Gendered impacts of life course experiences on attitudes toward

divorce in Sweden

Linus Andersson Rydell

linus.anderssonrydell@sofi.su.se

The Young Adult Panel Study Working Paper Series

YAPS WP 01/14

The YAPS WP series consists of studies based on data from the Young Adult Panel Study (YAPS). See more information on http://www.suda.su.se/yaps.

Copyright is held by the author(s). YAPS WPs receive only limited review.

1

This study investigates the general and gendered impact of union formation and dissolution on

attitudes towards divorce in Sweden. The results suggest a prevalent albeit small influence of life

course events on attitudes towards divorce in Sweden. I find union dissolution to be associated

with change to more tolerant attitudes to divorce but that this affects is present only for women.

Women‟s attitudes towards divorce are affected neither by cohabitation nor by marriage, but

there is some evidence suggesting that the experience of co-residential relationships makes men

less tolerant to divorce. For both sexes, becoming a parent decreases acceptance of separations

involving children. The study highlights possible gendered interactions between attitudes and life

course events, especially concerning the experience of union dissolution.

Key Words: Attitudinal change, Gender, Life course, Fixed effects, Divorce, Values

2

Introduction

The establishment of in divorce, cohabitation and other non-traditional family forms (Andersson,

1995; Andersson & Philipov, 2002; Amato & James, 2010; Cherlin, 2004; Kiernan, 2004;

Lesthaeghe, 2010), has sprawled a focus on the effects of value orientations to explain these

demographic outcomes (Amato, 1996; Axinn & Barber, 1997; Barber, Axinn & Thornton, 2002;

Booth et al, 1985, Surkyn & Lesthaeghe, 2004; Thomson & Bernhardt, 2010; Thornton, 1985).

Alongside, the reverse causation has been investigated: the impact of these family-related

experiences on the formation of values and attitudes. Research in this area is concerned with

defining generalizable influence of time, events and experiences on family related attitudes in

general, and attitudes towards divorce in particular (Amato & booth, 1991; Cunningham &

Thornton, 2005, 2006; Lesthaeghe & Moors, 2002:40; Moors, 2002a: 221; Moors 2002b: 215;

Thornton, Axinn & Hill, 1992; Thornton, 1985; Waite, Goldscheider & Witsberger, 1986).

Studying change of attitudes following for example union formation, childbirth and union

dissolution is important for understanding the link between values and behavior across the life

course. In turn, understanding the correlates of normative predispositions, such as attitudes

towards divorce, is important as positioning in these attitudes have been suggested to increase

divorce risk and relationship quality (Amato & Rogers, 1999; Amato, 1996). Furthermore,

research on what kinds, if any, life course experiences impact attitudes towards family life

provide empirical material to theoretical discussions on the ontological relationship of culture,

values and behavior in sociology (Vaisey, 2009; Swidler, 1986; Spates, 1983; Leifbroer &

Billari, 2010; DiMaggio 1997; Hitlin & Piliavin 2004).

3

This paper investigates the impact of experiencing cohabitation, marriage, parenthood and

divorce on individual change in attitudes towards divorce using panel data. In addition, special

attention is given to the possible gendered effect of life course experiences. Previous studies have

described differences in men and women‟s general attitudes towards divorce (Kapinus & Flowers,

2008; Kapinus & Johnson, 2002; Axinn & Thornton, 1996). However, I know of no previous

studies that have explored possible gendered effects of adjustment in attitudes towards divorce

following divorce and other family experiences. Answering the question if attitudes of men and

women alter differently to the same event is important because it explores footprints of possible

gendered experiences; here represented by cohabitation, marriage, parenthood and divorce. For

example, do men become less positive towards divorce, compared to women, after they become

married? These kinds of questions contribute to the literature that maps gender differences in

family and life course events (Amato & James, 2010; 1992: 103; Hetherington, 2003; Kitson &

Holmes). Furthermore, this study provides a robust test of findings from previous research on

attitudes towards divorce in two ways. Firstly, I use fixed effects to control for unobserved

heterogeneity. Secondly, as the lion‟s share of inquiry into adjustment of attitudes towards

divorce has focused on the United States, this paper expands the generalizability of previous

findings by producing results in a Scandinavian context. This provides the opportunity to test if

the patterns of attitudinal change is reproduced in a country where, to somewhat greater extent

that the US, divorce and non-traditional family forms long has been a relatively accepted

phenomenon (Gelissen, 2003: 341; Heuveline & Timberlake, 2004; Yodanis, 2005; Kalmijn,

2010).

I analyze the influence of family life course events changes in attitudes towards divorce using

two measures of attitudes to divorce. One item tap the tolerance of divorce in general, another

4

the tolerance to separation when children are present. The paper use data from the Swedish

Young Adult Panel Study (YAPS). The data permit a longitudinal analysis 819 men and 968

women that are followed over three waves during a total of ten years. It consists of relatively

recent cohorts (1968 - 1976) that covers the essential life phase of union and childbearing, a time

in life that is also important for formation of family-related values (Liefbroer, 2002).

Background

Dynamics in behavior and attitudes

Increasing variation in living arrangements is a major trait of modern society (van de Kaa, 2001;

Sobotka, 2008; Lesthaeghe, 2010). Marriage, cohabitation and singlehood co-exist, and people

move in and out of these states following increasing union dissolution rates (Andersson, 1995;

Bumpass & Lu, 2000; Kiernan, 2002: 20). In the effort to describe these phenomena the

literature differs greatly in its treatment of the relationships between values and behavior. The

main body of empirical research focuses on socioeconomic and demographic factors and

disregard values as explanatory factors. This literature has mainly stressed structural change and

rational behavior and treated values as exogenous variance (Becker, 1991: 31; Oppenheimer,

2003; Pollak, 1985). Indeed, the explanatory use of values and norms has been questioned

altogether (Swidler, 1986). Other literature considers that values and attitudes may be intrinsic

parts in understanding the choices that accounts for the relative diversity of household forms

(Axinn & Barber, 1997; Thomson & Bernhardt, 2010; Bumpass & Lu, 2000). The guiding

assumption is that selection into living arrangements takes place based on the individuals

positioning in broad value sets, often labeled in categories such as “traditionalist” or

“postmodern” (van de Kaa, 2001).

