New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Predicting Divorce

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


To the socially observant, this should come as no shock: divorce is most common during two distinct stages in a marriage. The first is the famed itch that falls within the first seven years; the second coincides with midlife crises. A new study, though, actually shows how the kinds of problems a dysfunctional couple faces can predict in which of these two stages they are more likely to split. John Gottman of the University of Washington and Robert Levenson of the University of California at Berkeley present the findings in this month's issue of the Journal of Marriage and the Family.

The researchers tracked 79 marriages in Bloomington, Ind., beginning in 1983. Over the course of 14 years, they periodically checked in with the couples, questioning them about their levels of marital satisfaction. In the end, 22 couples, or 28 percent, had divorced. And what Gottman and Levenson observed were two patterns of behavior. Couples who broke up early in their marriages tended to fight openly and consistently with each other, whereas those who split in midlife were more often alienated and avoidant. Gottman adds that although bad marriages aren't all bad in the same ways, most--including these main types--can benefit from counseling.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe