.S.context about whether and how the predictors

of divorce vary by age at divorce, and this literature is

rather dated and also restricted to a younger age range than

considered here (Booth, Johnson, White, & Edwards, 1986;

South & Spitze, 1986; Wang & Amato, 2000; White, 1990).

It is likely that the precursors to divorce during middle

and later life are distinctive given the unique events and

experiences characterizing these life course stages. During

middle and older adulthood, many couples confront empty

nests, retirement, or declining health, which can pose

considerable challenges for marital adjustment (Booth &

Johnson, 1994; Davey & Szinovacz, 2004; Hiedemann,

Suhomlinova, & O’Rand, 1998). These turning points can

prompt spouses to reassess their marriages, ultimately lead-

ing them to divorce (Bair, 2007). For example, a marriage

that was satisfactory when both spouses worked and shared

activities such as child rearing may ounder once the couple

retires and the nest is empty. Growing apart over the marital

732 BROWN AND LIN

life course assumes greater signicance with lengthening

life expectancies (Bair, 2007).

Apart from these turning points, there are several key

sets of factors related to divorce, including demographic

characteristics, economic resources, and the marital biogra-

phy (Amato, 2010). Some of these indicators are expected

to operate uniquely for older adults. Demographic char-

acteristics include cohort, gender, and race. Middle-aged

adults face a higher risk of divorce than older adults

because divorce declines with age (Amato, 2010). Blacks and

Hispanics are more likely to divorce than Whites (Sweeney &

Phillips, 2004).

Economic resources tend to reduce the risk of divorce. The

college educated are much less likely to divorce than those

with lower levels of education (Martin, 2006). Employment

and earnings are also protective against divorce (Amato,

2010), but how these operate for older adults who are typi-

cally retired and are relying on xed incomes is unclear.

The availability of economic resources could actually facil-

itate divorce during later life, especially for women (Bair,

2007). Financial autonomy allows older women to consider

divorce as a viable alternative to remaining married. Thus,

we examine whether gender and economic resources have

interactive effects on the risk of divorce.

Finally, the marital biography, or marriage order and mar-

ital duration, shape the likelihood of divorce. Higher order

marriages are more likely to end through divorce than rst

marriages as those who divorced in the past presumably are

willing to divorce again, whereas some fraction of those in

rst marriages is unwilling to ever divorce (Sweeney, 2010).

The risk of divorce declines as marital duration increases.

Dissatised couples are weeded out over time, leaving a dis-

proportionate share of the most stable, well-adjusted couples

(Amato, 2010). During later life, remarriages can be plagued

by strained adult stepchildren relationships and conict over

wills, assets, and health care decisions that undermine mari-

tal stability. Marital biographies may have differential asso-

ciations with women’s and men’s risks of divorce as women

are less likely than men to remarry after divorce and women

are more likely to marry oldermen.

The current investigation is designed to examine whether

the risk of divorce is higher now than it was in the past for

middle-aged and older adults. We anticipate that the rate

of divorce among middle-aged and older adults may have

increased since 1990, particularly for those in midlife as it

was the baby boomers (b. 1946–1964) that came of age dur-

ing the rapid acceleration of divorce and remarriage during

the 1970s and early 1980s who are now middle aged. This

study also attends to heterogeneity in the divorce experi-

ence of today’s middle-aged and older adults by estimat-

ing divorce rates across sociodemographic subgroups and

examining key correlates of divorce. Thus, we provide new

empirical evidence on the changing incidence or rate of

divorce as well as the risk factors associated with divorce

for both middle-aged and older adult cohorts.

Methods

We conduct original analyses of the 2010 ACS data to

estimate the current divorce rate for middle-aged and older

adults, which we compare with existing data from the U.S.

Vital Statistics on the divorce rate in 1990 to illustrate how

the risk of divorce has changed over the past two decades.

We also use the 2010 ACS to examine sociodemographic

subgroup variation in divorce rates and the correlates of

divorce, including the roles of demographic characteristics,

economic resources, and the marital biography in the risk of

divorce among middle-aged and older adults.

2010ACS

The ACS is a nationwide annual survey that began with

a demonstration phase during 2000–2004 and was fully

implemented in 2005. It was designed to obtain informa-

tion formerly gathered through the census long-form sam-

ple, including demographic, economic, housing, and social

characteristics of the U.S.population (U.S. Census Bureau,

2009). Marital history questions have been added to the sur-

vey since 2008 in response to the lack of national data on

the incidence of marriage and divorce (Elliott, Simmons,

& Lewis, 2010). We considered middle-aged and older

adults both together and separately. The 2010 ACS sample

of 3,061,692 persons included 1,138,468 people aged 50

and older, 647,657 people aged 50–64, and 490,811 people

aged 65 andolder.

Divorce Rate.—ACS respondents are asked whether

they experienced a divorce in the past 12months. To calcu-

late the divorce rate, we divide the number of people who

reported a divorce in the past 12months by the number at

risk of divorce during the past 12 months. Those at risk

of divorce include those who divorced or were widowed

in the past 12months and those who remained married or

separated at the time of the interview. Arecent report docu-

ments the superiority of the ACS over other data sources

(e.g., the National Survey of Family Growth and the Survey

of Income and Program Participation) for estimating the

divorce rate (Ratcliffe, Acs, Dore, & Moskowitz, 2008).

