1 Legal separation impact on individuals’ social networks in Italy Evidences from the European Community Household Panel Lorenzo Todesco Department of

1

Legal separation impact on Legal separation impact on individuals’ social networks in individuals’ social networks in

ItalyItalyEvidences from the European Community Evidences from the European Community

Household PanelHousehold PanelLorenzo Todesco

Department of Social SciencesUniversity of Turin

[email protected]

Turin, 28th april 2005Turin, 28th april 2005

2

Main features of this study:

• Using a dynamic perspective.

• Adopting a quantitative approach.

Lorenzo Todesco, Department of Social Sciences, University of Turin.

3

Why legal separation and not divorce?

• The peculiar italian way to end a marriage.


4

Defining the problem: the literature

Features of the available literature:• It is not very large and quite dated.• It adopts usually a more psychological

perspective– Based on in depth interviews.– Very small samples.– Often different findings on the same matter.


5

Help and services from a Help and services from a social networksocial network

• Emotional support.

• Financial support.

• Services.

6

Some information on social Some information on social networks and marital dissolutionnetworks and marital dissolution

• Few data on italian situation• The presence of a network is useful in

stressful events.• The separation has a more limitated

effects in couples who have individual social network segregated from the marital relationship.

• The role of geographical closeness.


7

The disagreementsThe disagreements

• The amount of changes in separated The amount of changes in separated people social network.people social network.

• The utility of a dense social network.The utility of a dense social network.

• The social support is bound to the The social support is bound to the approvation for the decision?approvation for the decision?


8

Some more issues on social Some more issues on social networks and marital networks and marital

disruptiondisruption

• The concept of strenght of a tie.The concept of strenght of a tie.

• Supportive and non supportive ties.Supportive and non supportive ties.

• Voluntaristic and non voluntaristic tiesVoluntaristic and non voluntaristic ties

• The presence of other separated peoople The presence of other separated peoople in the network.in the network.

9

The impact of separation on social The impact of separation on social networks and vice versanetworks and vice versa

• The parents’reaction.– Failure about their parenting experiences.– Envy and anger.– The loss of the grandparents’ role.– No gender differences.– The four patterns of parental support.

10

• The parents’ in-law reaction.

– Often they are lost by the separated person.– Form of help: moral support.

• More for women then men.– Gender differences.

11

• The friends’ reaction.

– The influence of the friends’group.– The essential friends’support.– The friends’ reaction.

• Anxiety and fear.• Shame.• Surprise• Pleasure

– The redistribution of alliances.

12

SampleSample characteristic: Echp• A longitudinal database that covers 15

different european countries.• 8 waves of this dataset are avaible.• Total sample: 60.000 households and

130.000 people.– For Italy, 17.729 people in the first

wave, 13.392 in the last one.• The problem of attrition.


13


The variables used as proxies of The variables used as proxies of the frequency of contacts within the frequency of contacts within

the social networksthe social networks• Var1: Are you a member of any club, such as a

sport or entertainment club, a local or neighbourhood group, a party, etc.?

• Var2: How often do you talk to any of your neighbours?

• Var3: How often do you meet friends or relatives not living with you, whether here at home or elsewhere?

.

14


The sample sizeThe sample size

• Var1: 82 cases.

• Var2: 110 cases.

• Var3: 110 cases.

15

ProceduresProcedures

• The one The one group pre test – post test design. pre test – post test design.


16

The sequences• 5 new variables computed.

– Var1_2b, var1_1b, var1_ys, var1_1a, var1_2a …

– For each individual i, multiplied…• the value of i on var1_2b * 10.000• the state of var1_1b * 1000• the state of var1_ys * 100• the state of var1_1a * 10• the state of var1_2a * 1

– All five values summed

i=1….N


17

1 2 2 3 2

The value of i on var1 2 years before

separation.

The value of i on var1 1 year before

separation

The value of i on var1 the year of the

separation

The value of i on var1 1 year after the

separation

The value of i on var1 2 years after the

separation


18

The sequence:Year of separationYear of separation

Trend post Trend post separationseparationTrend pre Trend pre

separationseparation

11 22 22 33 22


19

The sequences have been The sequences have been broken, excluding the value of broken, excluding the value of

the year of separation.the year of separation.

