The DOI matches its Crossref record; 132 of the 132 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Divorce and Death: A Meta-Analysis and Research Agenda for Clinical, Social, and Health Psychology
Abstract
Divorce is a relatively common stressful life event that is purported to increase risk for all-cause mortality. One problem in the literature on divorce and health is that it is fragmented and spread across many disciplines; most prospective studies of mortality are based in epidemiology and sociology, whereas most mechanistic studies are based in psychology. This review integrates research on divorce and death via meta-analysis and outlines a research agenda for better understanding the potential mechanisms linking marital dissolution and risk for all-cause mortality. Random effects meta-analysis with a sample of 32 prospective studies (involving more than 6.5 million people, 160,000 deaths, and over 755,000 divorces in 11 different countries) revealed a significant increase in risk for early death among separated/divorced adults in comparison to their married counterparts. Men and younger adults evidenced significantly greater risk for early death following marital separation/divorce than did women and older adults. Quantification of the overall effect size linking marital separation/divorce to risk for early death reveals a number of important research questions, and this article discusses what remains to be learned about four plausible mechanisms of action: social selection, resource disruptions, changes in health behaviors, and chronic psychological distress.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Regression Models and Life-Tables
Cox, D. R. (1972) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00899.x · Cited by 39,793
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316 · Cited by 7,272 · cited 8×
“The Holt-Lunstad, Smith, and Layton (2010) meta-analysis only included 2 of the 32 papers included in the present study.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSocial Relationships and Health
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3399889 · Cited by 7,073
Protective and Damaging Effects of Stress Mediators
McEwen, B. S. (1998) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199801153380307 · Cited by 6,733 · cited 4×
“This idea is consistent with current models of allostatic load (McEwen, 1998), in which psychological stress can exert its effects on health by taxing regulatory systems (e.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialFrom social integration to health: durkheim in the new millennium
Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00065-4 · Cited by 4,821
Cited by
Advancing social connection as a public health priority in the United States.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Robles, T. F., & Sbarra, D. A. (2017) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000103 · Cited by 978
Self-citationHolt-Lunstad, J. (2018) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011902 · Cited by 873
Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612436522 · Cited by 812
Incorporating the cultural diversity of family and close relationships into the study of health.
Campos, B., & Kim, H. S. (2017) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000122 · Cited by 290
The major health implications of social connection
Holt-Lunstad, J. (2021) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721421999630 · Cited by 273
Metadata
- Authors
- Sbarra, D. A., Law, R. W., & Portley, R. M.
- Venue
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-09
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 454-474
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2157337072
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 132
- FWCI
- 32.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Divorce and Death: A Meta-Analysis and Research Agenda for Clinical, Social, and Health Psychology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1745691611414724
- The paper
- Sbarra, D. A., Law, R. W., & Portley, R. M. (2011). Divorce and Death: A Meta-Analysis and Research Agenda for Clinical, Social, and Health Psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611414724
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.