Correlates of Divorce.—Demographic characteris-

tics, economic resources, and the marital biography are

related to divorce and measured in the ACS. Demographic

characteristics include cohort, gender, and race/ethnicity.

Cohort is coded dichotomously to compare middle-aged

(i.e., aged 50–64) and older adults (i.e., aged 65 and older,

reference category). Gender is coded 1 for women and 0

for men (reference category). Race/ethnicity is a series of

dummy variables: Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, non-

Hispanic other (includes multiracial individuals as well

as people who identify as single race—Asian, American

Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Pacic

Islanders, or some other race), and non-Hispanic White

THE GRAY DIVORCE REVOLUTION 733

(reference category). Economic resources encompass edu-

cation, employment, and income. Education distinguishes

among those with less than a high school degree, a high

school degree (reference category), some college, and a

college degree or more. Employment is a series of dummy

variables, including employed full time (at least 35 hr/

week), employed part time (1–34 hr/week), unemployed,

and not in the labor force (reference category) in the past

12months. Personal income is a measure of the individ-

ual’s income over the past year from all sources and is

classied as follows: less than $10,000, $10,000–$24,999,

$25,000–$39,999, $40,000–$55,000, $55,000–$69,999,

and $70,000 or more (reference category). These catego-

ries reect the overall distribution of personal income for

persons aged 50 and older. There are two variables that

capture the marital biography (prior to any divorce). First,

a marriage order dummy variable differentiates between

those in a rst (reference category) versus higher order

(i.e., remarriage) marriage. Second, marital duration of

the current (or dissolved in the past 12months) marriage is

coded categorically as follows: 0–9, 10–19, 20–29, 30–39,

and 40 or more years (reference category).

1990 U.S. Vital StatisticsReport

The U.S. Vital Statistics Report includes both the divorce

rate and the number of persons who divorced during 1990

by 5-year age intervals separately for men and women

(Clarke, 1995). The characteristics (including age) of

divorcing couples come from the divorce-registration area

(DRA) sample of 31 states and District of Columbia. Two

states (Ohio and South Dakota) in the DRA sample did not

report the ages of divorcing persons in 1990. Nonetheless,

the age-specic divorce rates for men and women reported

in the U.S. Vital Statistics Report are representative of the

1990 population (Clarke, 1995). To calculate the divorce

rate, we begin by dividing the number of divorced persons

by the divorce rate to obtain the number of persons at risk

of divorce. Summing the numbers divorced and numbers

at risk across age intervals (and gender) as appropriate and

then dividing the numbers divorced by the numbers at risk

yields the 1990 divorce rates for persons aged 50 and older,

50–64, and 65 andolder.

Estimating the numbers of persons aged 50 and older,

50–64, and 65 and older who divorced at the national level

requires adjusting the data to reect the fact that the DRA

sample represents 49% of all divorces that occurred in the

United States in 1990 (Clarke, 1995). We explored two

approaches. First, we divided the age-specic numbers of

persons in the DRA sample by 0.49. Second, we multiplied

the 1990 divorce rate by the number of married persons in

the 1990 census to estimate the national number of divorces

for each of the three age groups (Ruggles etal., 2010). The

second approach generated a larger increase in the number

of divorces over time (i.e., between 1990 and 2010)than the

rst method, and thus we report the numbers from the rst

method for a more conservative estimate.

Despite its limitations, the Vital Statistics offers the best

available data with which to estimate the national divorce

rate in 1990. Astate-by-state validation study conducted by

the U.S. Census Bureau staff indicates that marital events

data in the ACS and U.S. Vital Statistics (including the DRA

sample) are comparable (Elliott etal., 2010). Estimates for

more recent years are not possible because the federal gov-

ernment discontinued the collection of vital statistics on

marriages and divorces at the state level in1996.

To ensure that our results are robust, we performed a sup-

plemental analysis by restricting the 2010 ACS data to only

the DRA sample states for which age at the time of divorce

was reported in 1990. The results from this supplemental

analysis are nearly identical to those based on the entire

nation, suggesting that the rise in the divorce rate is not an

artifact of including ACS data from all states.

Analytic Strategy

Our approach is primarily descriptive as we aim to pro-

vide trend data on divorce and to identify the factors asso-

ciated with divorce among today’s middle-aged and older

adults. All results are presented for the total sample and

separately for middle-aged (aged 50–64) and older (aged

65 and older) adults to assess whether there is cohort vari-

ation. To begin, we calculate the 1990 and 2010 divorce

rates (and numbers of divorces) to determine whether the

risk of divorce has increased over the past two decades.

Additionally, we estimate 2010 divorce rates for various

subgroups to show how the likelihood of divorce varies by

sociodemographic factors (demographic characteristics,

economic resources, and the marital biography). Next, we

present bivariate comparisons of those who divorced ver-

sus remained married across these same sets of factors.

