Attachment to the spouse in divorce

8/8/2019 Attachment to the spouse in divorce

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/attachment-to-the-spouse-in-divorce 1/16

Attachment to the Spouse in Divorce: A Scale and Its Application

Author(s): Gay C. KitsonSource: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 44, No. 2 (May, 1982), pp. 379-393Published by: National Council on Family RelationsNational Council on Family RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/351547

Accessed: 02/12/2010 11:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr

http://www.jstor.org/stable/351547?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/351547?origin=JSTOR-pdf





Attachment to the Spouse in Divorce:

A S c a l e a n d i t s

ApplicationGAY C. KITSON

Case Western Reserve University

A scale to assess continuing affectional bonds, or attachment, in divorce is de-scribed. In a sample of suburban Cleveland men and women going through di-

vorce, 86% indicate some signs of attachment to their ex-spouses. Greater eelingsof attachment are likely when the decision to divorce was recently decided uponand when the spouse askedfor the divorce. Feelings of attachment are less affectedby resourcesand social supports than is subjective distress. While attachment and

subjective distress are both associated with some of the changes produced by di-vorce, partial correlations indicate that attachment is the primary cause of the

subjective distress experienced by the divorced.

Attachment theory provides perhaps the full-est explanation for the anomalous situation indivorce in which an individual is apparentlygrieving over the loss of someone of whom heor she is often simultaneously glad to be rid.JohnBowlby(1975:292) defines attachment as"the propensity of human beings to make

strongaffectional bonds to particularothers."Attachment behavior is specific and focuseson a small number of individuals in a clearorderof preference. It is a persistent, learnedbehavior that begins to develop in infancy(Bowlby, 1969). While research on attach-ment originallyfocused on the development ofaffectional bonds in children (Bowlby 1952,1969, 1973), it has more recentlybeen used to

explore attachment in adults (Bowlby and

Parkes, 1970; Parkes, 1972; Marris, 1974;

Weiss, 1975, 1976, 1979, in press; Bowlby,1977a, 1977b, 1980). Adjusting to divorcefrom a spouse has been likened to the griefprocess when a spouse dies (Goode, 1956;Winch, 1971; Waller, 1967; Bohannon, 1970;Blau, 1973). In each event the emotional tiesto the once significant partnerarebroken, and

the individual must adjust to the loss. Giventhe nature of their loss, adjustment for thedivorced may be even more difficult than forthe widowed (Kitson et al., 1980). While be-reavement following the death of a spouse is

longer and more intense when death was sud-den and unexpected orwhen the couple's rela-

tionship was ambivalent, generally the

memory of a fairly positive marital relation-

ship seems to ease adjustment (Glick et al.,1974; Lopata, 1979). Many of the divorced,however, do not have such positive memories.

In addition to the possibility of a spouse's an-nouncing the decision to divorce without much

forewarning, there is often a history of esca-

lating conflict and animosity. Even so, thereare often ambivalent pulls back into the rela-

tionship, as evidenced by the report of Kitsonet al. (1981a) that 42% of the divorcedcouplesthey studied had separated and reconciled atleast once before the separation that led totheir divorces.

Attachment theory providesan explanationfor the potential for greater ambivalence in

The research reported upon in this paper was supportedin part by National Institute of Mental Health grant22575. The attachment scale was first described in Kit-son and Sussman (1976). The data were collected in1974-1975 as part of a longitudinal study (1974-1979) of

adjustmentto divorce. I am grateful to Alan Booth, Pru-dence Brown, William M. Holmes, Helen J. Raschke,Graham B. Spanier, Howard S. Sudak, Robert S. Weiss,the late Robert F. Winch, and Stephen J. Zyzanski for

their helpful comments on drafts of this paper.

Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine,CaseWestern Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106.

May 1982 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 379



suchbittersweetlosses as divorce. Once estab-

lished, attachment may continue to a signifi-cant degree even when a relationship is no

longer rewarding because the predictablyfamiliar is preferred over the strange. Part ofthe continuingtie between ex-spouses is based

on the intensity and variety of emotions andexperiences that they shared in establishing,maintaining, and breaking up their relation-

ship. The development of affectional bonds

produces a complex model of the self and theenvironmentin which attachment figures pro-vide a sense of security, comfort, and well-

being. "All's right with the world" and withthe self when the attachment figure is presentor at least physically and emotionally avail-able.

Bowlby (1969, 1973) maintains that there is

a biological basis for attachment in animalsand humans. In situations of alarm, seekingout others is a natural reaction that enhancesthe possibility of obtaining protection. Inadults, attachment behavior is therefore

especially likely to occur when they are "dis-tressed, ill, or afraid" (Bowlby, 1975:293).

Ironically, the changes produced by the deci-sion to divorce may induce the need for thefamiliar and previously comforting attach-ment figure of the former spouse.

Thus, the loss of a significant relationship,even one which has

gonesour,

disruptsthe

bonds of ease, comfort, and security whichattachment figures provide for one another.This loss produces separation anxiety (Bowl-

by, 1969, 1973, 1980), or separation distress,which Weiss (1976:139-140) describes follow-

ing Parkes' (1972) bereavement model as:

The organization of attention around the image ofthe lost figure, anger toward the lost figure, guiltfor having produced the loss, and the presence ofan "alarm reaction" (Parke's term), includinghyperalertness to indications of the lost figure'sreturn, great restlessness, and feelings of fear or

panic. Difficulties in sleeping and, to a lesser ex-tent, loss of appetite are also expressions of

heightened vigilance.

It is the working through of what othershave called bereavement (Goode, 1956;Waller, 1967), grief (Parkes, 1972), loss(Marris, 1974; Simos, 1979), and what Weiss(1975) calls the loss of attachment that pro-duces separation distress. This in turn is ex-hibited in symptoms of physical and mentalhealth disturbance. It is this health disturb-ance that has been the focus of much of the

literature on divorce. The separated anddivorced have been repeatedly shown to have

higher rates of physical and mental healthdisturbance than the married and often

higher rates than the widowed (Gurin et al.,1960; Blumenthal, 1967; Berkman, 1969;

Gove, 1972a, 1972b, 1973; Briscoe et al.,1973; Somers, 1979; Verbrugge, 1979; Rush-

ing, 1979).

Generally two explanations are advancedto account for these health status observa-tions (see Bachrach, 1975; Bloom et al.,1978; Halem, 1980; Kitson & Raschke,1981). The first is a social selectivity, or

pathological model, which suggests that the

personal characteristics of those who divorcemake them less psychologically fit for mar-

riage. A second model views divorce as acrisis which induces

psychologicaldistress

that lessens as individuals adjust to their

changed situation. By stating that distress is a

predictable response to loss, attachment

theoryfalls into the crisis model of divorce. It

bridges the gap between the two approachesby postulating that while attachment is a nor-mal response to loss, some individuals may be

predisposed by their previous experiences toreact more strongly to losses (Parkes, 1972;Weiss, 1975; Brown and Harris, 1978; Simos,1979).

