Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Late-life divorce is increasing in the Western world, including among family-oriented societies like Israel in which the most common family status for older adults (age 60 years and older) is being in a heterosexual long-term marriage with adult children. Within a life-course framework, we use both dyadic and individual interview analysis to explore the process that led to the timing of late-life divorce. Understanding this process from dyadic and individual perspectives could strengthen knowledge regarding this expanding phenomenon in family-oriented societies and could contribute to developing targeted interventions and policies for such couples. Semi-structured interviews were conducted separately with 44 heterosexual ex-spouses comprised of 10 dyads (n = 20) and 24 individuals (n = 13 women; n = 11 men). The divorces were mostly after age 60 and followed a long-term marriage with children. Two themes emerged from the analysis: the long-term phase of divorce delay despite longstanding motivations, and the moment of final decision with its various background accelerators. The discussion addresses intersections between personal time, family time, and social/cultural time related to divorce, and between intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects. Implications for family gerontology are presented.

Keywords

Divorce delay divorce motivation divorce timing divorce accelerator late-life divorce qualitative method turning point

Introduction

Late-life divorce is an increasing phenomenon in the US and other Western societies. Most late-life divorce research addresses age 50 years and older despite the phenomenon increasing especially among adults aged 65 years and older (Brown & Lin, 2022). Considering late-life divorce has been operationalized in various ways, we will use “older adults” to refer to one or more of these age groups: 50 years and older, 55 years and older, 60 years and older or 65 years and older. Older adults in these societies are relatively healthy and well-functioning. These conditions have enhanced their ability to enjoy life while still possible (Bildtgård & Öberg, 2023). Israel is a society located between modernization and tradition, characterized by values of self-determination alongside familism (Fogiel-Bijaoui & Rutlinger-Reiner, 2013). As such, most older adults who divorce have a history of being married with children and sometimes also grandchildren (Shnoor & Cohen, 2022).

Divorce is a meaningful life-transition with dramatic consequences for those involved at any age, yet only a few studies have addressed motivations for late-life divorce (Bildtgård & Öberg, 2023; Crowley, 2017) and/or the process behind its timing, especially for first time divorces late in life proceeding a long-term marriage. Considering that divorce affects individuals’ and families’ well-being, it is important to understand the processes that lead to divorce, especially from a long-term marriage with adult children that lasted more than 20 years. Existing research has focused on late-life divorce motivation from individuals’ perspectives, whether it’s the first, second, third or more divorce, without exploring the process of its timing behind these motivations from dyadic perspectives (both spouses of the same couple) which enables to present its in-depth complexity. Furthermore, these studies have been conducted in the US (e.g., Crowley, 2017) and Sweden (Bildtgård & Öberg, 2023), which differ from a family-oriented society like Israel. Using a life-course framework, our aim is to examine the process that led to the timing of late-life divorce (when the couple legally divorces) for the first time at around age 60 years and older in Israel following a long-term marriage raising children, from dyadic and individual perspectives. This could strengthen knowledge regarding the process behind this expanding phenomenon in family-oriented societies like Israel and contribute to developing targeted interventions and policies regarding these couples.

Late-life divorce timing

Late life divorce is increasing due to changes in marital and family structures and demographic changes. Yet the unique characteristics of late-life divorce are related to its timing. One main concern for divorced parents at midlife was how divorce could impact their children (Jensen & Bowen, 2015). Yet recent results do not support the claim that married couples have postponed divorce to when the nest is empty (Lin et al., 2018). The timing of late-life divorce could also be related to hoping the relationship would improve and postponing divorce due to wanting to get financially prepared (Canham et al., 2014). Divorce seems to come at a time when attitudes are shifting. Today’s older adults are more accepting of divorce than their predecessors were two decades ago (Brown & Wright, 2019). Researchers found that midlife transitions, such as an empty nest, retirement, or declining health, could result in late-life divorce. However, recent results indicate that although spouses’ retirement and chronic health conditions could influence marital quality, they were unrelated to the likelihood of late-life divorce (Lin et al., 2018). Thus, more is needed to understand the process of timing late-life divorce.

Late-life divorce motivations

Motivations and factors precipitating late-life divorce are complex and interrelated (Canham et al., 2014). Studies have distinguished between motivations for late-life divorce and predictors of late-life divorce, which may include demographic aspects such as low economic status and lack of employment (Amato, 2010). The main interpersonal motivations are identical at older and younger ages, including growing apart (Bair, 2007; Bildtgård & Öberg, 2023; Crowely, 2018); low marital quality (Lin et al., 2018); infidelity, spouses’ mental health problems, financial problems, and abuse (Crowley, 2017; Lin et al., 2018); poor communication; changed behavior; and role imbalance in the marriage (Canham et al., 2014). Demographic changes such as increase in life expectancy provide more years in which one can become dissatisfied with the marriage, including exposure of incompatibility in the spouses’ late-life goals, personality change following a spouse’s illness, realizing there are limited years ahead to fulfill goals and to experience romance, and a desire to end an unequal or violent relationship (Bildtgård & Öberg, 2023). The balance between motivation for divorce and reasons to stay in the marriage might change several times before the final decision to divorce. This raises questions about the specific processes that lead to late-life divorce timing.

Israeli society and late-life divorce in Israel

Marriage and divorce in Israel are only possible through religious authority. Couples that undergo civil marriages abroad are still required to divorce in Israel through their religious authority. Israeli society is relatively more familial and traditional than other Western societies (Fogiel-Bijaoui & Rutlinger-Reiner, 2013), with a lower divorce rate than in most industrialized societies (OECD Family Database, 2021). Along with the familial characteristics that might account for lower divorce rates, Israel’s welfare regime might also be a contributing factor. Israel is characterized by high levels of social and gender inequality. For example, divorce affects women’s income negatively also when their earnings are high, whereas men’s income remains dependent on their earning level. Israel is also characterized by non-universal welfare policies for families with children that require strict testing. Although child allowance for ages 0–18 is universal, it is very low in comparison to other countries. Furthermore, daycare subsidies are not universal and cannot provide enough support for families with children (Endeweld et al., 2022). Thus, parents and especially mothers are forced to rely on themselves and other family members (Fogiel-Bijaoui & Rutlinger-Reiner, 2013). These factors could be an obstacle to divorce for some women in Israel when their children are younger, leading to a postponement of divorce until the children are grown or the mothers achieve financial independence.