Finally, we estimate logistic regression models to examine

how demographic characteristics, economic resources, and

the marital biography are related to divorcing in the past

12 months (coded 1) versus remaining married (coded

0). Individuals who experienced widowhood in the past

12months are included in the remained married category

because they were at risk of divorce in the past 12months.

Excluding them from the analysis produced substantively

similar ndings (results not shown). These models provide

correlational evidence only; divorces took place during the

past 12months, whereas the sociodemographic characteris-

tics are measured at interview. Factors associated with the

likelihood of divorce, such as employment or income, may

have changed in response to divorce. Thus, interpretation of

the ndings requires caution. All analyses were conducted

using replicate weighting techniques as recommended by

the U.S. Census Bureau to generate robust standard errors

because the ACS involves a complex sampling design (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2009). Given the large sample size of the

734 BROWN AND LIN

ACS, we imposed a stringent threshold for statistical sig-

nicance: a two-tailed p < .01 level.

Results

As shown in Figure1, the divorce rate has doubled since

1990, rising from 4.9 to 10.1 divorced persons per 1,000

married persons. This pattern belies the overall trend in

the U.S. divorce rate during this time period, which was

essentially at at 19.0 in 1990 and 17.9 in 2010 (result

not shown). The doubling of the rate of divorce among

middle-aged and older adults translates into a substantial

increase in the number of people aged 50 and older who

experience divorce. In 1990, approximately 206,007 peo-

ple aged 50 and older got divorced, whereas in 2010 about

643,152 got divorced. To contextualize this trend, consider

that fewer than 1 in 10 persons who divorced in 1990 was

aged 50 and older compared with more than 1 in 4 today

(result not shown). Furthermore, assuming the divorce rate

remains constant over the next two decades—a conserva-

tive assumption based on the recent trend—the number of

persons aged 50 and older who would experience divorce in

2030 would rise by one third to more than 828,380 (authors’

calculation based on age-specic projected population sizes

in 2030 [U.S. Census Bureau, 2004]), reecting the accel-

erating growth in the older adult population that will occur

over the next 20years.

This pattern holds for middle-aged (50–64) and older (65

and older) adults as shown in Figure2. Both groups exhibit

approximately a doubling in the divorce rate since 1990.

Among the middle aged, the divorce rate rose from 6.9 to

13.1 divorced persons per 1,000 married persons between

1990 and 2010. Similarly, the divorce rate climbed from

1.8 to 4.8 among older adults. The difference in magnitude

of the divorce rates for the two age groups means that the

number of persons divorcing is much higher among middle-

aged than older adults. In 2010, about 529,842 persons aged

50–64 got divorced versus roughly 113,310 persons aged

65 and older. Assuming that the respective divorce rates for

middle-aged and older adults remain constant over the next

two decades, the numbers of persons whom we estimate

would experience divorce in 2030 would climb by roughly

10,000 among the middle-aged and more than 80,000

among older adults.

Table 1 shows the divorce rates for various subgroups

both for adults aged 50 and older as well as separately for

middle-aged and older adults. There are signicant cohort

differences in the divorce rates for all of the subgroups

examined, with middle-aged adults experiencing higher

divorce rates, on average, than their older counterparts. The

divorce rates are quite similar for women (10.3 divorced

persons per 1,000 married persons) and men (9.8 divorced

persons per 1,000 married persons) aged 50 and older. There

is some racial and ethnic variation in the risk of divorce

among those aged 50 and older, with Whites experiencing

the lowest rate of divorce (9.0 divorced persons per 1,000

married persons) and Blacks, the highest (20.5 divorced

persons per 1,000 married persons). Hispanics are in the

middle (11.3 divorced persons per 1,000 married persons).

The divorce rate also differs by economic resources.

Those with a college degree experience a considerably

smaller risk of divorce (8.5 divorced persons per 1,000

married persons aged 50 and older) compared with those

with lower levels of education (the divorce rate ranges from

9.6–11.5 divorced persons per 1,000 married persons aged

50 and older among those with less than a college degree).

The rate of divorce is highest among the unemployed (21.2

divorced persons per 1,000 married persons), followed by

those who are employed full time (12.4 divorced persons

per 1,000 married persons) or part time (10.0 divorced per-

sons per 1,000 married persons). Older adults who are not

in the labor force (presumably because they are retired)

have the lowest divorce rate (6.9 per 1,000 married per-

sons). The variation in the divorce rate by personal income

Figure1. Divorce rate and number of persons that experience divorce, for adults aged 50years and older.

THE GRAY DIVORCE REVOLUTION 735

is small, ranging from a low of 9.1 divorces per 1,000 mar-

ried persons among those with incomes less than $10,000

to a high of 10.7 divorces per 1,000 married persons among

those whose personal income is $25,000–$39,999.

The risk of divorce varies dramatically by both marriage

order and marital duration. The rate of divorce among those

aged 50 and older is 2.5 times higher for individuals in

remarriages (17.2 divorced persons per 1,000 married per-

sons) than rst marriages (6.9 per 1,000 married persons).