PREVIOUS RESEARCH ONATTACHMENT IN DIVORCE

The Nature of Attachment

Based on qualitative analysis of his workwith Seminarsfor the Separated, educational-counseling sessions for self-selected groups ofthe separated and divorced, Weiss (1975)concludes that most men and women goingthrough divorce continue to have feelings ofattachment toward their spouses. In a studybased on open-ended interviewswith a smallsample of separated and divorced personsselected from divorce court records, Spanierand Casto (1979:220) report that approxi-mately three out of ten of their respondentsshowed no signs of attachment while theremainder exhibited strong or mild attach-ment. In a study of couples who sought court-

supported marital counseling Brown et al.(1980:310) report that 47% of the respon-dents had low, 31% moderate, and 22% highattachment scores. These findings are similar

380 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY May 1982



to Goode's (1956:186) report that almost twoin five of the divorced mothers he surveyeddisplayed low signs of trauma or distress.Weiss (1975:324) feels, however,that Goode's

findings were due to the length of time thathad passed since separation for some of his

respondents, since separation distress hasbeen found to decrease with length of separa-tion (Goode, 1956; Chester, 1971; Chiribogaand Cutler, 1977; Brown et al., 1980).

Weiss (1975:63) maintains that once asense of being married is fully integrated intoall areas of a person's life, a process which heestimates takes about two years, workingthrough loss of attachment is as difficult for

those marriedfive as forthose marriedtwenty-five years. Brown et al. (1980) support the

finding of no difference in attachment by

lengthof

marriage,but because of the nature

of their sample (couples with children) wereunable to test those concerning the first two

years of marriage.Although length of marriage has not been

found to affect attachment, a relationshiphasbeen reported between attachment and

length of discord before deciding to divorce.As in adjusting to the sudden death of a

spouse (Glick et al., 1974) an unexpecteddecision to divorce is also likely to increasedistress. Spanier and Casto (1979) and Brownet al. (1980) found that those who had consid-ered divorce for a longer period of time wereless likely to exhibit feelings of attachmentand distress than those whose separationcame without much forewarning.

Factors That May Modify Attachment

There is some confusion in this developingliteratureconcerning the relationshipbetween

attachment, distress, and other factors that

may modify adjustment. Brown et al. (1980)have demonstrated that attachment and dis-tress are correlated and that each contributes

to certain kinds of difficulties in adjustment,but they were unable to determine (as the

theorypredicts)whether attachment producesdistress and distress in turn produces otherdifficulties in adjustment. Spanier and Casto(1979) took a somewhat different tack in hy-pothesizing that feelings of attachment would

be directly related to difficulties in adjustingto the divorce not only emotionally, but also

legally, interpersonally, and economically.They tested their hypothesis by determining ifthose who were attached experienced adjust-

ment difficulties in the majority of the areaslisted above. This hypothesis was not sup-ported in their small sample.

Part of the confusion about the relation-

ship between attachment and distress may bedue to another characteristic of attachment

that was noted above: feelings of attachmentmay be fostered by the changes produced bythe divorce. These changes in life situation

may introduce additional burdens thatinduce a desire for the formerly comfortingpresence of the lost spouse. Marris (1974:38),in discussing reaction to the death of a

spouse, notes, "The severityof grief depends,then, on the degree of disruption." We mighttherefore expect that the more changes re-

quired by the divorce, the greater the distressand the greater the feelings of attachment.Weiss (1975) maintains that while

feelingsof

attachment may become entangled in reac-tions to other kinds of changes and losses ex-

perienced in a divorce, attachment to the

spouse is the primarycause of separation dis-tress. He further postulates that attachmentis not lessened for having been the personwho decided upon the divorce (the leaver ver-sus the left). Brown et al. (1980) report, how-

ever, that when the divorce was initiated bythe spouse, feelings of attachment were

stronger. Winch (1971) and Weiss (1975)

suggest that in divorce it is not that the feel-

ings of attachment are the same but that theyare present in different forms in both parties.The person who initiated the divorce is likelyto feel guilty about the impact of his or herdecision on the spouse while the person whohas been left may feel rejected and experiencea severe blow to his or her self-esteem.

Weiss (1975:68) predicts that social and

personal resources such as money, job skills,

supportive friends and kin, and the individ-

ual's own resiliency and previous mentalhealth status provide aid in adjusting to sep-aration. Brown et al. (1980) found some sup-port for this hypothesis. In their research an-

ticipated financial strain did predict distress.

Although presence of children served womenas a resource in adjusting, developing newfriends and frequency of socializing withthem did not reduce distress for men or

women. Although resources may reduce dis-tress, it is not clear whether they also reduce

feelings of attachment. If resources reducedistress by providing social support and

mediating the amount of change required by




the separation and divorce, then feelings ofattachment may also be reduced. Separationdistress may also be less or absent if an indi-vidual has developed a relationship with an-other person to whom attachment feelingscan be shifted.

Hypotheses

Based on this reviewof literature on attach-ment and divorce the following hypotheseswill be tested:

1. There will be no differences in feelingsof attachment by sex.

2. Feelings of attachment will vary inverselywith the length of the decision periodprior to filing for the divorce and withthe length of the separation.

3. Separated and divorced persons mar-ried less than two

yearswill exhibit less

attachment to their spouses than thosemarried two years or more.

4. Although they may differ in character,both the personwho initiated the divorceand the person who wanted it less will ex-

press feelings of attachment.5. Attachment will be associated with diffi-

culties in adjusting to the divorce andwith feelings of psychological distress.

6. Separation- and divorce-relatedchangeswill be associated with feelings of attach-ment and distress.

7. Feelings of attachment and distress willbe reduced by social and psychologicalresources and social supports.

8. Attachment is a primary cause of the

subjective distress experienced by thedivorced.

METHODOLOGY

The Sample

The data are from a longitudinal study

(1974-1979) of adjustment to divorce (Kitsonand Sussman, 1982; Kitson et al., 1982). Thedivorcesample was drawnfrom the records ofthe Domestic Relations Division of the Cuya-hoga County Court of Common Pleas. The

study focuses on the middle and workingclasses where the incidence of divorce has in-creased relative to lower class divorce rates(see Norton and Glick, 1976). The sample iscomposed of men and women from sevenmetropolitan Cleveland, Ohio suburbs whichhad high numbers of divorced residents ac-

cording to the 1970 census (for additional in-formation on the study methods, see Kitsonet al., 1981b).