Divorce rates of older adults in Israel more than doubled between 1996 to 2019, from 1.6% to 4.1%. Yet, in comparison to other age groups they are lower (ICBS, 2021). This may indicate that women from younger cohorts are able to cope better financially than the older adult women of this cohort could when they were younger. This coincides with significant changes towards individualism (Berkovitch & Manor, 2022) Israel, is undergoing. Along with an ongoing increase in life expectancy among those aged 65 years and older (Shnoor & Cohen, 2022), similar late-life divorce trends to those in other industrial countries, like the United States (Crowley, 2019) could develop in Israel.

Reasons for divorce at younger ages in Israel are primarily infidelity, difficulties within the couple’s relationship, and external factors to the couple’s relationship (Cohen & Finzi-Dottan, 2012). This is consistent with other study findings focusing on poor communication, basic unhappiness, loss of love, incompatibility, infidelity, mental illness, emotional problems, conflict over gender roles, and spouses’ irresponsibility (Amato, 2010). One of the few studies conducted on the causes of late-life divorce in Israel found that the major causes of marital failure were lack of emotional mutuality and communication, physical and emotional abuse, and infidelity (RokachCohen & Dreman, 2004).

Although late-life divorce is increasing, previous studies have addressed it from the individual’s viewpoint (Bildtgård & Öberg, 2023; Crowley, 2017). A more holistic view of late-life divorce processes could be achieved by incorporating a dyadic perspective (Eisikovits & Koren, 2010), comparing between both ex-spouses’ perspectives. Accordingly, our aim is to examine the process behind first time late-life divorces after a long-term marriage with children, from a dyadic perspective and using a life-course framework.

A life-course framework

A life-course framework offers a holistic view that connects individuals’ lives with collective behavior as part of the process of historical change, by analyzing the interaction between individuals, collective timing of family transitions, and the influence of historical contexts (Hareven, 1986). It includes five principles (Elder et al., 2003):

1. The principle of life-span development as a lifelong process refers to divorce as an option late in life when the marital relationship prevents spouses from further personal growth. How does this shape the process of timing late-life divorce?

2. The principle of agency addresses how choice/lack of choice shapes the divorce timing process for each of the spouses.

3. The principle of time and place refers to the phenomenon occurring in the 21^st century in Israel characterized by values of self-determination alongside strong family ties (Fogiel-Bijaoui & Rutlinger-Reiner, 2013). The common family status of older adults in Israel is being in a first long-term marriage with adult children. How do these characteristics shape the late-life divorce timing process?

4. The principle of timing refers to late-life divorce occurring when the older adults are towards retirement from the workforce and their children are adults with families of their own. How does such timing shape the divorce process?

5. The principle of linked lives refers to how the divorce timing process is shaped by the spouses’ relationships and by having children.

In this study, the life-course perspective refers to examining the synchronization of individual behavior with the collective behavior of the family unit and their relation to the socio-historical context (Elder, 1978). This takes into consideration that divorce is one of the most difficult life-transitions for adults and their families (Amato, 2010). Late-life divorce is examined as a personal, family and socio-historical transition by analyzing the intersection between ‘personal time’, ‘family time’, and ‘socio-historical time’ (Hareven, 1977), along with the intersection between intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects.

Method

This article is based on data collected as part of a large qualitative interview study funded by The Israel Science Foundation (ISF no. 811/19) titled: “The meaning and experience of late-life divorce: A dyadic, a gender and an intergenerational (ex)family perspective”.

Participant and study procedure: Inclusion criteria included: (1) Ex-spouses who divorced for the first time at age 60 years and older; (2) The divorce occurred after a long-term marriage raising children; (3) heterosexual couples. Our age criterion was 60 years and older (instead of the 50 years of age and older gray divorce commonly studied) to capture life-transitions typical of this life stage, like the empty nest. Long-term marriage with children was determined because this is the most common family type for this cohort in Israel. Among Israelis aged 60 years and older, 67% are married, 12.3% are divorced, 17.1% are widowed, 2.9% are single and 0.7% are living apart. Among the 67% who are married, 90.8% are in their first marriage and 96.1% have children (ICBS, 2021). That is, other forms of joint conjugal life such as living together without being married (religiously or civilly), are very rare and were unaccepted in this cohort when they were young adults.

The sample included 10 heterosexual ex-couples (each ex-spouse interviewed separately) (n = 20), and 24 heterosexual individuals (n = 13 women; n = 11 men) whose ex-spouse was not interviewed because either the ex-spouse or the participants themselves were not interested. Focusing on heterosexual couples was because same-sex marriages are nonexistent in this Israeli age cohort. Examining divorced rather than separated couples was intended to capture experiences of ex-spouses whose separation is final, avoiding situations where the couple were to resume the relationship. In total 44 divorced participants were interviewed individually (23 women; 21 men), ensuring a sufficient representation of the two genders.

Most participants (n = 39) divorced at age 60 years and older. Difficulty recruiting both ex-spouses resulted in recruiting five participants (from the dyadic units) who divorced between ages 56–59. However, their spouse was age 60 years or older at the time of divorce. All the participants divorced after a long-term marriage, lasting between 23–45 years. There were slightly more participants newly divorced up to five years (n = 25) than ones divorced from 5.5 to 10 years and more (n = 19). Sample size was determined by data saturation when information was repeated yet included variations, coinciding with qualitative research being about meaning rather than numbers (Braun & Clarke, 2013).

Recruitment was carried out using a sponsored Facebook campaign, enabling potential participants to proactively contact a research team member. Participation was on a voluntary basis without receiving compensation. Screening questions were asked regarding the age of divorce and the length of marriage to determine suitability. After the study aims were explained, an interview was scheduled. The participant who initiated contact with the research team recruited their ex-spouse. Following their consent being given, a research team member arranged a separate interview with each participant.

Data were collected by the research assistants (RAs) and the principal investigator (PI) between February and October 2020. We began with in-person interviews, in the participant’s home or a café, according to their preference. However, after seven such interviews we moved to online interviewing due to lockdowns following the COVID-19 outbreak in Israel. When lockdowns ended, participants were given a choice between in-person and online. Although in-person interviews are usually considered preferable (Davies et al., 2020), we did not detect significant differences between our online and in-person interviews in terms of data richness, depth, or level of openness. We explain this due to participant-interviewer interaction quality (Kvale & Brikmann, 2009) being more important than the type of interviewing format.