During middle age, the divorce rate is about 2 times greater

for remarrieds than rst marrieds. During older adulthood,

the differential approaches a factor of 4.In terms of marital

duration, the divorce rate among individuals aged 50 and

older is nearly 10 times greater for those married 0–9years

(28.6 divorced persons per 1,000 married persons) versus

those married 40 or more years (3.2 per 1,000 married per-

sons). The rate of divorce declines roughly linearly with ris-

ing marital duration.

The characteristics of adults who divorce versus remained

married are shown in Table 2. Among those aged 50 and

older, the two groups signicantly differ across all dimensions

except gender. Relative to individuals who remain married,

those who divorce are disproportionately non-White (22%

and 30%, respectively). They are also less likely to have a col-

lege degree—24% of those who divorce have at least a college

degree versus 29% among those who remain married. Nearly

one third (30%) of those who divorce are not working versus

roughly half (44%) among those who remain married. Those

who divorce are twice as likely to be unemployed as those who

remain married (9% and 4%, respectively). Greater shares of

adults remaining married are in either the lower (<$10,000) or

higher ($70,000 or more) end of the income distribution com-

pared with those who divorce. The most striking differences

between the two groups emerge in their marital biographies.

Less than one-half (48%) of those who divorce are in rst

marriages compared with 70% of those who remain married.

That is, a majority of those who divorce are in remarriages,

whereas most of those who remain married are in rst mar-

riages. Not surprisingly then, marital duration is much lower,

on average, among those who divorce (44% have been mar-

ried fewer than 20 years) than those who remain married

(59% have been married at least 30years).

Compositional differences are similar for both cohorts

with one exception. The sole distinctive pattern emerges for

gender among the older cohort with those remaining mar-

ried disproportionately men (55% vs.50%).

Table3 shows the odds ratios from the logistic regression

models estimating the probability of divorce during the last

12 months for all marrieds aged 50 and older as well as

separately for the middle-aged and older cohorts. Among

those aged 50 and older, the odds that middle-aged adults

divorce are 1.6 times greater than those of older adults. The

odds of divorce are 12% higher for women than men. Blacks

are more likely than Whites to divorce, and Hispanics and

Whites share similar odds of divorce. Those with a college

degree are just 0.88 times as likely to divorce as those with

a high school degree. Unemployment is associated with

roughly 80% greater odds of divorce than is not being in

the labor force. Full-time employment is also positively

associated with divorce compared with being out of the

labor force. Personal income is essentially unrelated to

the likelihood of divorce, although those earning $10,000–

$24,999 are more likely to divorce than those earning over

$70,000. The odds of divorce are 43% higher in remarriages

than rst marriages. The association between marital

duration and divorce is negative. For example, the odds

Figure2. Divorce rate and number of persons that experience divorce, for adults aged 50 through 64years and 65years and older.

736 BROWN AND LIN

of divorce are nearly 5 times larger among those married

less than 10years versus those married at least 40years.

Relative to those married 40 or more years, the odds of

divorce are 3.1, 2.4, and 1.7 times greater for those married

10–19, 20–29, and 30–39years, respectively. Thus, the risk

of divorce is lowest for long-term rst marrieds.

The results from models estimated separately by cohort

are largely similar to those of the full sample. Among

middle-aged adults, the same pattern of ndings emerge,

except the likelihood of divorce does not vary by gender

and neither full-time employment nor income is related to

the likelihood of divorce. Among older adults, the results

do not differ from the full sample, except neither education

nor personal income is related to divorce and Hispanics and

others are more likely than Whites to divorce.

In supplemental analyses, we investigated gender interac-

tions but found only four (results are not shown but available

upon request). First, employment status interacts with gender

such that the positive association between full-time employ-

ment and divorce is more pronounced among women, which

is in line with our assertion that economic factors gure more

prominently in women’s divorce experience (also, the posi-

tive effect of unemployment is larger for women among the

middle-aged cohort only). Second, gender interacts with

income such that income is positively related to women’s

odds of divorce but negatively related to men’s. This is con-

sistent with our expectation that nancial autonomy might

encourage divorce among women. Third, women in a higher

order marriage are less likely to divorce than men (this is

observed among the older adult cohort only). Last, the gap

between the risks of divorce for women and men increases as

marital duration increases, meaning women are more likely

than men to divorce from a longer marriage.

Discussion

The divorce rate among middle-aged and older adults has

doubled over the past two decades. This trend is at odds

with the overall pattern of divorce for the U.S.population

as a whole, which is characterized by stability and perhaps

even a slight decline in the rate of divorce (Amato, 2010;

Cherlin, 2010). The rise in the rate of divorce among adults

aged 50 and over is substantively signicant given that half

of the married population is aged 50 and older; it should

not be dismissed as a mere artifact of a small base rate. The

doubling of the divorce rate coupled with the aging of the

population translates into a considerable share of today’s

divorces occurring to middle-aged and older adults. In fact,

one in four persons who divorced in 2010 was aged 50

or older. More than 600,000 adults aged 50 and older got

divorced in 2010. This is a signicant share of the divorc-

ing population, especially compared with 1990, when fewer

than 1 in 10 persons who divorced was aged 50 orolder.