All of the cases from the suburbs selectedwere drawn from court records for four dif-ferent months during 1974-75: a high filing

month (June), a low (December), and twointermediate level months (March andSeptember). This produced 568 cases inwhich one or both of the parties lived in oneof our study communities. Alternately themale or female was selected for interview.Only one person in each couple was inter-viewed with no substitutions made for re-fusals. Interviewerswere matched to respon-dents by race, sex, and, where possible, byage. Eighty percent of the respondents wereinterviewed within six months of filing and96% within ten months. At the time of theinterview, approximately half of the respon-dents had obtained divorces and the remain-der were awaiting their decrees.

Of the 568 possible respondents, 209(36.8%) were interviewed; 113 (19.9%) re-fused to be interviewed; 111 cases (18.8%)were withdrawn either because the couplesreconciled or because no legal action wastaken in the case for six months. For 55 cases(9.7%) interviewscould not be arranged withthe person selected for study despite repeatedattempts at contact; another 6.3% moved

leaving no forwarding address; and 7.0%moved out of the four-county Standard

Metropolitan Statistical Area. In eight cases(1.4%) the respondent had died, was institu-tionalized, or did not speak English. If welook only at the portion of the sample whichwas contacted and who obtained divorces(N = 322), the response rate is 64.9% with arefusal rate of 35.1%. This response rate is

comparable to that of other recent surveys ofthe divorced based completely (Briscoe et al.,1973) or partially (Spanier and Anderson,

1979) upon court records.Difference of means and chi-square tests

indicate that those interviewed do not differ

significantly on sex, race, age, median in-come of census tract from those in the total

sample population or in the sample of loca-tables who obtained divorces. Refusers do,however, differ significantly (p < .01) onrace, with more blacks than whites refusingto participate. The data reported here arefrom the first of three interviews with thedivorced.




The 23 individuals who were still livingwiththeir spouses at the time of the interviewwere dropped from this analysis because ofthe focus on attachment to the absent spouse.Of the remaining respondents, 71.6% had

separated from their spouses within the year

prior to the interview.

The MeasuresAttachment. Because attachment to the

former spouse is conceptually linked to be-reavement, items were developed to examine

aspects of the bereavement process using themodel proposed by Parkes (1972).' Bereave-

ment, or continuing attachment, includes

denial, disbelief, pining or preoccupationwith the former spouse, guilt, anger, loss ofnormal patterns of conduct, and apathy. (For

a recent review of characteristic responses toloss, see Simos, 1979).

In order to determine whether we had in-deed tapped a single dimension called attach-ment, or bereavement, a factor analysisof theitems was performed using an orthogonalsolution with a varimax rotation. The resultsof the factor analysis indicate that the itemsdo represent a unidimensional phenomenon.Eighty-two percent of the variance is ex-

plained by four items in the factor, producingan eigenvalue of 2.8. These four items with a

consistent pattern of higher correlationswereused to construct the index. The items andtheir factor score coefficients are: wonderingwhat the spouse is doing (.514), spending alot of time thinking about the spouse (.259),disbelief that the couple is getting a divorce

(. 117), and a feeling that the personwill never

get over the divorce (.113). The factor scorecoefficients illustrate that preoccupation withor pining for the spouse and disbelief are par-ticularly important components in attach-ment.

The scale item scores were transformedinto z scores and then multiplied by the coef-ficients developed in the factor analysis. Thescores range from -.933 to 1.604. A low in-dex score indicates low attachment to the for-mer spouse. Based on the correlations of thefour items which enter the factor, the alphareliability of the scale (Bohrnstedt, 1969) is

.80. This high reliability means that althoughthe factor score coefficients were used in this

paper to compute the scale scores, the rawscores could also be used.

Only 16% of the respondents report no

signs of attachment, while about 40% reportlow and 25% high feelings of attachment(Table 1). Whether or not these findings indi-cate, as Weiss maintains, that virtually all

persons going through divorce continue to beattached to their spouses, they nevertheless

illustrate that the majority do.TABLE 1. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OFATTACHMENT SCORES

Degree of Attachment Percent N

No attachment 15.8 28Low attachment 41.8 74Moderate attachment 17.5 31

High attachment 24.9 44

100.0% 177

Mental health measures. A modification

of the subjective distress scale from the Psy-

chiatric Status Schedule (Spitzer et al., 1970)was used to assess mental health. The Psychi-atric Status Schedule is composed of a seriesof scales that examine impairment in role

functioning and signs and symptoms of psy-chopathology. A selection was made of thoseitems in the subjective distress scale that tapaspects of mental health status particularlyrelevant to the divorce experience. These in-clude subscales assessing depression-anxiety,daily routine-leisure-time impairment,thoughts of suicide, and somatic concerns.2

The alpha reliability (Bohrnstedt, 1969) ofthe scale is .70.

Differences in the character of attachment.In order to assess the hypothesis concerningthe differing character of attachment for the

person who initiated the divorce and the per-son left behind, two scales were developed.3The first four-item scale assesses reluctanceand pressure to divorce and has an alphareliability of .79. The second measures reliefand guilt about the divorce and has an alphareliability of .64.4

Psychologicalresources. Measures

of therespondents' personal resources were devel-

oped. The first set, psychological resources,includes seeking help from a mental health

professional (psychiatrist, psychologist, socialworker, or marriage counselor), and hospital-ization for mental illness (both measuresscored zero for no, and one for yes). Self-esteem was assessed using Rosenberg's (1965)10-item scale. A low score on the scale indi-cates high self-esteem.

Social resources. These include expectedincome for the coming year, level of educa-




tion, and social activities. Social participationis measured as the number of leisure-timeactivities (ranging from 0 to 19) in which the

person is currently engaged, such as reading,watching TV, having friends over, partici-pating in sports, drinking in bars, and so

forth.Divorce-related changes. The number ofactivities engaged in now which are differentfrom those during the marriage is a measureof change in leisure activities. Measures ofother changes include whether the respon-dent now lives alone or with others and thenumber of household responsibilities whichhave increased since separation. In addition,change in income and social class from thelast year of marriage is assessed (each scored

0 for no change and 1 for any change).Social

supports.These include whether the

respondent is cohabiting or remarried,whether the couple had children and whether

they are living with the respondent (eachscored0 for no and 1 for yes), and the numberof friends the person has with whom to talkover confidential matters. Help from the re-

spondent's family is scored 0 for no help and

1 for any financial, service, or emotional sup-port.

Other measures. These include who first

suggested the divorce, how many years ago

the marriage started to go bad, how manymonths ago divorce was first suggested, andhow many months the couple has been separ-ated. Length of marriageis divided into thosemarried two years or less and those married

longer. Finally, the respondents were asked

how difficult it was to reach agreements onpractical matters such as the division of

property, alimony, and child custody and an

open-ended question about what were themost difficult adjustments they had to makesince the decision to divorce.

Chi-square analysis, Pearson's zero-orderand first- and second-order partial correla-tions will be used to test the hypotheses.