5

Some research (Moors, 2002a: 245; Surkyn & Lestheaghe, 2004) use frameworks of reciprocal

dynamics. This has been described as a recursive model of (a) value-based selection into an

event and (b) revision of values following this experience. Recursive relationships are grounded

in a re-evaluative version of the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2000). Here, as in

Rokeach (1973:10), an attitude is a predisposition towards a behavior, such as marriage or

divorce. It is governed by the norms concerning the behavior as well as the individual‟s

perceived utility of the behavior in any given context, such as the gains of being a married man

or living as a divorced woman. Ones perceived utility however, is altered across the life course.

Attitudes may influence pathways, such as entry into marriage. But also, individuals may alter

these values based on assessments of the actual experience of the very same living arrangements.

In addition to the theory of reasoned action, cognitive dissonance theory is often invoked when

discussing attitudinal change (Festinger, 1957). These frameworks apply a more docile role to

attitudes and see them as bending to fit behavioral outcomes in order to avoid mental distress.

Cognitive dissonance theory would interpret, say, the correlation of divorce with a subsequent

positive change in attitudes towards divorce as a pain-avoidance adjustment of preferences to fit

behavior.

This paper has two goals. Firstly it is concerned with testing the plausibility of a recursive-

relationship framework by examining changes in attitudes towards divorce following family life

course events. This approach is a modest one as it does not incorporate an encompassing

individual life course design: values on behavior and back again. Nevertheless, observing change

(or lack of) in attitudes provide empirical evidence of which to reflect on the conceivability of

6

recursive relationships as models for explaining the values-behavior conundrum. Secondly, this

paper examines if patterns of adjustment differ between men and women.

Experiences and attitudinal change

Several findings confirm the basic idea of a recursive model where attitudes and values affect

behavior and behavior, in turn, affects attitudes and values. Waite and associates (1986) found

early home leaving experiences to induce non-family oriented attitudes and more work oriented

attitudes. Support has been found for the assumption that the experience of cohabitation,

marriage and union dissolution can affect values across the life course. Moors (2002a) found

family oriented value-based selection into marriage and also a tendency to adaptation of

traditional family values after this event. Cohabiting women preserve their non-traditional values

only if they did not marry. Cunningham and Thornton (2005) observed a parallel pattern when

examining attitudes towards cohabitation. Dissolving a marriage is found to significantly

increase the acceptance to cohabitation suggesting a re-evaluation after the marriage experience.

Similarly, experiencing a dissolved cohabitation somewhat lowers acceptance to cohabitation

(but the group‟s attitudes still remains more in favor of cohabitation compared to married

couples). Attitudes have also been found to be affected by the presence of children. Parenthood

is associated with a turn towards more traditional family values (Thomson, 2002: 260; Moors,

2002b). Experiencing cohabitation has been found to decrease religious participation (Thornton

et al., 1992). Thornton (1985) found that attitudes to divorce among mothers in the United States

do not affect union dissolution, controlling for age, religion, religiousness, education and

employment status. Instead, a strong reverse effect was found in that having divorced

significantly increased acceptance to divorce (but see Booth et al., 1985; Amato, 1996). Amato

7

and Booth (1991) generated comparable results using data containing both men and women.

Cunningham and Thornton (2006) found that any effects of marriage on acceptance to divorce

depend on whether prior cohabitation occurred. If preceded by cohabitation, marriage has no

effect on values but if cohabitation did not precede marriage, acceptance to divorce is

significantly lowered by the experience of marriage. Cunningham and Thornton (2005) showed

that the effects of union dissolution on divorce attitudes are not sensitive to the specific co-

residential type, controlling for parental divorce, religiousness and educational level. The results

indicate that dissolution from any prior relationship type (cohabitation, direct-marriage, marriage

preceded by cohabitation) raises acceptance to divorce although direct-marriage dissolution

produce the largest estimates for change of values. Cunningham and Thornton (2006) found no

effect of education on the change of attitudes. Over all, the literature can display mixed support

for patterns of both attitudinal predisposition and attitudinal adjustment to the event. However, a

general pattern is that the effect sizes are small, signaling that only minor chances on attitudinal

scales appearing to be correlated with experiences. Also, it is possible that unobserved variable

bias helps to overestimate even these limited effects, confounders which are not accounted for in

the pooled cross-sectional data structure most often applied.

Theory on the mechanisms behind value change has mainly been drawn from social phycology.

According to cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) higher tolerance toward divorce after

divorce is a necessary pain-avoiding strategy; an ad hoc harmonization of attitudes to fit with

ones living conditions. According to theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2010) the

attitudinal change is an actual shift of ones predisposition towards divorce due to a re-evaluation,

which focus the explanation to the individual‟s experience of partnering and separation. In this

8

matter, is problematic to test competing hypothesizes because the results may speak in favor of

both of them. Despite this, these perspectives are both used as base for middle ground theorizing

(Moors, 2002), as they present ontologies of what values are (predispositions to behavior versus

adjustment of behavior). Given the weak size effects, the lack of accounting for unobserved

heterogeneity and the restricted focus on US, the aim of this paper is to test if a behavior-to-

attitude effect is found at if holding between-individual characteristics constant, and in a

different regional context. I state the following hypotheses. The first hypothesis (H1) states that

ever experiencing marriage will decrease acceptance towards divorce following an assessment of

increased utility from being in marriage. The second hypothesis (H2) assume that as

cohabitation often resembles a marital relationship in Sweden, ever experiencing cohabitation

will also be associated with less tolerance towards divorce. According to the third hypothesis

(H3) it is expected that becoming a parent will be associated with less tolerant attitudes towards

divorce, as the couple has an interest in effectively providing for the child. This effect will

probably be more profound for the dependent variable that measures attitudes towards divorce

when children are present.

Gendered experiences, gendered adjustments

Apart from testing the recursive relationship hypothesis, this study also aims to investigate if

display variation between men and women. The possible dissimilarities in family life course

experiences between men and women provide a good case to investigate if attitudinal adjustment

following these events differs by gender. For example, from a perspective of reasoned action, if

marriage was less beneficial for women compared to men, dissolution might facilitate a change

9

towards higher tolerance to divorce. Similarly, if union formation is more beneficial for men,

their attitude adaptation after union formation might bring about a change to less tolerance

towards divorce.

