Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DRAFT
Michael Wagner
and
Bernd Wei
Abstract
The aim of the paper is to evaluate divorce studies in Germany and to apply metaanalytic techniques in order to summarize the results of this research. Literature
research identified 42 studies published between 1987 and 2001. These studies use
longitudinal data from seven projects and all studies estimate event history models
with the divorce rate as dependent variable. In sum, they examine 399 different risk
factors and report 3730 effects. Results of the meta-analysis are threefold. First, there
are methodological problems in the field of meta-analysis that are not resolved in a
very satisfactory way. Second, no theory of divorce has been tested in detail, rather
single hypotheses have been examined which were derived from exchange or
microeconomic theory. Third, divorce research can be improved by a more cumulative
design which means that we need more studies conducting a replication of existing
empirical findings.
1 Problem1
During the past twenty years German sociology experienced a boom of divorce
studies. This development was mainly caused by methodological innovations that
enabled a reliable longitudinal assessment of marital histories, e.g. retrospectively in
life course research or prospectively in panel studies. The aim of this paper is to
evaluate the studies on divorce risks in Germany. So many divorce risks have been
reported that it became unclear what we really know about the determinants of marital
instability (Hartmann 1989; Dorbritz/Grtner 1998). Which theories or hypotheses
have been confirmed by empirical findings? Is research undertaken cumulatively? Are
empirical findings presented in such a way that their evaluation is possible?
The evaluation of empirical research is usually done by qualitative reviews. However,
this kind of research synthesis shows various shortcomings. The two most serious
ones result from non-systematical and incomplete literature research as well as from
an inadequate integration and interpretation of diverging quantitative results
(Wagner/Wei 2001). In order to overcome these disadvantages, we apply metaanalytic methods. Besides primary and secondary research, this method stands for a
third type of empirical social research. Meta-analysis is primarily concerned with the
quantitative integration of published empirical findings (Glass 1976). However, it
allows not only their integration but also the explanation of their heterogeneity.
Meta-analysis is rather unknown, especially in German sociology. Only Knzler (1994)
and Engelhardt (2000) mention it, the latter as part of a survey of study designs in
demography. Some others call their study a meta-analysis, as in fact they summarize
characteristics of numerous publications, but without systematically investigating
quantitative results (Bretschneider 1997; Hartmann 1999). In other disciplines than
sociology, like medical science, psychology and educational science, meta-analysis
has gained much more popularity, in Germany as well as elsewhere. In psychology,
the outcomes of a great number of studies that are interested in the success of certain
therapies have been summarized by meta-analyses. In medical science, the Evidence
Based Medicine has already been institutionalized (Altman 2000; Petitti 2000; Sutton
et al. 2000). Numerous handbooks and monographies on meta-analysis underline the
importance of this research area (Bortz/Olkin 1985; Hunter/Schmidt 1990;
Lipsey/Wilson 2001; Rosenthal 1991; Schultz-Gambard 1987; Sutton et al. 2000).
This research was supported by the German Science Foundation from July
2000 to July 2001 (WA 1502/1-1). We thank Hans-Peter Blossfeld (Bamberg) for
helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.
2
2 Meta-analysis
To perform a meta-analysis does not differ much from other types of social research
(Diekmann 1997; Schnell et al. 1995). We apply a five stage-model proposed by
Cooper (1982):
1. Problem/research question
2. Literature research
3. Data evaluation and coding
4. Data analysis
5. Presentation of results
Development), the Family and Fertility Survey of Germany, the General Social Survey
of the Social Sciences and the Cologne Longitudinal Study of Gymnasium graduates.
Most of the publications are taken from the Mannheim Research Project, followed by
the Family Survey (Table 1).