THE FINDINGS

On the Nature of Attachment

We have seen that the majority of the re-

spondents report some feelings of attachmenttowards their ex-spouses. A better test ofattachment, however, is to look at attach-ment and measures of how recently the deci-sion to divorce was made. As measured bychi-square, there are no statistically signifi-cant differencas between the attachment mea-sure and when the marriage started to go bador how many months ago the couple separ-ated. Attachment and when the divorce was

TABLE 2. ATTACHMENT BY SELECTED RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS AND EVENTS

Degree of Attachment

Respondent Characteristics and Events Low Moderate High X2

How long ago was the divorce first suggested?Less than 6 months ago 16.8% 9.7% 44.2%6 to 11 months ago 28.7 29.0 25.6 21.1, 6 df, p < .0112to 23 months ago 21.8 38.7 14.0Two or more years ago 32.7 22.6 16.3Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.1%N = 175 101 31 43

Sex

Male 48.0% 48.4% 59.0%

Female 52.0 51.6 40.9 1.6, 2 df, nsTotal 100.0% 100.0% 99.9%N = 177 102 31 44

Who first suggested the divorce?

Respondent 57.4% 41.9% 27.3% 17.4, 4 df, p < .01Spouse 32.7 54.8 68.2Mutual 10.0 3.2 4.5Total 100.1% 99.9% 100.0%N = 176 101 31 44

Married more or less than two years

Less than 2 years 28.4% 22.6% 27.3%2 years or more 71.6 77.4 72.7df, nsTotal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%N = 177 102 31 44




first suggested are associated, however, asshown in Table 2. For purposes of display, the

range of attachment-scale scores are dividedinto thirds. Seventypercentof the respondentswith high attachment report that the divorcewas suggested forthe firsttime less than a year

ago, while 45% of those with low attachmentand 39% with moderate attachment reportthis.

Of the 88 people who indicate that thedivorce was first suggested less than a yearago, 52.3% report low attachment, 13.7%moderate attachment, and 34.0% high at-tachment. It can be concluded, therefore,that attachment is not closely associated with

recencyof the decision to divorce. When usedas uncollapsed interval level measures andassessed by the more powerful technique of

Pearson's correlation, all three of the timingmeasures are significantly associated with

attachment, but none of the relationships is

very strong.s In the remainder of the paperthe variable "when was the divorce first sug-gested" is used as a measure of divorcetimingbecause of its greater consistency of signifi-cant results using differing statistical tech-

niques.As expected there are no statistically sig-

nificant differences in attachment by sex, but

respondents who are highly attached to their

spouses are significantly less likely to havebeen the first to have suggested the divorce.The hypothesis that those who have beenmarried less than two years will be less at-tached to their spouse than those married twoyears or more is not supported. Although notshown, there are also no significant differ-ences in attachment by length of marriage forthose marriedtwo years or more. Attachmentseems to be established quickly and broken

slowly.It was hypothesized that while the charac-

ter of theirfeelings

willdiffer,

both theper-son who initiated the divorce and the person

who wanted it less will experience feelings ofattachment. First, using Pearson's correla-tion, we see that respondents who suggestedthe divorce are significantly more likely to feelrelief and guilt about the divorce (r = -.36,p < .001). When their spouses suggested thedivorce or the decision was mutual, the re-spondents are significantly more likely toexpress reluctance about and a sense of pres-sure to divorce (r -- .44, p < .001). Table 3shows that those with low feelings of attach-

ment to their spouses are strikingly less likelyto feel any reluctance about the decision todivorce. At the other extreme, approximatelytwo out of five of those who are highlyattached to their spouses feel only low ormoderate reluctance to divorce, suggesting

that at least some respondents remain at-tached to their spouses even though they feeldivorce is the best solution to their situation.

Those with low and moderate degrees of at-tachment are significantly more likely to feela mixture of relief and guilt about the deci-sion to divorce, with slightly over half of eachgroup reporting high relief. On the otherhand, overhalf of those with high attachmentalso feel moderate to high relief. These find-ings illustrate the mixed nature of the maritalsituation in which attachment persists. It may

be these contradictoryambivalent pulls whichaccount for the increased psychological dis-tress many of the divorced experience. Whilethose who are attached are generally reluc-tant to divorce, spouses may be attached andsimultaneously show little reluctance or berelieved to end their relationships.

As expected, attachment and distress arepositively correlated (r = .43, p < .001).The higher the attachment, the higher is thedistress.

Difficult Adjustments

As hypothesized, those who are attached totheir spouses are significantly more likely toreport difficulties in adjusting to the divorce(Table 4). Further, the highly attached reportmore difficulties, a mean of 2.5 versus 2.1 forthe moderately attached and 1.7 for thosewith low attachment. Those with low attach-ment are also more likely to mention thatthere were no difficult adjustments to make.

The types of difficulties mentioned also dif-fer among the three groups. Those with lowattachment are most

likely to mention rolechanges such as household chores and shiftsin living arrangements and employment, fol-lowed by living on their own and concernsabout the children and family life. Those withhigh attachment report that living on theirown which includes loneliness, being inde-pendent, and being a single parent has beentheir most difficult adjustment, followed bydivorce-related concerns such as acceptingthe rejection by the spouse, the stigma of thedivorce, and adjusting to the realityof end ofthe marriage.




TABLE 3. ATTACHMENT BY ATTITUDES ABOUT THE DIVORCE

Degree of Attachment

Attitudes About the Divorce Low Moderate High X2

Reluctance to divorce

Low 81.4% 48.4% 11.4%Moderate 17.6 38.7 27.3 93.7, 4 df, p < .001

High 1.0 12.9 61.4Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.1%N = 177 102 31 44

Feelings of relief and guilt

Low 9.8% 12.9% 40.9%Moderate 35.3 35.5 43.2 28.4, 4 df, p < .001

High 54.9 51.6 15.9Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%N = 177 102 31 44

Those with moderate levels of attachmentare most likely to mention living on their own,role changes, and new relationships. This

supports Spanier and Casto's (1979) findingof moreadjustmentdifficulties being reportedfor the attached but not their finding thatthese changes focus on interpersonal, eco-nomic, or role changes. Here, the highlyattached seem more self-absorbed with the

pain of the divorce and their changed personalsituation. Only when attachment is less are

respondents apparently able to focus greaterattention on role changes, the children, andother issues.

TABLE 4. ATTACHMENT BY DIFFICULT AD-

JUSTMENTS TO THE DIVORCE

Attachment

Difficult Adjustments Low Moderate High

No changes 13.5% 4.8% -

Living on own 20.1 41.9 40.2Role changes 24.8 14.5 13.0Finances 14.1 11.2 10.3Divorce-related

feelings 10.0 6.4 16.7New relationships 10.7 12.8 10.3Feelings about

the children 17.8 8.0 9.4a a a

Number of responses 170 62 107

Number ofrespondents 102 29 43

Mean responses 1.7 2.1 2.5

Note: X2 = 43.5, 14 df, p < .001.aTotal more than 100% because of multiple responses.