That conjugality is correlated with considerable benefits for the spouses (either by selection or by

some effect of the civil status itself) is a fairly established view (Amato, 2004; Stutzer & Frey,

2004). Furthermore, at least since Gove (1972) the field of family sociology has reflected on the

possibility of gendered reimbursements of marriage and divorce. Gove (ibid) based his

arguments on findings that marriage has a much lower dampening effect of mental illness for

women and suggested that the institution of marriage is more advantageous for men. In the same

fashion, Bernard (1982:25) argued that marriage was shaped to benefit the husband rather than

both. However, findings regarding variation in the positive (detrimental) effects of marriage

(divorce) between men and women are not univocal. Results differ between studies and

depending on the outcome variable employed. In Sweden, Gähler (2006) finds that men have

more long lasting negative psychological response to divorce than women. This is also found in

the US (Hetherington, 2003) and in Germany (Brockman & Klein, 2004). Milardo (1987) have

argued that men receive less social support from friends and relatives after divorce. Contrarily,

Shapiro (1996) found that men in the United States experience faster mental recovery than

women. other studies have found no concise gender differences in divorce adjustment in Sweden

(Gähler, 1998, p ) and in the US (Amato & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007). Studies highlights that

women‟s financial situation are more compromised by dissolution than men‟s (Doherty, Su &

Needle, 1989; Andress, Brochel, Giesselmann & Hummelsheim, 2006). Unlike issues finance or

health, findings of prevalent gendered household work are less contentious. Women‟s entrance to

the labor market has not been followed by an equal entrance into household and child caring

10

work by men (McDonald, 2000), entailing that the partnership experience can be different for

men and women in a general manner.

I argue that investigating attitude change is a fruitful area in mapping gendered experiences of

union and dissolution. Gender differences discussed above could arguably be reflected in re-

evaluation and adjustment of values. If results suggest show women display no increased

tolerance to divorce following marriage, whereas men do, this is a footprint for that the

experiences differ in some qualitative way. For example, taking a vested-interest position, one

may see this as support for that aggregate gains from cohabitation and marriage may be higher

for men than for women, and that men have a vested interest in lower tolerance to divorce. Of

course, it is not possible to prove a given theoretical mechanism in this manner. Women and men

may be selected by different processes into and out of union; gendered normative expectations

and self-perception might influence attitudinal change (Kalmijn & Poortman, 2006). However,

these queries are research questions on their own, and this paper is here chiefly concerned with

filling gaps in the knowledge of the variation in family experiences effects on attitudinal change,

and so pursues mainly a descriptive analysis. Thus, the following final hypothesis (H4) is added:

given the gendered nature of family life course experiences, attitudinal adjustment is expected to

differ between men and women.

METHOD

Sample

The study use data from the Young Adult Panel Study (YAPS), a Swedish panel survey focusing

on family transition in young adulthood. It is a nationally representative sample of the birth

11

cohorts of 1968, 1972 and 1976. Data collection was managed by Statistics Sweden. The first

survey was conducted in 1999 and the sample included 3,408 individuals. The response rate was

67%, leaving 2,273 respondents. A follow up was conducted in 2003. The response rate was

72%. A second follow up was conducted in 2009 included all 3,015 previously responding

participants. The response rate was 60%, leaving 1834 respondents. The starting sample for this

analysis is a panel of 1,901 respondents who both participated in the first wave and one or both

of the follow ups: 866 (45,5%) men and 1,035 (54,5%) women. From there, 90 individuals with

missing data on union histories were removed from the sample. Another 24 individuals who

reported contradictory results (divorced but never married or cohabited) was removed. 27

individuals with missing data on the dependent variables were removed. The final sample

consists of 1,787 individuals: 819 (46%) men and 968 (54%) women.

Attitude measures

I use two variables to measure attitudes towards divorce. The first measure (Item A) is based on

the question “It is too easy to get divorced in today's Sweden”. The second measure (Item B) is

based on the question “Parents should stay together for the sake of their children”. Response

alternatives range on a scale from 1 = disagree completely to 5 = agree completely and 6 = don’t

know. Respondents were asked these questions at each of the three measurement points allowing

for an operationalization of change in attitudes towards divorce over time. Item A can be seen

both as normative and as factual. For instance, one could be positive towards divorce as a

phenomenon but also think that people generally give up their relationships too easily. But read

as an excessive claim (emphasis on too easy), it constitutes a normative and evaluative item for

measuring attitudes towards divorce. Item A can be seen as a proxy for the acceptability of

12

separation as an alternative. Item B conditions dissolution on children being present and so

stresses the specific ethical questions, if dissolution is acceptable also among parents, and the

feasibility of child rearing outside the traditional nuclear family. As the measures capture

different facets of divorce they are likely to interact differently with the explanatory variables

(Kapinus & Flowers 2008). A Spearman correlation of 0.242 shows that although they both

concern attitudes towards divorce, the argumentation behind the response are not necessarily of

the same origin. Because of this difference, they are treated separately both in terms of

regression results presented and interpretation. The two dependent variables largely resemble

the two dependent variables used by Cunningham and Thornton (2005). This provides a good

base for comparison to previous results. I treated respondents choosing the alternative „Don‟t

know‟ as belonging to the middle category. I modeled combinations excluding this category,

with the general patterns remaining the same. This paper uses the term tolerance or acceptance

towards divorce to describe the gradient of this measurement.

Measures for union formation, dissolution and parenthood.

The YAPS data contains self-reported cohabitation, marriage and childbearing histories that

allow us to distinguish the timing of these events and thus to control if they have ever occurred

by each measurement point. The main explanatory variables consist of dummies denoting life

course experiences from all three panel waves. Single is defined as never having been in a co-

residing union, with or without having children. Cohabiting indicates ever having co-resided out

of wedlock up till the time of survey, with or without children. Married indicates ever having

been married up till the time of survey, with or without children. Parent indicates ever having

become a parent, regardless of union type. Dissolved indicates ever experienced a dissolution,

13

regardless of union type. TABLE 1 displays the specifics of the dependent and main explanatory

variables used in the fixed effects models. In the appendix, TABLE X1 display descriptive data

of all variables. As these dummies indicate ever being subjected to family related experiences,

they do not account for measures of transitions to and from events per se but are rather a measure

of cumulative experiences of events. This means that as each covariate is additive, the reference

category will differ: single is the reference category for ever being cohabiting and ever being a

parent; cohabiting is the reference category for ever being married; cohabiting/married is the

reference category for ever being divorced. The logic behind using cumulative experience

measures follow the simple assumption that effects of events on attitudes linger on and are

additive to one another. Attitudes and values are assumed to be flexible enough to be treated as

time varying variables, but do not respond reflexively to treatment. For example, remarriage is

not assumed to cause a full return to post-divorce attitudes. I do not distinguish between numbers

of events; the time varying variables indicate if a person has accumulated a dissolution

experience or not, but does not take into account if this is the second or third dissolution. While

this is not optimal, arguably, the most important distinction in terms of attitude formation is

between never and ever having experienced an event. I do not separate between marriage

preceded by cohabitation and direct marriage (marriage without previous cohabitation). This is

due to the fact that as a rule, all marriages in Sweden are preceded by cohabitation (Andersson &

Philipov, 2002). I ran models both including and excluding direct-marriage respondents (n = 90),

which did not differ in significance or direction of estimates. I do not separate between

dissolution from a cohabiting or marital relationship because the low number of dissolutions

from marriage in the young sample does not allow for this disaggregation. Varying set control

variables are used depending on the models applied. For the OLS models the following control

14

variables are included; age, cohort, sex socioeconomic position of the respondent educational

attainment, educational enrolment and parental divorce; three region dummies denoting if

respondent region of birth is a metropolitan area, medium sized town or small town;

religiousness measured by dummy variables defined as: very religious, somewhat religious and

not religious at all. For the fixed effects models Time-constant variables are omitted. Included

control variables are age, as well as educational attainment and enrolment, which have strong

variation in the young sample and may constitute some heterogeneity bias.

Analytic Strategy

Fixed effect (FE) regressions were performed to analyze the association between life course

experiences and adjustment in attitudes towards divorce. Regression where run for the full

sample followed by separate models for men and women. For comparison, the results are

presented together with results from OLS regressions with cluster robust standard errors

controlling for attitudes at first measurement point. By using fixed effects, this plan of analysis

differs from that used in previous research into the topic, which apply OLS regression (Thornton,

1985; Cunningham & Thornton, 2005b). In contrast to FE modeling, using OLS with lagged

dependent variables does not elude the more basic problem of unobserved heterogeneity as the

assumption that the independent variables 𝑥𝑖𝑡 and the error term 𝜐𝑖 are uncorrelated still can be

violated. FE models resolve the issue of time-constant unobserved heterogeneity by estimating

the model based only on within-unit (here, within-individual) variation (Halaby, 2004). The

fixed effect equation can be written as below.

𝑦𝑖𝑡 − 𝑦 𝑖 = 𝛽 𝑥𝑖𝑡 − 𝑥 𝑖 + 𝜀𝑖𝑡 − 𝜀 𝑖

15

To asses if fixed effects were a suitable method for this study, a variance decomposition of all

dependent and explanatory variables was made. The results showed that about 50% of variation

in attitudes towards divorce is due to variation within individuals across the three measurement

points. This indicates that focusing the analysis on within-unit estimates is a feasible strategy.

The null hypothesis from the Hausman-test was rejected (figures available on request), implying

bias from unobserved heterogeneity, and thus somewhat biased measurement if not using FE

models (Halaby, 2004). Whereas FE modeling is limiting in terms of the number of cases used,

and cannot discard correlation between any unobserved time varying variables and the

independent variables, I argue that these well-known limitations is outweighed by the

possibilities for controlling for unobserved heterogeneity and by this, maintaining better

estimates of the effect of family life course experiences of attitudes towards divorce.

RESULTS

TABLE 1 shows sample size, pooled mean and standard deviations of the attitudinal scale

separately for groups ever experiencing the given event, for sex, across cohort and over period-

time. Higher score indicate intolerance towards divorce. Men and women are relatively

consistent in their attitudes, but women are slightly more inclined to think that people divorce too

easily and slightly less so to think parent should stick together for the sake of their children.

Overall, ever-married respondents show high intolerance compared to ever-cohabiting and

single. The Ever-divorced display low intolerance. The two dependent variables arguably pick up

on different aspects of dissolution attitudes. For example, the mean attitude among parents leans

towards higher intolerance if measured by agreement if it is too easy to divorce (Item A) whereas

16

it is not so pronounced if conditioning the response on children being present (Item B). A slight

gradual cohort decline of intolerance towards divorce can be observed. Only slight variation is

visible across the measurement points and for the included cohorts, but men display somewhat

higher intolerance towards divorce in 1999 than in 2009.

17

TABLE 1. Mean Score (Pooled), Standard deviations and N Values of Attitudes Towards Divorce (Item A / Item B) by Main

Explanatory variables

Men

Women

Total

N Mean SD

N Mean SD

N Mean SD

Event ever experienced

None (Single) 390 2,59 / 2,59 1,31 / 1,27

302 2,64 / 2,64 1,35 / 1,12

692 2,61 / 2,52 1,32 / 1,25

Cohabitation 546 2,76 / 2,64 1,29 / 1,18

708 2,91 / 2,31 1,32 / 1,10

1254 2,85 / 2,45 1,31 / 1,14

Marriage 295 3,01 / 2,77 1,34 / 1,20

409 3,02 / 2,51 1,32 / 1,16

704 3,01 / 2,61 1,33 / 1,18

Parenthood 484 2,95 / 2,72 1,32 / 1,20

687 3,04 / 2,44 1,27 / 1,16

1171 3,00 / 2,55 1,29 / 1,18

Divorce 188 2,56 / 2,39 1,29 / 1,12

321 2,76 / 2,14 1,34 / 1,08

509 2,69 / 2,24 1,32 / 1,10

Cohort

1968 284 2,97 / 2,72 1,34 / 1,25

300 2,96 / 2,46 1,31 / 1,17

584 2,97 / 2,58 1,32 / 1,22

1972 258 2,58 / 2,70 1,27 / 1,26

332 2,94 / 2,33 1,33 / 1,11

590 2,79 / 2,49 1,32 / 1,19

1976 277 2,60 / 2,64 1,29 / 1,16

336 2,71 / 2,16 1,31 / 1,07

613 2,66 / 2,37 1,30 / 1,14

Period

1999 - 2,68 / 2,75 1,35 / 1,27

- 2,89 / 2,33 1,35 / 1,16

- 2,79 / 2,52 1,35 / 1,23

2006 - 2,71 / 2,74 1,29 / 1,24

- 2,85 / 2,35 1,31 / 1,12

- 2,79 / 2,52 1,30 / 1,19

2009 - 2,80 / 2,52 1,28 / 1,11

- 2,86 / 2,23 1,30 / 1,08

- 2,83 / 2,36 1,29 / 1,10

No. of observations 819

968

1787

Note:

18

TABLE 2 presents regression results from fixed effects models on attitudes towards divorce. For

comparison, I also present results from the OLS. The coefficients show the changes in attitudes

towards divorce that is related to the experience of the given family life course event, compared

to those who have not yet experienced the event in question. Single is the omitted category for

cohabitation and parenthood but cohabitation is the omitted category for marriage.

