In 2022, around ** percent of men and ** percent of women in the United States have stated that they have broken up a relationship. In comparison around ** percent of men and ** percent of women claimed that a former partner has broken up with them.

In 2022, around ** percent of respondents in the United States have stated that their breakups tended to be messy and dramatic. In comparison, around ** percent of respondents claimed that their breakups tended to be casual and civil.

In 2022, around ** percent of respondents in the United States have been broken up with in person, compared to ** percent by a phone call and ** percent by text.

This statistic shows the share of Americans who would leave their partner if they wanted an open relationship. During the survey, conducted in March 2016, 46 percent of the men interviewed stated they would leave their romantic partner if they were to deal with such a request. 67 percent of the female respondents stated the same.

Introduction

Divorce Statistics: Divorce is something that impacts many lives each year—not just the couple splitting up, but also kids, relatives, and even friends. Whether you're married, planning to get married, or want to learn more, looking at divorce stats can help you better understand today's relationships.

In this article, "Divorce Statistics," we'll break down key numbers: how often divorces occur, the top reasons people separate, how factors such as age, income, and location impact the decision, and how divorce rates vary around the world. These facts can help you make smarter choices when it comes to love, marriage, and long-term commitment.

How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST) surveyed how Americans met their spouses and romantic partners, and compared traditional to non-traditional couples. This collection covers data that was gathered over five waves. During the first wave, respondents were asked about their relationship status, including the gender, ethnicity, and race of their current partner, as well as the level of education of their parents. They were also asked about their living arrangements with their partner, the country, state, and city the respondent and/or the respondent's partner resided in most from birth to age 16, and whether the couple attended the same high school/college/university, or grew up in the same town. Information was collected on the legal status of the relationship, the city/state where the partnership was legalized, and how many times the respondent had previously been married. Additionally, respondents were asked about how often they visited with relatives, which gender they were most attracted to, their earned income in 2008, and the length of their current relationship. Finally, respondents were asked to recall how, when, and where they met their partner, how their parents felt about their partner, and to describe the perceived quality of their relationship. The second wave followed up with respondents one year after Wave 1. Information was collected on respondents' changes, if any, in marital status, relationship status, living arrangements, and reasons for separation where applicable. The third wave followed up with respondents one year after the second wave, and collected information on respondents' relationships reported in the first two waves, again including any changes in the status of the relationship and reasons for separation. The fourth wave followed up with respondents two years after Wave 3. In addition to information on relationship status and reasons for separation, Wave 4 includes the subjective level of attractiveness for the respondent and their partner. Wave 5 collected updated data on respondents' changes, if any, in marital status, relationship status, and reasons for separation where applicable. Information about respondents' sexual orientations, sex frequencies, and attitudes towards sexual monogamy were also collected. Demographic information includes age, race/ethnicity, gender, level of education, household composition, religion, political party affiliation, and household income. The data is being released in two parts: part one is available for public use and part two is available for restricted use. The public use data contains Waves 1-5, including the addition of nine variables collecting information such as race, household income, whether the respondent was born outside of the United States, zip code relative to rural area, and respondents' living arrangements between birth and 16 years of age. The restricted use data contains Waves 1-3, and differs from the public use data by including FIPS codes for state of marriage and state of residence, town or city where the respondent was raised, and qualitative variables revised by the Principal Investigator (Waves 1-5), consisting of respondent's answers to how they first met their partner, the quality of their relationship in their own words, why they broke up if applicable and if they have an open relationship.

This dataset contains interviews of seven Finnish LGBT mothers who discussed their experiences of ending a relationship. The themes of the interviews concern changes brought on by the breakup in their children's life situation and their own parenthood. The interviewees discussed, among other things, what everyday life was like in the relationship, how the breakup happened and how it affected their life. In terms of the children, the interviewees discussed their custody arrangements and expressed their views on how the children experienced the breakup. Some interviewees also expressed their opinions on the Maternity Act, which was passed by Parliament in 2018. Background information included date of the interview and the interviewee's gender and region of residence (NUTS3). The data were organised into an easy to use HTML version at FSD. The dataset is only available in Finnish.