Although legal issues were not mentionedin the open-ended question on difficult ad-

justments, when respondents were asked howdifficult it was to reach agreements on prac-tical matters, such as the division of property,alimony, and custody, those who are moder-ately attached are significantly more likely to

report that they had an easier time coming toan agreement with their spouses (Table 5).Those with high and low attachment report

much greater difficulty.

TABLE 5. ATTACHMENT AND REACHINGAGREEMENT ON PRACTICAL MATTERS

Feelings of Attachment

How Difficult toReach Agreementon Practical Matters Low Moderate High

Very difficult 25.0% 3.3% 33.3%Somewhat difficult 7.0 23.3 2.4Not very difficult 68.0 73.3 64.3Total 100.0% 99.9% 100.0%N = 172 100 30 42

Note: X' = 16.9,4df, p < .01.

Impact of Change

It was hypothesized that changes producedby the divorce would increase distress and at-tachment. Only one association between at-tachment or distress and the change measureis statistically significant. Respondents who

report a change in their social activities since

separating-either more or fewer activities-are more likely to be distressed (r = .19, p< .01). None of the other measures-livingalone, changes in income or social class, orincreased household responsibilities-is sig-nificantly associated with attachment or dis-tress.

Resources and Supports

It was expected that feelings of attachmentand distress would be modified by personaland social resources and supports. Some re-sources are, as anticipated, associated withdecreased attachment and distress. The firstarea we shall look at is psychological re-




sources. While attachment is not associatedwith help-seeking, subjective distress is.Those who have sought help from profes-sional mental health workers are significantlymore distressed than those who have not

(r = .24, p < .01). Neither attachment nor

distress is associated with ever having beenhospitalized for mental illness. These findingslend support to the view that attachment is anormal response to loss, not a psychologicalcharacteristic that is more likely among thosewho are emotionally disturbed. At the same

time, however, feelings of attachment (r -

.24, p < .001) and particularly feelings ofdistress (r - .44, p < .001) are stronger forthose with low self-esteem. Among social re-sources those with lower income are signifi-cantlymore likelyto be distressed (r - -. 16,

p <.05), althoughnot to be

attached,while

education and employment seem to play littlerole.

As predicted, if a respondent is living withor remarriedto a new partner, attachment tothe former spouse is less strong (r = -.15,p < .05). The only other social support vari-able that is significantly associated withattachment and distress is havingfriends withwhom to talk over confidential matters (forboth, r = .13, p < .05). The more friends,the greater the attachment and the distress.This runs contraryto the

hypothesisthat

sup-port reduces distress. It appears, initially atleast, that those who are upset seek out othersto helpthem weatherthe crisis they are experi-encing (see also Kitson et al., 1982). Previousresearch (Gore, 1978; Berkman & Syme,1979; Caplan, 1981) would lead us to expectthat support, with time, will produce less dis-tress.

Attachment and Distress Reduced byResources?

The next hypothesis to be examined iswhether resources actually reduce difficultiesin adjustment for those who are attached ordistressed. To explore this hypothesis we shalllook at the relationships between respondentcharacteristics and difficult adjustments andattachment and distress when controls are in-troduced for psychological and social re-sources and supports. Only those relation-ships in which there is a change in the level ofstatistical significance from the zero order

relationshipswill be

reported.

When controls are introduced, none of the

relationships between the change measuresand attachment vary much from the zeroorder relationships reported above. The onlyvariable that previously produced a statisti-

cally significant association with distress was

changes in social activities (r - .19, p <.01).The relationship becomes slightly less strongwhen a control is introduced for havingfriends with whom to talk over confidentialmatters and having sought mental health

help. (For both, r = .17, p <.05.) This sug-gests that friends and professional help can,to at least a small extent, buffer some of thedistress associated with changes in social ac-tivities in divorce.

There are no changes in significance for the

relationships between distress and difficult

adjustmentsassociated with

divorce,when

the controls are introduced. For attachment,several previously significant relationshipsbecome more strongly so. The relationshipbetween divorce-related feelings and attach-ment (r = .17, p < .05) increases slightlywhen a control is introduced for ever havingbeen hospitalized in a mental institution (r -

.18, p < .01) and for self-esteem (r = .19,

p <.01). This suggests that for a number of

respondents divorce-related feelings andattachment are associated but that this rela-

tionship is masked by the higher scores dis-played by those with mental hospitalizationsor low self-esteem. The marginally significantrelationship between feelings about familylife and attachment (r = .13, p < .05) be-comes insignificant when controls are intro-duced for income, friends to talk things over

with, and employment, with r in each case

being reduced to .12 (ns). Concerns about theloss of family life seem to be less importantwhen the effects of these variables are re-moved.

Controls do not change the relationshipbetween attachment and feeling pressured to

divorce, feeling relief at the divorce, sex of the

respondent or who suggested the divorce. Acontrol for resources does change some of the

relationships between sex and subjective dis-tress as shown in Table 6. There was origi-nally a low positive significant associationbetween sex and distress (r = .14) withwomen respondents being more likely to bedistressed. The relationship is no longer sta-tistically significant when controls are intro-duced for having sought mental health help,




income, employment, receiving help from the

family, and having friends with whom to talkover confidential matters. These findings

suggest lack of resources can increase the dis-tress of divorce, particularly for women.When the effects of self-esteem are removed,

the relationship between distress and genderincreases. This indicates that the loweredself-esteem experienced by many facingdivorce masks the association between dis-

tress and gender.

TABLE 6. FIRST-ORDER CORRELATIONS FORSUBJECTIVE DISTRESS AND SEX, WITH CON-TROLS FOR RESOURCES AND SUPPORTS

Correlation Between

Subjective DistressControl Variables and Sex

Psychological resources

Ever hospitalized for mentalillness .13*Ever sought mental health

help .12Self-esteem .18**

Social resources

Income .08Education .14*

Employment .13*

Social support

New partner .14*Children .14*Children with respondent .15*

Help from family .11Close friends .11

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

A conclusion to be drawn from these find-

ings is that attachment is less influenced byresources than is subjective distress. Socialand psychological resources and supports can

modify the distress that the divorced experi-ence, but neither resourcesnor supports seemto affect feelings of attachment. Attachment,

although associated with distress, seems to

tap into a different dimension of the divorce

experience, one that is relatively imperviousto mediation.