The research tool was a semi structured interview guide. The opening question was: “Tell me the story of your late-life divorce”, followed by open-ended questions on married life, the late-life divorce process and its timing, life after divorce, old age, gender, expectations for the future and intergenerational relationships. Each participant was interviewed for between 1 to 3.5 hours. Interviews were audio recorded in Hebrew and transcribed verbatim for data analysis. The online Zoom interviews were video, and audio recorded. The video recordings were deleted immediately after the interview, as per ethical guidelines. The quotes used in this article were translated into English by the corresponding author and were approved by the other authors. All authors are bilingual.

Data analysis integrated principles of inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2013) and dyadic interview analysis (Eisikovits & Koren, 2010). We organized the data using Microsoft Office Excel worksheets for the datasets and Word documents using features such as ‘line numbers’ and ‘new comment’ for the interviews. We familiarized ourselves with the data by reading and rereading each interview and writing notes. Equal importance was given to each data item while conducting complete coding. Inclusive and comprehensive coding was conducted to arrive at themes. Factors delaying divorce despite divorce motivations was one of the themes. Another theme refers to points of no return/turning points along with accelerators to divorce. Selective coding was employed to re-examine these themes in the interviews from both datasets (Braun & Clarke, 2013), as follows: Each interview was analyzed separately regarding the process that led to late-life divorce, gathering all the relevant excerpts. The two interviews with the ex-spouses in each couple were analyzed on a dyadic level, by examining overlaps, contrasts, congruences and incongruences between the ex-spouses’ statements regarding motivations and delays that led to the timing of the divorce. Overlaps and congruences occur when both spouses describe their experience in a similar way, whereas contrasts refer to opposing experiences, and incongruences refers to describing the process experience differently but not necessarily in contrasting terms (see the results section). Examining the process from a dyadic view illustrates a level of complexity we could not have achieved through individuals’ analysis. Together, the versions of each ex-spouse in a dyad serve as boundaries for one another, resulting in each ex-spouse’s perspective being more than the sum of its components (Eisikovits & Koren, 2010).

Trustworthiness refers to how worthy the study findings are of being trusted (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This was achieved by: (1) Peer debriefing via ongoing periodic research team meetings, which included discussing data analysis complexities to resolve disagreements, enable reflexivity and present rich and thick descriptions. During those meeting arguments were held until agreement was reached regarding the derivation of themes. (2) Triangulation was employed by referring to multiple sources, examining themes between datasets, between dyadic units and their individual interviewees, and between research team members. (3) An audit trail was produced by providing a detailed account of the methods, procedures, and decisions and by transcribing the interviews verbatim. (4) Maximum variation was achieved by collecting two datasets, dyadic and individual, which enhanced the probability of reaching divorcees whose experiences range from more harmonious to more conflictual.

Ethics: Ethical approval (No. 011/20) was received from the University Faculty Ethics Committee. Audio-recorded consent was provided by all interviewees expressing their consent in their voice at the beginning of the interview. Furthermore, they were promised confidentiality after the objectives of the study were explained. Identifying demographic information was altered or removed from the presentation of study findings.

Results

Two themes were identified that together reveal a two-phase process behind late-life divorce timing. The first is the long continuous phase of staying together despite growing apart, leading to divorce by motivations along with delays. The second captures the moment of the final decision to divorce, through a point of no return/turning points, along with various background accelerators. Exploring these two phases reveals the complex process behind the timing of late-life divorce. This process was described by almost all dyads and individuals (43 out of 44). The one exceptional participant (one of the ex-wives in the family units) that did not experience the described process was characterized by a marriage that reflects a combination of the ex-wife’s lack of awareness of her ex-husband’s infidelity and his dissatisfaction with the marriage along with the ex-husband fear that once his wife found out about his infidelity, she would leave him. This made him hide his infidelities and postpone the divorce to a later age, when he was emotionally mature enough to reveal his infidelity and get a divorce (see ex-dyad Sarah and Jacob in theme 2, sub-theme1b).

Each theme is illustrated through sub-themes serving as examples. The first theme includes three examples of combinations illustrating delays and motivations. The second theme includes four examples illustrating combination between the point of no return/turning point and divorce accelerators that finally led to the divorce timing. These examples were chosen in accordance with their richness in content and structure.

Theme 1: Long-term phase: staying together (divorce delays) despite growing apart (divorce motivation)

Ex-spouses described a dialectical process of growing apart due to infidelity and/or abuse and/or incompatibility. This process provided motivations for divorce, yet the couple stayed together for many years due to delays such as familyhood (family time), societal norms (social/cultural time), immaturity (personal time), and comfort. In most cases (43 out of 44), each spouse experienced the motivation and the process that led to divorce differently, as well as the delays that postponed divorce to late life. Growing apart (divorce motivations) yet staying together (divorce delays), was manifested in diverse combinations and a changing balance leading eventually to late-life divorce timing.

Sub-theme 1: Growing apart due to infidelity/personal development – staying together for familyhood

The ex-spouses described a complex and long process in which one of the spouses developed in a different direction, and subsequently withdrew from their spouse. This meant that the union was no longer enriching for the one seeking personal growth (personal time), because their spouse had either not expressed interest in joining the process or had developed in other directions. This phase of growing in different directions leading to emotional distance was accompanied by infidelity and/or abuse and/or incompatibility.

This phase is illustrated by ex-dyad Dan aged 69 and Rachel aged 68, divorced 9 years after 32 years of marriage, with three adult children and grandchildren. Each differently perceives the initial factor that started their estrangement. Rachel: “He started studying […], He studied with twenty-five-year-old girls, and suddenly he got a motorcycle driver’s license, and suddenly he wouldn’t come home, because he would stay over with friends, and suddenly all kinds of things changed”.

In the next quote Rachel expresses both the motivation for and delays to the divorce. She uses the motif of time to describe an experience of a long, continuous betrayal that created her strong will to divorce earlier, and repeatedly emphasizes the length of time she wanted a divorce and her desire to divorce which was consistently suppressed by Dan, who delayed the divorce in favor of preserving the family unit for another decade:
From the experience of the long-standing betrayal and the experience of the lies that have also been told throughout all these years, it has been 10 years. I really wanted to get a divorce, a long, long, long time ago, but he all the time, the argument was not to break up the family because there was the daughter who was at home.