Table 1: Number of publications by year of publication and study
Year
Study
DoD1
GSEP
FS
GLHS
FFS
GSS
1987
0
0
0
0
0
1
1989
0
1
0
0
0
0
1991
0
1
0
1
0
0
1992
0
3
0
0
0
0
1993
0
0
0
1
0
0
1994
0
1
0
0
0
0
1995
0
0
2
0
0
0
1996
0
0
1
0
0
0
1997
3
0
2
1
0
0
1998
2
1
1
0
2
0
1999
10
0
4
1
0
0
2000
2
0
1
0
0
0
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
17
7
11
4
2
1
Total2
KLS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
6
6
15
3
1
43
DoD: Mannheim Research Project Determinants of Divorce` ;GSEP: German Socio-Economic Panel
(DIW, Berlin); FS: Family Survey of the German Youth Institute (DJI, Munich); GLHS: German Life
History Study (MPI, Berlin); FFS: Family and Fertility Survey; GSS: General Social Survey of the Social
Studies; KLS: Cologne Longitudinal Study of Gymnasium Graduates.
2
Kleins (1999; No. 32 and 33) study has been counted twice, so the total number of publications has
been artificially increased by an additional publication.
2.2
Levels of Analysis
We distinguish between three basic concepts: study, publication and effect size.
These concepts are ordered hierarchically (figure 1): study is defined as the data
source or data sample, publications report empirical results that are based on
individual studies, and an effect size is a standardized research outcome which refers
to statistics that capture the degree of association between variables (Hedges/Olkin
1985). In our case, the only type of research outcomes are regression coefficients.
S tudy
Sampling unit
P ublicatio n A
Unit of analysis
P ublicatio n B
S ubgro up A
P ublicatio n C
S ubgro up B
M o del A
M o del B
E ffect size A
E ffect size A
E ffect size B
E ffect size B
E ffect size C
E ffect size D
E ffect size D
Consequently, the effect sizes do not only depend on the studies or on the
characteristics of the underlying sample, but also on the particular subgroup and on
the particular specification of the model.
Altogether 3730 effects have been coded which have been reported for 399 variables the determinantes of divorce. This huge number of variables results from the fact that
some of them only differ with respect to value categorization or reference groups,
although they measure the same theoretical concept. The variables and their effects
have been estimated in 515 models (Cox-model 71.3%; sickle model 11.8%;
exponential model 9.7%; generalized log-logistic model 4.1%; remaining model
specifications 3.1%). On an average, 7.2 covariate effects have been observed for
each model and 9.3 covariate effects were counted for each variable.
(2001) and Wei (2001). The statistical analyses have been realized by the software
R: A Language for Data Analysis and Graphics (Ihaka/Gentleman 1996). Some of
the already existing analysis functions could be taken over, in other cases the
programming of new functions was necessary.
Some authors simply aggregate effect sizes of coefficients from multivariate models.
For example t- and p-values can be transformed into a correlation coefficient r in order
to get a comparable effect size (Amato/Gilbreth 1999; Karney/Bradbury 1995). We do
not know of any meta-analysis that ignores an effect size because coefficients were
estimated in multivariate models. Because it is common to aggregate effect sizes
which is related to different subgroups (cohorts, geographical regions, years), and
which also estimates different parameters, it is reasonable to use this method. In the
present study we exclusively use regression coefficients. The pooled effect sizes are
realized through the computation of the weighted means of all effect sizes. In this
context, three requirements are important :
a)
b)
c)
A consequence of the first requirement is that only a small sample of all variables is
included in meta-analysis (see below). To realize condition b), it is important only to
integrate those effect sizes that are derived from different studies or subsamples. To
meet these criteria, in a first step effect sizes for similar variables are aggregated for
each study. In a second step mean effect sizes are pooled across studies
(Beelmann/Bliesener 1994; Bortz/Dring 1995).
To achieve the third requirement, we weighted the single effect sizes by their inverse
variance (the squared standard error) of each effect size. As suggested by many
authors, we use the weighted arithmetic mean (Hedges/Olkin 1985; Lipsey/Wilson
2000; Normand 1999; Shadish/Haddock 1994).Hence, larger weights are assigned to
effect sizes from studies with smaller variances and larger within-study sample sizes
(Shadish/Haddock 1994). Effect sizes based on a large sample show a higher
reliability and will therefore get higher weights.