Cohabiting/married is the omitted category for dissolution. A positive coefficient signifies that

the given experience is associated with a change towards lower tolerance towards divorce; a

negative coefficient is interpreted as a change towards less intolerance towards divorce. As such,

the models are read as measuring change in intolerance towards divorce.

To the left, regression results from item A „It is too easy to get divorced in today's Sweden‟ is

displayed in two models. MODEL 1 shows results from the OLS regression. MODEL 2 show

results for the fixed effect regressions, controlling for across time variation in being in

educational enrolment or not, and having obtained a tertiary degree or not. Regression results for

item B „Parents should stay together for the sake of their children ‟are displayed to the right.

MODEL 3 shows OLS estimates and MODEL 4 show fixed effect estimates.

19

TABLE 2. Attitudes to Divorce After Experiencing Life Course Events. OLS and FE-estimates

Item A: Too easy Item B: If children

1 (OLS) 2 (FE) 3 (OLS) 4 (FE)

Cohabitinga 0.096*** 0.135* 0.056* 0.03

Marriedb -0.006 -0.064 0.049 0.022

Parent a 0.098** 0.069 0.05 0.151***

Dissolutionc -0.158*** -0.311*** -0.131*** -0.214***

R2 0.093 0.006 0.098 0.016

n 1,752 1,787 1,748 1,787

Note: MODEL 1 and MODEL 3 include the following control variables: age, tertiary education, being in

educational enrolment, parental divorce, size of residence, religiousness, socioeconomic position and cohort and

uses a lagged dependent variable. MODEL 2 and MODEL 4 include control variables age, university degree and

being in educational enrolment. a ref category=single.

b ref category=cohabiting.

c ref category=cohabiting/married.

***p≤ 0.001; **p≤ 0.01; ;*p≤ 0.05†p≤ 0.10

Comparing the OLS and FE results, the direction of the estimates is the same. The overall impact

of events is limited, suggesting that attitudes are rather robust traits. Noticeable is the loss of

significance of parenthood in the fixed effects estimate (for MODEL 2) and cohabitation (in

MODEL 4). The significant estimates in the OLS might be due to obscured interactions with

uncontrolled variables. The FE models control for this possibility by effectively treating each

respondent as her own control dummy. Thus, A reading of the sequence of models is that if

focusing solely on within unit change (and thus producing estimates unaltered from unobserved

heterogeneity) the impact of life course experiences on attitudes towards divorce is limited to

cohabitation (compared to staying single) and dissolution (compared to being in a co-residing

relationship). In MODEL 2, experiencing union dissolution decrease intolerance towards divorce

compared to being in a relationship. Experiencing cohabitation was associated with higher

20

intolerance towards divorce compared to staying single. But experiencing marriage is not

associated with a further shift in this direction, neither does it reach significance. To test the

robustness of these results I also ran regressions (results available on request) with alternative

union formation variables that highlighted the seriousness of the relationship. Childless

cohabiters were placed in one group, and married couples with or without children and

cohabiters with children in another. Here, estimates for childless cohabitation remains but drop

to a relaxed significance of p < .01 whereas becoming a cohabiting parent or becoming married

does not decrease tolerance to divorce. This strengthens the results suggesting that union

consolidation, both by marriage and by family formation, is not significantly related to attitudes

towards divorce compared to just co-residing. The estimates for Parenthood show increasing

intolerance towards divorce but are statistically insignificant. Item B (MODEL 4) display a more

diverse associations. Union dissolution and parenthood are significant predictors of attitudes

towards divorce involving children. The experience of parenthood is much more pronounced in

Item B. Parenthood is significantly associated with increased intolerance towards divorce when

children are present. Also, as for item A, experience of dissolution is significantly associated

with lower intolerance towards divorce.

21

TABLE 3. Attitudes to Divorce After Experiencing Life Course Event separately for men and

women. FE-estimates.

Item A: Too easy Item B: If children

MEN WOMEN MEN WOMEN

Cohabitinga 0.230** -0.011 0.104 -0.041

Marriedb -0.098 -0.042 0.066 -0.015

Parenta 0.069 0.067 0.157* 0.143**

Dissolutionc 0.007 -0.485*** -0.266* -0.186*

R2 0.012 0.013 0.019 0.015

n 819 968 819 968

Note: All models control for age, university degree and being in educational enrolment.

ref category=single b

ref category=cohabiting ref category=cohabiting/married

***p≤ 0.001; **p≤ 0.01; ;*p≤ 0.05†p≤ 0.10

Results separated by sex are presented for in TABLE 3. Output for Item A is displayed in

MODEL 1 (men) and 2 (women), and for Item B in MODEL 3 (men) and 4 (women). As the

analysis so far has indicated fixed effects covariates is likely more stringent, I here turn to focus

on the fixed effects results only. Of interest is that men and women show different patterns in

terms of both which life course experiences that impact to attitudes towards divorce and also the

direction of these associations. MODEL 1 and 2 express the first suggestion of an effect of the

experience of relationship formation on attitudes towards divorce. For men, estimates for

experiencing cohabitation show association with higher intolerance towards divorce relative to

being continuously single. For women, this association is lacking and is statistically

insignificant. This is true both for the OLS and FE measures. Men thus seem to become more

intolerant towards divorce when progressing from singlehood to a cohabiting relationship, but

22

women do not. Another gender divergent outcome is found for dissolution. Estimates for item A

displays both a very low and statistically insignificant effect of divorce for men, whereas women

the corresponding covariates for women are. As such, women seem to liberalize their attitudes

towards divorce after experiencing dissolution, but this effect is lacking for men. The OLS

results do not support this interpretation. As in TABLE 2, marriage is far from significant. From

MODEL 3 and 4 can be read that the gender contingent models for Item B (reading „Parents

should stay together for the sake of their children‟) display more unity in attitudes between

sexes. Parenthood is still a significant factor for both sexes. Here, the estimates of cohabitation

follow the gendered patter observed in Item A, but do not reach statistical significance in the FE

model. Experiencing dissolution decrease intolerance to divorce for women and also, in contrast

to item A, for men.