The divorce rate is much higher among middle-aged ver-

sus older adults, which could reect either cohort or age

effects. Importantly though, the divorce rate has increased

for both groups, and in fact, the rise has been more pro-

nounced among older adults. Because we only examine

two cohorts, we cannot isolate whether the effect is due to

cohort membership or aging. Regardless, our projections

through 2030 show that even if the divorce rate were to

remain constant, there would be growth in the numbers of

both middle-aged and older adults who experience divorce.

Our national portrait illustrates how demographic

characteristics, economic resources, and the marital

biography are related to the risk of divorce among today’s

middle-aged and older adults. For the most part, these

factors operate similarly for both cohorts. The divorce rate

is higher among women than men, non-Whites than Whites,

and those with a high school compared with a college

Table1. Divorce Rates for Demographic Characteristics, Economic

Resources, and Marital Biographies by Age Groups

Age 50+ (1) 50–64 (2) 65+ (3) (2) vs. (3)

Total 10.05 13.05 4.84 ***

Demographic characteristics

Gender

Women 10.32 12.90 5.37 ***

Men 9.81 13.21 4.42 ***

Race and ethnicity

White 8.96 12.03 4.06 ***

Black 20.46 24.87 10.24 ***

Hispanic 11.34 12.41 8.67 **

Others 9.47 11.06 5.87 ***

Economic resources

Education

Less than high school 11.52 16.40 6.50 ***

High school graduate 9.64 13.02 4.67 ***

Some college 11.38 14.36 4.76 ***

Bachelor’s degree or more 8.52 10.65 3.91 ***

Employment

Not in labor force 6.93 11.62 4.36 ***

Unemployed 21.18 22.36 13.09 ***

Worked part time 10.00 12.19 5.36 ***

Worked full time 12.36 12.96 6.80 ***

Personal income

<10K 9.09 12.44 4.36 ***

10–25K 10.56 15.10 5.73 ***

25–40K 10.65 14.09 4.76 ***

40–55K 10.38 12.76 4.28 ***

55–70K 10.47 12.54 4.28 ***

>70K 9.59 11.17 4.08 ***

Marital biographies

Marriage order

First marriage 6.93 9.45 2.85 ***

Higher order marriage 17.17 20.63 10.13 ***

Marital duration (years)

0–9 28.60 30.27 21.53 ***

10–19 17.46 18.89 11.21 ***

20–29 12.10 12.95 7.72 ***

30–39 7.76 8.06 6.09 **

40+ 3.19 4.96 2.68 ***

Unweighted N 757,835 462,812 295,023

Notes: The divorce rate is the number of divorced persons per 1,000

married persons.

**p < .01. ***p < .001, Pearson’s chi-square test.

THE GRAY DIVORCE REVOLUTION 737

degree. The divorce rate is highest among the unemployed.

Additionally, the divorce rate is 2.5 times higher for those in

remarriages versus rst marriages, and it is highest among

those with the shortest marriages. These patterns persist in

a multivariate analysis predicting the likelihood of divorce

among married people aged 50 and older. Older adults are

less likely to divorce than middle-aged adults. Blacks are

more likely to divorce than either Whites or Hispanics.

Education is negatively associated with divorce. Both, the

unemployed and full-time employed persons, are more

likely to divorce than those who are not in the labor force.

The two components of the marital biography—marriage

order and marital duration—are both related to the odds of

divorce. Higher order marriages and marriages of shorter

duration are more likely to end through divorce.

There are some limitations of the study. The design of the

ACS does not allow us to establish the temporal order of

divorce and its correlates. Particularly for the indicators of

economic resources, including employment and income, it is

possible that the values on these factors may have changed in

response to divorce. For example, a woman may begin work-

ing following divorce, altering both her employment status

and her personal income level. Thus, the results presented

here should be interpreted with caution and not construed as

causal. Also, other unmeasured factors, such as marital qual-

ity, likely are related to divorce among older adults but are not

measured in the ACS. Finally, our focus on the time period of

1990–2010 reects data constraints; age-specic divorce rate

data are not available for prior decades (e.g.,1980).

Although this prole uncovers the rise in divorce among

middle-aged and older adults as well as its correlates, it does

not explicitly address the important question of why divorce

has doubled among adults aged 50 and older. Indeed,

the causes underlying the rapid rise in divorce among

Table2. Percentage Distributions of Characteristics for Persons Who Divorced and Persons Who Remained