Abstract (en): How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST) surveyed how Americans met their spouses and romantic partners, and compared traditional to non-traditional couples. This collection covers data that was gathered over five waves. During the first wave, respondents were asked about their relationship status, including the gender, ethnicity, and race of their current partner, as well as the level of education of their parents. They were also asked about their living arrangements with their partner, the country, state, and city the respondent and/or the respondent's partner resided in most from birth to age 16, and whether the couple attended the same high school/college/university, or grew up in the same town. Information was collected on the legal status of the relationship, the city/state where the partnership was legalized, and how many times the respondent had previously been married. Additionally, respondents were asked about how often they visited with relatives, which gender they were most attracted to, their earned income in 2008, and the length of their current relationship. Finally, respondents were asked to recall how, when, and where they met their partner, how their parents felt about their partner, and to describe the perceived quality of their relationship. The second wave followed up with respondents one year after Wave 1. Information was collected on respondents' changes, if any, in marital status, relationship status, living arrangements, and reasons for separation where applicable. The third wave followed up with respondents one year after the second wave, and collected information on respondents' relationships reported in the first two waves, again including any changes in the status of the relationship and reasons for separation. The fourth wave followed up with respondents two years after Wave 3. In addition to information on relationship status and reasons for separation, Wave 4 includes the subjective level of attractiveness for the respondent and their partner. Wave 5 collected updated data on respondents' changes, if any, in marital status, relationship status, and reasons for separation where applicable. Information about respondents' sexual orientations, sex frequencies, and attitudes towards sexual monogamy were also collected. Demographic information includes age, race/ethnicity, gender, level of education, household composition, religion, political party affiliation, and household income. The data is being released in two parts: part one is available for public use and part two is available for restricted use. The public use data contains Waves 1-5, including the addition of nine variables collecting information such as race, household income, whether the respondent was born outside of the United States, zip code relative to rural area, and respondents' living arrangements between birth and 16 years of age. The restricted use data contains Waves 1-3, and differs from the public use data by including FIPS codes for state of marriage and state of residence, town or city where the respondent was raised, and qualitative variables revised by the Principal Investigator (Waves 1-5), consisting of respondent's answers to how they first met their partner, the quality of their relationship in their own words, why they broke up if applicable and if they have an open relationship. The survey was carried out by survey firm Knowledge Networks. The survey respondents were recruited from an ongoing panel. Panelists are recruited via random digit dial phone survey. Survey questions were mostly answered online; some follow-up surveys were conducted by phone. Panelists who did not have internet access at home were given an internet access device (WebTV). For further information about how the Knowledge Networks hybrid phone-internet survey compares to other survey methodology, see the accompanying documentation. The data are not weighted; however, this collection contains eight weight variables; WEIGHT1-WEIGHT7 and WEIGHT_COUPLES_CORESIDENT. Please refer to the ICPSR codebook for further information about weighting. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Standardized...

SA1 based data for Relationship in Household by Age by Sex, in Place of Enumeration Profile (PEP), 2016 Census. Count of persons in occupied private dwellings categorised by the relationship of each person in a family to the family reference person or, where a person is not part of a family, that person's relationship to the household reference person. Excludes persons in 'Other non-classifiable' households. Includes same sex couples. P23 is broken up into 2 sections (P23a - P23b), this …Show full descriptionSA1 based data for Relationship in Household by Age by Sex, in Place of Enumeration Profile (PEP), 2016 Census. Count of persons in occupied private dwellings categorised by the relationship of each person in a family to the family reference person or, where a person is not part of a family, that person's relationship to the household reference person. Excludes persons in 'Other non-classifiable' households. Includes same sex couples. P23 is broken up into 2 sections (P23a - P23b), this section contains 'Males Husband in a registered marriage Age 15-24 years' - 'Females Other related individual Total'. The data is by SA1 2016 boundaries. Periodicity: 5-Yearly. Note: There are small random adjustments made to all cell values to protect the confidentiality of data. These adjustments may cause the sum of rows or columns to differ by small amounts from table totals. For more information visit the data source: http://www.abs.gov.au/census. Copyright attribution: Government of the Commonwealth of Australia - Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2017): ; accessed from AURIN on 12/16/2021. Licence type: Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC BY 2.5 AU)

In 2018, about 55 percent of men in Germany wanted their partner to be their soulmate, compared to 66 percent of women. 24.5 percent of men wanted to get into a new relationship quickly after a break-up, compared to 12.3 percent of women.

Socially monogamous birds may break up their partnership by a so-called ’divorce’ behaviour. Divorce rate immensely varies across avian taxa that have a predominantly monogamous social mating system. Although a range of factors associated with divorce have been tested, broad-scale drivers of divorce rate remain contentious. Moreover, the impact of sexual roles in divorce still needs further investigation due to the conflicting interest of males and females. Here we applied phylogenetic comparative methods to analyse one of the largest datasets ever compiled that included divorce rates from published studies of 186 avian species from 25 orders and 61 families. We tested correlations between divorce rate and a group of factors: ‘promiscuity’ of both sexes (propensity of polygamy), migration distance, and adult mortality. Our results showed that only male promiscuity, but not female promiscuity, had a positive relationship with divorce rate. Furthermore, migration distance was positively correlated with divorce rate, while adult mortality rate showed no direct relationship with divorce rate. These findings indicated that divorce might not be a simple adaptive (by sexual selection) or non-adaptive strategy (by accidental loss of a partner), but could be a mixed response to sexual conflict and stress from the ambient environment. Methods We used data from Kenny et al. (2017), Liker et al. (2014), Botero et al. (2012), Handbook of the Birds of the World (https://birdsoftheworld.org) and other published literature (cited in the table). For migration distance, we used data from Delhey et al. 2021. Adult mortality rate was extracted from the AVONET database. Our final dataset contains 232 avian species from 25 orders and 61 families, and the number of species with the full dataset is 186.