Dan describes this phase differently, characterized by increased distancing between them, derived from Rachel’s lack of interest in his pursuits following his professional development:
I went to study, I flourished madly, and an amazing world opened for me that very, very much I wanted my ex-wife to be my partner in this madness. At first, she complied, and it was a lot of fun. At some point she either got fed up or it didn't interest her, all sorts of reasons. She started to distance herself from it, […] At some point it was even cold, a cold wind blew between us. We no longer had, the usual topics of conversation […] I focused on my pleasures, she on her work and our relationship was through the children.

Dan describes the distance that continued to broaden between them, but was not caused by betrayal itself as he indicates at the end of his quote:
The divorce was essentially a final stop in a process that had started years before […] A distance began to form. […] I live in my world, and she lives in hers. And with all the suspicion that I have someone […], what she is caught up on is the part of my infidelity. That it started there. But it didn't start from there.

The explanation Dan provided for continuing his marriage for as long as he did was his desire to maintain the family unit:
My daughter found out about it [the infidelity] and told me: “I can't deal with it.” I promised her I would break it up. [...] I told her: “I will close the matter tomorrow”, and so I did. [...] I completely disconnected, I mean I missed it terribly and everything, but my ex-wife and daughter were the center for me.

The dyadic perspective helps illustrate an ambivalent process in which each of the ex-spouses differently perceives the source of their coming apart that eventually led to divorce. Infidelity is sometimes seen as a cause of distancing and sometimes as its consequence. However, both ex-spouses attributed the timing of their divorce to their shared values of maintaining the family unit (family time).

Sub-theme 2: Growing apart due to incompatibility - Staying together for familyhood, social norms and immaturity

Incompatibility based on differences of character and lack of communication are other contributors to growing apart, illustrated by Ruth (her ex-husband was not interviewed). Aged 68, she was married 44 years, has three adult children, and is four years divorced due to incompatibility from the beginning of the marriage which worsened to complete emotional and physical disconnection:
I am a very warm person, very emotional, very hugging, very loving, and my partner was, […] it is what it is, very cold, very intelligent, […] we were dragged into arguments, endless arguments about who is right, what word was said, in what tone it was said, and what it means, and what punishment is due for it, it was exhausting, exhausting, exhausting, to the point that in fact in the last eight or nine years, I just tried as much as possible not to talk, be in a separate room and live my life.

Ruth’s repetition of the word: “exhausting” characterizes this protracted process which caused her burnout. Despite her strong desire to divorce, the reason for delaying it was a combination of familyhood, immaturity and sociocultural norms:
For many, many, many years I wanted a divorce, and I was probably not strong enough to do it. There were also probably considerations that the children were small and so on […]. In the early years I was so immature, think about it, the 1970s, what it meant to get divorced, for my parents, who were wonderful people but very simple people the worldview was, that, you get married, continue […] we didn't have examples of those who did it [divorced],[…] it took me a while to even believe that I was in a situation which actually isn't good.

Despite increasing incompatibility along with physical separation within the home, Ruth stayed married for many years due to personal, family, and social considerations (personal, family, and social/cultural time).

Sub theme 3: Growing apart by verbal abuse - Staying together for financial convenience

Verbal abuse was another reason for growing apart. Lili aged 72 (her ex-husband was not interviewed), divorced ten years, after 41 years of marriage with three adult children, describes verbal abuse and lack of common interest. The first years of the marriage were fine, but the situation escalated in terms of verbal violence and the control her husband exercised over her:
There wasn’t that much friction at first, but it got worse because he decided to manage me, take over, decide everything for me. […] If he made comments and raised his voice in the presence of the children, he didn't have a problem with it, even though I asked him 20 times that it is possible to talk not when the children are present, but it didn’t help. [...] In our house it was very hard, because everything I did, he criticized, or: “where are you going and are you going again?”

Verbal abuse caused Lili to develop emotional distance that deepened over time: “So there was not much of an emotional connection, at first maybe somehow but over time it went and disappeared.” Despite this, financial reasons kept her in the marriage while raising the children:
It was not good from the beginning, but three children were born, and I wanted a divorce, and it was a problem financially, in terms of raising children, so I delayed and delayed it [the divorce]. […] If you have small children, then you have the burden of raising children. That's why I didn't do it before, because at age 40 when I first filed for a divorce then there was fear, “how will I manage financially with 3 children, how will I provide”? and at age 62 it is much easier.

This example illustrates the influence of the social-historical context on divorce timing, considering that a few decades ago women were less independent financially (social/cultural time).

Theme 2: The final decision phase: ‘Point of no return’ or ‘turning point’ and divorce accelerators

The final decision to divorce was made due to incidents described by ex-spouses as ‘points-of-no-return’, or ‘turning points’, along with various background accelerators.

Sub-theme 1: The ‘point of no return’ and divorce accelerators

After many years of escalating tension as described, came the point of no return, a breaking point that led to the end of the marriage and determined the timing of divorce. The point of no return could be a specific event that caused one of the spouses to make the final decision to divorce, like a public event that exposed the couple’s poor relationship, escalation of marital or financial dishonesty and/or extreme instances of physical/economic/emotional abuse. The specific point of no return in each relationship created a moment of lucidity for one of the spouses, realizing there was no purpose in continuing the marriage. The accelerators accompanying the points of no return were changes in the family structure (family time), sociocultural norms (social/cultural time) for divorce, emotional maturity (personal time), and desire to enjoy the remaining years. The interplay between the point of no return and the accelerators led to the final decision to divorce. The following are three examples each relating to a different point of no return with different accelerators.

The point-of-no-return: public exposure of a poor relationship. Accelerator: Emotional maturity

Ex-dyad David aged 70 and Miriam aged 69 are divorced 10 years, after 40 years of marriage with three adult children, following ongoing infidelities and David’s disrespectful behavior since the beginning of the marriage. The point of no return was David’s 60th birthday party, to which several of the husband’s romantic partners were invited. Miriam gave David an ultimatum about inviting these women to the event, which was ignored. This was Miriam’s point of no return, and the moment she decided to divorce. This event publicly revealed their poor relationship:
My husband’s birthday [...] my daughters decided to throw him a birthday party, a matter of several hundred people. [...] I had someone’s name; I gave an ultimatum that she wouldn’t come. [...] He said: “I will not be pressured, I will invite whoever I want”. I said: “if she comes, I'm not coming. [...]. My daughter calls me and tries to influence me to come and she cries terribly, and I tell her: “You know what? I'm coming.” And that was the moment I said to myself: “I’m getting a divorce”, and from that moment I went in this direction.