CONCLUSIONS

Drawing on the discussion of recursive relationships between behavior and values, this study

conclude that family experiences can alter attitudes towards divorce, albeit to a very limited

extent. This paper confirms and elaborates previous findings by using data from a different

contextual setting and by treating the issue of unobserved heterogeneity through the use of fixed

effects models. The first hypothesis, stating that marriage is associated with an adjustment

towards less tolerance to divorce, is refuted. Marriage (compared to cohabiting) does not seem to

have any measurable effect on attitudes towards divorce. However, whereas effects of marriage

are lacking, they are, to a limited extent and only for men, present in cohabitation (H2). Non

marital co-residing was associated with a turn to higher intolerance towards divorce.

Contextually bound explanation might apply to these results: In Sweden, marriages arguably

have undergone a process of deinstitutionalization (Cherlin, 2004). Premarital cohabitation is the

23

general rule in Sweden and the norms and values attributed to cohabitation and marriage is not

necessarily different. Becoming a stable couple and living together still motivates respect of

togetherness and makes one question the liberal views of divorce. But marriage as signs of

further consolidation might not be as strong as to further increase intolerance towards divorce in

Sweden, as this effect is present already at the stage of cohabitation. These results might suggest

a convergence of marital and non-marital relationship in Sweden, in line with seeing cohabitation

in Sweden being „indistinguishable from marriage”, as suggested by Heuveline and Timberlake

(2004). At any rate, value adjustment following marriage is not found in this study. H3 was

confirmed, as divorce was significantly associated with lower intolerance towards divorce.

Overall, then, the paper also show that attitudes towards divorce in Sweden follow a pattern

similar to those found in previous research conducted in the US, also using fixed effects.

Attitudes (at least as measured by survey instruments) are relatively stable individual

characteristics but attitudinal change is associated with experiences such as own marriage or

dissolution.

The second aim of this study was to the results suggest that change of attitudes can follow

different patterns for men and women. Of interest is that the positive significant impact of

cohabitation (but not marriage) on intolerance to divorce is the fact that men seem to be driving

this association. Cohabitation appeared to be related to lower tolerance towards divorce (as

measured by item A) for men, but not for women. If attitudes indeed reflect valuations of

experiences, one could read from the estimates a re-evaluation pattern in accordance with the

theory of reasoned action. If men experience greater utility than women in any type of co-

residing relationship as opposed to being single, men might more strongly develop attitudes

towards securing this position: men‟s attitudes towards divorce change to become less tolerant

24

towards divorce once experience cohabitation, compared to when they had not. Women, on the

other hand, does not acquire subjective interpretations of utility of cohabitation/marriage strongly

enough for them to adjust their attitudes towards divorce. Other interpretations are of course

possible. The important finding is that it seems that attitudinal adjustment to partnering can be

gender specific, at least in Sweden.

Interesting results were found also for divorce. As measured by item B, both men and women

become significantly more tolerant to divorce when children are present, after experiencing

divorce. The results confirm the fourth hypothesis as well as reproduces results of previous

studies (Cunningham & Thornton, 2006; Amato & Booth, 1991; Thornton, 1985) supporting the

general idea of reciprocal relationship between attitudes and behavior. However, for item A, only

significant changes were found for women. As such, In Sweden, women become more tolerant

towards divorce following own dissolution. Men that experience a divorce, on the other hand, do

not liberalize their tolerance-position on whether people divorce to easily. Again, this may be

viewed as evidence for greater utility of marriage for men; that women are more appeased or

adaptable to life after divorce, or other explanations. The substantive finding is that the common

link between divorce and divorce- attitude liberalization is here found to be driven exclusively by

the change for women. As this study uses only two attitude measures the discussion is must

remain tentative and further research should tap a larger battery of attitudinal items. It has been

shown earlier that the type of item matters when considering difference between the sexes in

attitudes towards divorce (Kapinus & Flowers 2008) and this study display similar patterns. At

any rate, the two items did not yield estimates in opposite directions. It is also important to note

the relatively weak effects found here and in previous studies; the strongest impact where found

for female divorce, witch liberalized attitudes towards divorce with less than one unit. To

25

conclude, this study provides an empirical contribution to the literature by finding and

highlighting gender differences in attitudinal change following union formation and separation.

The design of this study, as with those studies mentioned in this paper, did not set out determine

the specific causal mechanism though which influence of life course experiences work.

Answering why women and men‟s with attitudinal development respond differently to life

course experiences is an area open for much interesting work.

REFERENCES

ANDRESS, H.-J., BORGLOH, B., BROCKEL, M, GIESSELMAN, M and HUMMELSHEIM,

D., 2006. The Economic Consequences of Partnership Dissolution--A Comparative Analysis of

Panel Studies from Belgium, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and Sweden. European Sociological

Review, 22(5), 533–560.

AJZEN, I. and FISHBEIN, M., 2000. Attitudes and the Attitude-Behavior Relation: Reasoned

and Automatic Processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), pp. 1-33.

AMATO, P.R., 1996. Explaining the Intergenerational Transmission of Divorce. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 58(3), pp. pp. 628-640.

AMATO, P.R., 2000. The consequenses of divorce for adults and children. - Journal of

Marriage and Family, (- 4), pp. - 1269.

AMATO, P.R. and BOOTH, A., 1991. The Consequences of Divorce for Attitudes Toward

Divorce and Gender Roles. Journal of Family Issues, 12(3), pp. 306-322.

AMATO, P.R. and HOHMANN-MARRIOTT, B., 2007. A Comparison of High- and Low-

Distress Marriages That End in Divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3), pp. 621-638.