Married in the Last 12 Months by Age Groups

50+ 50–64 65+

Divorced Married Divorced Married Divorced Married

Demographic characteristics

Gender **

Women 48.99 47.71 48.86 49.45 49.63 44.72

Men 51.01 52.29 51.14 50.55 50.37 55.28

Race and ethnicity *** *** ***

White 69.36 77.90 69.49 75.49 68.77 82.06

Black 15.16 7.37 15.63 8.11 12.96 6.10

Hispanic 9.69 8.58 9.19 9.67 12.04 6.70

Others 5.78 6.15 5.69 6.73 6.24 5.14

Economic resources

Education *** *** ***

Less than high school 15.80 13.77 13.85 10.98 24.95 18.56

High school graduate 28.87 30.13 28.16 28.24 32.20 33.37

Some college 30.93 27.28 32.66 29.65 22.80 23.20

Bachelor's degree or more 24.40 28.82 25.33 31.12 20.05 24.87

Employment *** *** ***

Not in labor force 30.33 44.12 21.89 24.63 69.81 77.64

Unemployed 8.54 4.01 9.54 5.52 3.83 1.40

Worked part-time 11.77 11.83 11.84 12.69 11.47 10.36

Worked full-time 49.36 40.04 56.73 57.16 14.90 10.59

Personal income ** *** **

<10K 20.73 22.94 20.17 21.17 23.35 25.98

10–25K 26.40 25.12 23.60 20.36 39.45 33.31

25–40K 17.54 16.55 17.78 16.45 16.40 16.71

40–55K 12.28 11.89 13.18 13.49 8.08 9.14

55–70K 7.49 7.19 8.17 8.51 4.35 4.93

>70K 15.56 16.31 17.10 20.02 8.37 9.94

Marital biographies

Marriage order *** *** ***

First marriage 47.93 69.74 49.06 68.01 42.65 72.72

Higher order marriage 52.07 30.26 50.94 31.99 57.35 27.28

Marital duration (years) *** *** ***

0–9 23.44 8.08 24.36 10.32 19.11 4.23

10–19 21.02 12.01 22.47 15.44 14.24 6.11

20–29 24.96 20.69 27.17 27.40 14.60 9.14

30-39 20.16 26.16 21.56 35.08 13.61 10.81

40+ 10.42 33.06 4.43 11.76 38.44 69.71

Unweighted N 6,772 751,063 5,466 457,346 1,306 293,717

Note: ** p < .01. ***p < .001, Pearson’s chi-squared test.

738 BROWN AND LIN

middle-aged and older adults are difcult if not impossible

to establish using existing data. Nonetheless, our analyses

provide indirect evidence of what could be the primary fac-

tor in this trend: the shifting marital biographies of middle-

aged and older adults. The composition of the middle-aged

and older population arguably has not changed sufciently

on other dimensions (e.g., demographic characteristics, eco-

nomic resources) related to divorce to yield such a dramatic

rise in the risk of divorce. But the marital biographies of

older adults have altered considerably in recent decades as

individuals who came of age during the 1970s and early

1980s when divorce and remarriage were accelerating are

now entering middle and later adulthood. Today, individuals

aged 50 and older have the most complex marital biogra-

phies of the U.S.population (Kreider & Ellis, 2011).

In 1980, just 19% of married persons aged 50 and older

were in remarriages versus 30% in 2010 (Ruggles et al.,

2010). We rely on 1980 as a baseline rather than 1990

because data on marriage order were not collected in the

1990 decennial census and the 1990 CPS June Supplement

that collected information on marital history did not include

persons aged 65 and older. This pattern is characteristic of

both middle-aged and older adults: the proportions in remar-

riages rose from 18% to 32% and 20% to 27%, respectively.

Our analyses show that the odds of divorce are roughly 40%

higher for those in higher order than rst marriages, net

Table3. Odds Ratios and Standard Errors (SE) from the Logistic Regressions of the Likelihood of Divorce

in the Last 12 Months by Age Groups

50+ 50–64 65+

Odds Ratio SE Odds Ratio SE Odds Ratio SE

Demographic characteristics

Cohort

50–64 1.601 0.065 ***

65+ (reference group)

Gender

Women 1.124 0.039 ** 1.065 0.038 1.463 0.111 ***

Men (reference group)

Race and ethnicity

White (reference group)

Black 1.825 0.081 *** 1.767 0.084 *** 2.129 0.228 ***

Hispanic 1.045 0.064 0.911 0.064 2.048 0.250 ***

Others 1.026 0.075 0.937 0.071 1.646 0.245 **

Economic resources

Education

Less than high school 1.314 0.060 *** 1.340 0.072 *** 1.207 0.108

High school graduate (reference group)

Some college 1.047 0.037 1.072 0.044 0.915 0.085

Bachelor’s degree or more 0.877 0.028 *** 0.884 0.033 ** 0.854 0.083

Employment

Not in labor force (reference group)

Unemployed 1.797 0.106 *** 1.690 0.112 *** 2.379 0.324 ***

Worked part time 1.101 0.053 1.053 0.063 1.226 0.120

Worked full time 1.173 0.050 ** 1.093 0.057 1.582 0.162 ***

Personal income

<10K 1.020 0.064 1.002 0.072 1.050 0.154

10–25K 1.158 0.063 ** 1.141 0.069 1.356 0.181

25–40K 1.079 0.058 1.095 0.064 1.162 0.159

40–55K 1.020 0.055 1.032 0.059 1.052 0.175

55–70K 1.029 0.073 1.038 0.074 1.043 0.204

>70K (reference group)

Marital biographies

Marriage order

First marriage (reference group)

Higher order marriage 1.431 0.060 *** 1.366 0.063 *** 1.959 0.213 ***

Marital duration (years)

0–9 4.848 0.309 *** 4.643 0.370 *** 4.653 0.620 ***

10–19 3.095 0.207 *** 3.040 0.236 *** 2.422 0.389 ***

20–29 2.422 0.147 *** 2.375 0.176 *** 1.773 0.242 ***

30–39 1.679 0.111 *** 1.589 0.119 *** 1.514 0.195 **

40+ (reference group)

Constant 0.002 0.000 *** 0.004 0.000 *** 0.001 0.000 ***

Unweighted N 757,835

F(21, 59)=133.40

462,812

F(20, 60)=99.92

295,023

F(20, 60)=70.73

Note. ** p < .01. *** p < .001, t test.