The accelerator was emotional maturity (personal time) that developed over the years, which combined with the event described above enabled Miriam to make her final decision to divorce:
I was ready for it [the divorce], I was not ready for it before. And it was a gamble, because I didn’t know what would happen next; Where would I live, how would I live? My pension is [only] five thousand NIS today [...]. Sometimes it comes, somehow, the defining moment, the moment of enlightenment, the moment of age. It’s a minute that will accompany me as a moment that changed me, changed my life for the better.

David: “I divorced because my wife wanted to”. From his viewpoint Miriam’s point of no return was when she realized that he was having an affair with a woman her age, rather than with a younger woman like he used to: “The day it suddenly was clear to her, or she learned that I was having an affair with someone older, that’s when she decided to cut the married life short and get a divorce”.

This dyadic perspective reflects the difference in the perception of the point of no return. Miriam attributes the divorce to the disclosure of their poor relationship in the public arena, while David attributes the divorce to Miriam’s understanding that he is cheating on her with a woman her own age, which was only part of Miriam’s motivation. This example shows that public exposure of a poor marital relationship forces us to face the marital reality and promotes realization that change is necessary. Furthermore, this illustrates that the divorce occurred when the emotional maturation (personal time) of at least one of the ex-spouses was accomplished.

The point of no return: Loss of trust. Accelerators: Sociocultural norms and desire to enjoy the remaining years

Another point of no return can be a particular event where trust is breached beyond repair. First there is the discovery of the event causing a breach of trust; and then the refusal of one of the spouses to deal with the incident’s causes and consequences.

Ex-dyad Sarah aged 62 and Jacob aged 66, three years divorced, after 35 years of marriage with three adult children. This couple divorced over Sarah’s sudden discovery of Jacob’s infidelity, and Jacob’s ongoing experience of Sarah’s disrespect towards him.

Sarah describes that the point of no return was not only the act of infidelity itself, but Jacob’s refusal to admit it and seek spousal counseling:
I told him: "If you don't tell me what it was, and you don't tell me who it is, or what it is, or don't tell me the truth, then we can't continue like this, I'm not willing unless you tell me, then we can go to counseling, [...] whatever you want, but right now you have to tell me who it was, what it was" [...] He wasn't willing.

Jacob describes his point-of-no-return that was represented by an event that made him feel extremely unappreciated and represents his overall marital relationship experience:
On holiday eve I bought presents for everyone and gave them to my wife and children. She tells me the following: “I didn’t buy you anything, go downtown tomorrow and buy something for yourself.” It was so representative - get along - I'm not supposed to do anything about it. It's peanuts, yeah? But it's representative, for me it was very symbolic.

This illustrates that each spouse has their own point of no return which is consistent with the different perceptions regarding the causes of spousal distancing.

Two main accelerators also played an important role along with these points of no return. Sarah refers to sociocultural norms, and Jacob to the desire to enjoy his remaining years. In Sarah’s words:
Do you know what a friend told me after it happened? She divorced ten years before me. She told me: “Honey, he [the ex-husband] works in a job with ten men in a shift, and every time, someone else divorces”. […] All these ten guys, every time. And every time he would say to me: “Are they crazy? Why are they divorcing?”

This description points to the trend of change around normative attitudes to divorce in Israeli society. According to Sarah’s assessment, this trend legitimizes divorce, accelerating his decision. Jacob’s accelerator for divorce, however, was a desire to enjoy the years he has left: “I made some sort of decision that the 20–25 years I have left to live, I want to live them as I see fit. And that led me to leave home”.

The divorcees’ different perceptions further exacerbate the distance between them that led to their divorce. This dyadic perspective reveals the insight that it is enough that one side experiences a long-term process of motivations, delay, accelerator and point of no return, considering that the ex-wife’s experience included only the point of no return. Furthermore, this indicates that divorce could happen when the social context was appropriate (sociocultural time).

The point-of-no-return: abuse escalation. Accelerators: children launched home and financial comfort

An example of abuse escalation as a point of no return is illustrated by ex-wife Anat (her ex-husband was not interviewed), aged 68, divorced 4 years, after 42 years of marriage due to verbal and financial abuse, lack of communication, and incompatibility. Anat described a lack of communication from the beginning of the marriage and unsuccessful attempts to engage her ex-husband to go to spousal therapy. The point of no return was the husband’s refusal to allow his wife to go on a trip, despite financial stability:
I was about to celebrate my 63rd or 64th birthday and I wanted to go abroad with my girlfriends for four days, and during the lack of communication, I told him this. You don't understand the hysteria he got into: ‘There's no way'. Again, the economic issue, and at that time the economic situation did make it possible, I was working. Financially, we were both settled; he worked in a settled place, got a good salary, and so did I. And financially, it completely allowed me four days with girlfriends. He said: “Over my dead body”. [...] Of course I didn't go, but that was the real trigger. All my life I worked, day and night, at work, at home, [...] four adult children, and he says to me: “Over my dead body.” […] The sentence I will never forget: “If it wasn't for me, you wouldn't have a home.”

This event made Anat realize that the economic abuse is unrelated to an objective economic situation but comes from her husband’s subjective viewpoint. Anat could not tolerate her husband’s communication style. The accelerator accompanying the point of no return was that her children had left home and Anat felt comfortable enough financially to divorce:
I, for myself, am very settled. My fear was, when the children were still at home, the financial struggle. It was also much easier for him, because then the children were already [adults] and he did not have to pay child support.

This example illustrates the intersection between the point of no return and the accelerator, both related to financial issues creating the appropriate timing for divorce. Furthermore, this indicates that appropriate family structure (family time), when children left home, along with Anat’s realization that this marriage had no future (personal time), enabled the divorce to occur.

Sub-theme 2: ‘Turning point’

For some ex-spouses the process leading to the divorce involved a turning point rather than a point of no return, whereby accelerators played a significant role at the end of the process. The following two examples illustrate different turning points and accelerators.