• The trend before and after the separation has been trichotomized as follows:– Stable, followed by the state of the variable.– Increasing intensity.– Decreasing intensity.


20

Some limits of this studySome limits of this study

• The problem of the sample size.

• The threats to internal validity:– The effect of history.– The effect of maturation.


21

Table 1. Separated or divorced and married individuals who declare that they are little or not at all satisfied with their economic situation, their family relationships, the relationships with friends, the way they spend their free time and their job, by gender and family status. Mean years 2001 – 2002.

Male (%) Female (%) Total (%)

A little or not at all satisfied

Separated and

divorced people

Married people

Separated and

divorced people

Married people

Separated and

divorced people

Married people

Economic situation

36,8

34,4

46,3

33,7

41,8

34,1

Family relationships

19,7

3,8

13,7

4,3

16,5

4,1

Friends relationships

14,6

11,8

17,8

14,3

16,3

13,1

Free time 35,4 34,4 40,9 38,3 38,3 36,4 Job 15,5 15,4 18,8 16,3 17,1 15,7

(The total sample of the survey, not only separated and divorced people, is more or less 55.000 people)(The total sample of the survey, not only separated and divorced people, is more or less 55.000 people)


22

Table 2. Are you a member of any club, such as a sport or entertainment club, a local or neighbourhood group, a party, etc.? Trend 2 years pre – separation and 2 years post – separation.

Trend post - separation % (freq) Total Stable -

yes Stable -

no Increasing intensity

Decreasing intensity

Stable - yes 66,7 8,3 8,3 16,7 100,0 (8) (1) (1) (2) (12)

Stable - no 9,3 68,5 11,1 11,1 100,0 (5) (37) (6) (6) (54)

Increasing intensity 40,0 20,0 20,0 20,0 100,0 (2) (1) (1) (1) (5)

Trend pre - separation % (freq)

Decreasing intensity 45,4 45,5 0,0 9,1 100,0 (5) (5) 0 (1) (11)

Total 24,4 53,6 9,8 12,2 100,0 (20) (44) (8) (10) (82)


23

Table 3. How often do you talk to any of your neighbours? Trend 2 years pre – separation and 2 years post – separation.

Trend post – separation % (freq) Total

Stable -

often Stable - seldom

Stable - never

Increasing intensity


Stable - often 71,7 3,3 0,0 11,7 13,3 100,0 (43) (2) (0) (7) (8) (60)

Stable - seldom 23,8 42,9 4,8 19,0 9,5 100,0 (5) (9) (1) (4) (2) (21)

Stable - never 50,0 0,0 50,0 0,0 0,0 100,0 (1) (0) (1) (0) (0) (2)


73,3

0,0

0,0

0,0

26,7

100,0

(11) (0) (0) (0) (4) (15)

Trend pre – separation % (freq)


41,7

33,3

8,3

0,0

16,7

100,0

(5) (4) (1) (0) (2) (12) Total 59,2 13,6 2,7 10,0 14,5 100,0 (65) (15) (3) (11) (16) (110)


24

Gender differences

• Men are more able to conserve a stable relationship with neighbours rather than females after the separation.

• From a prior situation of increasing intensity, men are more able than females to build a new situation of stability of contacts.


25

Table 4. Trend pre – separation and post – separation of frequency of contacts with neighbours breakdown by gender.

Trend pre – separation % (freq) Total Stable -


Stable - never Increasing intensity


Male 43,1 32,3 0,0 12,3 12,3 100,0 (28) (21) (0) (8) (8) (65)

Female 65,9 6,3 2,5 15,2 10,1 100,0 (52) (5) (2) (12) (8) (79)

Total 55,5 18,1 1,4 13,9 11,1 100,0 (80) (26) (2) (20) (16) (144) Trend post - separation % (freq) Total Stable -


Stable - never Increasing intensity


Male 55,8 21,3 3,3 9,8 9,8 100,0 (34) (13) (2) (6) (6) (61)

Female 59,4 8,9 1,3 15,2 15,2 100,0 (47) (7) (1) (12) (12) (79)

Total 57,8 14,3 2,1 12,9 12,9 100,0 (81) (20) (3) (18) (18) (140)


26

Table 5. Status in employment pre and post separation, breakdown by gender. (other = during the two years in some period employed in some unemployed).