The mean effect size E S , weighted by their inverse variance vi is calculated for n
independent effects sizes ESi as follows:
n
ES =
w
i =1
ESi
w
i =1
, where w i =
1
1
.
=
vi SE 2
The inverse variance vi is a weight assigned to the study and equals the inverse
squared standard error (see appendix).
v i* = 2 + v i (see appendix) .
In the present case, the pooled effect sizes are expected to be heterogeneous,
because the different effect sizes are based on different subgroups or model
specifications (cf. above). Especially, the integration of partial coefficients is not
successfully solved. Coefficients from different models do not estimate the same
parameter. Therefore, we particularly make use of random effects models and expect
results of strong heterogeneity. We cannot address the question to what extent
heterogeneity analyses could assess how the variety of model specifications affect the
mean effect size.
Homogeneity tests are applied to decide whether a distribution model with random or
with fixed effects is appropriate. In many cases these tests are based on the so-called
Q-statistic (cf. Hedges/Olkin 1985; Normand 1999; White 1999). We do not consider
other homogeneity tests like for example the Likelihood Ratio Test (Hedges/Olkin
1985). With k-1 degrees of freedom, the Q-statistic follows a Chi2 distribution with k
effect sizes:
Q =
w (ES
i
i =1
ES )2 .
If Q exceeds the critical value of the Chi2 distribution, the null hypothesis of a
homogeneous distribution has to be rejected. Hence, the distribution of effect sizes
would be assumed to be heterogeneous. It would be possible to conduct further
analyses that identify the determinants of heterogeneity. Those analyses are restricted
9
to large sample sizes and could therefore not be applied in the present study. Instead,
we compute the weighting factor as the weighted average mean based on a random
effects model.
(2) The equation above can also be used if t-values are reported. There is no
difference between - or -coefficients, because the computation of a t-value does not
depend on effect size types.
(3) As already stated, some publications only report intervals of significance levels,
e.g. 0.01 < p < 0.05. In this case, the appropriate z-value can still be computed (that
is the upper bound of the interval) and we get SE= /Z.
We define effect sizes as non-significant if no significance levels are reported.
Following Rosenthal (1991), we assign a p-value of 0.5 and the corresponding z-value
of 0.0 (one-tailed) as non-significant. In our case, a two-tailed question is given, so
that z is set to 0.67. The estimation of the standard error can only be done very
roughly. Another method is to set -coefficients to zero. It is not known which of the
two methods produces less errors.
The whole decision process of finding an appropriate estimation procedure can be
visualized as a flowchart (figure 2). It also includes the so-called percent effects that
can be computed from ( -1) x 100.The figure shows the three already mentioned
information levels which follow a hierarchical order. Within these three levels, it is
important to distinguish between types of effect sizes in order to choose the
10
appropriate estimation method. To avoid confusion not all connections are shown
(instead we use an encircled A).
11
S ta n d a rd e rr o r s (S E ) o r o th e r
u se fu l sta tistics fo r co m p u tin g
we ig h ts
In fo rm a tio n o n
sta n d a r d e rr o r s?
no
no
t-v a lu e s ?
p - va lu e s?
ye s
ye s
ye s
W h ich typ e o f
e ffe ct?
W h ich typ e o f
e ffe ct?
W h ich typ e o f
e ffe ct?
-e ffe c t ?
ye s
-e ffe c t ?
-e ffe c t ?
ye s
ye s
S E = /z
S E = /t
A
ye s
no
no
-e ffe c t ?
ye s
(1 ) t= /S E
(2 ) = ln ()
(3 ) S E = /t
-e ffe c t ?
-e ffe c t ?
no
ye s
ye s
(1 ) = ln ()
(2 ) S E = /t
(1 ) = ln ()
(2 ) S E = /z
A
no
% -e ffe c t ?
ye s
(1 )
(2 )
(3 )
(4 )
=%/100+1
t= /S E
= ln ( )
S E = /t
A
no
% -e ffe c t ?
% -e ffe c t ?
ye s
S q u a re S E a n d we ig h t ' s
ye s
(1 )
=%/100+1
(2) = ln ( )
(3 ) S E = /z
(1 ) =%/100+1
(2) = ln ()
(3 ) S E = /t
End
variables are integrated that are related to a common theoretical concept that is an
element of a theory of marital stability. For that reason we shortly present the main
theories of marital stability.