Turning-point: children leaving home. Accelerator: illness worsening

This is illustrated by Moti (his ex-wife was not interviewed), age 66, divorced 2 years, after 41 years of marriage with four adult children. According to Moti:
As soon as the children left home, that was the turning point. Because when we were busy, that's how I see things, busy at home with all the processes, especially with the children, […] then the home still functioned more or less. Let's say, as soon as they left, the last one left home, then we drifted apart.

At the time his wife left home, he was coping with cancer. He experienced it as abandonment when he needed her most, perceiving it as the divorce accelerator:
I was betrayed according to the holiest value of not leaving a wounded person in the field. Because for me it was done after 41 years of marriage with four children and five grandchildren, it was not done in an explosion. Looking back, it was done in a planned and cold way. Simply for my wife it stopped paying off financially to be married to me. […] She just one day got up and left. […] While I have been ill for the past 11 years as of today and 9 years as of the date she left since I have cancer. Only that exactly then my condition worsened considerably. She calculated that for her physical and economic benefit, instead of using me, what she has been doing all these years, she will have to help me. So, I feel very betrayed.

In this case, children leaving home (family time) exacerbated Moti and his wife’s poor relationship, because they no longer had to intensively deal with them. This new situation exposed the distance between the spouses which accelerated, according to Moti, with his illness worsening and his wife realizing what staying with him would involve.

Turning-point and accelerator: The death of the couple’s parents

Another turning point is illustrated by Asaf (his ex-wife was not interviewed), aged 69, divorced 2 years after 32 years of marriage because of growing emotional distance and lack of intimacy. Asaf indicates having greater freedom to divorce when his parents and his wife's parents are no longer alive (family time), thus sparing them the upset divorce could cause:

My parents passed away […], and her parents passed away. There’s a great saying that says you’re completely free when you don’t have parents anymore […] when it’s over, and you’re completely free in terms of that you don’t have, parental authority, and you no longer have anyone to disappoint, then you’re already freer to act.

This illustrates changes in the extended family structure which served as a turning point (family time). In conclusion, along with a drawn-out delay phase, it is possible to identify the point of no return/turning point serving as an accelerator that joins the main motivation.

Discussion

This study contributes to the literature on late-life divorce by: (a) revealing the two-phase process behind late-life divorce timing; (b) analyzing this process through dyadic/individual perspectives offering complex and comprehensive insights; (c) focusing on divorcees at around age 60 years and older which are less frequently studied in the context of late-life divorce; (d) focusing on a family-oriented society like Israel while most studies focus on western societies like North America (Crowley, 2017) and Sweden (Bildtgård & Öberg, 2023).

While the motivations that led to divorce late in life are like those in younger ages, the process is different due to the different life stages, marital dynamics and values that characterize this cohort, as illustrated below. The timing of late-life divorce is now analyzed through the intersection between personal time, family time, and social/cultural time, which coincides with a life-course perspective (Hareven, 1986; Putney & Bengtson, 2003) and from the intersection between intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects.

Intersections between personal time, family time, and social/cultural time

Our research innovation is that the timing of late-life divorce was due to intersections between personal time, family time and social/historical time (Hareven, 1986; Putney & Bengtson, 2003), either leading to or inhibiting divorce at a particular moment. These time factors acted as inhibitors at early ages, whereas at an older age, they served as accelerators that joined together to determine the divorce timing. In a similar way, the same life transition such as the empty nest on the family level, or retirement on the personal level, can either strengthen the couple’s relationship when the relationship is strong, or accelerate divorce if the relationship is unstable (Bildtgård & Öberg, 2023). Some of the interviewees described that divorce was delayed for maintaining the family unit, meaning that family time was not suitable for divorce (linked lives principle). This coincides with findings that shared children can be a reason to postpone divorce (Canham et al., 2014). Furthermore, some participants did not feel mature enough to divorce, meaning that personal time was not suitable. Others described that for their cohort it was not socially acceptable to get divorced, meaning that socio/historical time was unsuitable. This life-course perspective emphasizes that individuals and birth cohorts are influenced by historical context and place and by social changes through the impact that such changes have on their interpersonal contexts (Hareven, 1986). The cohort of this study was born and raised in a social context with less social acceptance for divorce. For some, this context played a significant role in delaying divorce (time and place principle). Furthermore, in the past, choosing a partner was based more on instrumental considerations, and less on emotions. Whereas in the present, loss of love has become a major reason to marital breakdown (Kayser, 1993). However, for some of the interviewees, as the years passed, they matured emotionally and were ready to make the decision to divorce, meaning a fit with their personal time. Some stated that the accelerator for divorce was the realization that they should enjoy their remaining years. This reflects the ‘paradox of time’, having more free time after retirement along with an empty nest, and potentially fewer healthy years left to live (Bildtgård & Öberg, 2023). This realization accelerated some of the interviewees’ decision to finally divorce (timing principle). The family time for divorce became suitable once the children left home. Furthermore, today’s older adults were young adults when cultural change in marital and family values began, thus they took part in the change of attitudes towards divorce. This means that the socio/historical time for divorce was right (time and place principle). Hence, the optimal timing was determined by an intersection of individual development, family-life stage, and socio-historical conditions (Elder, 1978). Part of the interviewees’ perspectives illustrate a reconstruction of their couple’s history while others illustrate a reflection of a time when divorce was an illegitimate solution to an unsatisfactory marriage.

Intersection between intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects: Relationships and values

The optimal timing for late-life divorce was the culmination of a long-term complex process composed of two phases. Here, the intersection between intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects can be identified. The spousal relationship leading to late-life divorce was shaped by motivations and inhibitors. The main late-life divorce motivations are the same as those at younger ages, which include growing apart (Bair, 2007), infidelity, spouses’ mental health problems, financial problem, and abuse (Crowley, 2017). However, we found that the primary divorce motivation in late life is growing apart, which could lead to marital dissatisfaction including gradual loss of emotional attachment, decline in caring about the spouse, and an increase sense of apathy and indifference toward each other (Kayser, 1993).