The Nature of the Relationship BetweenAttachment and Distress

The final question is which of the twomodels of the relationship between attach-ment and distress is the more accurate. Thefirst states that people who are attached aremore likely to have symptoms of distress; the

second, that distress, particularlywhen asso-ciated with changes produced by a divorce,

a

U

z

O

W

Sa

<d

2:C

d

?n"

?<Wc

d W

[-.m

46

0 3~

z 0cQ-

7 : 1 :

0)

00

>0

csU

46

rl0

CIS

0I )

c n0

N 0I

0 "10

I I+

-- -O N-- C ) -I

Cc 0Ne r') - -

I IS

= • -•-0 -

CISI

CCU 04 U

0 0

OcN O n N-- -O00 rV r'\

I- IC 4

** * *** * *** * * *

o0oO cV -00 Irw c -e- icU -

I I

*+* *

***c *O *0 0

-?0 -c C

~C+0

C)

0

rn *d

o

00m C~a-

c- 0n 0

V

v

o

V

V;

-I

o

may increase attachment. In order to explorethe role of time in mediating both attachment




and distress, a control is introduced for whenthe divorce was first suggested. If the firstmodel is correct, a control for attachment willreduce distress. If the second is correct, acontrol for subjective distress will decreaseattachment.

Table 7 reports those findings in whichsubstantial differences in the relationshipsoccur when the partial correlations are exam-ined. The first column of each panel againreports the original zero-order relationshipsfor, respectively, subjective distress andattachment. The other columns of each paneldisplay the first- and second-order correla-tions (when one and then two control vari-ables are introduced).

Several conclusions can be drawn from thetable. First, although each variable influ-

ences certain characteristics more strongly,introducing a control for attachment changesthe relationshipsmore than does a control for

subjective distress. This lends support to themodel which proposes that attachment pro-duces feelings of subjective distress. In somecases, however, feelings of distress doincrease attachment. A second conclusion tobe drawn from the table is that both attach-ment and distress play much stronger roles ascontrol variables than does the length of timesince the divorce was first suggested.

Althoughtime

may eventuallyheal all

wounds, the initial stages of divorcejust seemto be upsetting for many individuals.

The relationships between the change mea-sures and attachment and distress are influ-enced little by the introduction of controlsand are therefore not displayed. The relation-

ship with the variable, becoming used to

living on one's own, is more influenced byattachment than subjectivedistress. Squaringthe zero- and first-order correlation coeffici-ents, we see that somewhat more variance is

explained controlling for attachment (8%)than for distress (6%). When controls areintroduced, attachment and distress contri-bute equally in producing the significantassociations with the variable, number ofdifficult adjustments, with each explaining5% of the variance.

Controlling for attachment strengthens the

relationship between sex and distress.Although distress is less if the divorce wassuggested long ago, attachment accounts formore of the relationship than time of sugges-tion does, when both variables are controlled.

Divorced women experience more subjectivedistress than divorced men. This relationshipis the opposite of what occurs when distress iscontrolled. If the impact of distress isremoved, men are significantly more likely tobe attached than women, regardless of how

long ago the divorce was first suggested. Thehigher distress that women facing divorceexperience may mask the greater attachmentof men. This runs contrary to the hypothesisstating that there will be no difference by sexin attachment.

Although feeling pressured to divorce andfeelings of relief and guilt are little influencedby controls for distress or time of suggestion,the clear role of attachment for these vari-ables is illustrated by its partial. When a con-trol is introduced for attachment, the correla-

tion between distress and feeling pressuredtodivorce is reduced to insignificance and islittle influenced by how long ago the divorcewas suggested. Although the relationshipdoes not become significant, a control forattachment reverses the direction of the rela-

tionship between feeling relief and guilt aboutthe divorce and distress. There is now a small

positive rather than a negative relationship.This means that those who are more dis-tressed are also somewhat more likely to feelrelief and guilt when the effects of attachment

are removed.The first-order correlations between self-esteem and attachment and distress illustratewhy it is difficult to sort out the causal rela-

tionship between attachment and distress.For many of the relationships examined here,attachment accounts for more of the relation-

ship than does distress; but in the case of self-esteem, distress plays a greater role. Whenthe effects of distress are removed, the rela-tionship between attachment and self-esteemis no longer significant. The reduction in thecorrelation between distress and self-esteemis not nearlyso great with a control for attach-ment. Presumably, heightened distress re-duces self-esteem. Loweredself-esteem and its

accompanying feelings of distress may force aperson to seek out the previously comfortingpresence of the former spouse.

When attachment is controlled, the rela-tionship between income and distress isstrengthened, with those with lower income

displaying more distress. The relationship isnot modified much by when the divorce wasfirst suggested. If income is low, it is almost




as distressing if divorce was suggested longago versus more recently. The distress associ-ated with low income masks the relationshipbetween higher income and attachment.When a control is introduced for distress, the

relationship between income and attachment

becomes significant. The more the income,the more the attachment. Income itself mayprovide a form of comfort and securitywhichbecomes intertwined with attachment, as ifsome of the divorced mourn for the loss of a

style of life as well as for the person associatedwith it.

Finally, the marginally significant zero-order associations between having friendswith whom to talk and subjectivedistress andattachment are reduced to insignificancewhen controls are introduced. Here too, the

reciprocalrelationship

between attachmentand distress is illustrated.

CONCLUSION

Using different measurement techniques,at least three survey studies of the divorcedhave developed empirical indicators ofattachment. Based on the findings of thesestudies, what can be concluded about attach-ment? First, while different frequencies ofattachment amongthe separatedanddivorcedarereported, the studies demonstratethat it is

possible to develop empirical indicators of

attachment. Second, the findings illustratethat substantial numbers of the divorcedremain attached to their spouses. In this

study only one-sixth exhibit no feelings ofattachment. Approximately one-third of

Spanier and Casto's (1979) respondents ex-hibited no feelings while about half of theBrown et al. (1980) respondents exhibit low

feelings of attachment. We do not know how

many of these respondents reported no versuslow feelings of attachment. In other findingsattachment does not seem to be greatly influ-

enced by recency of separation or how longago the marriage started to go bad. There is,however, some association of attachment withthe spouse having asked for the divorce andwith a recent decision to divorce. When acontrol is introduced for distress, males aresomewhat more likely than females to beattached. This may be due in part to the factthat women more often suggest and file forthe divorce. Feelings of attachment, then,may be elicited in unexpected losses andotherwise may erode more quickly than ex-

pected in faltering relationships that have

disintegrated over time.

While the measures used may not havebeen sensitive enough to measure the extentof attachment precisely, several other expla-nations needs to be explored to account for

those with low or absent feelings of attach-ment. First, it is possible that some of thedivorced neverwere strongly attached to their

spouses. One cause of divorce may be an im-

paired ability to become attached, whichmakes living with another person extremelydifficult. Research on attachment disordersin children and their sequelae in adults des-cribes as one pattern withdrawaland a seem-

ing disinterest in or inability to develop closeties due to early losses. Thus, an impairedability to form object relationships may havebeen a contributor to the marital dissolution.

Second, attachment may not be a normal,inevitable development of intimate relation-

ships. It may instead be an undesirable char-acteristic or an outgrowth of certain interac-tional demands or needs of one or both of the

partners. Although in this paper, followingBowlby's lead (1969; see also Ainsworth,1972), attachment is not considered to be thesame as dependency, others view the two con-

cepts as the same (see for example, Maccobyand Masters, 1970; Hirschfeld et al., 1977).Maccoby and Masters (1970:74) define

beingdependent as "seeking physical contact; seek-

ing to be near; seeking attention, seekingpraise and approval; resisting separation." Ifattachment and dependency are indeed thesame, then it would also be unlikely that alldivorced persons would be dependent, sincethis is only one dimension of personality. Aswe have seen, attachment is related to the

psychological distress many divorced personsexperience and to difficulties in adjusting tothe divorce. This suggests that attachmentand dependency are different concepts. On

the other hand, issues of dependency may bea particular problem for many who divorce.Clearly, more effort is needed to assess theseissues.

In addition to exploring attachment and

dependency more fully with the divorced,another method of clarifying these issueswould be to explore the concepts in ongoingrelationships. One difficulty, however, is thatattachment seems to be a dimension thatadults are most aware of when the signifi-cant other is absent. It is difficult, therefore,




to develop good indicators of attachment in

continuing relationships. Hirschfeld et al.(1977) and Henderson et al. (1980a, 1980b)have made a start on this difficult task. Yetanother approach would be to explore attach-ment in age-matched samples of the divorced

and the widowed (cf. Weiss, 1976, 1979).The study findings illustrate that while

subjective distress can be modified to someextent by psychological and social resourcesand social support, attachment is less influ-enced by such dimensions. Help from others

may take a person's mind off of some types oftroubles, but when the trouble is the loss of a

relationship, such resources and supportsmay be of less avail.

Finally, as hypothesized, attachment doesseem to be more the cause of the subjective

distress than vice versa. This lends support tothe idea of attachment as a normal outgrowthof relationships. The loss of such a relation-

ship, even one that has turned sour, can pro-duce distress.

FOOTNOTES1. Respondentswere asked the following: "I am going to

read some statements. For each statement I'd like toknow in what way it expresses your feelings about thedivorce. This card [handed to the respondent] hasnumbers from 1, 'not at all my feelings' to 5, 'verymuch my feelings.' For each statement, would youplease pick the number which best reflects your feel-

ings." The statements: "EverythingI do seems like aneffort." "I find myself spending a lot of time thinkingabout my husband/wife." "I'm feeling like myselfagain." "Sometimes I can't believe that we're gettinga divorce." "I find myself wondering what my hus-band/wife is doing." "I have no interest in anything.""I'm angry at my husband/wife." "I do not feel anyguilt about the divorce." "I feel I will never get overthe divorce."

2. The items assessing subjectivedistress include respon-dent reports of feelings or behaviors indicating anxi-

ety, depression, fearfulness, discouragement, aim-lessness, becoming easily upset, phobias, obsessivebehavior, fears of insanity, frigidity, leisure time im-

pairment, somatic concerns, preoccupation withhealth, hypochondriasis, worrying a lot, suicidal

thoughts or attempts, trouble sleeping, impairedmemory or forgetfulness, poor judgment, and diffi-

culty making decisions.

3. These items were interspersed with the attachmentitems (see fn 1) and are also scored 1, "not at all myfeelings" to 5, "very much my feelings." The reliefand guilt items include a) "This has been coming fora long time, and I'm glad we've finally made thebreak." b) "It isn't an easy decision to divorce yourhusband (wife), but basically I'm relieved." c) "Al-

though this is the right decision, I know it hurt myhusband (wife) very badly." d) "I feel a little guiltabout the divorcebut it was the rightdecision for us."The reluctance and pressure items are a) "I'm goingahead with the divorce only because it's what my hus-band (wife)wants." b) "I feel as if I've been dumped."c) "Perhapswith all things considered, we should havetried longer." and d) "I feel as if this is all a horriblemistake."

4. Thompson and Spanier (1981) entered into a factoranalysis the items used here to define attachment,pressure to divorce, relief and guilt, and several addi-tional Cleveland divorcestudy items not discussed in

this paper. They developed an 11-item scale called"acceptance of marital termination," defined as ameasure of "the extent to which the person acceptsthe separation and divorce as an inevitable, correctdecision rather than a regretful mistake."

5. The correlations are: attachment x how many yearshas the marriage been bad (r = -.20, p < .01); at-tachment x when was the divorce first suggested (r =-.19, p < .01), and attachment x how many months

separated (r = -.16, p < .05).

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S.1972 "Attachment and dependency: a comparison."

Pp. 97-137 in J. L. Gewirtz (Ed.), Attachmentand Dependency. Washington DC:V. H. Win-ston.

Bachrach, L. L.1975 "Maritalstatus andmental disorder:an analyti-

cal review." DHEW Publication75-217. Wash-ington, DC:U. S. Government Printing Office.

Berkman, L. F. and Syme, S. L.1979 "Social networks, host resistance, and mortal-

ity: a nine-year follow-up study of Alameda

County residents." American Journal of Epi-demiology 109 (February):186-204.

Berkman, P.1969 "Spouseless motherhood, psychological stress,

and physical morbidity."Journalof Health andSocial Behavior 10 (December):323-334.

Blau, Z. S.1973 Old Age In A Changing Society. New York:

New Viewpoints, Franklin-Watts.




Bloom, B. L., Asher, S. J. and White S. W.1978 "Marital disruption as a stressor: a review and

analysis." Psychological Bulletin 85 (July):867-894.

Blumenthal, M. D.1967 "Mental health among the divorced." Archives

of General Psychiatry 16 (May):603-608.Bohannon, P.

1970 "The six stations of divorce." Pp. 29-55 in P.Bohannan (Ed.), Divorce and After. Garden

City, NY:Doubleday.Bohrnstedt, G. W.

1969 "A quick method for determining the reliabil-

ityand validityof multiple-itemscales." Ameri-can Sociological Review 34 (August):542-548.

Bowlby, J.1952 Maternal Care and Mental Health. Geneva:

World Health Organization.1969 Attachment and Loss, I: Attachment. New

York:Basic Books.1973 Attachment and Loss, II: Separation. New

York:Basic Books.

1975 "Attachment theory, separation anxiety andmourning." Pp. 292-309 in S. Arieti (Ed.),American Handbook of Psychiatry (2nd ed.,vol. 6). New York:Basic Books.

1977a "The making and breaking of affectional

bonds-part I: aetiology and psychopathologyin light of attachment theory." British Journalof Psychiatry 130 (March):201-210.

1977b "The making and breaking of affectional

bonds-part II: some principles of psycho-therapy." British Journal of Psychiatry 130

(May):421-431.1980 Attachment and Loss, III: Loss. New York:

Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. and Parkes, C. M.1970 "Separation and loss within the family." Pp.197-216 in E. J. Anthony and C. Koupernik(Eds.), The Child in His Family. New York:

Wiley.Briscoe, C. W., Smith, J. B., Robins, E., Marten, S.,and Gaskin, F.