3.2 Sample
Only independent effect sizes should be synthesized in meta-analysis. As the
publications are rooted in seven single studies a maximum of seven effects per
variable can be integrated. Effect size were pooled if the corresponding effect was
reported at least in two cases.
As table 2 shows, 399 variables stem from 42 publications. For 336 variables only one
independent effect size has been observed. We disregard these variables for two
reasons. First, the number of variables would have been oversized. Second, it is
questionable whether effects which have not been replicated are important
(Karney/Bradbury 1995). For the remaining 63 variables, between two and five
independent effect sizes have been observed. Thus, no variable has been used either
in all or in six of the seven studies. Out of the 63 variables with more than one
independent effect size, 45 went into the meta-analysis. This reduction resulted from
the fact that some variables had different reference categories, whereas other
variables had been aggregated to a more general variable. Also the gender variable
was sorted out as it is only useful for methodological reasons. The remaining 45
variables produced 1550 effects which resulted in 136 independent effect sizes after
their aggregation at the study level.
14
Total
84,2
(336)
9,3
(37)
3,3
(13)
2,3
(9)
1,0
(4)
100
(399)
15
Divorce risk
Premarital information about the spouse
Premarital cohabitation
Duration of cohabitation
Duration until start of relationship
Duration until common household
5
2
2
2
74 48 13
9 4 4
8 7 8
11 10 11
Search costs
Early marriage (marriage before 21)
Child birth at time of marriage
Age at marriage
Wife s age at marriage
Husband s age at marriage
Wife s age at start of relationship
Husband s age at start of relationship
4
3
5
5
3
2
2
31
10
66
87
67
5
5
28 0
8 8
52 63
73 81
24 63
3 3
2 4
Marital investments
Birth of first child
Birth of second child
Birth of third child
Common parenthood
Number of children
Premarital birth
Common home-ownership of the spouses
Home-ownership
4
4
4
4
4
5
2
3
60
27
19
73
41
79
42
31
40
13
7
49
37
25
27
29
External barriers
Catholic
Number of church attendances
3
2
13 12 13
17 14 14
56
25
10
69
38
30
41
31
0 >0
-0,123 -11,574
0,099
0,316
0,016
0,011
0,006
0,042
0,353 16,61
0,886 124,04
0,068 162,78
0,056 49,45
0,017
9,68
0,084 28,60
0,016
0,95
0 4 -0,107 -10,147
0 2 -0,015 -1,489
0 9 -0,004 -0,399
0 4 -0,167 -15,380
0 3 -0,235 -20,943
2 47 -0,003 -0,300
0 1 -0,456 -36,619
0 0 -0,797 -54,932
*** 0,013
0,010
0,034
*** 0,015
*** 0,019
0,004
*** 0,035
*** 0,052
-0,259
-0,039
-0,019
-0,518
-0,210
0,021
-0,776
-0,832
-22,818
-3,825
-1,882
-40,429
-18,942
2,122
-53,976
-56,482
0,103
0,032
0,063
0,174
0,099
0,018
0,371
0,103
0,441
0,444
0,770
0,961
0,358
0,634
0,743
0,512
62,81
13,44
4,95
34,87
67,67
51,94
18,44
4,43
-0,086
-8,241
0,189
0,065 0,131
1,77
14,30
16
14,798
0
0
0,138
Range
**
***
**
**
***
Church wedding
Reform of divorce law
2
3
29 27 29
10 4 10
0
0
Division of labor
Not employed
Wife s employment
Husbands employment
4
2
2
35 11 13
33 24 6
19 17 17
0 22 -0,007 -0,698
0,009
0 27 0,221 24,732 *** 0,023
0 2 -0,569 -43,391 *** 0,073
Social context
Year of marriage
Large city
Size of birthplace
Marriage in GDR
4
2
2
4
50 46
61 48
6 4
22 18
Homogamy
Educational homogamy
Wife is better educated than husband
Both catholic
Wife older than husband
2
3
2
2
30 18 30
10 10 6
22 8 18
18 0 5
0 0
0 4
0 4
0 13
2
2
2
4
3
2
23 17 1
30 14 11
27 4 21
34 5 13
24 12 11