This coincides with recent research conducted in the US indicating that the most common motivation for late-life divorce was growing apart (Crowley, 2018). Accordingly, one of the theoretical concepts involved in late-life divorce is ‘emotional divorce’, used to express the individual emotional closure of the conjugality cycle (Damo & Cenci, 2021). Divorce consists of two distinct phases: the formal and the emotional, which are not governed by the same chronology (McGoldrick & Carter, 2005). The ex-spouses in our sample described a process of emotional divorce occurring long before the formal divorce. In most cases, both ex-spouses experienced distancing from their spouse. It was rarely experienced by one side only.

The dyadic perspectives illustrated the different interpretations that the ex-spouses gave to the same events and processes that led to the divorce timing. This is referred to in dyadic analysis as overlap of text and contrast in interpretation (Eisikovits & Koren, 2010), expressing their emotional distancing and miscommunication. These gaps further emphasized the marital dynamics (linked lives principle) that allowed the timing of the divorce only late in life (timing principle). The viewpoint of the individuals reinforced the insights regarding the phases of this process.

Emotional distancing was expressed in having little or no communication between spouses, along with experiencing distrust in their ex-spouse following behaviors and actions. Some described behavioral distancing along with emotional distancing, manifested in living for years in separate rooms and marital separations for short and/or long periods. Some described attempts to repair the relationship through therapy, as well as providing opportunities for relationship growth. This shows that at least one of the spouses was willing to work on the relationship, but either therapy was unsuccessful or one of the spouses refused to try it (linked lives principle). These experiences deepen our understanding of the values that delayed divorce.

Values behind divorce inhibitors

The value of family and maintaining the family unit (family time) is one of the common inhibitors delaying divorce in our sample, along with other delays like financial comfort, immaturity (personal time), and social norms (socio/historical time). This aspect is unique to older adults who were raised on family values, which were prominently reflected in the interviews as a central factor delaying divorce. The dyadic perspective enabled us to identify that in some cases family time delayed the divorce for both spouses (see ex-spouses1 in the findings), which further emphasizes the importance of this value for this cohort. These findings coincide with existing research showing that while couples are often unhappily married, they choose to remain together for their children, especially when children are young and dependent (Bildtgård & Öberg, 2023). Furthermore, similar core reasons for delaying divorce at younger ages were identified, which involved remaining together for children, stress of single-income finances and unemployment, uncertainty around being alone or fear of being unable to establish new relationships, cultural or religious ideals regarding lifelong marriage, and hoping the spouse changes their behavior (Canham et al., 2014).

These inhibitors express the value of familyhood in Israel that delayed divorce for many years, along with the value of responsibility to maintain financial comfort for the children. These values tended to be stronger than the desire to divorce, keeping couples together for decades despite simultaneously experiencing marital difficulties. The familial characteristics of Israeli society (Fogiel-Bijaoui & Rutlinger-Reiner, 2013) could explain why our results are different from recent American results that do not support the claim that married couples have postponed divorce to the children’s leaving home (Lin et al., 2018). However, while these strong values managed to postpone divorce, they were unable to prevent divorce as reflected in the ‘point of no return’/‘turning point’. There were also accelerators like adult children leaving home and becoming financially independent, or the spouse’s parent’s death, which uniquely characterize late-life. The same factors that delayed divorce at younger ages become accelerators at an older age, due to changes in the family structure. These were mainly: adult children leaving home (family time; linked lives principle), the increased social acceptance of divorce (socio/historical time; time and place principle), and level of emotional maturity (personal time; lifelong development principle).

Moments determining late-life divorce

Along with a drawn-out delay phase, ex-spouses emphasized how a specific event caused them to make the final decision to divorce. The point of no return was a specific occurrence or realization that there was no reason to continue to tolerate the spouse’s actions. Turning points are specific points in time in which a person experiences a major transformation in their life-course trajectory, which in turn changes who they are, as well as their commitments to important relationships. They are often associated with major life events such as family formation, but they may also result from one’s own realizations or reinterpretations of past events (Hutchison, 2019). The interplay between the divorce accelerators and the point of no return/turning point enabled the optimal divorce moment.

Late-life divorce contradictions

Two inherent contradictions were found in late-life divorce processes:
(1) A drawn-out phase, versus one defining moment: The ex-spouses described many years of marital dissatisfaction, which culminated in one transformative moment, a ‘moment of truth’ that enabled the divorce, described as the point of no return. That is, once one side felt ready to divorce, the divorce could happen instantaneously. The contrast between a long duration and a specific moment further emphasizes the uniqueness of late-life divorce and the need for one side to be active in initiating it (agency principle).

(2) Who is the initiator? Although in most cases, the ex-wives described being the active ones initiating the final divorce, it was initiated as a reaction to their ex-husband’s longstanding behaviors. Some ex-wives described their hope for change in their husband’s behavior, yet this did not happen. Eventually, the ex-wives decided to divorce. This is consistent with studies in the US that women are more likely to initiate late-life divorce (Crowley, 2018).

Limitations are related to recruitment, which was conducted using the Facebook platform which means that only divorced ex-spouses with access to social media could participate. Considering not all the late-life divorced population uses Facebook, this might have produced a more homogeneous sample. Another limitation is the difficulty of recruiting both ex-spouses to participate in the study. It is possible that the perspective of the other ex-spouse, in the interviews with the individuals, would have added new insights, but some of the participants were not interested in involving their ex-spouses. However, despite this difficulty, we recruited 10 ex-spousal dyads in addition to 24 individual ex-spouses. Moreover, these dyads represent different types of ex-spouse relationships after divorce, some are conflictual (see in results section the dyads Dan and Rachel; Jakob and Sarah) and some more harmonious (see in results section the dyad David and Miriam). The 10 ex-couples and 24 individual ex-spouses provided together rich perspectives and new insights.

Another limitation is the broad range of time since the divorce, ranging from very recent to over a decade later, which can affect the ex-spouse’s perspectives. Yet, there is a proportional distribution between the newly divorced and the veteran divorced with no meaningful differences found related to the experience of the divorce timing process.