1973 "Divorce and psychiatric disease." Archives ofGeneral Psychiatry 29 (July):119-125.

Brown, G. W. and Harris, T.1978 Social Origins of Depression: A Study of Psy-

chiatric Disorder in Women. New York:FreePress.

Brown, P., Felton, B. J., Whiteman, V., and Manela, R.1980 "Attachment and

distress following maritalseparation." Journal of Divorce 3 (Summer):303-317.

Caplan, G.1981 "Mastery of stress: psychosocial aspects."

American Journal of Psychiatry 138 (April):413-420.

Chester, R.1971 "Health and marriage breakdown: experience

of a sample of divorcedwomen." BritishJournalof Preventive and Social Medicine 25 (Novem-ber):231-235.

Chiriboga, D. A. and Cutler, L.1977 "Stress responses among divorcing men and

women." Journal of Divorce 1 (Fall):95-105.

Glick, I. O., Weiss, R. S., and Parkes, C. M.1974 The First Year of Bereavement. New York:

John Wiley.Goode, W. J.

1956 After Divorce. Glencoe, IL:Free Press.Gore, S.

1978 "The effect of social support in moderatingthehealth consequences of unemployment."Journalof Health and Social Behavior19 (June):157-165.

Gove, W. R.1972a "Sex, marital status, and suicide." Journal of

Health and Social Behavior 13 (June):204-213.1972b "The relationship between sex roles, marital

status, and mental illness." Social Forces 51

(September):34-44.1973 "Sex, marital status, and mortality." Ameri-

can Journal of Sociology 79 (July):45-67.Gurin, G., Veroff, J. and Feld, S.

1960 Americans View Their Mental Health. NewYork:Basic Books.

Halem, L. C.

1980 Divorce Reform: Changing Legal and SocialPerspectives. New York:The Free Press.

Henderson, S., Byrne, D. G., Duncan-Jones, P., Scott,R., and Adcock, S.

1980a "Social relationships, adversity and neurosis:a studyof associations in a generalpopulation."British Journal of Psychiatry 136 (June):574-583.

Henderson, S., Duncan-Jones, P., Byrne, D. G., andScott, R.

1980b "Measuring social relationships: the interviewschedule for social interaction." PsychologicalMedicine 10 (November):723-734.

Hirschfeld, R. M. A., Klerman, G. L., Gough, H. G.,

Barrett, J., Korchin, S., and Chodoff, P.1977 "A measure of interpersonal dependency."

Journal of Personality Assessment 41 (6):610-618.

Kitson, G. C., Lopata, H. Z., Holmes, W. M., and Mey-ering, S. M.

1980 "Divorcees and widows: similarities and differ-ences." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry50 (April):291-301.

Kitson, G. C., Moir, R. N., and Mason, P. R.1982 "Family social support in crises: the special

case of divorce." American Journal of Ortho-

psychiatry 52 (January):161-165.Kitson, G. C. and Raschke, H. J.

1981 "Divorce research: what we know; what weneed to know." Journal of Divorce 4 (Spring):1-37.

Kitson, G. C. and Sussman, M. B.1976 "The processes of marital separation and

divorce: male and female similarities and dif-ferences." Roundtable presentation at themeeting of the American Sociological Associa-tion, New York.

1982 "Maritalcomplaints, demographic characteris-tics, and symptoms of mental distress in di-vorce." Journal of Marriage and the Family44 (February):87-101.

Kitson, G. C., Holmes, W. M., and Sussman, M. B.

1981a "Withdrawing divorce petitions: a predictive




test of the exchange model of divorce." Unpub-lished manuscript, Case Western Reserve Uni-

versity.Kitson, G. C., Sussman, M. B. Zeehandelaar, R. B.,

Shickmanter, B. K., Williams, G. K. and Steinberger,J. L.

1981b "Reflections on doing longitudinal divorce re-

search: pitfalls and problems." Unpublishedmanuscript, Case Western Reserve University.

Lopata, H. Z.1979 Women As Widows: Support Systems. New

York:Elsevier.

Maccoby, E. E. and Masters, J.1970 "Attachment and dependency." Pp. 73-157 in

P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's Manual of Child

Psychology (Vol. 2). New York:Wiley.Marris, P.

1974 Loss and Change. New York:Pantheon Books.

Norton, A. J. and Glick, P. C.

1976 "Maritalinstability:past, present, and future."Journal of Social Issues 32 (1):5-20.

Parkes, C. M.1972 Bereavement: Studies of Grief in Adult Life.New York:International Universities Press.

Rosenberg, M.1965 Society and the Adolescent's Self-Image.

Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Rushing, W. A.

1979 "Marital status and mental disorder: evidencein favor of a behavioral model." Social Forces

58 (December):540-556.Simos, B. G.

1979 A Time to Grieve: Loss As A Universal Human

Experience. New York:FamilyService Associa-tion of America.

Somers, A. R.1979 "Marital status, health, and use of health ser-

vices." Journal of the American Medical Asso-

ciation 241 (April 27):1818-1822.

Spanier, G. B. and Anderson, E. A.

1979 "The impact of the legal system on adjustment

to marital separation." Journal of Marriageand the Family 41 (August):605-613.

Spanier, G. B. and Casto, R. F.

1979 "Adjustment to separation and divorce: a qual-itative analysis." Pp. 211-227 in G. Levingerand 0. C. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and Separa-tion: Context, Causes, and Consequences. New

York:Basic Books.Spitzer, R. L., Endicott, J, Fleiss, J., and Cohen, J.

1970 "The psychiatric status schedule: a techniquefor evaluating psychopathology and impair-ment in role functioning." Archives of General

Psychiatry 23 (July):41-55.

Thompson, L. and Spanier, G. B.

1981 "The end of marriage and acceptance of mari-

tal termination." Unpublished manuscript,

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Uni-

versity.

Verbrugge, L. M.1979 "Marital status and health." Journal of Mar-

riage and Family 41 (May):267-284.

Waller, W.1967 The Old Love and the New: Divorce and Read-

justment. Carbondale, IL:Southern Illinois

University Press.

Weiss, R. S.1975 Marital Separation. New York:Basic Books.

1976 "The emotional impact of marital separation."Journal of Social Issues 32:135-145.

1979 Going it Alone: The Family Life and Social

Situation of the Single Parent. New York:

Basic Books.In "Attachment in adult life." In C. M. Parkes

press and J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The Place of

Attachment in Human Behavior. New York:

Basic Books.

Winch, R. F.

1971 The Modern Family (3rd Ed.). New York:Holt

Rinehart and Winston.


Documents

Attachment to the spouse in divorce