6 0 1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0,051
0,002
0,004
0,009
0,014
0,026
0,497
0,027
64,378 ***
2,737
0,197
0,192
21,774
21,167
5
2
2
90 71 5
50 14 3
57 7 30
0,415
0,249
0,069
51,437 ***
28,274
7,144
2
0
2
5
21
18
4
21
13
5
17
-0,502 -39,468 **
0,013
1,308
-0,137 -12,803
0,015
0,362
0,236
0,316
1,511
43,620 ***
26,617
37,163
-0,696 -50,142
0,373 45,208
-0,192 -17,469
0,155
0,235 0,639
1,64
8,12
0,263 1,283
0,155
0,674 1,349
28,94
4,28
48,71
0,012
0,092
0,250
0,233
0,098
0,189
0,501
2,240
88,18
14,51
14,35
49,83
0,436 0,874
0,262 1,386
0,170 0,340
0,039
15,38
51,30
38,66
0,12
0,094 0,187
0,030 0,060
0,003
0,160 0,836
0,164 0,405
0,107
3,27
49,76
0,23
13,45
57,02
0,56
0,088 0,606
0,237 0,474
0,075 0,151
50,43
75,16
16,89
Marriage experience
First marriage
Remarriage
5
3
61 32 55
28 12 1
18
0,112 0,614
0,041
49,46
0,03
Duration of cohabitation
Duration until start of
relationship
Duration until common
household
Search costs
Early marriage (marriage
before 21)
Child birth at time of
marriage
Age at marriage
Wife s age at marriage
Husband s age at marriage
W ife s age at start of
relationship
Husband s age at start of
relationship
Code
m
m
m
Annotation
d
m
m
m
m
in years
in years
in years
in years
in years
Marital investments
Birth of first child
Birth of second child
Birth of third child
Common parenthood
d
d
d
d
Number of children
Premarital birth
Common home-ownership
of the spouses
Home-ownership
d
d
External barriers
Catholic
Church wedding
Reform of divorce law
d
d
Division of labor
Not employed
19
Determinant
Code
Wife s employment
Husband s employment
d
d
Social context
Year of marriage
Large city
m
d
Size of birthplace
Marriage in GDR
m
d
Annotation
Wife is gainfully employed (partially time dependent)
Husband is gainfully employed (partially time dependent)
Homogamy
Educational homogamy
Wife is better educated
than husband
Both catholic
d
d
So ci al and p erso n al
resources
High lev el of f at hers
education
Wife s education in years
Husbands education in
years
Abitur
Mittlere Reife
Educational level of wife:
Abitur
Transmission of divorce
risk
Divorce of parents
Gr own up without
biological parents
Grown up with only one
parent
d
m
m
d
V/H
d
d
d
Marriage experience
First marriage
d
Respondents first marriage
Remarriage
d
At least one of the spouses experienced a remarriage
d: dummy-coding; m: metric variable; V/H: category of reference: Volks-/Hauptschule
20
First, we regard indicators of the level of information about the spouse before
marriage: cohabitation, duration of cohabitation, duration of time between first contact
and beginning of the relationship, duration of time until the start of a common
household. Whereas the effects of cohabitation and of duration of cohabitation are not
significant, the duration of the premarital relationship (whether the partners have a
common household or not) reduces the risk of divorce. Time duration between the
date of becoming acquainted and the beginning of a relationship is rather important.
Each year reduces the divorce risk by about nine percent. It presumably does not only
matter if a marriage is on trial, but also whether potential partners take their time
before starting a partnership. Another explanation favours the idea of relationships,
which took a long time to be established because social barriers against a partnership
exist. If partnerships are established despite of such barriers this would indicate a
special seriousness or an outstandingly promising match.