Conclusion and implications

This study contributes new insights through three main aspects: (1) the disclosure of the unique two-phase process that together create the divorce timing, accomplished through analyzing the intersection of the three time factors (personal, family, socio/cultural) and analyzing the codependency between relationships and values; (2) highlighting the role of late-life in the decision to divorce by emphasizing the transformation of the same factors that delayed divorce at younger ages, into accelerators at a later age (e.g. family life stages); (3) highlighting the contradictions in the process of late-life divorce. All these factors represent meaningful contributions to understanding the late-life divorce timing process. Practical implications for family gerontology include developing interventions and mechanisms to address the needs of these couples such as emotional support and financial and legal consulting during and after the divorce. Guided internet-based self-help intervention based on models for coping with grief were found to be effective for divorcees in reducing depression and loneliness and increasing life satisfaction (Brodbeck et al., 2019). Furthermore, online intervention significantly reduced hostility toward the he ex-partner, extended family, friends, and coworkers among recently divorced people (Øverup et al., 2020), which is important for the family well-being.

Policies could address the challenges of married life by providing couples with available marriage counseling for those who are interested. However, it is important to stress that couples in which violence or abuse has occurred should separate. Social policies supporting economic autonomy, single-parent families and emotional and practical support for divorcing couples should be developed.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: The Israel Science Foundation (ISF no. 811/19).

Ethical statement

Open science statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices,the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research cannot be publicly shared but are available upon request. The data can be obtained by emailing: ckoren@univ.haifa.ac.il . The materials used in the research cannot be publicly shared but are available upon request. The materials can be obtained by emailing: ckoren@univ.haifa.ac.il .

ORCID iD

Chaya Koren

References

Amato

P. R.

(2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 650–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x

Bair

(2007). Calling it quits: Late-life divorce and starting over. Random House Incorporated.

Berkovitch

Manor

(2022). Between familism and neoliberalism: The case of Jewish Israeli grandmothers. Feminist Theory, 24(4), 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/14647001221075538

Bildtgård

Öberg

(2023). Uncoupling in the third age–the importance of the existential context for late-life divorce (pp. 1–23). Ageing & Society.

Braun

Clarke

(2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage.

Brodbeck

Berger

Biesold

Rockstroh

Znoj

H. J.

(2019). Evaluation of a guided internet-based self-help intervention for older adults after spousal bereavement or separation/divorce: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Affective Disorders, 252, 440–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.04.008

Brown

S. L.

Lin

I. F.

(2022). The graying of divorce: A half century of change. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 77(9), 1710–1720. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbac057

Brown

S. L.

Wright

M. R.

(2019). Divorce attitudes among older adults: Two decades of change. Journal of Family Issues, 40(8), 1018–1037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19832936

Canham

S. L.

Mahmood

Stott

Sixsmith

O’Rourke

(2014). ’Til divorce do us part: Marriage dissolution in later life. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 55(8), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2014.959097

10.

Cohen

Finzi-Dottan

(2012). Reasons for divorce and mental health following the breakup. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 53(8), 581–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2012.719413

11.

Crowley

J. E.

(2017). Gray divorce: Explaining midlife marital splits. Journal of Women & Aging, 31(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2017.1409918

12.

Crowley

J. E.

(2018). Gray divorce: What we lose and gain from mid-life splits. University of California Press.

13.

Crowley

J. E.

(2019). Gray divorce: Explaining midlife marital splits. Journal of Women & Aging, 31(1), 49–72.

14.

Damo

D. D.

Cenci

C. M. B.

(2021). Emotional divorce: Similarities and differences according to the position occupied. Trends in Psychology, 29(3), 505–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-021-00088-w

15.

Davies

LeClair

K. L.

Bagley

Blunt

Hinton

Ryan

Ziebland

(2020). Face-to-face compared with online collected accounts of health and illness experiences: A scoping review. Qualitative Health Research, 30(13), 2092–2102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320935835

16.

Eisikovits

Koren

(2010). Approaches to and outcomes of dyadic interview analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 20(12), 1642–1655. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732310376520

17.

Elder

(1978). Family history and the life course. In Hareven

T. K.

(Ed.), Transitions: The family and the life course in historical perspective (pp. 17–64). Elsevier.

18.

Elder

G. H.

Johnson

M. K.

Crosnoe

(2003). The emergence and development of life course theory (pp. 3–19). Springer.

19.

Endeweld

Herbst-Debby

Kaplan

(2022). Do the privileged always win? Economic consequences of divorce by income and gender groups. Social Indicators Research, 159(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02733-4

20.

Fogiel-Bijaoui

Rutlinger-Reiner

(2013). Guest editors' introduction: Rethinking the family in Israel. Israel Studies Review, 28(2), 7–9. https://doi.org/10.3167/isr.2013.280213

21.

Hareven

(1986). Historical changes in the life course. Human Development.

22.

Hareven

T. K.

(1977). Family time and historical time (pp. 57–70). Daedalus.

23.

Hutchison

E. D.

(2019). An update on the relevance of the life course perspective for social work. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 100(4), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044389419873240

24.

Israel Central Bureau of Statistics . (2021). Social survey. Retrieved from. https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/subjects/Pages/–החברתיתסקר.aspx [Hebrew].

25.

Jensen

T. M.

Bowen

G. L.

(2015). Mid- and late-life divorce and parents’ perceptions of emerging adult children’s emotional reactions. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 56, 409–427.

26.

Kayser

(1993). When love dies: The process of marital disaffection. Guilford Press.

27.

Kvale

Brikmann

(2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage Publications.

28.

Lin

Brown

S. L.

Wright

M. R.

Hammersmith

A. M.

(2018). Antecedents of gray divorce: A life course perspective. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 73(6), 1022–1031. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw164

29.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

30.

McGoldrick

Carter

(2005). Remarried families. In The expanded family life cycle: Individual, family, and social perspectives. Pearson.

31.

OECD . (2021). Marriage and divorce rates, family Database. https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_3_1_Marriage_and_divorce_rates.pdf

32.

Øverup

C. S.

Ciprić

Gad Kjeld

Strizzi

J. M.

Sander

Lange

Hald

G. M.

(2020). Cooperation after divorce: A randomized controlled trial of an online divorce intervention on hostility. Psychology of Violence, 10(6), 604–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000288

33.

Putney

N. M.

Bengtson

V. L.

(2003). Intergenerational relations in changing times. In Handbook of the life course (pp. 149–164). Springer.

34.

RokachCohen

R. O.

Dreman

(2004). Triggers and fuses in late divorce: The role of short-term crises vs. ongoing frustration on marital break-up. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 40(3–4), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v40n03_03

35.

Shnoor

Cohen

(2022). The 65+ Population in Israel: Statistical abstract 2019. Brookdale Institute.