AMATO, P.R. and JAMES, S., 2010. Divorce in Europe and the United States: Commonalities

and differences across nations. Family Science, 1(1), pp. 2-13.

AMATO, P.R. and ROGERS, S.J., 1999. Do Attitudes Toward Divorce Affect Marital Quality?

Journal of Family Issues, 20(1), pp. 69-86.

ANDERSSON, G. and PHILIPOV, D., 2002. - Life-table representations of family dynamics in

Sweden, Hungary, and 14 other FFS countries: A project of descriptions of demographic

behavior. - Demographic Research, 7(- 4), pp. - 67-144.

26

ANDERSSON, G., 1995. Divorce-Risk Trends in Sweden 1971-1993. European Journal of

Population / Revue Européenne de Démographie, 11(4), pp. 293-311.

AXINN, W.G. and BARBER, J.S., 1997. Living Arrangements and Family Formation Attitudes

in Early Adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59(3), pp. pp. 595-611.

BARBER, J.S., AXINN, W.G., THORNTON, A., 2002. The Influence of Attitudes on Family

Formation Processes. In: R. LESTHEAGHE, ed, Meaning and Choice: Value Orientation and

the Life Course. Brussels: NIDI CBGS Publications, pp. 45-88.

BECKER, G., 1991. A treatise on the family. Enl. ed. edn. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ.

Press.

BERNARD, J., 1982. The future of marriage. [2 ed.] edn. New Haven: Yale U.P.

BROCKMANN, H. and KLEIN, T., 2004. Love and Death in Germany: The Marital Biography

and Its Effect on Mortality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(3), pp. 567-581.

BOOTH, A., JOHNSON, D.R., WHITE, L.K. and EDWARDS, J.N., 1985. Predicting Divorce

and Permanent Separation. Journal of Family Issues, 6(3), pp. 331-346.

BUMPASS, L. and LU, H.H., 2000. Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children's

Family Contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54(1), pp. pp. 29-41.

CHERLIN, A.J., 2004. The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage

and Family, 66(4), pp. 848-861.

CUNNINGHAM, M. and THORNTON, A., 2006. The Influences of Parents' and Offsprings'

Experience with Cohabitation, Marriage, and Divorce on Attitudes Toward Divorce in Young

Adulthood. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 44(1-2), pp. 119-144.

CUNNINGHAM, M. and THORNTON, A., 2005. The Influence of Union Transitions on White

Adults' Attitudes toward Cohabitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(3), pp. pp. 710-720.

DIMAGGIO, P., 1997. Culture and Cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, pp. 263-287.

DOHERTY, W.J., SU, S. and NEEDLE, R., 1989. Marital Disruption and Psychological Well-

Being. Journal of Family Issues, 10(1), pp. 72-85.

FESTINGER, L., 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford U.P.

FESTINGER, L. and CARLSMITH, J.M., 1959. Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.

The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), pp. 203-210.

27

GÄHLER, M., 2006. “To Divorce Is to Die a Bit...”: A Longitudinal Study of Marital Disruption

and Psychological Distress Among Swedish Women and Men. The Family Journal, 14(4), pp.

372-382.

GELISSEN, J., 2003. Cross-national differences in public consent to divorce: effects of cultural,

structural and compositional factors. In: ARTS, W., HAGENAARS, J., HALMAN, L., ed, The

Cultural Diversity of European Unity: Findings Explanations and Reflections from the European

Values Study. Leiden: Brill, pp. 339-370.

GOVE, W.R., 1972. The Relationship between Sex Roles, Marital Status, and Mental Illness.

Social Forces, 51(1), pp. pp. 34-44.

HALABY, C.N., 2004. Panel Models in Sociological Research: Theory into Practice. Annual

Review of Sociology, 30(1), pp. 507-544.

HETHERINGTON, E.M., 2003. Intimate Pathways: Changing Patterns in Close Personal

Relationships Across Time*. Family Relations, 52(4), pp. 318-331.

HEUVELINE, P. and TIMBERLAKE, J.M., 2004. The role of cohabitation in family formation:

The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(5), pp. 1214-

1230.

HITLIN, S. and PILIAVIN, J.A., 2004. VALUES: Reviving a Dormant Concept. Annual Review

of Sociology, 30(1), pp. 359-393.

KALMIJN, M., 2010. Country Differences in the Effects of Divorce on Well-Being: The Role of

Norms, Support, and Selectivity. European Sociological Review, 26(4), pp. 475-490.

KALMIJN, M. and POORTMAN, A.R., April 2006. His or Her Divorce? The Gendered Nature

of Divorce and its Determinants. European Sociological Review, 22(2), pp. 201-214.

KAPINUS, C.A. and FLOWERS, D.R., 2008. An Examination of Gender Differences in

Attitudes Toward Divorce. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 49(3-4), pp. 239-257.

KAPINUS, C.A. and JOHNSON, M.P., 2002. Personal, Moral, and Structural Commitment to

Marriage: Gender and the Effects of Family Life Cycle Stage. Sociological Focus, 35(2), pp.

189-205.

KIERNAN, K., 2002. Cohabitation in Western Europe: Trends, issues and implications. In:

BOOTH, A., CROUTER, A.C., ed, Just living together : implications of cohabitation for

children, families, and social policy. Mahwah: Erlbaum, pp. 3-31.

KIERNAN, K., 2004. Redrawing the boundaries of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family,

66(4), pp. 980-987.

28

KITSON, G.C. and HOLMES, W.M., 1992. Portrait of divorce: Adjustment to marital

breakdown. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

LESTHAEGHE, R., 2010. The Unfolding Story of the Second Demographic Transition.

Population and Development Review, 36(2), pp. pp. 211-251.

LESTHAEGHE, R., MOORS, G., 2002. Life Course Transitions and Value Orientations:

Selection and Adaptation. In: R. LESTHAEGHE, ed, Meaning and Choice: Value Orientation

and the Life Course. Brussels: NIDI CBGS, pp. 1-44.

LIEFBROER, A.C., 2002. Changes in Adult Role Attitudes During Young Adulthood: The

impact of Age and Role Changes. In: R. LESTHEAGHE, ed, Meaning and Choice: Value

Orientation and the Life Course. Brussels: NIDI CBGS Publications, pp. 274-306.