Second, we have indicators of costs for searching a partner: early marriage, age of
marriage of interviewed person, age of marriage (husband or wife), age of beginning
a relationship (husband or wife). It is quite open whether the forced marriage (child
birth at time of marriage, Mussehe) indicates search costs. All of these variables are
negatively related to the divorce rate. The higher the search costs, the more stable is
the marriage. Early marriages get separated very often. Every year of waiting time until
marriage reduces the divorce risk by four percent. Wifes age at marriage is more
important than husbands age at marriage.
The third block of variables are assumed to indicate the amount of marital
investments. Marital investments increase the costs for divorce. On the one hand,
integrated effect sizes are available for the variables birth of first child, birth of second
child, birth of third child, common child, number of children and premarital child. On
the other hand, the variables home-ownership and common home-ownership are
included. The birth of a second or a third child does actually not affect the divorce risk.
Only the birth of the first child affects the stability of marriage, although this effect is
not homogeneous. Thus effect sizes between the studies vary systematically. As the
results show, it is important that the child is a common child of both spouses. If not
both spouses are the parents of the child, the divorce risk is very high.
External barriers against divorce result from social norms that regulate the break up of
marriages. The influence of the reform of the divorce law, affiliation to the catholic
church, frequency of church visits, and the church wedding are related to the validity
and internalization of these standards. It is almost certain that the affiliation to the
catholic church or a church wedding reduce the divorce risk. If the frequency of church
21
attendances is high, we find significant effects only for the model with fixed effects.
However, these effects are not homogeneous. Moreover, the new divorce law resulted
in a strong reduction of divorce rates during the years 1977/1978.
Also the division of household labor can be understood as a marital investment. The
more efficient the division of labor is, the higher are the gains of marriage. Admittedly,
a positive effect of wifes employment on the rate of divorce is only based on two
studies. We do not find significant influences of other variables like non-employment
or husbands employment.
There are a number of variables which can be allocated in an unspecific way to the
social context or more specific to marital alternatives: Living in a large city, size of
birth place, marriage in GDR and year of marriage. The rate of divorce is significantly
higher in large cities, even though the size of birth place is irrelevant. The integrated
effect of the year of marriage, which has been estimated in four studies, positively
affects the divorce rate under the assumption of a fixed effects model. However, this
model is inadequate, obviously relevant differences in effect sizes exist between the
studies. According to the random effects model year of marriage is no longer
significant.
Similar results arise from comparing former East and West Germany. According to
official statistics, the divorce rate of GDR exceeded that of the FRG. As our results
show, this fact is asserted if we follow a model with fixed effects. But a larger
heterogeneity of results is ascertained as well, presumably because the effect of this
variable strongly depends on control variables that are included into the specific
models. We therefore have to assume a model with random effects, which shows
differences between East and West to be statistically insignificant.
A number of different indicators capture the amount of social homogamy: wife older
than husband, educational homogamy, a relatively high level of wifes education, both
spouses being catholic. None of these variables significantly corresponds to the risk
of divorce. Hence, no effect of social homogamy on marital stability could be identified.
Only a few measures of the social and economic resources of couples were available:
We do have information about the level of education of husband and wife as well as of
the fathers education. It was not possible to include measures of household or
personal income into meta-analysis. Whereas the level of fathers education strongly
increases the divorce risk, husbands level of education is positively related to marital
22
stability. The educational level of the wife and the educational level which is not
differentiated by gender show no significant effects.
Many times the hypothesis of the intergenerational transmission of divorce has been
tested. It presumes a divorce of parents to reduce the marital stability of their children.
So far, it is not completely clear why this association exists. For that reason it is not
possible to relate the stability of the parental marriage to a single theoretical construct.
The transmission effect sizes have been integrated throughout five studies into a
statistically significant mean effect size. The divorce risk increases up to 50% if the
parental marriage had been separated. Other variables that measure whether the
interviewed persons grew up either without parents or with only one parent do not
reach an integrated effect size which is different from zero.
Finally, also variables concerning the first or the second marriage are listed
separately, without a correspondence to a single theoretical construct. Assumably,
these variables capture selection effects. Nevertheless, these variables are
meaningful in a statistical sense: the divorce risk of first marriages is about 25% lower
than for marriages of a higher order.