THE GRAY DIVORCE REVOLUTION 739

of demographic characteristics, economic resources, and

marital duration. Moreover, the actual rate at which remar-

rieds divorced in 2010 is 2.5 times larger than that of rst

marrieds. Over half of adults aged 50 and older who got

divorced in 2010 had been in remarriages compared with

less than one third of those who remained married.

The rapid rise in divorce during the second half of life has

important implications for individuals, their families, and

society at large. There is considerable evidence that marital

dissolution through widowhood is detrimental to individual

well-being (Carr, 2004; Lee & DeMaris, 2007; Williams,

2004). It is likely that divorce has similar negative con-

sequences, particularly for those who did not want the

divorce or who are economically disadvantaged or in poor

health. But this is largely speculation (although Uhlenberg

et al. [1990] found women who divorced during midlife

in the 1980s often suffered nancially). It is essential that

researchers begin to examine the ramications of divorce

during later life for subsequent well-being.

The consequences of divorce extend beyond the couple to

children and extended family members. Parent–adult child

relationship dynamics often change following parental mari-

tal dissolution. Divorced older adults no longer have a spouse

on whom to rely and are likely to place greater demands

on their children for social support. And, children may be

called on to serve as caregivers in lieu of a spouse. The strain

of such intense obligations may weaken intergenerational

ties. Indeed, the limited research to date suggests that par-

ent–adult children relationships suffer following parental

divorce, as indicated by decreased interaction and relation-

ship quality, especially among divorced fathers and their

adult children (Aquilino, 1994; Bulcroft & Bulcroft, 1991;

Shapiro, 2003). Adult children are particularly unlikely to

provide care to their divorced fathers (Lin, 2008).

The ability of older adults to draw on children for support

and care may be constrained in other ways. Some older

adults may not have children available nearby to provide

care and this situation is likely to be more common in

the future with shrinking average family sizes (Hughes &

O’Rand, 2004). For this reason, the rise in later life divorce

may ultimately place additional burdens on society at large,

as divorced individuals will be forced to turn to institutional

rather than familial (spousal, lial) sources of support

(cf. Lin, 2008). And, if later life divorce erodes the health

and well-being of older adults, then their needs will only

intensify. Furthermore, a decline in economic well-being

following divorce would suggest a greater reliance on public

rather than private forms of support, possibly meaning a rise

in Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income usage by

older adults. Indeed, a recent study indicates that unmarried

baby boomers are 4 times as likely to be poor and twice as

likely to have disabilities as married boomers (Lin & Brown,

2012). Thus, the rise in later life divorce is likely to have

wide-reaching consequences that may require coordinated

responses through public health or policy initiatives.

Gerontological research has conceptualized marital dis-

solution in terms of widowhood, largely ignoring the rami-

cations of divorce that occurs during middle and older

adulthood. Our research demonstrates that this approach

is outmoded. Since 1990, the divorce rate has doubled

among persons aged 50 and older. One quarter of those

who divorced in 2010 were aged 50 and older. Future

research should address the predictors and consequences of

divorce that occurs during middle and older adulthood. As

the U.S.population ages, the number of persons aged 50

and older who experience divorce will continue to climb

by one third even if the divorce rate remains unchanged.

The rise in divorce among middle-aged and older adults is

not only likely to shape the health and well-being of those

who experience it directly but also to have ramications for

the well-being of family members (e.g., children and grand-

children) and intensify the demands placed on the broader

institutional support systems available to middle-aged and

older adults.

F

This research was supported in part by the Center for Family and

Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, which has core

funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child

Health and Human Development (R24HD050959-08).

A

Brown and Lin planned the study. Brown wrote the paper and Lin

revised the manuscript. Lin performed all statistical analyses.

C

Correspondence should be addressed to Susan L. Brown, PhD,

Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University, 239 Williams

Hall, Bowling Green, OH 43403-0222. E-mail: bro[email protected].

R

Allen, K. R., Blieszner, R., & Roberto, K. A. (2000). Families in the mid-

dle and later years: Areview and critique of research in the 1990s.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 911–926.

Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new

developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650–666.

Aquilino, W. S. (1994). Later life parental divorce and widowhood: Impact

on young adults’ assessment of parent-child relations. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 56, 908–922.

Bair, D. (2007). Calling it quits: Late-life divorce and starting over. New

York, NY: Random House.

Berardo, D. H. (1982). Divorce and remarriage at middle age and beyond.