Male Female Pre -

separation % (freq)

Post - separation % (freq)

Pre - separation % (freq)

Post - separation % (freq)

Always employed

78,2 (61) 79,5 (62) 50,0 (49) 63,3 (62)

Never employed

14,1 (11) 14,1 (11) 41,8 (41) 32,7 ( 32)

Other 7,7 (6) 6,4 (5) 8,2 (8) 4,1 (4) Total 100,0 (78) 100,0 (78) 100,0 (98) 100,0 (98)

27

EducationEducation differentiation.

• People with a low level of education tend to conserve more a stable number of contacts with neighbours rather than ones with a high level after the separation.

• Lower educated people tend to rely more on spatially near networks than higher educated, who have usually a wider and more differentiated social network.


28

Employment status Employment status differentiation.differentiation.

• People who have never had a job since separation tend to have more frequent contacts with neighbours than employed people.


29

Table 6. How often do you meet friends or relatives not living with you, whether here at home or elsewhere? Trend 2 years pre – separation and 2 years post – separation.

Trend post – separation % (freq) Total Stable

-often Stable -seldom

Stable -never



Stable - often 58,5 12,3 0,0 15,4 13,8 100,0 (38) (8) (0) (10) (9) (65)

Stable - seldom 21,4 21,4 0,0 28,6 28,6 100,0 (3) (3) (0) (4) (4) (14)

Stable - never 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 100,0 (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (1)


56,5

8,7

0,0

26,1

8,7

100,0

(13) (2) (0) (6) (2) (23)

Trend pre –

separation % (freq)


71,4

14,3

0,0

14,3

0,0

100,0

(5) (1) (0) (1) (0) (7) Total 53,7 12,7 0,9 19,1 13,6 100,0 (59) (14) (1) (21) (15) (110)


30

Gender differentiations.Gender differentiations.

• Men tend to maintain the same amount of contact with friends and relatives to a higher degree than women

• Men reach a more stable network after the separation than females if there was a prior increase in trend.


31

Table 7. Trend pre – separation and post – separation of frequency of contacts with friends and relatives breakdown by gender.

Trend pre - separation % (freq) Total Stable

- often Stable - seldom

Stable - never



Males 66,1 15,4 0,0 12,3 6,2 100,0 (43) (10) (0) (8) (4) (65)

Females 63,2 7,6 1,3 20,3 7,6 100,0 (50) (6) (1) (16) (6) (79)

Total 64,6 11,1 0,7 16,7 6,9 100,0 (93) (16) (1) (24) (10) (144) Trend post - separation % (freq) Total Stable

- often Stable - seldom

Stable - never



Males 62,3 11,5 0,0 13,1 13,1 100,0 (38) (7) (0) (8) (8) (61)

Females 51,8 13,9 1,3 20,3 12,7 100,0 (41) (11) (1) (16) (10) (79)

Total 56,4 12,9 0,7 17,1 12,9 100,0 (79) (18) (1) (24) (18) (140)


32

Education differencesEducation differences

• Lower educated people tend to maintain their prior stable frequence of contacts with friends and relatives to a larger degree than the higher educated.

• The higher educated people are more likely to stabilize a previously fluctuating pattern of contacts.


33

Employment status Employment status differencesdifferences

• People without employment are less able to conserve a prior stable number of contacts with friends and relatives than employed ones.

• Unemployed people tend to decrease contacts with friends and relatives more than employed ones.

.


34

Age differencesAge differences

• For people under forty years of age it is easier to conserve a stable number of contacts with friends and relatives than for older people.

• In case of a previous increasing or decreasing trend, people under forty years of age are more able to stabilize a previously fluctuating pattern of contacts.


35

ConclusionConclusion• The event of legal separation has only a low

influence on stable and frequent relationships existing before.

• In spite of this, separated and divorced people are less satisfied than married ones about their relationships with friends.

• Males are more able than females to conserve and increase the frequence of their contacts with neighbours, friends and relatives.


36

• A high level of education brings people to increase their frequence of contact with friends and relatives after the separation, while low level people are more able to conserve the previous stable frequency.

• The employment has a positive role in the relationships with friends and relatives, and also the youth.


Documents

1 Legal separation impact on individuals’ social networks in Italy Evidences from the European Community Household Panel Lorenzo Todesco Department of