25
References
Amato, P. R., 2001: Children of Divorce in the 1990s: An Update of the Amato and
Keith (1991) Meta-Analysis. Journal of Family Psychology 15: 355370.
Amato, P. R./Keith, B., 1991: Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 110: 26-46.
Altman, D. G., 2000: Statistics in medical journals: some recent trends. Statistics in
Medicine 19: 32753289.
Babka von Gostomski, Ch., 1999: Die Rolle von Kindern bei Ehescheidungen. pp.
203229 in: T. Klein/J. Kopp (Eds.): Scheidungsursachen aus soziologischer Sicht.
Wrzburg: Ergon.
Beelmann, A./Bliesener, T., 1994: Aktuelle Probleme und Strategien der Metaanalyse.
Psychologische Rundschau 45: 211 - 233.
Bortz, J./Dring, N., 1995: Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation. Berlin: Springer.
Bretschneider, M., 1997: Die Mitarbeiterbefragung in der Kommunalverwaltung. Eine
Methodenanalyse von Praxisbeispielen. Berlin: Deutsches Institut fr Urbanistik.
Brderl, J./Kalter, F., 2001: The Dissolution of Marriages: The Role of Information and
Marital-Specific Capital. Journal of Mathematical Sociology. (forthcoming)
Cooper, H.M., 1982: Scientific Guidlines for Conducting Integrative Research
Reviews. Review of Educational Research 52: 291302.
Cooper, H.M./Hedges, L.V. (Eds.), 1994: The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New
York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Diekmann, A./Klein, T., 1993: Bestimmungsgrnde des Ehescheidungsrisikos. pp.
347371 in: A. Diekmann/S. Weick (Eds.): Der Familienzyklus als sozialer Prozess.
Bevlkerungssoziologische Untersuchungen mit den Methoden der Ereignisanalyse.
Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Diekmann, A., 1997: Empirische Sozialforschung. Grundlagen, Methoden,
Anwendungen. (3. Edition). Hamburg: Rowohlt.
26
Dorbritz, J./Grtner, K., 1998: Bericht 1998 ber die demographische Lage in
Deutschland mit dem Teil B Ehescheidungen Trends in Deutschland und im
internationalen Vergleich". Zeitschrift fr Bevlkerungswissenschaft 23: 373-458.
Drinkmann, A., 1990: Methodenkritische Untersuchungen zur Metaanalyse. Weinheim:
Deutscher Studienverlag.
Engelhardt, H., 2000: Untersuchungsdesigns in der Bevlkerungswissenschaft. pp.
524-561 in: U. Mueller/ B. Nauck/A. Diekmann (Eds.): Handbuch der Demographie
Vol. 1. Modelle und Methoden. Berlin: Springer.
Engelhardt, H., 2002: Zur Dynamik von Ehescheidungen. Theoretische und
empirische Analysen. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Esser, H., 1999: Heiratskohorten und die Instabilitt von Ehen. pp. 260-288 in: J.
Gerhards/R. Hitzler (Eds.): Eigenwilligkeit und Rationalitt sozialer Prozesse.
Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Esser, H., 2002: In guten wie in schlechten Tagen? Das Framing der Ehe und das
Risiko zur Scheidung. Klner Zeitschrift fr Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 54: 2763.
Fricke, R./Treinies, G., 1985: Einfhrung in die Metaanalyse. Bern: Huber.
Glass, G., 1976: Primary, Secondary and Meta-Analysis of Research. Educational
Researcher 5: 3-8.
Glass, G.V./McGaw, B./Smith, M., 1981: Meta-Analysis in Social Research. Beverly
Hills: Sage.
Greenland, S., 1987: Quantitative Methods in the Review of Epidemiologic Literature.
Epidemiologic Reviews 9: 1-30.