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,

464, 132–139.

Booth, A., & Johnson, D. R. (1994). Declining health and marital quality.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 218–223.

Booth, A., Johnson, D., White, L., & Edwards, J. (1986). Divorce and

marital instability over the life course. Journal of Family Issues, 7,

421–442.

Bulcroft, K. A., & Bulcroft, R. A. (1991). The timing of divorce: Effects

on parent-child relationships in later life. Research on Aging, 13,

226–243.

Carr, D. (2004). Black/white differences in psychological adjustment to

spousal loss among older adults. Research on Aging, 26, 591–622.

Cherlin, A. J. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: Areview of

research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 403–419.

740 BROWN AND LIN

Clarke, S. C. (1995). Advance report of nal divorce statistics, 1989 and

1990. (Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 43, No. 8). Hyattsville,

MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Cooney, T. M., & Dunne, K. (2001). Intimate relationships in later life: Current

realities, future prospects. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 838–858.

Davey, A., & Szinovacz, M. E. (2004). Dimensions of marital quality and

retirement. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 431–464.

Elliott, D. B., Simmons, T., & Lewis, J. M. (2010). Evaluation of the mari-

tal events items on the ACS. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/

hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/acs/index.html

Hammond, R. J., & Muller, G. O. (1992). The late-life divorced: Another

look. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 17, 135–150.

Hiedemann, B., Suhomlinova, O., & O’Rand, A. M. (1998). Economic

independence, economic status, and empty nest in midlife marital

disruption. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 219–231.

Hughes, M. E., & O’Rand, A. M. (2004). The lives and times of the baby

boomers. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau.

Kreider, R. M., & Ellis, R. (2011). Number, timing, and duration of mar-

riages and divorces: 2009 (Current Population Reports, P70-125).

Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Lee, G. R., & DeMaris, A. (2007). Widowhood, gender, and depression:

Alongitudinal analysis. Research on Aging, 29, 56–72.

Lin, I.-F. (2008). Consequences of parental divorce for adult children’s sup-

port of their frail parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 113–128.

Lin, I.-F., & Brown, S. L. (2012). Unmarried boomers confront old age:

Anational portrait. The Gerontologist, 52, 153–165.

Manning, W. D., & Brown, S. L. (2011). The demography of unions

among older Americans, 1980-present: Afamily change approach.

In R. A. Settersten, Jr., & J. L. Angel (Eds.), Handbook of sociology

of aging (pp. 193–210). New York, NY: Springer.

Martin, S. P. (2006). Trends in marital dissolution by women’s education

in the United States. Demographic Research, 15, 537–560.

McDermott, R., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2009). Breaking up is

hard to do, unless everyone else is doing it too: Social network effects

on divorce in a longitudinal sample followed for 32years. Retrieved

from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1490708.

Montenegro, X. P. (2004). The divorce experience: Astudy of divorce

at midlife and beyond. Washington, DC: AARP Public Policy

Institute.

Ratcliffe, C., Acs, G., Dore, T., & Moskowitz, D. (2008). Assessment

of survey data for the analysis of marriage and divorce at the

national, state, and local levels. Washington, DC: The Urban

Institute.

Ruggles, S., Alexander, J. T., Genadek, K., Goeken, R., Schroeder, M.

B., & Sobek, M. (2010). Integrated public use microdata series

(Version 5.0) [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota.

Shapiro, A. (2003). Later-life divorce and parent-adult child contact and

proximity: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 24,

264–285.

South, S. J., & Spitze, G. (1986). Determinants of divorce over the marital

life course. American Sociological Review, 51, 583–590.

Sweeney, M. M. (2010). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for

family scholarship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 72, 667–684.

Sweeney, M. M., & Phillips, J. A. (2004). Understanding racial trends

in marital disruption: Recent trends and explanations. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 66, 639–650.

Uhlenberg, P., Cooney, T., & Boyd, R. (1990). Divorce for women after

midlife. Journal of Gerontology, 45, S3–S11.

Uhlenberg, P., & Myers, M. A. P. (1981). Divorce and the elderly. The

Gerontologist, 21, 276–282.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). U.S.interim projections by age, sex, race,

and Hispanic origin: 2000–2050. Retrieved from http://www.census.

gov/population/www/projections/usinterimproj

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Design and methodology: American

Community Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Wachter, K. W. (1997). Kinship resources for the elderly. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences,

352, 1811–1817.

Wang, H., & Amato, P. R. (2000). Predictors of divorce adjustment:

Stressors, resources, and denitions. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 62, 655–668.

White, L. K. (1990). Determinants of divorce: Areview of the research in

the eighties. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 904–912.

Williams, K. (2004). The transition to widowhood and the social regu-

lation of health: Consequences for health and health risk behavior.

Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 59B, S343–S349.

Wu, Z., & Penning, M. J. (1997). Marital instability after midlife. Journal

of Family Issues, 18, 459–478.

Wu, Z., & Schimmele, C. M. (2007). Uncoupling in late life. Generations,

31, 41–46.

THE GRAY DIVORCE REVOLUTION 741