Botero, C.A., Dustin, R. , & Rubenstein. (2012). Fluctuating environments, sexual selection and the evolution of flexible mate choice in birds. PLoS ONE, 7(2), e32311. 10.1371/journal.pone.0032311

Delhey, K. , Dale, J. , Valcu, M. , & Kempenaers, B. . (2021). Migratory birds are lighter coloured. Current Biology, 31(23), R1511-R1512. 10.1016/j.cub.2021.10.048

Kenny, K. , Birkhead, T. R. , & Green, J. P. (2017). Allopreening in birds is associated with parental cooperation over offspring care and stable pair bonds across years. Behavioral Ecology, 28(4), 1142-1148. 10.1093/beheco/arx078

Liker, A. , Freckleton, R. P. , & Székely, T. (2014). Divorce and infidelity are associated with skewed adult sex ratios in birds. Current Biology, 24, 880–884. 10.1016/j.cub.2014.02.059 Tobias, J.A., Sheard, C., Pigot, A.L., Devenish, A.J.M., Yang, J., Sayol, F., et al. (2022) AVONET: morphological, ecological and geographical data for all birds. Ecology Letters, 25, 581– 597. 10.1111/ele.13898

SA3 based data for Relationship in Household by Age by Sex, in Place of Enumeration Profile (PEP), 2016 Census. Count of persons in occupied private dwellings categorised by the relationship of each …Show full descriptionSA3 based data for Relationship in Household by Age by Sex, in Place of Enumeration Profile (PEP), 2016 Census. Count of persons in occupied private dwellings categorised by the relationship of each person in a family to the family reference person or, where a person is not part of a family, that person's relationship to the household reference person. Excludes persons in 'Other non-classifiable' households. Includes same sex couples. P23 is broken up into 2 sections (P23a - P23b), this section contains 'Males Husband in a registered marriage Age 15-24 years' - 'Females Other related individual Total'. The data is by SA3 2016 boundaries. Periodicity: 5-Yearly. Note: There are small random adjustments made to all cell values to protect the confidentiality of data. These adjustments may cause the sum of rows or columns to differ by small amounts from table totals. For more information visit the data source: http://www.abs.gov.au/census. Copyright attribution: Government of the Commonwealth of Australia - Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2017): ; accessed from AURIN on 12/3/2020. Licence type: Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC BY 2.5 AU)

SA3 based data for Relationship in Household by Age by Sex, in General Community Profile (GCP), 2016 Census. Count of persons in occupied private dwellings categorised by the relationship of each …Show full descriptionSA3 based data for Relationship in Household by Age by Sex, in General Community Profile (GCP), 2016 Census. Count of persons in occupied private dwellings categorised by the relationship of each person in a family to the family reference person or, where a person is not part of a family, that person's relationship to the household reference person. Excludes persons in 'Visitors only' and 'Other non-classifiable' households. Includes same sex couples. G23 is broken up into 2 sections (G23a - G23b), this section contains 'Males Husband in a registered marriage Age 15-24 years' - 'Females Unrelated individual living in family household Total'. The data is by SA3 2016 boundaries. Periodicity: 5-Yearly. Note: There are small random adjustments made to all cell values to protect the confidentiality of data. These adjustments may cause the sum of rows or columns to differ by small amounts from table totals. For more information visit the data source: http://www.abs.gov.au/census. Copyright attribution: Government of the Commonwealth of Australia - Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2017): ; accessed from AURIN on 12/3/2020. Licence type: Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC BY 2.5 AU)

Research of the poverty-environment relationship in PNG and the Conceptual Framework behind it

A survey conducted in 2017 reveals that the largest groups of Italian respondents cheated on their partner either with a friend or with a colleague. In particular, 25.4 percent of interviewees in Italy stated that they betrayed their partner with a friend, while 22.6 percent did so with a colleague. However, it was common to cheat with strangers as well. The third largest group (17.5 percent of individuals) affirmed that the last time they cheated on their partner was with a stranger met in a particular context such as in the disco, at the gym, on holidays, etcetera.

Reasons for cheating  

The most common reason why people in Italy cheated on their partner was the sexual attraction towards another person, indicated by 27.1 percent of respondents. About 22 percent of interviewees stated that the betrayal was the consequence of an argument with the current partner, while for 20 percent the mental attraction played a determinant role. Nevertheless, most of the people who stated to cheat did not intent to leave their partner. In 2017, 61.4 percent of respondents declared they did not want to break up their relationship after cheating. Additionally, 27.2 percent were willing to leave the partner, but they did not do it. Most of the people who cheated would not repeat the betrayal.

The follow up 

For the largest part of people, cheating was only a one-time adventure. 31.3 percent of Italian respondents considered their last betrayal a “one-night” escapade. However, for about 30 percent of interviewees, the infidelity became a love story that lasted some years and eventually came to an end. Additionally, for 24.9 percent of respondents cheating meant a short love story that lasted some weeks or months and then ended. Lastly, 5.4 percent of Italian interviewees declared to have a permanent lover.

This statistic presents the evolution of the median age at first sexual intercourse in France between 1964 and 2016, broken down by gender. It shows that if women had their first sexual intercourse at 19 in the 1960s, this figure dropped down to 17.6 years old between 2014 and 2016.