Hartmann, P. H., 1989: Warum dauern Ehen nicht ewig? Eine Untersuchung zum
Scheidungsrisiko und seinen Ursachen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Hartmann, P. H., 1999: Lebensstilforschung: Dar s t e l l u n g , Kr i t i k u nd
Weiterentwicklung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
27
28
29
White, I.R., 1999: The Level of Alcohol Consumption at Which All-Cause Mortality Is
Least. Journal Clinical Epidemiology 52: 967-975.
Wolf, F., 1986: Meta-Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.
30
31
Hall, A., 1997: Drum prfe, wer sich ewig bindet. Eine empirische Untersuchung zum
Einfluss vorehelichen Zusammenlebens auf das Scheidungsrisiko. Zeitschrift fr
Soziologie 26: 275-295. [7]
Hall, A., 1999: Drum prfe, wer sich ewig bindet. Eine empirische Untersuchung zum
Einfluss vorehelichen Zusammenlebens auf das Scheidungsrisiko. pp. 119-141 in: T.
Klein/J. Kopp (Eds.): Scheidungsursachen aus soziologischer Sicht. Wrzburg: Ergon.
[34]
Hartmann, J., 1999: Soziale Einbettung und Ehestabilitt. S. 233-253 in: T. Klein/J.
Kopp (Hrsg.): Scheidungsursachen aus soziologischer Sicht. Wrzburg: Ergon. [29]
Hartmann, J./Beck, N., 1999: Berufsttigkeit der Ehefrau und Ehescheidung. pp.
179-201 in: T. Klein/J. Kopp (Eds.): Scheidungsursachen aus soziologischer Sicht.
Wrzburg: Ergon. [30]
Hellwig, O., 2001: Die kleine Scheidung". Der positive Einfluss von
Partnerschaftstrennungen vor der ersten Ehe auf die Scheidungsneigung in der ersten
Ehe. Zeitschrift fr Bevlkerungswissenschaft 26: 6784 . [46]
Hullen, G., 1998: Lebensverlufe in West- und Ostdeutschland. Opladen: Leske +
Budrich. [44]
Hullen, G., 1998: Scheidungskinder oder: Die Transmission des Scheidungsrisikos.
Zeitschrift fr Bevlkerungswissenschaft 23: 19-38. [17]
Kalter, F., 1999: The Ties that Bind Wohneigentum als ehespezifische Investition.
pp. 255-271 in: T. Klein/J. Kopp (Eds.): Scheidungsursachen aus soziologischer Sicht.
Wrzburg: Ergon. [28]
Klein, T., 1992: Die Stabilitt der zweiten Ehe: Besondere Risikopotentiale,
Selektionseffekte und systematische Unterschiede. Zeitschrift fr Familienforschung
4: 221-237. [8]
Klein, T., 1994: Marriage Squeeze und Ehestabilitt. Eine empirische Untersuchung
mit den Daten des sozio-konomischen Panels. Zeitschrift fr Familienforschung 6:
177-196. [9]
Klein, T., 1995: Ehescheidung in der Bundesrepublik und der frheren DDR:
Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten. pp. 7689 in: B. Nauck/N.F. Schneider/A. Tlke
33
Allmendinger/J. Huinink (Eds.): Vom Regen in die Traufe: Frauen zwischen Beruf und
Familie. Frankfurt/Main: Campus. [13]
Wagner, M., 1993: Soziale Bedingungen des Ehescheidungsrisikos aus der
Perspektive des Lebensverlaufs. pp. 372-393 in: A. Diekmann/S. Weick (Eds.): Der
Familienzyklus als sozialer Proze. Bevlkerungssoziologische Untersuchungen mit
den Methoden der Ereignisanalyse. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. [14]
Wagner, M., 1997: Scheidung in Ost- und Westdeutschland: Zum Verhltnis von
Ehestabilitt und Sozialstruktur. Frankfurt/Main: Campus. [15]
Appendix
As mentioned in section 2.4.2 it is necessary to use independent effect sizes for
integration. Therefore calculation of weighted means will be done in a two-stage
process. At the second stage standard errors are computed as follows:
SE ES =
1
k
wi
i =1
k w 2
i
Q ( k 1) mit c = k w i =1 .
2
=
k
i
i =1
c
wi
i =1
35