LIEFBROER, A.C. and BILLARI, F.C., 2010. Bringing norms back in: A theoretical and

empirical discussion of their importance for understanding demographic behaviour. Population,

Space and Place, 16(4), pp. 287-305.

MCDONALD, P., 2000. Gender Equity in Theories of Fertility Transition. Population and

Development Review, 26(3), pp. pp. 427-439.

MILARDO, R.M., 1987. Changes in Social Networks of Women and Men Following Divorce.

Journal of Family Issues, 8(1), pp. 78-96.

MOORS, G., 2002. The Influence of Attitudes on Family Formation Processes. In: R.

LESTHEAGHE, ed, Meaning and Choice: Value Orientation and the Life Course. Brussels:

NIDI CBGS Publications, pp. 217-250.

MOORS, G., 2002. Values and Living arrangements: A recursive Relationship. In: L.J.B.

WAITE C., ed, The ties that bind: Perspectives on Marriage and the family. New York: Aldine

de Gruyter, pp. 212-226.

MOORS, G. and BERNHARDT, E., 2009. Splitting Up or Getting Married? Acta Sociologica,

52(3), pp. 227-247.

OPPENHEIMER, V.C., 2003. Demography, 40(1), pp. pp. 127-149.

POLLAK, R.A., 1985. A Transaction Cost Approach to Families and Households. Journal of

Economic Literature, 23(2), pp. pp. 581-608.

POORTMAN, A.R. and LIEFBROER, A.C., 2010. Singles‟ relational attitudes in a time of

individualization. Social science research, 39(6), pp. 938-949.

ROKEACH, M., 1973. The nature of human values. New York : London: Free Press ; Collier

Macmillan.

29

SHAPIRO, A.D., 1996. Explaining Psychological Distress in a Sample of Remarried and

Divorced Persons. Journal of Family Issues, 17(2), pp. 186-203.

SIMON, R.W., 2002. Revisiting the Relationships among Gender, Marital Status, and Mental

Health. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), pp. pp. 1065-1096.

STEPHENÂ VAISEY, 2009. Motivation and Justification: A Dual•Process Model of Culture in

Action. American Journal of Sociology, 114(6), pp. 1675-1715.

STUTZER, A. and FREY, B.S., 2006. Does marriage make people happy, or do happy people

get married? Journal of Socio-economics, 35(2), pp. 326-347.

SURKYN, J. and LESTHAEGHE, R., 2004. - Value Orientations and the Second Demographic

Transition (SDT) in Northern, Western and Southern Europe: An Update. - Demographic

Research special collection, 3(- 3), pp. - 45-86.

SOBOTKA, T., 2008. - Overview Chapter 6: The diverse faces of the Second Demographic

Transition in Europe. - Demographic Research, 18(- 88), pp. 171-224.

SPATES, J.L., 1983. The Sociology of Values. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, pp. 27-49.

SWIDLER, A., 1986. Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies. American Sociological Review,

51(2), pp. 273-286.

THOMSON, E., 2002. Motherhood, Fatherhood and Family Values. In: R. LESTHEAGHE, ed,

Meaning and Choice: Value Orientation and the Life Course. Brussels: NIDI CBGS

Publications, pp. 251-271.

THOMSON, E. and BERNHARDT, E., 2010. Education, Values, and Cohabitation in Sweden.

Marriage & Family Review, 46(1-2), pp. 1-21.

THORNTON, A., 1985. Changing Attitudes Toward Separation and Divorce: Causes and

Consequences. American Journal of Sociology, 90(4), pp. pp. 856-872.

THORNTON, A., AXINN, W.G. and HILL, D.H., 1992. Reciprocal Effects of Religiosity,

Cohabitation, and Marriage. American Journal of Sociology, 98(3), pp. pp. 628-651.

VAN DE KAA, D.J., 2001. Postmodern Fertility Preferences: From Changing Value Orientation

to New Behavior. Population and Development Review, 27(, Supplement: Global Fertility

Transition), pp. pp. 290-331.

WAITE, J., 2002. Trends in Men‟s and Women‟s Well-Being in Marriage. In: L.J.B. WAITE C.,

ed, The ties that bind: perspectives on marriage and cohabitation

. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, pp. 368-393.

30

WAITE, L.J., GOLDSCHEIDER, F.K. and WITSBERGER, C., 1986. Nonfamily Living and the

Erosion of Traditional Family Orientations Among Young Adults. American Sociological

Review, 51(4), pp. pp. 541-554.

YODANIS, C., 2005. Divorce Culture and Marital Gender Equality. Gender & Society, 19(5),

pp. 644-659.

31

APPENDIX

TABLE X1 (Pooled) percentages of Independent variables

Total Men Women

Ever cohabited No 35.23 40.75 30.71

Yes 64.77 59.25 69.29

Ever married No 73.49 77.17 70.47

Yes 26.51 22.83 29.53

Ever parent No 54.19 60.64 48.90

Yes 45.81 39.36 51.10

Ever divorced No 75.68 80.25 71.93

Yes 24.32 19.75 28.07

Religiousity Very religious 5.92 4.75 6.88

Somewhat religious 18.42 15.57 20.76

Not religious at all 75.66 79.67 72.36

Region of birth Metropolitan area 20.37 20.42 20.33

Medium sized town 59.73 59.55 59.87

Rural area 19.91 20.03 19.81

Socioeconomic level Unskilled workers 37.39 39.51 35.66

Skilled workers 15.26 11.47 18.35

Low grade proffessionals 27.95 26.49 29.15

High grade proffesionals 17.02 19.75 14.78

Farmers 2.38 2.78 2.06

Family childhood type Intact 76.59 75.55 77.44

Parents divorced 23.41 24.45 22.56

Cohort 1968 32.59 34.31 31.18

1972 33.00 31.57 34.17

1976 34.41 34.12 34.65

Age 22 13.20 13.31 13.11

26 24.50 23.74 25.12

30 24.19 24.60 23.86

32 9.35 9.37 9.33

34 11.58 11.92 11.30

36 8.76 8.22 9.21

40 8.42 8.84 8.07

University degree No 74.90 79.05 71.50

Yes 25.10 20.95 28.50

Enroled at University No 84.55 85.87 83.46

Yes 15.45 14.13 16.54

No. of observations 1787 819 968